Six months ago, after a long gestation period, Microsoft finally released Windows Vista. Vista is a huge release; not only because of the long list of new features, but also because of its sheer size, and number of bugs and other oddities and downsides. The development process that lead to Vista has left many with a very bitter aftertaste; features were cut, codebases were scrapped, release dates postponed. A few days ago, Microsoft released some sparse details on Vista's successor, internally dubbed 'Windows 7', and in order to prevent another Vista-like development cycle, here is what I would advise Microsoft to do. Update: APCMag reports that Julie Larson-Green, who was the driving force behind Office 2007's new Ribbon user interface, has been transferred to the Windows 7 GUI team.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2005-12-31
Vista = unwarranted optimism
Vista = deception
Vista = complete failure on completion date, feature set, feasibility.
In my opinion it's Vaporware even tho it was released, what other choice did they have? to wait another five years to really, really fix it?
Edited 2007-07-23 14:20
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-07-04
"Ummm... I think he was talking about the fact that 99% of the "promised" and "hyped" features that were supposed to be in Visia never materialized, aka WINFS etc.
aka... its a vaporware relase through and through."
If you would, could you please expand on the "WINFS etc"? I've notice that lots of people say that Vista was stripped of a huge number of features, then to support that assertion they give "WINFS etc" as their examples. Can you or somebody else provide a complete list of cut features besides WINFS (so we can see just how many features were cut and judge how important those features were)?
Member since:2005-07-06
This list looks complete to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Removal_of_...
It should be pretty obvious that it's a short list. The reason WinFS is always used as the example is due to the overall breadth/scope of what it was going to accomplish. It's worth mentioning that by no means is WinFS dead...it is still being worked on for future incarnations of Windows.
Edited 2007-07-23 14:31
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-02-22
As I understand it, the main goals of WinFS is to get away from the current partitioning system; it's been servicable for ~20 years, which is remarkable in computer science terms, but it'll eventually have to be overhauled as we continue to bump up against its limits. While they were doing that, they also are trying to make the 'attribute' more important than the folder in terms of organizing data (although presumably folders will still exist to segregate the system, the application, and the different user documents), and to make complex searches for files on disk as simple as making a system call (or a .NET call).
I've heard it also compared favorably to ZFS, but I don't know how apt that comparison is.
Member since:
2005-07-06
>not vaportware...
Ummm... I think he was talking about the fact that 99% of the "promised" and "hyped" features that were supposed to be in Visia never materialized, aka WINFS etc.
aka... its a vaporware relase through and through.