Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer wrapped up a meeting with financial analysts Thursday by promising that the company would make sure it releases new Windows versions more quickly. Also, Microsoft on Thursday showed a prototype of a cell phone-based computer that could one day find a use as a cheap PC for emerging markets.
Ballmer: Windows Releases Must Come More Quickly
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
As long as they do not “give up” on Vista, then who gives a damn about how often Windows versions come out?
Seriously, Windows XP got serious upgrades with it’s Service Packs (SP2 was a godsend, the XP that should-have-been!). Windows 2000 got a similar treatment but personally I believe the reason for that was the fact that it was a version intended for businesses. It would be nice if we knew (100%, not some marketing bullshit) that Vista would get Service Packs and updates that kept it fresh.
Although, Vienna may have all the features Vista was supposed to have (and more of course), and that may be Microsoft’s intention: from now on, update Windows by versions and force/ask users to update for “security” reasons.
It just feels that future Vista users are being ripped off already; some may think that Microsoft should devote all their time on Vista for (say) a year before looking at Vienna.
Don’t get me wrong, I welcome development. Timing is of the essence though!
Edited 2006-07-28 02:11
Microsoft cares, they want to sell you a new version every 3 years, not every 6.
And there are those who like updates often, Mac users for example seem to appreciate the 1-2 year release cycle, so I’m sure some Windows users must wish it came more often.
As long as they do not “give up” on Vista, then who gives a damn about how often Windows versions come out?
I kind of wish Microsoft would give up on Vista and just start fresh with a good, clean, codebase. It’s time to stop piling update on top of update. Windows’ spine is breaking.
I wish Microsoft would take some time and just say “Okay this is the last version of the old windows” and assign a team to keep it patched when required and then send the rest, ie: a good majority of the windows team off to some quite and secluded place, and say “Guys go off and design something beautiful, I don’t care what resemblence it bears to the old windows at all.” The original GUI wasn’t designed by looking at the command line and just piling something on top of it, so why should an OS that is supposed revolutionary be?
Microsoft controls the OS market hands down, why are they restricting themselves by confining all the developement to the same old thing +1? Isn’t it possible that the reason people are still using win98 is because they don’t see that much a difference between the versions except how they look?
Edited 2006-07-28 08:13
Microsoft controls the OS market hands down, why are they restricting themselves by confining all the developement to the same old thing +1?
If you check out the information available on MSDN and TechNet, you’d realize this isn’t the case. The platform has changed significantly. They’ve maintained compatibility in many cases by routing old APIs through new systems. People wanting change should actually look beneath the surface and they will see it.
Isn’t it possible that the reason people are still using win98 is because they don’t see that much a difference between the versions except how they look?
Looks, software/hardware support, or the need to buy a new computer are going to be the main reasons people that still use Win9x will upgrade. They aren’t likely to care about technical differences between 9x and newer platforms.
The platform has changed significantly. They’ve maintained compatibility in many cases by routing old APIs through new systems.
Support for legacy applications is fine. The question is how they’ve structured it. If the past is any guide, the answer is ‘not well’.
Microsoft layered Windows 95/98 on top of DOS because they thought people wanted DOS. That wasn’t true; users wanted to run DOS applications, not DOS itself. After a period of transition, most users had migrated all applications to Windows versions. If there had been a DOS emulation layer on top of a secure kernel, the emulation layer could have been disabled when no longer needed.
They got closer to that with NT, at least with the DOS portion. But they never got to the point where users could pull the plug on Win32 and its many security problems. The kernel supports it, the tools are there, but the company culture and willpower is lacking.
Can you run Vista with legacy APIs disabled?
As one kind of customer, what *I* want is something that is rock-solid and paid-for.
What Ballmer ought to be scared about is the increasing STABILITY of say Linux. I have never used OpenVMS but those rumors of eternal uptime are so intriguing.
Another major red-flag would be the moaning of customers about the retraining involved for Office-2007. If the UI were *WORTH* the retraining then the market would say that, but the market is not saying that.
The idea of perpetual change, perpetual bugs, perpetual job-security is what his employees want to hear, not his CUSTOMERS !
“What Ballmer ought to be scared about is the increasing STABILITY of say Linux.”
That’s something Ballmer has always had to keep in mind. One of Linux’s claims to fame was stability, during the days of Windows 9x and Me I’d have to deal with some computers that you could wager on crashing a certain number of times a day.
As far as stability goes, Linux has never been at a disadvantage. Windows on the other hand has had to clean up it’s act, and with XP I have to say it’s come a long way.
“The idea of perpetual change, perpetual bugs, perpetual job-security is what his employees want to hear, not his CUSTOMERS !”
I share your sentiment when it comes to the target Windows release frequency Microsoft hopes to attain. Every two years is unattractive to me. Linux has releases every six months for some distributions, every year for others, and some take several years. But despite the fast releases many of them are free and there’s no pressure to upgrade.
I was very happy with the longer life span of XP, I’d probably regret that it’s going to end soon, but I primarily use Linux 🙂 .
It’s my opinion that what we are now seeing is a minor awakening of Microsoft’s customers, beginning to realize the last couple years were largely propped up by marketing. Microsoft has traditionally painted fantastical vap-o-ware futures that they would unroll next month/quarter/year. Apparently this time around MS realized they had promised too much too quickly, and were forced to deliver. It’s a good sign though the Vista development team is focusing on producing quality software (or so we hope), and not another Windows ME. Although, Bill Gates seems to be continuing the old habits.
http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2006/03/we-need-microformats-bil…
Balmer: Computers Must Work
Balmer: Software Should Be Composed of Zeros and Ones
Balmer: I Like Icecream
You forgot…
Balmer: My cats breath smells like cat food
Balmer: Hi, Super Nintendo Chalmers
Balmer: That’s my swingset, and that’s my sandbox. I’m not allowed to go in the deep end. And this is where I met the leprechaun.
Balmer: Me fail English? That’s unpossible
Balmer: Oh boy! Sleep! That’s when I’m a Viking
Balmer: I ate the blue ones … they taste like burning
Balmer: Uh… so… do you like… stuff?
Or am I confusing Steve Balmer with Ralph Wiggum ? They both look the same after all.
He promised the worst.
How can MS produce an OS more quickly if the features in vista took more than 5 years and still it is not stable enough, and remember how many features were stripped off it.
What he promised to bring after vista would be simply vista + a new SP , but this time you would have to pay for this SP; and to confuse you it will be tagged with a new name (windows safari eg.).
Till now I could not see the difference in stability between windows 2000 and windows XP, both horrible crashy and unstable with a wide range of drivers and under some heavy load; the proof could be obtained from system administrators all over the globe.
And on Promises MS never fullfulled their promises on Security, and for those who spread lies and say windows is as secure as linux ask them which OS they use and what are their experience in computing.
I agree. 😐
How can MS produce an OS more quickly if the features in vista took more than 5 years and still it is not stable enough, and remember how many features were stripped off it.
Because Vista involved rewriting most of the OS. Many people don’t realize this because all they see is a new look and most legacy apps continue to run. Vista involved implementing a new technology base to support future development. They’ve had to wait on development, community feedback, and, in the case of technologies like .NET 2.0 and WS-*, standardization before being able to ship final implementations and build atop those technologies. Where they’ve had to take dependencies on new technologies, they’ve also had to deal with constant code churn as the APIs are refined.
Now that they have a stable base, it’ll be easier to build new applications and functionality on top of those base technologies without dealing with shifts in the underlying pieces that cause breaks in the functionality above it, and the new APIs will make it easier to develop new functionality in less time.
Because Vista involved rewriting most of the OS. Many people don’t realize this because all they see is a new look and most legacy apps continue to run.
Oh they do realise it … 🙂
It doesn’t matter how many time you say it though, folk will still say that Vista is XP with a new skin. It’s very odd; almost as if they have a desperate need for it to fail.
Because Vista involved rewriting most of the OS.
No it didn’t. Why do people keep spreading this myth? It uses the win2k3 server codebase.
“””Because Vista involved rewriting most of the OS.”””
Isn’t that what they always say, though? For Win95? For WinNT? For Win2000? And now… for Vista?
Isn’t having to “rewrite most of the OS” every few years a sign of very serious and fundamental problems?
Why should anyone believe that Vista is the last rewrite?
Or perhaps I should ask how they are going to “rewrite most of the OS” faster in the future?
Based on what I’ve seen of their release history, I’d say Microsoft has a growing mess on its hands.
Edited 2006-07-28 18:16
“What Ballmer ought to be scared about is the increasing STABILITY of say Linux”
I don’t know which world you live in, but Linux is stable almost since it’s conception. How is that it’s increasing it’s stability? Did you mean usability?
I’m not so sure having shorter release cycles are the answer. If we’re talking about brand new releases of the operating system which sits on millions of destops, then I have my reservations. There will be the select crowd that will upgrade rapidly but for large corporates and many home users the question has to be why?
There has to be some value to be added to the new release to justify the purchase of a new operating system.
To my mind, one of the strengths of Linux is a weakness.. too rapid releases, questions about current releases and scope to see what’s around the corner let alone down the street.
Service packs more rapidly I can agree with, but again if it’s just bug fixes there has to be value over the monthly patching cycles.
One only has to look at the development history of Vista and how much has been removed from it’s bullet point feature list to know that serious innovation or large changes take a great deal of time, resources and effort – none of which is cheap.
I’m not seeing this suggestion as good for the end user, rather more for Microsoft to keep those dollars rolling in by people who think they need to change.
I’m not so sure having shorter release cycles are the answer.
Agreed. To me, XP has always been rock solid. (But then again, I’m not one of these users who double clicks on anything that promises nude pics of Jessica Alba, so maybe that explains why I don’t have any problems with it.) I say take as long as you need to and release it when it’s ready, as I don’t have a problem with the 5-6 year release cycle myself. In fact, I kind of like it. Of course, I realize that you need to keep the money rolling in, but I’m a lot less likely to buy a new version every 2 years or so, especially if you release a crapfest every 2 years like Windows ME.
I agree with this post. I would simply like to add some thoughts from my personal perspective.
As you mentioned, rapid releases is both a strength and a weakness for Linux (as well as many other systems including Mac OS X). A rapid release cycle is unwanted in a corporate environment where reliability and stability are of paramount importance. On the other hand, a rapid release cycle is very much appreciated by by those to whom new features are more important due to any number of reasons such as increased productivity, convenience, security, or whatever.
“There has to be some value to be added to the new release to justify the purchase of a new operating system.” One way of calculating value is by looking at the price. Imagine what the ramifications might be if a new, full (not OEM) version of Windows were sold every 1-2 years for $100 instead of every 3-5 years at the current pricing structure.
Actually you make a good point about cost verses faster release cycles, however I still find it difficult to believe that Microsoft could deliver the stability and reliability in that timeframe.
That’s probably another one of the strengths of Linux in that because it’s generally no-cost, there’s a much greater availability and adoption because of the no cost element.
No one gets excited about MS, now. I don’t think Vista will change that. I have found XP works better now, but I prefer Linux as I’m used to it, it’s familar, and “just works.” I get suprised at the number of people who run MS and have outlook open “because it’s stuck” and worry little about security. When I used MS I always kept virus, spyware programs and so forth up to date. It was the way to avoid “stuck.” I finally put my other computer on Linux since I seldom used MS, and I got tired of the programs in MS (not all of them Microsoft) “nagging me” every time I used my PC. I find my computing more peaceful with Linux, and don’t miss some of the programs that are ‘Windows Only.” In my opinion, the “glory days of MS” have passed. I don’t know what will finally overcome it, Linux is a great OS, I’m just not convinced that it will become the OS of choice for home users in the near future; though it should be!
What makes Linux so great? I have seen it crash on my laptop. My sound did not work and I could not use my wifi as it is not supported.
The 2D games that I tried with the distro were slow and going 1 frame per second.
When I tried a different distro (knoppix) it would lock right up after welcoming me to Linux and showed the penquin. So I tried another version, locked up again.
You might not get viruses that much in linux because the geeks running linux love linux. It is hard to write a virus for an Operating system that you love.
However, given all my pain it just doesn’t seem worth it. I have a virus checker and I have not had a virus in years.
I never have any lockups or bluescreens with XP, so why even bother with an OS that just a few people use but those peope happen to be loud and desperate?
I never have any lockups or bluescreens with XP, so why even bother with an OS that just a few people use but those peope happen to be loud and desperate?
When I was running Windows XP, the only time I had a BSOD was a Pinnacle PC-TV card I bought for my computer; I would launch the teletext facility, then when I quit out of it, I opened up my TV application, the whole computer would BSOD because the resident application failed to ‘release’ the PC-TV card; the only way to avoid that was to kill the process itself, which allowed me to watch TV without a BSOD.
You’ll find that most BSOD’s are either caused by a terrible quality driver OR the hardware itself is faulty; and Linux does crash, so does MacOS X; MacOS X crashes terribly with incompatible memory, or memory with faults; I’ve seen Linux lock up hard due to running out of swap etc. and FreeBSD locking up because the DRI driver for the ATI Radeon is borken.
“What makes Linux so great? I have seen it crash on my laptop. My sound did not work and I could not use my wifi as it is not supported. ”
These “my experience” anecdotes are generally not very usefull. I had an XP machine that BSOD everyday, strangely enough when I replaced the faulty MB, it stopped crashing. That doesn’t make XP crap it made my system crap (the system never died under linux, but that doesn’t mean anything at all). If you want to buy a system, its generally a good idea to check for HW compat 1st not later, but FYI my dell laptop works jsut fine with wifi, as does my desk machine with atheros+madwifi. OTOH I can hardly get any f*?king drivers for any of my hardware under xp_64 where linux gives me a complete set.
You may have seen Linux crash on your laptop. When I first started with Linux, I also had a distro that would crash when I used totem media player. I have also watched Linux mature rapidly. Also consider that Linux has reached this maturity with almost no support from hardware vendors. There are still some stability issues on new installs on any OS, including Windows and Linux on some machines, my laptop included. I also used virus protection, but unfortunately, I was not as lucky as you were until I learned to also avoid opening unknown emails, avoiding some websites, etc. Until SP2, I was frequently having “the blue screen of death.” Nvidia provides drivers for Linux, and that solved my accelerated graphics, I do little gaming. After using Linux for a while, I preferred linux over Windows, not only for the security benefits, but also because I find it more user friendly than Windows. Stability is now a non-issue. I also confess that while I agree that Microsoft has the right to combat piracy, I became increasingly annoyed at having Microsoft make me “validate” my legally purchased OS” that I had already validated in 2002. But I also get annoyed at the store when I stand in a long line to pay for merchandise, and then have them stop me on my way out of the store to see my “proof of purchase.”I feel that security should be handled before you get to the exit. I realize others may disagree, and that’s OK, because we all have a choice of OS’es to choose from.I do have the opinion that Linux should be the desktop of choice, just as you believe Windows is better. You probably tried Linux out of curiosity just as I did, and returned to Windows, just as I did at first. I am now a so called “fanatic” of Linux because I have found it to be a better day to day OS than Windows, I can upgrade to a new or upgraded version for free, I have a wealth of distributations to choose from, I have a huge number of applications to choose from, and they are only a download away. That’s not “loud and desperate”, it’s just great!
Yep, as soon as you type ‘startx’ in the linux world, its all over.
broken promises what next? more features stripped out of Vista to get it out the door? if they dont ddo something dramatic like that we wont be seeing Vista till 2008 or at the least late 2007
On how these ‘frequent updates and upgrades’ are released; are we going to start seeing more frequent minor upgrades being released more frequently to customers who wish to comply with the use of WGA?
If it is shorter releases that’ll cost customers, I don’t agree; what Microsoft need to do is start justifing their pricing; if they had a release cycle of 4 years, and every year, those customers with genuine copies would release a ‘mini-upgrade’ via a free download location or a cd being sent out; that would be incredible value for money, and will allow rapid improvements to be leaked out rather than big bangs every 4 years, with 2 year gaps between the release of the said OS and applications being released.
Another brilliant thought. Well done, Ballmer; you’re doing a fine job of running that company into the ground. We who are about to use non-proprietary software salute you.
Microsoft has a long way to fall. They could be driving into the ground hapily for the next 50 years with their reserves. By that time it might actually be the year of desktop linux
We who are about to use non-proprietary software salute you.
‘About to’ ? …. 🙂
All these folk who say
“That’s it! I have had it; next week, I’m going to move to Linux!”
I wonder how many of them actually do it?
In the past month, 4 people in my team of 15 in work moved to Ubuntu.
Other than that, I have not got a clue
I have been using Linux almost continuously since 1999, most of that time WITHOUT dual-boot Windows. Before that, I tried it in about 1997, when RedHat couldn’t even get X to work properly, and the standard desktop was FVWM. The “about to” was solely in order to keep the quote as close to the original – and therefore recognizable – as possible.
“Microsoft has a long way to fall.”
You know what they say; the taller you stand, the harder you fall.
Yet more PR talk, resulting in even more stressed and burned out designers and programmers, resulting in even more low quality products (Even though you wouldn’t think it possible) that brings even less to our lives.
is that they don’t improve interface once windows is released. XP is still the same basic interface it was years ago. Explorer still crashes here and there and icons reorder when a program crashes in low resolution.
They only care about updates for media player and stuff of their commercial/dominance interest.
“All these folk who say
“That’s it! I have had it; next week, I’m going to move to Linux!”
I wonder how many of them actually do it?”
I dit it.
Last I heard, Vista was touted as the OS we will be using for the next 10 years. Now Ballmer is Windows releases need to come more often? It seems strange that in the wake of this XP update fiasco called Vista, that MS management still doesn’t seem to have their act together. It must be extremely frustrating to work there.
All Windows OSes for the next 10 years will be based on Vista code.
Vista is going to be Microsoft’s Copland 😉
I wonder which OS they will buy off to make their next version of windows :p (maybe BeOS :p)
Whether you love or hate them, Microsoft isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. They are just too dominant. Yes, they will from time to time lose some users to alternative OSes, but it would take a *very* long time for that attrition to have an effect on their bottom line. We are talking about a company whose profit right now averages roughly 1 billion dollars a month…and that is without a major product release in several years.
If they want to have more product releases, as far as I’m concerned it just means that I will have to learn to support new versions more often. It has been a long while since I’ve had to relearn anything substantial about Windows; perhaps it will be more interesting in the future.
I personally don’t plan to purchase any of their software because I do not like the way they do business, but more versions of Windows just means I will have more work in the years to come. I for one welcome faster releases because it means I will make more money 🙂
Windows XP; for having to use it for some apps, it’s fine. Forget Vista; just make XP more secure and faster. I don’t need pretty screens, neato search features because I am not organized, etc.
Oh wait; that’s right. You can’t sell me a completely “new” product every 2 years and make more money off of me.
No kidding!? Really?! You mean 7-10 year release cycle is making people happy? Who woulda thunk it!
*this is prefaced with the fact that these ‘new’ release are worth people upgrading their current systems, and not just for pretty effects and eye candy*
Does anyone have any documentation about, how much of windows they actuelly did rewrite?
Did they also rewrite the implementation of the win32 api? (Sounds unlikely, but you newer know)
Martin
They rewrote
tcp/ip stack
boot loader
audio stack
and of course the overhyped new desktop compositor. There’s probably more.
What? More frequent OS releases from Microsoft? Thats just insane; I alredy have six computers in my home:
Compaq CDTV 528 with Windows 3.1 and excellent TV card
Compaq Deskpro SFF Celeron500 with Windows 2000
Compaq Deskpro SFF PII 35o with Windows 95
HP Pavilion Celeron366 with Windows98SE
Compaq laptop X1200 AMD K-6 500 Windows98SE
custom built dual-CPU PIII 933 MHz Windows 2000 server
All but Compaq CDTV which is 486 CPU are running in dual-boot configuration. And , guess what,I’m dual booting between Windows and Linux ( Fedora 5, SuSE 10,
Xandros 2 and PCLinuxOS ).
PCLinuxOS ( http://pclinuxos.com/news.php ) proved to be the best code I’ve ever run on my ageing machines originally preloaded with Windows98/Windows ME incapable of running latest Microsoft code(e.g. Win2K
WinXP).PCLinuxOS (as weel as other distros) gave me more applications than any of brand name PC manufacturers preloaded computers I ever purchased in last nine years.
With Linux I’m free from piles of device drivers floppies and CDs, outdated application CD-s as well as of numerous volumes of “Getting started with WindowsXYZ” user manuals and Certificates of Authenticity.
Not to mention subscriptions for on-line antivirus updates , spyware , file formats incpompatibilities between different Microsoft Office releases etc.
Linux really brought the fun back into my computing days. With Windows I had nothing but headaches and I don’t think I will be in shop for Redmond-made code any time soon. Balmer&Co should look somewhere else for their revenues.Haleluyah !
Today, I’m going to convert one more machine to Linux. It’s Sony VAIO PCV-RX560. The owner misplaced his recovery CD set and was reluctant to pay for replacement CD from SONY ( still available for careless customers). What he found playing with PCLinuxOS on my “demo” PC (Qompaq DeskproSFF 500MHz Celeron) was more than he ever expeted to get boundled in single CD (replaceable for free ).