Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Nov 2005 16:45 UTC, submitted by Dan Quintoz
Windows The second beta of Vista will not come until next year. Microsoft did not give a time frame for the release of Beta 2 of the operating system, and said only that it would have more to say next year. MS had not said when Beta 2 will come, but some had expected it might come in December or January. More here, and here is a review of build 5259 that was supposed to be the November CTP, but actually wasn't (get it?). In related news, Microsoft has entered the beta period for Windows OneCare Live.
Thread beginning with comment 67307
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
History does repeat...
by thavith_osn on Wed 30th Nov 2005 20:44 UTC
Member since:

Vista is slipping again, no news here...

This is just funny, that's all. I work as a programmer, so I know about slip dates, don't get me wrong, but this is getting a little funny I think.

Vista will be out in 04, then 05 and now 06 (maybe), that's around 3 years! But not just 3 years, 3 years with a product less than what they originally planned for 04. When I look at Vista, I'm struggling to see 4-5 years worth of work (I'm assuming they started with Longhorn a little after the release of XP). I can see a couple of years worth, but not 4-5?

Apple tried this with Copland (as someone has pointed out) and failed (if they had MS's money and commitments, then maybe we would have Copland now). OS X does have some of the Capland tech, so it wasn't all wasted.

I think MS would have loved to have thrown in the towel a long time ago and do what Apple did with Darwin, put their application layer on top of a *nix kernel like Linux or some such, but are now committed. I think Apple did the right thing, I think MS needs to do the same but can't. They would also have to move some cool stuff like completion ports and so on to the kernel, but then MS could concentrate on the App related stuff like Apple does, and less on the underlying OS.

I'm sure we will all read soon what is going on within the walls at MS, I've heard some interesting tales already... Anyway, MS can only grow and learn from all this, but it also means that everyone else now had their foot in the door.

Reply Score: 1

RE: History does repeat...
by sappyvcv on Wed 30th Nov 2005 21:16 in reply to "History does repeat..."
sappyvcv Member since:

As I already stated, 2nd half of 2006 has been the target release date for a while now (since the reset last year). Nov/Dec 2005 was the projected release date of Beta2, but it was NOT official, or at least not publically official. The beta2 date has slipped, but the final release date still remains the same.

Also, while they have cut back a few things (WinFS likely won't be shipped with it, and Monad likely won't be shipped with it), they have also announced many other things since that were not announced before (new network stack, net audio stack, new color management system, etc).

People read that feature Y won't end up in Vista and get knee-jerk reactions that things are going bad. Then the cool things MS is adding to Vista, or things they are redoing, don't seem to get publicized. Why? Well, bad news makes for more hits I guess.

My point is simply that there are a lot more changes in Vista than people are lead to believe by reading these articles.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: History does repeat...
by on Wed 30th Nov 2005 23:41 in reply to "RE: History does repeat..."
Member since:

That may well be the case, there must be a lot more to Vista than I have read about so far. I'm not a tester, so I haven't used it yet, but from what I've read, I can't see 4-5 years worth of work in this one. Maybe a couple of years.

Oh, and WinFS is a pretty big "cut back a few things" thing. It's not like they are cutting back some cosmetic thing, or something like that. WinFS is a pretty big deal, and one of the main things that MS pushed as to why you'd want to switch a few years back, infact, I'm pretty sure it was the main thing they pushed, that and Avalon.

Who knows, they may surprise us and pop it back in, or at least get it to us in the following months of the launch, maybe SP1.

My point was that MS has been slipping a lot lately, and XP is feeling very old. Imagine if OS X was still at 10.2, the Apple guys would still defend it, but to be honest, it needs to be further along now. Linux is catching up way more than MS would have liked (which I think is a good thing) and Apple is moving further ahead (at least as a desktop OS).

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: History does repeat...
by ma_d on Thu 1st Dec 2005 16:26 in reply to "History does repeat..."
ma_d Member since:

My understanding is that's because much of it was restarted last year after discovering that their modifications were so broken it would be easier to rewrite than fix.
I'm not entirely sure of the validity of this as it was reported on slashdot...

I think the thing with MS is that their customers don't buy new copies of the OS, in general. Mac users, even non-techies shell out $129 for the new version every year or every other year if they skip one. So, to get people to upgrade, Microsoft has to give less incremental features.
This is partly because they have a history of making things worse on occasion. And partly because their customers aren't nearly so gung-ho as Apple's.

Reply Parent Score: -1