Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Nov 2012 11:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 543709
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.
"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. "
No, every 3 years.
The Vista cycle was an abnormality, but one that came because of the state of the code and the fact that they had to restart development.
Yes, after WinXP (2001) there was another version of Windows (2004) that was not released - tossed out because of performance, etc - development was restarted and 3 years later they had Vista (2006/2007). So even then it wasn't really an abnormality, they just didn't release what they had developed to the public.
Of course, that mishap also caused them to re-evaluation how everything is interconnected in Windows and start working towards a simpler architectural implementation - which is why Win7 came a little earlier, and Win8 a little earlier, and why Win Blue will be so early and potentially able to do yearly releases.
No, every 3 years.
Obviously that completely invalidates what I am saying </sarcasm>
The Vista cycle was an abnormality, but one that came because of the state of the code and the fact that they had to restart development.
Yes, after WinXP (2001) there was another version of Windows (2004) that was not released - tossed out because of performance, etc - development was restarted and 3 years later they had Vista (2006/2007). So even then it wasn't really an abnormality, they just didn't release what they had developed to the public.
Yes, after WinXP (2001) there was another version of Windows (2004) that was not released - tossed out because of performance, etc - development was restarted and 3 years later they had Vista (2006/2007). So even then it wasn't really an abnormality, they just didn't release what they had developed to the public.
It wasn't released, so it was a wasn't a complete project ... so therefore they broke their cycle.
Under those circumstances I release a blog post on my site every week when I write a paragraph and then don't publish it.
Of course, that mishap also caused them to re-evaluation how everything is interconnected in Windows and start working towards a simpler architectural implementation - which is why Win7 came a little earlier, and Win8 a little earlier, and why Win Blue will be so early and potentially able to do yearly releases.
Your point being?
They started a massive refactor project yes and moved in a different direction and recovered from something that would have been disastrous possibly.




Member since:
2009-08-18
Before Vista, there was a new Microsoft OS every two years.
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.
It was pretty stable since Release Preview.
Edited 2012-11-30 16:27 UTC