OSNews

And by patching, I will eagerly wait for unofficial patches that break some of the goddamn DRM around it.

Enough with the DRM... there is NO FREAKING EXTRA DRM in Vista... _NONE_

What, like the protected media path that prevents people creating virtual hardware it order to record sound or video from Windows Media Player and the OS? What of the requirement for HDCP to play any HD content?

Maybe they assumed that Microsoft would be releasing a thoroughly polished, bug-tested product... in which case it might have been accurate to say May. Just sayin' ;-)

The latest Gartner predictions of more delays, had nothing to do with Microsofts ability to produce a finished working product within previously given time frames but with EU politics.

Their idea was that Microsoft would need more time to comply with EU regulations. So, even with a finished products Gartners predictions could turn out to be true.

However, I find it much more likely that Microsoft ships Vista world wide and pays the fines, if any, that the EU issues.

Paid by whom exactly?

RedHat/Apple/Sun and/or Etc?

Come on, if you're gonna peddle conspiracies you've at least got to provide a name.

I can't believe their "analysts" get paid to spew out the crap that they do.

paid by Gartner...

Then people pay Gartner for that crap.

Nice to see that shareholder funds are being spent on 'beneficial information' to the 'future developments' of Windows.

Going by the crap they spew, maybe I should setup a 'consultancy service', not as though my 5 cents worth could be any further off base than theirs.

Oh, and btw, another year till Itanium rockets up to being a $15billion market! <laughs hysterically>

Are you serious? Where did he ever even imply anything about a conspiracy theory? No where.

"Paid by whom exactly?

RedHat/Apple/Sun and/or Etc?"

There was no conspiracy mentioned. Gartner is a for profit company, and the analysts that work for Gartner get paid by Gartner. So, therefore, the analysts got paid.

True, the last person who wrote her '5cents worth on Microsoft' had no IT qualifications; her degree? majoring in communication - says it all.

Analysts, one rung below a journalist; the lowest form of life form next to a politician and used car sales person.

Or XP SP3

I still doubt that there will be anthying after Vista--this release seems to be killing Redmond.

Now there's optimism for ya!

I still doubt that there will be anthying after Vista--this release seems to be killing Redmond.

They have enough cash flow to buffer a lot of losses for years to come.

>>They should however make directx 10 available for windows XP also.<<

Cedega will undoubtedly make their software directx 10 capable.So without any forced hardware/software upgrade you will be able to play directx 10 games on linux.

They have enough cash flow to buffer a lot of losses for years to come.

For a company like this, it's never about survival, it's more about constant (or higher) growth. Shareholders can't be made happy with survival, they are in for the money.

Yes and no. It's possible for a company (especially a technology company) to go in a "ditch" and come out of it again, but even technology companies experience slow decline: looking back now, I think it's obvious that Data General and Digital Equipment Corporation's problems started sometime in the eighties, and they never really recovered. Of course, declines are slowest when you're a huge company that's entrenched, and because of the number of people who use computers, I doubt anyone in the computer industry has ever been as huge (in as large a single segment of the market) or as entrenched in that market segment as Microsoft is right now.

Microsoft is declining, and yet it is still growing - how does that work? thats like saying a country is in recession even though its real GDP is actually growing :/

No, I did NOT say "Microsoft is declining"; what I said was that even given the fast turn around times of technology, it's possible for a technology company to experience a slow decline. Furthermore, if that company has experienced massive growth, then if year after year its revenue growth slows, (e.g. it grows 25% in year 1, 20% in year 2, 15% in year 3...) sooner or later, if nothing changes, it is going to start shrinking.

That is assuming that Microsoft doesn't adapt; the simple fact is, when you get to Microsofts size, like IBM's, your growth slows down, you become an established company, your concern is maintaining marketshare, controlling costs, ensure that the core business is maintaining profitability.

Companies who have died in the past, died because they failed to adapt; Microsoft is not in that situation; ignore the hype and PR and look at the facts; Microsoft's server marketshare is growing; they're addressing the security issues, although one wonders whether they're merely being lazy on the desktop because simply there is no viable alternative.

If you think that Linux is a viable alternative, you've lost the plot, and I'm not going to go into details as to why it isn't a viable alternative, because if you actually worked in IT, you would realise that the world doesn't revolve around the operating system; the operating system makes it possible to run applications, all intensive purposes, the operating system doesn't matter - "its the applications stupid!" and those applications people need in large corporations aren't available on the Linux desktop.

I'm perfectly well aware that a lot of applications aren't available on Linux. I'm also perfectly well aware that a lot of time is spent by Windows fanboys spreading FUD about the "inadequacy" of a lot of the Linux alternatives that do exist; the fact is, on the contrary, for a lot of the things Linux is used for, it's Windows that's inadequate.

I'm also perfectly well aware that Linux is a viable alternative for some people. Make that millions of people. Taken on its own merits, it's also a perfectly suitable platform for a lot of the Windows applications which don't yet exist on Linux, but which could be ported. If you think Windows is the only game in town for everyone, then the person who's lost the plot is not me. I've never questioned that, as an applications platform, Windows beats every other platform out there. However, people DO use Linux - and other platforms - happily, every day, and a lot of the reason for that is because as an operating system, Windows sucks.

"They should however make directx 10 available for windows XP also"

Then there would be no reason for gamers to upgrade from XP. The only reason I plan to upgrade to Vista is to take advantage of DX10 games. How soon after its release depends on the quality/cost of the games and DX10 GPUs.

I agree - there's much more *news* about other, better *OSes* (hint, hint) than all this Vista ballyhoo. I for one won't be upgrading to Vista - in the unlikely event I'm in the position and frame of mind to upgrade to a Vista-compatible computer, if at all possible I'll ask for XP on it. Assuming I can't get them to put Linux on it.

No offense, but if you think that Vista is simply "an annoying XP clone", you obviously haven't done enough reading to understand the changes which have gone into it. Recommend starting with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista.

I am amazed they would have the stones to call this RC2 with 1400 known bugs (2400+ for RC1). With a brand new network stack that bug count can do nothing but increase. I truly see a disaster on the horizon for Microsoft. This isn't just MS bashing. I believe they will survive because they own most of the market. At least Sony will be glad to have the spotlight turned on someone else.

~1000 bugs was fixed in two weeks (since Sep. 22), there is plenty of time left to fix the remaining 1400. Don't panic

That's exactly why they "have the stones" to do this. Though technically it's not having the stones, it's being too cowardly to compete honestly with the other players in the marketplace. Imagine if MacOS X, Linux, and Windows came out of nowhere right now, all other things being equal: People would laugh long and hard at MS. (And no, Linux is NOT "too hard" to compete with MS. If that argument worked then Macintosh would have quickly overtaken MS-DOS. It didn't - why? Among other things, because it was only available from one supplier.)

Though technically it's not having the stones, it's being too cowardly to compete honestly with the other players in the marketplace.

No, it's called "competition". You know, playing to win. Ronaldo doesn't play football in a gunny sack to make it "fair" for the opposition. Toyota doesn't use make their vehicles unstable to give Ford a "fair" chance. Christina Aguilera doesn't snort and cough during her vocal recordings to make things "fair" for Ashlee Simpson.

If that argument worked then Macintosh would have quickly overtaken MS-DOS. It didn't - why?

The Mac was priced exhorbitantly high and lacked useful software when compared to the IBM PC and knock-offs.

That's not at all the case with Vista ("free" for new PC buyers/inexpensive for OEM purchasers; best software library/ecosystem around; excellent stability, performance, and usability).

Though technically it's not having the stones, it's being too cowardly to compete honestly with the other players in the marketplace.

No, it's called "competition". You know, playing to win. Ronaldo doesn't play football in a gunny sack to make it "fair" for the opposition. Toyota doesn't use make their vehicles unstable to give Ford a "fair" chance. Christina Aguilera doesn't snort and cough during her vocal recordings to make things "fair" for Ashlee Simpson.

I didn't mention "fair". I'm perfectly aware that given the chance, Toyota would be only too happy to make its cars "incompatible" with Ford's - and the reverse.

If that argument worked then Macintosh would have quickly overtaken MS-DOS. It didn't - why?

The Mac was priced exhorbitantly high and lacked useful software when compared to the IBM PC and knock-offs.

That's not the argument - the argument is whether Linux' "being too hard" to use stops it being the market leader. Given that MS-DOS was harder to use than Mac OS, that obviously doesn't apply - even if all Windows' fanboys criticisms about ease of use were valid.

That's not at all the case with Vista ("free" for new PC buyers/inexpensive for OEM purchasers; best software library/ecosystem around; excellent stability, performance, and usability).

I'd be careful here. Vista's stability and performance are at the moment, at best, untried; the breadth of its software "ecosystem" - careful, some closed-source fanboy might pull you up for using that word - in large part due to its Windows inheritance; preinstalled or otherwise, it's not more "free" as in money than Linux; there have been plenty complaints about its usability.

Technically, of course, Microsoft doesn't compete with MacOS X or Linux, anymore than Jaguars and Rolls Royces compete with Fiats - they are presently different market segments. MS's only real "competitors" are also selling Microsoft Windows-compatible systems, and the only-one I can think of is ReactOS.

Bugs are a catchall. It doesn't necessarily imply a code defect. It could be a feature request, by-design behavior that the user thinks is a bug, documentation errors, actual bugs already fixed in internal builds but not yet addressed, or any number of issues. They could also be issues external to Microsoft such as hardware or driver issues.

Edited 2006-10-03 18:43

Release candidates were originally just what they sound like. They were supposed to be bug free and if they were put out and nothing new was found the final release would be identical to the RC. Somewhere along the way, RCs have become more like betas though.

Blame MS for the pollution of RC's. Bug-free Microsoft software? Ahahah!

Vista is where this changed, at least as far as Microsoft goes.

In the XP Beta, 2003 Beta, XPSP2, and 2003 SP1, the release candidates were just that. If no showstoppers were found, and huge introduction of bugs (would not be an RC if it had tons of known bugs to begin with), then that would become the gold build.
Microsoft used to do beta 1, 2, 3, RC1, RC2, and then RC3 was generally what became release.
Not only that, but we got weekly builds.

Now, they skipped RC1 and RC3, RC2 is not a true RC, and we get monthly builds.... I don't like it at all.

Unlikely. None of the hardware I have runs Vista. And guess what? What's on it works perfectly.

Vista's not even out yet.