
"There are a myriad of both subtle and fundamental differences in the basic architecture of Windows Server 2008, which could dramatically change not only the way it's used in the enterprise, but also the logical and physical structure of networks where it's the dominant OS. The abilities to consolidate servers, to manage hardware more effectively, to remotely manage hardware without the graphical traffic, and to radically alter the system security model, could present a
more compelling argument for customers to plan their WS2K8 migrations now, than the arguments for moving from Windows 2000 to Server 2003."
Member since:
2005-07-06
Depends on how you define as 'lack of delivery'. The problem is that Microsoft went too far into detail about what they wanted to deliver, and they said it too early. They talked about the specifics of the project which then built up hype. The hype was like a snow ball, it bought on a life of its own.
For example, the searching capabilities should have been kept to something simple as "Windows Vista will improve the speed and accuracy of searching" - and then, as parts were actually finalised and merged into Windows Vista, announce that a certain feature will be made available. In otherwords, making sure that what you say has actually been done before announcing it.
As for the rest of the post; lets remember, for all the trashing and bashing of Microsoft, they actually do a pretty damn good job. What other operating system out there has the same depth and bredth of software support as Windows? what other operating system has the same level of not only out of the box hardware support, but the number of ISV's who create drivers.
Until there is an operating system that reaches the same level of Windows Vista, both in software availablility and hardware support, I find it very rich when I hear people on this forum bash Microsoft senselessly whilst ignoring the flaws in their operating system of choice.