| 6:49 pm on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How many "I told you so's" will we be able to fit in one thread?
Anyone could see this coming, but would you say Microsoft is actually paying attention to their product before release?
| 8:03 pm on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"but would you say Microsoft is actually paying attention to their product before release?"
Haha, very funny.
If Microsoft were truly designing the product with security in mind in the first place, they wouldn't now be in the position of having to significantly delay release whilst they bodged the code about in a vain attempt to secure it.
| 8:53 pm on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
maybe they are starting to think about they status of the products more. I think a delay might be a step in the right directory onf the big M.
| 9:51 pm on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It had originally aimed to launch Vista - the first major update since Windows XP was introduced five years ago - in the second half of 2006. |
Actually, when XP was released, the next version of windows was scheduled for 2004/2005.
It's just that much longer for FireFox to gain market share, because (for the most part) people aren't going to get IE7 until the next version of Windows comes out.
And it gives Mac and some of the more user friendly versions of *Nix a chance to get a bit more of a foothold.
2 years ago, I was running 3 Windows machines and a Mac. Now it's 1 Windows, 2 *nix, and a Mac.
In the past year, I've converted a half dozen "Joe Average" users to *Nix. Not one of them ever wants to go back to Windows. And now I get calls from their friends who want to give *Nix a try as well. (Most of which I advise to stay with Windows - I'm very careful about asking a person how they use their machine before switiching them over to Linux.)
I've also seen some pretty die-hard MSofties move over to Mac, because they want a more up-to-date Operating System.
Every month Microsoft delays, every one of their competitors gets stronger.
Will I get Vista? Probably. There are things that a Windows machine is simply better suited for than the other OSes. But I will most likely never go back to having more than one Windows Machine in the house. I've become too dependant on Linux.
I wonder how many other people could say the same thing? I wish I had some good numbers (not the fuzzy statistics that you usually see bandied about).
| 1:04 am on Mar 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It seems like there are too many internal forces pulling Vista this way and that - how many versions are they going to release? 6? I just don't get that, its got to be bad enough trying to get *one* version out the door.
This only makes Apple look better. They underpromised and overdelivered with the release of their new Intel based laptops. That's the way to do it.
| 2:58 am on Mar 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I could never figure out this pattern...
Windows 95 / NT (consumer/business)
Windows 98 - Three years for an upgraded consumer product.
Windows 2000 Pro - Five years for an upgraded business product
Windows Millenium - Two years for an upgraded consumer product
Windows XP / Pro (2001) - One year for a consumer and business upgrade.
I have to admit I really love Windows 2000 Pro - even better than XP Pro (too many bells and whistles).
I hope when Vista finally launches, it's a significant upgrade from XP / 2000. Bill would love to bridge the PC / Entertainment gap with this next product - maybe he wants to do it right.
Not to hijack this thread, but every time I look at the media center PC I have to wonder why no one (Dell HP / Gateway) is really jumping on this bandwagon. Are they waiting for Vista?
| 4:26 am on Mar 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well Microsoft was going around registering windows07 in some ccTLDs a while ago so I guess that the launch date and the name of the OS was far from clear back then. But Microsoft has always been more a marketing company than a pure software company.
| 5:44 am on Mar 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|There are things that a Windows machine is simply better suited for than the other OSes |
Could you explain what Windows is better suited for? I am curious. Thanks...
| 7:52 am on Mar 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Could you explain what Windows is better suited for? I am curious. Thanks... |
Sorry, I kinda mis-spoke.
The OS itself isn't particularly better suited to anything. The vast mass of software available for it makes it a convenient environment to work in.
As for the Media Center PCs:
I've played around a bit on a couple, and they are pretty nice. Even if they are DRMed up the wazoo. HP is trying to push their Media Center PCs, but the hardware that goes into them (higher end GFX and Sound Cards, etc), make them significantly more expensive than an average PC.
And when you can take a standard XP machine, add in some open source and/or freeware to accomplish everything a media center PC does, why go to all that extra expense, as a consumer? The main market for these things is power users, who can build their own machines and hack in all the extras for a lot less money.