Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Nov 2006 20:44 UTC
Windows Paul Thurrott takes a long look at Vista. "It's hard to put Windows Vista in perspective. On the one hand, the product has been in development for over five years, which means that Vista had one of the longest development cycles in the 20+ year history of Windows. Paradoxically, Windows Vista is both revolutionary and evolutionary. While it includes modern OS features, such as a new hardware-based graphical user interface, Vista will also feel like familiar territory, for the most part, to anyone that's already familiar with Windows XP. And Mac advocates can claim, truthfully, that many of Vista's best features appeared first on Mac OS X, sometimes years ago."
Thread beginning with comment 180734
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The real question in my mind is...
by steveftoth on Thu 9th Nov 2006 23:46 UTC
steveftoth
Member since:
2005-10-30

Ok so they release Vista, big deal. We all have to upgrade to it at some point as MS is the defacto standard. Everyone uses it because everyone uses it.

Is MS changing their development cycles to stop this from happening again? Or are they going to just repeat this and make a Vista Longhorn 2 that will also never fully be released.

No matter how you slice it, Vista had some very major cutbacks from what they were promising. Maybe they should to have done what Apple has done and just slowly release features in a new version every year. Mr Thurott has put Apple in a bad light for only releasing minor upgrades to their OS instead of delivering a revolution like Vista was SUPPOSED to be. Instead we get an upgrade equal to 2-3 years of updates instead of a revolution.

Personally I think that MS was overreaching with their aspirations. They need to release minor updates all the time rather then one huge updates, like the frog in water, it's better to slowly heat the frog rather then throw it in boiling water.

For many people, vista may just be too much of a change I mean why not jump to another (linux/mac) platform if moving to vista will be such a large change?

Reply Score: 3

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Personally I think that MS was overreaching with their aspirations. They need to release minor updates all the time rather then one huge updates, like the frog in water, it's better to slowly heat the frog rather then throw it in boiling water. //

MS does release minor updates. They are called service packs. MS does not charge for service packs.

MS cannot "release minor updates all the time" because then MS cannot charge you for buying Windows again. If MS holds off for a period, then releases "one huge update" amidst a lot of hype and gives it a new name ... then MS can charge everybody all over again for the software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

darthstupid Member since:
2006-11-07

your service pack analogy is old, tired and fallacious. until xp sp2 microsoft hasn't ever released a service pack that added any new, exciting or must have features to windows, under the hood or otherwise.

oh unless you can call windows 3.1 a service pack to windows 3.0. of course you had to buy that one too...

Edited 2006-11-13 07:05

Reply Parent Score: 1

someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Mr Thurott has put Apple in a bad light for only releasing minor upgrades to their OS instead of delivering a revolution like Vista was SUPPOSED to be. Instead we get an upgrade equal to 2-3 years of updates instead of a revolution.

I wouldn't characterize Apple's OS X upgrades as minor upgrades. They usually include major underlying changes, such as new API, changes to the kernel, new window system, new currency model, new objective-c language features etc. Many earlier versions will also break application compatibility.

See this article to get an idea about the kind of changes you would see in Thurott's "minor upgrade": http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/

Reply Parent Score: 1

AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"They need to release minor updates all the time rather then one huge updates, like the frog in water, it's better to slowly heat the frog rather then throw it in boiling water."

That's, um, not the point of the frog / water analogy at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1