Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Oct 2010 22:23 UTC
Windows "Windows 7 might be a massive commercial success and an undeniably rock solid piece of software, but Microsoft is apparently unwilling to rest on those soft and cozy laurels. Asked about the riskiest product bet the Redmond crew is currently developing, its fearless leader Steve Ballmer took no time in answering 'the next release of Windows'." Also of note in this same video interview thing: Ballmer states that Silverlight is now pretty much strictly a client, non-cross platform thing, while explicitly stating that when it comes to doing something universal, "the world's gone HTML5".
Thread beginning with comment 446954
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Risky?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 25th Oct 2010 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Risky?"
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Disagree. Mozilla was headed down the wrong path. Only the phenoix, which cut against the grain of Mozilla's existing path created a decent browser. If they had had a small and light browser ( stop laughing, pheonix was small light and fast when released) in mind from the begining, then they could have made a bigger impact sooner. Those earlier big, crappy clunky Mozilla releases DID NOT have to happen.

A good example of all of this seamless transition is the one MS made from Win 98/Me to XP. They were completely different code bases, different kernels,ect. But, no one could really deny form day 1 that XP was infinitely better than win me/98.

But yes, OS X is another good example of a bad release, but they made it a little better by including the Classic environment until OS X got good enough UI wise, and most applications were updated. 10.0 had some major issues, but from 10.1 released a couple months later. IMHO 10.1 was absolutely better than OS 9, but it did lack some GUI features of 9, so I sort of understood why some crazy mac addicts were unconvinced.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Risky?
by Panajev on Mon 25th Oct 2010 16:10 in reply to "RE[4]: Risky?"
Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

A good example of all of this seamless transition is the one MS made from Win 98/Me to XP. They were completely different code bases, different kernels,ect. But, no one could really deny form day 1 that XP was infinitely better than win me/98.


In several workplaces, many people preferred to stay with Windows 2000, the XP uptake was slow there... almost Vista slow.

One of the biggest advantages XP had over Vista in overcoming its predecessor was that XP SP3 was not nearly as crappy as Windows ME was compared to its successor.

I remember XP having some HW issues, such as it not booting without unplugging a USB keyboard I had... not until it finished the installation and got some more patches.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Risky?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 25th Oct 2010 16:38 in reply to "RE[5]: Risky?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

My point was simply that windows xp transition millions of home users from an older completely different code base to a new one, with minimal problems. They didn't have to release a terrible version that had "fundamental changes" in it to build upon in the future.

The reasoning I was objecting to was just that: "to release a good product, you must first release a really bad one. "

Reply Parent Score: 2