so i was scrolling through the headlines on msnbc.com right now and i came across the following:
heh, i thought to myself, surprise surprise, who would have guessed?
so i look down at the next headline and it reads:
i just snorted. and i had to share :wally
link and the other link.
Anyone want to start a pool on how many more times it will be delayed or how long after it’s launched that the first security patches are released?
They keep removing features and it keeps taking longer. I haven’t yet heard anything at all about Vista that makes me want to use it. I hope that the delays allow OS X and Linux (and other OSs) to gain greater popularity.
Nothing short of rolling Windows back to version 3.0 has any hope of acheiving this. People will wait. And pray. And it shall be delivered.
BTW, it’s the home/consumer version of Vista that is delayed till 2007. The Professional/Business versions are being released end of this year.
Anyway, it’s not like anyone is seriously inconvenienced by this delay except for maybe Dell, Gateway and the like.
I don’t even know what it is. Am I hopelessly out of the loop these days?
So, what is it? A parking garage? An improved ferret? A small cap used mainly during foxhunts? An entirely new way of thinking?
I’m sure Microsoft thinks it’s the last.
Really, now, though, what did anyone expect? Would you rather have them rush to meet an artificial deadline? Why the gloating?
Any OS is a complicated system. Are you saying that there has never been any patches needed to Linux after it was first released? Really? So why is the fact that Microsoft may require them a problem?
It is a fungus.
Don’t be ridiculous. A fugus spreads quickly, reduces the growth of competion by sapping resources, doesn’t produce any of its own resources and generally isn’t very pretty to look at…
Oh. Never mind.
And sometimes it’s delicious when you use the caps as a vessel to stuff all kinds of additional ingredients and broil to melt and combine.
Doug Engelbart and a small team created the GUI interface from scratch in just s couple of years in the 1960s
Gary Kildall created CP/M (the OS that QDOS and MS-DOS were based on) by himself in 1974 in less than a year.
Linus Torvalds, barred from extending his professor Andrew Tannenbaum’s Minix OS, created the Linux kernal in less than a year.
MS has every resource they care to spend their billions on to get a modification of an existing OS and GUI out the door, and haven’t managed to do it in five years.
Risible, to say the least.
Those of us who have the beta are well aware that security patches are already out, so I’m guessing … a week before a major vulnerability is discovered. 
And considering its absolutely nasty hardware requirements, there’s a lot making me not want to use it. I installed the beta. It’s so resource intensive that it becomes a mind-bogging pain in the ass. Disabling things like the flashy desktop ‘Luna’, and every service and function and software that does not absolutely need to run for the operating system to be remotely functional still left me with an OS that was consuming 260MB of RAM. It took over 2GB of HD space to install, and runs like crap with anything less than a 1.5GHz processor. That doesn’t even begin to get into some of the digital rights management MS wants/wanted to do in the OS.
I don’t wanna touch this one with a 30 foot Cat-6 cable.
All meaningless and frankly disingenuous.
It’s relatively easy to create an O/S for which there is no existing user base and absolutely no market expectations.
I believe it’s markedly more complicated to improve on an existing product with millions of users, many of whom depend on it daily for their livelyhood while trying to satisfy a huge array of requirements and compatibility issues with countless business partners.
I know it’s fun to slam Microsoft for everything but cancer and earthquakes but a little perspective should be considered before the daggers are drawn.
And they all had security issues that had to be addressed with patches. Linux does it, and I don’t see anyone ripping them for it.
It’s also risible to compare a text-based OS in the 60s and 70s with a graphics-based 32-bit OS in the 21st century. There weren’t a lot of problems with MS-DOS, either, and systems in the 60s were called upon to do a hell of a lot less than systems today. Did Kildall include built-in antispyware protection (which they are working on for Vista)? How about Internet capabilities? Support for multiple sound cards? For hundreds of printers, scanners, and digital cameras? How about wireless networking?
And how about the fact that several of the things I’ve mentioned weren’t available when Microsoft started working on Vista? Should they not try to include these new technologies into the system, or are you saying it’s better that they get it out on a schedule and ignore adding support for devices that millions of people own and want to use?
Not to mention, it seems like Englelbart built a mouse and a gui to match.
Torvald didn’t build an OS. He built the kernal.
I don’t know much about Kildall, but from the sounds of it, it’s like saying, “It took people 5 years to build the Brooklyn bridge? It took me two days to build this bird house.”
I assume this is in response to my post.
As the second link provided by the OP makes abundantly clear, the Vista package suffers from some of the worst feature bloat ever delivered by Microsoft, and that’s saying something.
MS’s problem is not that OS’s are complicated. Their problem is that they have no concept of what people really want from an OS package. After several initial problems, XP has finally become a decent OS package. Now they seem to have thrown that all out the window in pursuit of a suite of gee-whiz utitilities no one cares about.
Movie Concept: DEATH TO THE BORG XP
PICARD: (to LaForge) Mr. LaForge, have you had any success in your attempts to find a weakness in the Borg?
(to Data) And have you, Mr. Data, been able to gain access to their command pathways?
LaForge: Yes, Captain. In fact, we found the answer by searching through our archives of early 21st Century computing technology.
(Laforge presses a key; a logo appears on the computer screen.)
Riker: (looks puzzled) What in the hell is Microsoft©?
Data: (turns to answer) Allow me to explain. We will send this program, for some reason called “Windows,” through the Borg command pathways. Once inside their root command unit, it will begin consuming system resources at an unstoppable rate.
Picard: But the Borg have the ability to adapt. Won’t they alter their processing systems to increase their storage capacity?
Data: Yes, Captain. But when “Windows” detects this, it creates a new version of itself known as an “upgrade.” The use of resources increases exponentially with each iteration. The Borg will not be able to adapt quickly enough. Eventually, all of their processing ability will be taken over and none will be available for their normal operational functions.
Picard: Excellent work. This is even better than the “unsolvable geometric shape” idea.
Make it so.
Because Linux doesn’t have the world’s biggest software war chest at its disposal. What’s Microsoft’s excuse?
They also had no predecessors. Microsoft is building absolutely nothing from scratch here.
No. Given the number of highly-regarded Anti-spyware software packages available that have already gone through a number of versions, this is obviously not particularly difficult, especially when you have access to every aspect of the OS. What takes five years here?
1 billion computers online suggests this problem has largely been solved. No five-year task here.
Again, already solved. It’s up to the card manufacturers to provide working drivers. No five-year task here for MS.
Again, all issues with drivers, which are the responsibility of the device manufacturers. Nothing MS needs five years to figure out.
Works dandy already on my XP SP2 desk- and lap-tops, other than a less-than-satisfactory UI for the utilities I need to set up. Nothing needs five years here, either
But they’ve all been completed since. And still Vista is nowhere to be seen.
They’re already there. And nobody set the schedule but Microsoft themselves.
So a company that has made not one but multiples of fortunes and are a world leader in desktop O/S still doesn’t know what people really want from an O/S package? Why, pray tell, do they continue to be market leaders?
Surely they must know a little something.
I’ve been around IT long enough to experience this trend several times over.
First issue of any flavour of MS O/S and the world is outraged about everything from it’s size (as if the physical box is too large to fit in the family mini van), to interface (You mean I have to click twice? Whyyyyyy!!!), to security holes (Bigger than the US/Mexican border!) .
Not that each argument isn’t without some merrit. But still, given the outrage, you’d think Microsoft employed child labour to kill kittens and puppies using baby seals.
For someone so critical of Microsoft, you seem awfully anxious for the new release. You’d think you personally paid for it’s development and the delay is causing you personal financial strain.
WTF does it matter if they are 6 months late or even another year. You’ve got everything working on your XP boxes. What’s the rush? Or are you just looking for a reason to take offence with MS?
It’s news to you that schedules aren’t met in the software industry?