Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Nov 2012 11:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 543686
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
But with smaller more agile releases there tends to be smaller number of new features in scope and that decreases the testing effort and the probability for regression to occur ... meaning more reliable releases.
It is win, win as long as the price is right.
Edited 2012-11-30 16:23 UTC
Pity they got 7 and 8 right first time, the whole idea is smaller more agile releases.
They didn't get 7 "right the first time". Windows 7 is Windows Vista Mark 2. It is their second attempt. There is a reason it was released just two years after Vista.
It is an excellent operating system, but it is disingenuous to claim it was a first time success.
Whether they got Windows 8 right first time remains to be seen.
They didn't get 7 "right the first time". Windows 7 is Windows Vista Mark 2. It is their second attempt. There is a reason it was released just two years after Vista.
Before Vista, there was a new Microsoft OS every two years.
It is an excellent operating system, but it is disingenuous to claim it was a first time success.
No it isn't. The betas were bloody stable, it is also a lot more than Vista Service Pack 2 ... saying anything else isn't be fair.
Whether they got Windows 8 right first time remains to be seen.
It was pretty stable since Release Preview.
Edited 2012-11-30 16:27 UTC





Member since:
2009-08-18
Pity they got 7 and 8 right first time, the whole idea is smaller more agile releases.