Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Jul 2006 20:24 UTC, submitted by snds24
Windows Microsoft shares fell on Thursday after it declined to dampen rumours that its new Windows Vista operating system might face fresh delays. Its shares closed down 2% after a Microsoft executive appeared to avoid confirming the current January 2007 Vista release data for consumers. Instead, Microsoft's Kevin Johnson said Vista would be shipped "when it is available".
Thread beginning with comment 147254
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
butters
Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't even think Microsoft knows exactly how they spent so much money and had such a hard time making much progress on Windows. The past 5 years at Microsoft must have been the most inefficient software development operation in history of computing.

How is it possible that Microsoft could spent $10B on Longhorn/Vista and achieve such a modest improvement? And how could have taken so long for them to do it?

Let's put it this way: in the microprocessor business, the engineering objective is normally to double performance every 18-36 months. The largest CPU vendor, Intel, spends no more than $10B per major processor architecture (and that number is from Itanium). Even thought Microsoft doesn't have even a significant fraction of the capital expenses that Intel bears, they managed to spend that amount (mostly labor costs) to achieve, IMHO, no more than a doubling in functionality over the course of 5 or more years of development.

The world spends over $12B per year on Windows client versions and over $9B on Windows server releases. Microsft spends less than $3B developing Windows Professional, Home, Media Center, and Tablet versions; somehow they spend about $6B on the Windows Server, SQL Server, and Exchange Server.

Do you think we're getting our money's worth?

Reply Parent Score: 4

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"How is it possible that Microsoft could spent $10B on Longhorn/Vista and achieve such a modest improvement? And how could have taken so long for them to do it? "
---------------------

Did you miss the multiple articles months ago in the NY Times and other places where Microsoft said that after 2-3 years of Longhorn development, starting with XP as a starting point, they started over using Windows Server 2003 as the starting point?

Reply Parent Score: 2