Microsoft may delay Windows Vista (again), firm says

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 89
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chris v

    I don't think Adobe would tether themselves to that junk barge.



    what I wonder-- Does microsoft maybe have an alternate plan going? It seems to me that if they had a brain cell between them, that when this beast started to flounder 2 or 3 years ago, they'd have nabbed a Linux distro & started a super-secret "Windows-on-Linux" program not unlike OS X. Seems like if they were to borrow a SMART page from Apple's playbook instead of just cribbing look & feel stuff, they would have at leat considered this. But maybe I'm giving them too much credit.




    Talk about the ulitimate 180. That would be killer.
  • Reply 42 of 89
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by coryp420

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1923151,00.asp (Bullshyt Alert)



    He's gonna be so disappointed when 10.5 comes out
  • Reply 43 of 89
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member
    Microsoft has become arrogant and over-confident. Good old Balmer thinks that there is no heat whatsoever from any possible competition. They have gotten too settled into their 95% marketshare so the programmers are taking their sweet time (5+ years and running since XP). Microsofts overconfidence has caused Microsoft to let its guard down and thats when a company usually gets slowly eaten by competitors. This is what IS beginning to happen, and will be Microsoft's eventual undoing. If they dont straighten up soon, their marketshare is going to start slipping. Look at Intel, they portrayed the same arrogance about competition from AMD and lookwhat happened... AMD jumped on the 64 bit bandwagon leaving Intel far behind in processor technology and Intels marketshare got a big chunk taken out of it by AMD. Eventually however this got Intel's attention and now Intel is aggresively pursuing 64 bit and dual-core technologies. Microsoft Windows Vista is already going to be a major resource hog, requiring a powerful computer that most people dont have right now. Now yet another delay has befallen Vista. Apple has released four new OS's to Microsoft's one (windows XP). They are now going to have out Mac OS Leopard months before Consumer Vista, and all of these OS's have had features and eye candy that Vista is trying to incorporate but with much more taxing computer requirements... Why?????? Linux has plenty of eye candy using KDE and Gnome with security that far surpasses XP, and yet runs on hardware as old as a 486 and Pentium 1. Why?????? Why is it that Microsofts OS's are always unnecessarily taxing to current generation PCs. Vista is by far going to be the biggest jump in system requirements ever seen by Windows when it doesnt even need to be! I think it all goes back to my point. Microsoft has become overconfident and sloppy. They have become this way because they think they cant be hurt by competition. No company is "untouchable" and that includes Microsoft.
  • Reply 44 of 89
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ericblr

    Microsoft has become arrogant and over-confident. Good old Balmer thinks that there is no heat whatsoever from any possible competition. They have gotten too settled into their 95% marketshare so the programmers are taking their sweet time (5+ years and running since XP). Microsofts overconfidence has caused Microsoft to let its guard down and thats when a company usually gets slowly eaten by competitors. This is what IS beginning to happen, and will be Microsoft's eventual undoing. If they dont straighten up soon, their marketshare is going to start slipping.



    People predicted the same when Windows 2000 was released. Windows 2000, however, ended up becoming one of the most successful versions, followed rather quickly by XP.



    Yes, there have been huge delays and screw-ups with Vista, but try not to make any predictions on the impact of that. For all we know, people will continue to upgrade regardless.



    Quote:

    Linux has plenty of eye candy using KDE and Gnome with security that far surpasses XP, and yet runs on hardware as old as a 486 and Pentium 1.



    Hyperbolic and simply untrue.
  • Reply 45 of 89
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    For all we know, people will continue to upgrade regardless.



    People will upgrade. Mom's and Pop's will go online to Dell when they need a new computer and whatever they get will have Vista on it. That's how the majority of non-techie people will upgrade.
  • Reply 46 of 89
    mr. dirkmr. dirk Posts: 187member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    People predicted the same when Windows 2000 was released. Windows 2000, however, ended up becoming one of the most successful versions, followed rather quickly by XP.



    Yes, there have been huge delays and screw-ups with Vista, but try not to make any predictions on the impact of that. For all we know, people will continue to upgrade regardless.




    I imagine the continued delay won't have too much of an impact on Microsoft. It's not good, of course, but they'll still make their mega-$$$ like always.



    The impact it could have would be to bring some new users to OS X--particularly if Apple plays its cards right and brings Leopard to market at a strategic time. So far, Apple's said "Late 2006/Early 2007." So what if Apple released 10.5 in time for Christmas (which was when MSFT was planning to release Vista, until it got pushed back again)? I suppose the risk you run there is Microsoft delaying until June or what have you to include some of Leopard's features (though I strongly doubt that would be a problem). If they did release it in time for Christmas, it might just generate enough rush to take a nice chunk of marketshare...
  • Reply 47 of 89
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member
    The point of my post was that Microsoft is getting sloppy and overconfident and Vista is evidence of that. Many people (including Microsoft itself) seem to think that Microsoft's marketshare can't be eroded. That is simply untrue and has never been true for any company. That was my point.



    Vista is going to be the largest increase in computer requirements.



    for instance both Windows 95 and 98 ran optimally on as low as a 486 DX2 66mhz with 32MB of ram. Windows 2000 only increased requirements by one generation in processor technology and still ran fairly well even on its minimum requirements of a Pentium 133 mhz and 64 MB of RAM. Windows XP only upped the ante slightly by 66mhz and double the memory made it run fairly decent. A 300 mhz processor or more made XP run like a champ. These increases are nothing compared to what Vista is going to require! The requirements for Vista are already clocking in at a Minimum of 512 MB of RAM, and a mid-range graphics card. The minimum processor required is most likely going to be in the 2+ Gigahertz range, So now we've gone from 300 mhz ideal for XP to at least 6 TIMES that for Vista. Also can you imagine what gaming is going to be like on Vista, you have to take into account the 512 of RAM and the processor requirements that the OS needs just for itself on top of the other 256 to 512+ of RAM and the MHZ that the games are going to require. I think most gamers are going to be scared away from Vista and stick with XP, as will most other consumers. In a way this might actually hurt Microsoft somewhat.



    I am willing to guess that I will still be able to run Mac OS Leopard like a champ on my powerbook, while Vista will make most peoples PCs obsolete if they wanted to run it.



    As far as linux goes, maybe I exagerated a little on the KDE eye-candy however it still requires much less system requirements than windows (especially vista). Linux can also be scaled down to run on a 486, and still run a modern linux kernel.



    Oh and if you think Dell and Gateway and the like are going to be able to cram Vista on those $300 computers you are sadly mistaken. They will most likely still be pre-loaded with XP. This is the really sad part.



    I am tired of Microsoft's crap and I myself am going to be replacing my current desktop PC computer with an Intel iMAC.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    People predicted the same when Windows 2000 was released. Windows 2000, however, ended up becoming one of the most successful versions, followed rather quickly by XP.



    Yes, there have been huge delays and screw-ups with Vista, but try not to make any predictions on the impact of that. For all we know, people will continue to upgrade regardless.







    Hyperbolic and simply untrue.




  • Reply 48 of 89
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    These computer web forums have an uncanny way of spiraling things out of perspective.



    To a great degree the concept of an operating system that can do everything well is flawed and impossible.



    Neither Windows nor OS X are capable or will ever be capable of doing every possible or conceivable task perfectly.



    Both have bugs and both will always have bugs especially as they grow larger and more feature rich.



    Quote:

    The question is why does it take Microsoft 2 years to beta test their fricking OS?



    I have a feeling Microsoft's strategy is more like "Oh, Vista isn't ready yet? Hire an extra 50 programmers." 2 months later.



    Vista is a huge project. Vista will need to work with hundreds of millions of computers. Hundreds of thousands of different hardware combinations. And hundreds of thousands of different software applications. All of this while continuing to support its flawed legacy code.



    Of course many of these problems would go away if MS were able to scrap all of its legacy code and start fresh with a new operating system. But for various reasons MS feels that is least beneficial to its customer base.



    You guys are jeering MS for its slips. A great deal of this is because of MS hubris and arrogance. But they are smart enough to know the OS is not yet ready. They know it would be really bad if they shipped an extremely flawed OS.



    We should be focused just as much on the fact of what Vista will be when it does ship.



    Quote:

    I don't know if you noticed, but both 10.3 and 10.4 shipped with significant bugs upon launch.



    And 10.5 will likely have significant bugs of some sort when its ships.



    I cannot find the article now, but it spoke about how an OS can sit in testing in perpetuity and bugs will always be found, in another sense some bugs won't be as obvious until the OS has its general release.



    There comes the point as you fix one bug you break something else. So the company has to decide which bugs will effect the most people and which are likely to effect the least amount of people.



    Basically the article said at some point you have to stop testing and get it out there for people to use. That is the point a wealth of knowledge is discovered that cannot be seen in the lab.



    Quote:

    This is one thing Steve Jobs doesn't get enough credit for. Not only does he have great ideas, he is also a superb manager who hires the right people and gets things done.



    A lot of this too is a difference in business philosophy and circumstance. MS has not gotten to where it is by being bad managers who hired the wrong people.



    Apple is a vertically integrated company. The good part is that Apple is able to control its own hardware and OS, the bad part is that its OS has a much smaller marketshare.



    MS sells its OS to whomever wants it which has given it a monopolizing marketshare. The bad part is that it has to support millions of different computers and its own flawed legacy code.
  • Reply 49 of 89
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    Oh and if you think Dell and Gateway and the like are going to be able to cram Vista on those $300 computers you are sadly mistaken. They will most likely still be pre-loaded with XP. This is the really sad part.



    This isn't as much a problem as you are making it seem. These issues are being dealt with.



    There will be a lite version of Vista without the eye candy.



    OEM's are building their low cost computers with the ability of easy Vista upgradability.



    Computers that are Vista ready will have prominent stickers.
  • Reply 50 of 89
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ericblr

    Oh and if you think Dell and Gateway and the like are going to be able to cram Vista on those $300 computers you are sadly mistaken. They will most likely still be pre-loaded with XP. This is the really sad part.



    They'll come with Vista Home Basic, which lacks a lot of Vista's features.
  • Reply 51 of 89
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    They'll come with Vista Home Basic, which lacks a lot of Vista's features.



    Can you imagine if the Mac Mini only shipped with OS X Home, with no multiple-user support or networking & file-sharing capabilities? MS's concept of what-- 5 levels of Vista has got to be causing headaches, too.
  • Reply 52 of 89
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chris v

    Can you imagine if the Mac Mini only shipped with OS X Home, with no multiple-user support or networking & file-sharing capabilities?



    That would be Vista Starter Edition.



    XP Home Basic is still fairly limited, but it sure has networking, multiple users and file sharing.



    Quote:

    MS's concept of what-- 5 levels of Vista has got to be causing headaches, too.



    Yes, but that's a whole other topic.
  • Reply 53 of 89
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    That would be Vista Starter Edition.



    XP Home Basic is still fairly limited, but it sure has networking, multiple users and file sharing.







    Yes, but that's a whole other topic.




    Now Microsoft is going to be selling a crippled version of Vista that will go on the $300 computers, and now you wont be able to buy those to at least get on the net. Thats the kind of lame garbage that I am talking about. At least when those starter PCs come preloaded with XP they are Net capable.



    What people fail to realise is that 90% of that 95% desktop marketshare comes from vendors preloading PCs with Windows? Most end users may not know what in the heck an Operating System is but they are going to start wondering why they are stuck with dialup when they're previous computer for 300 bucks was broadband ready. Then guess whos going to catch heat... Dell will. not Microsoft, because PC vendors do most of the Operating System buying... Not end users. (although some end users do know enough to buy their own OS).
  • Reply 54 of 89
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chris v



    what I wonder-- Does microsoft maybe have an alternate plan going? It seems to me that if they had a brain cell between them, that when this beast started to flounder 2 or 3 years ago, they'd have nabbed a Linux distro & started a super-secret "Windows-on-Linux" program not unlike OS X. Seems like if they were to borrow a SMART page from Apple's playbook instead of just cribbing look & feel stuff, they would have at leat considered this. But maybe I'm giving them too much credit.




    Lol. Are you high? There are a lot of MS bashers here and you seem to be one of them. Get this straight... their kernel is very good, if not excellent. Even with the change to BSD, the OS X kernel is no where near where it should be. Performance sucks when pitted against Linux or Windows. Apple wins out on ease of use and the Just Works(TM). Windows needs heavy reworking on security but the kernel is fantastic. If you don't believe me, check out any benchmarks with Windows vs Linux and you'll see that Server 2003 keeps up quite well. Goto Anandtech's page on OS X vs Linux and you'll see just how bad the OS X kernel is when faced with heavy loads. I'm not trolling, im a mac user and i'm not too happy with this either. Unfortunately, thats just the way it is. I hope they fix this with 10.5. Hasn't it ever struck you as strange that OS X gets faster with every release?



    Apple needed a change and fast thats why they took on BSD. Microsoft have problems, but if they can get their act together with some nifty managerial changes they should be back. It's already starting with the head of the Office division (known for consistent updates and meeting deadlines) taking over the Windows division once Allchin leaves.



    Apple was royally screwed with OS 9 when compared to far more modern and reliable systems like Windows 2000 Pro and Linux. Microsoft is no where near that for you to even think they'd want to switch to an alternative OS subsystem/kernel!
  • Reply 55 of 89
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ericblr

    Now Microsoft is going to be selling a crippled version of Vista that will go on the $300 computers, and now you wont be able to buy those to at least get on the net.



    Yes you will.
  • Reply 56 of 89
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by de_necromancer

    Lol. Are you high? There are a lot of MS bashers here and you seem to be one of them. Get this straight... their kernel is very good, if not excellent. Even with the change to BSD, the OS X kernel is no where near where it should be. Performance sucks when pitted against Linux or Windows. Apple wins out on ease of use and the Just Works(TM). Windows needs heavy reworking on security but the kernel is fantastic. If you don't believe me, check out any benchmarks with Windows vs Linux and you'll see that Server 2003 keeps up quite well. Goto Anandtech's page on OS X vs Linux and you'll see just how bad the OS X kernel is when faced with heavy loads. I'm not trolling, im a mac user and i'm not too happy with this either. Unfortunately, thats just the way it is. I hope they fix this with 10.5. Hasn't it ever struck you as strange that OS X gets faster with every release?



    Apple needed a change and fast thats why they took on BSD. Microsoft have problems, but if they can get their act together with some nifty managerial changes they should be back. It's already starting with the head of the Office division (known for consistent updates and meeting deadlines) taking over the Windows division once Allchin leaves.



    Apple was royally screwed with OS 9 when compared to far more modern and reliable systems like Windows 2000 Pro and Linux. Microsoft is no where near that for you to even think they'd want to switch to an alternative OS subsystem/kernel!




    I wasn't suggesting that MSFT steal Apple's kernel, but rather just wondering if there might be a secret parallel ground-up re-write of Windows over top of Linux as a backup strategy, since Vista seems to be bogged down with legacy code. Apple (regardless of the underlying kernel -- monolithic, microkernel, whatever-- I barely know what all that means) realized the old Apple OS needed to be chucked, and they started from almost-scratch with OS X in that they built a GUI on top of a stable, mature CLI-based UNIX distro. Might the same idea have occurred to anyone at MSFT, just for the sake of a clean start as a back-up option? It's good to have a plan, but it's good to have a backup plan, too. Sure, my thought might be far-fetched, but I wonder what MSFT's backup plan is.
  • Reply 57 of 89
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chris v

    I wasn't suggesting that MSFT steal Apple's kernel, but rather just wondering if there might be a secret parallel ground-up re-write of Windows over top of Linux as a backup strategy, since Vista seems to be bogged down with legacy code.



    Writing Windows (or almost any OS, for that matter) on top of Linux would be a huge licensing mess. I'm also not sure what gives you the idea that there is anything particularly wrong about the NT kernel or something that using Linux in lieu of NT would miraculously fix.



    Quote:

    Might the same idea have occurred to anyone at MSFT, just for the sake of a clean start as a back-up option?



    NT is perfectly fine and quite competitive with XNU / Darwin. The real mess is on a much higher layer. The mess is with conflicting APIs of Win32 and WinFX, with conflicting UI designs of middleware applications like Windows Explorer and Windows Mail, with conflicting mantras about giving users freedom vs. restricting content as per the industry, etc.



    Quote:

    Sure, my thought might be far-fetched, but I wonder what MSFT's backup plan is.



    Assuming they do have one, I doubt it involves using third-party components. They have a heck of a lot of engineers that could easily be working on a side project like this.
  • Reply 58 of 89
    lhvidelhvide Posts: 68member
    finally convinced my father to switch last week. after a lifetime with pc's he went out and got the MBP15 - so proud of him.
  • Reply 59 of 89
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member
    Could you please point me to this "Anandtech page on Mac OS X vs Linux"? I seem to be having trouble searching for it on Anandtech's website.



    Oh and thank you for your joke about the Windows kernel, man I spit out the milk I was drinking I laughed so hard.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by de_necromancer

    Lol. Are you high? There are a lot of MS bashers here and you seem to be one of them. Get this straight... their kernel is very good, if not excellent. Even with the change to BSD, the OS X kernel is no where near where it should be. Performance sucks when pitted against Linux or Windows. Apple wins out on ease of use and the Just Works(TM). Windows needs heavy reworking on security but the kernel is fantastic. If you don't believe me, check out any benchmarks with Windows vs Linux and you'll see that Server 2003 keeps up quite well. Goto Anandtech's page on OS X vs Linux and you'll see just how bad the OS X kernel is when faced with heavy loads. I'm not trolling, im a mac user and i'm not too happy with this either. Unfortunately, thats just the way it is. I hope they fix this with 10.5. Hasn't it ever struck you as strange that OS X gets faster with every release?



    Apple needed a change and fast thats why they took on BSD. Microsoft have problems, but if they can get their act together with some nifty managerial changes they should be back. It's already starting with the head of the Office division (known for consistent updates and meeting deadlines) taking over the Windows division once Allchin leaves.



    Apple was royally screwed with OS 9 when compared to far more modern and reliable systems like Windows 2000 Pro and Linux. Microsoft is no where near that for you to even think they'd want to switch to an alternative OS subsystem/kernel!




  • Reply 60 of 89
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,824member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ericblr

    Oh and thank you for your joke about the Windows kernel, man I spit out the milk I was drinking I laughed so hard.



    It wasn't a joke. The Windows kernel really is good. The problems with Windows are in higher-up layers.
Sign In or Register to comment.