Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:43 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 25467
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Has Microsoft ever respected a promised schedule?
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:50
in reply to "Has Microsoft ever respected a promised schedule?"
RE: Has Microsoft ever respected a promised schedule?
by Lumbergh on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:01
in reply to "Has Microsoft ever respected a promised schedule?"
RE[2]: Has Microsoft ever respected a promised schedule?
by Tyr. on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:24
in reply to "RE: Has Microsoft ever respected a promised schedule?"
From Microsoft Certified Professional Magazine, hardly a biased source (well not anti-MS) :
"The result picturing isn't a pretty one. After tallying up all the numbers, we found that, on average, Microsoft ships its desktop OSes 10 months late while its server OSes are just over a year late. The track record for major, mold-breaking OSes, however, is much worse. Windows 95, for example, was 14 months late, while NT Server 4.0 was 21 months late—nearly two years."
( http://www.mcpmag.com/features/article.asp?EditorialsID=465 )
But hey who knows maybe they pull it off this time. I just don't notice a lot of enthousiasm for Vista anymore though.






Member since:
Not really trolling (not too much, anyway...)
But really, has MS ever respected a release schedule?
If I remember correctly Windows95 was out almost in 96...