| 2:23 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
MSFT is lucky they have a de facto monopoly in the OS space or they would be out of business by now. Delays and ineptitude like this are typically open doors that more focused and ambitious competitors come flooding through.
| 2:30 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wow, if it's taking them this long I'll bet the product will be REALLY great! Right? Erm, right?
And it'll probably have all the bugs worked out on release . . . right?
| 2:34 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
as a recovering ms critic, I will wait. If MS doesn't think it is ready - then it isn't.
They have a very high standard to live up to in XP. I - and many others - feel XP is the best product ms has ever put out. I would rather wait, and have them "get it right" than rush it and get it wrong. What we have right now is working good.
| 5:05 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have them "get it right"? Are we talking about Microsoft? Come on Google, bring out your OS.
| 6:54 pm on May 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Come on Google, bring out your OS."
A Google OS might not work. It will just fragment a lot more the Linux market share. Perhaps a partnership with Red Hat could be the answer.
But then "The Sound And The Fury" ( see [byte.com...] ) of the anti-Microsoft crowd will not let such a partnership happen.
The lack of competition thanks in part to "The Sound And The Fury" permits Microsoft decide the best time to release Vista.
| 2:17 am on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is GREAT news. Now let's wait for the announcement that Vista is delayed until 2008
| 5:58 am on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Makes you wonder what is going on at the MS-Plex. Are any American companies going to please stockholders? I mean come on MS you can do better than this! Hire more people or something - it should not take this long. :(
| 2:48 pm on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Every time I hear Vista is delayed I keep thinking "bad move". I mean, what is the life cycle of a PC nowadays? two years, maybe three? it used to be the case that every time you bought a new pc you got a brand new OS. win95, win98m ME and XP. Now there has been a huge gap. When people go shopping for a new system will they not be disappointed to see the exact same OS installed.
My guess is this puts the Mac mini in a very nice position.
| 7:13 pm on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think people who are determining to switch to a mac os will do so no matter what happens. After being with one OS from Microsoft for 2 or 3 years, if you aren't happy, you wouldn't want to buy a new computer loaded with a new OS created by the same company.
Like other people said, its better to try and make the OS as smooth as possible as opposed to creating tons of service packs/patches that could've easily been resolved. Creating patches and upgrading systems is a hassle for both Microsoft and their consumers.
| 1:09 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I heard Vista is delayed because the code is just so complex, consisting of millions of lines of code. Hmmm.
I'd also say regarding Brett's comment about XP being the best thing MS ever did that, well if that's the best, and we all know how insecure it's been, with regular patches, then I'd hate to see the worst.
Seriously, I love XP myself, but it came in for criticism by leading expert Steve Gibson when it came out, for leaving so many internet ports open. I don't know if that's true or not, but I have also heard that they've had to close many ports down over time due to hackers exploiting them.
MS really need to concentrate on security in Vista. There can't afford to be any parts of the code which can lead to security attacks (through things like buffer overruns in JPEG files etc).
I think the direction they are heading is the right one, but I won't be surprised when Vista emerges, only to be hacked repeatedly for the first six months or more, as numerous 'bugs' are ironed out. This opinion is due to a) their track record, and b) the complexity of the code.
Perhaps we've reached a stage where a modern OS is too complex to be ever guaranteed safe? And yet Apple seem to manage it. I have even heard that Mac users don't bother with anti-virus software!
| 9:26 am on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't use Windows myself, but I support lots of it, and I agree with Brett about XP being far better than anything that went before it. Not sure I can see a compelling case for Vista, though, and very few of my users upgrade their OSes except when they upgrade their hardware.
(Myself, I've been running Linux since 1993 - kernel 0.99pl14 - and I'm looking forward to retiring and never having to deal with Windows again.)