Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Windows Vista delayed

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Mike High End — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:49:11 -0000

Indeed. Its nice to have some freedom about being able to post news.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

David — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:54:59 -0000

Windows is delayed so AMD won't take more market share from Intel with AMD's 64 bit chips. Simple as that, conspiracy and collusion.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

cartman — Wed, 03 May 2006 04:37:50 -0000

Suck my balls

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Aspartame — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:47:37 -0000

Microsoft didn't deliver on functionality AND didn't deliver on time. The project will be 4 years late circa 2007. People won't focus on how many promised features where cut because of the 4 year f*ck up. I can lead this product division better than any past, present, or future executives at Microsoft.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

jean — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:11:29 -0000

OKAY vista is delayed
OKAY i will buy vista in 3000 AD
BUT not OKAY when a patch is released 2 weeks after VISTA is released. Well then the question is what were you doing for 994 years?
www.irintech.com/x1

Re: Windows Vista delayed

pxfixer — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:14:32 -0000

I think that at leased from a custumer's point of view the problem are the fact that Microsoft has an monopoly in the the operatingsystem business with its 95 %
Ewery company that has this market share will eventualy loose its custumer base when and if its starting to produce crappy over bloated software that no one realy wants and don't have the choise not to pay for when they buy a new pc Ewen the employees at the company (MS) think its crap.
In an market economy the usual thing for a company that ewedentialy produce crap would be to go out of business but because the US goverment seems to bee wery found of monopolies a'la Sovjet union this would newer happen.
What I mean is that since Microsoft dosn't have to compete it can do what ever they want and people whould still end up with its product becuse of the OEM deals with major pc vendors. Most people dosn't have a choise since they can't choose another OS at the computer store if they wanted to. And that is the main reason why so many people hate Microsoft.
With other words, there's no freedom when buing a computer. Of course you can download some Linux iso files but since its not on the computer when you buy it and you have to pay for windows anyway most people would newer ewer try linux and that is a shame because its realy good, beleaweme,i ve been using it for six years now.

What needs to be done about microsoft?
1. split microsoft in smaller parts
2. make them follow the international laws of competition
I can think of at least two or three laws they arebreaking ight now here in sweden an in the EU
3.scrap the OEM deals with HP,IBM etc.

Maybe then, they starts to produce something thats inwenting and secure for a change instead of copying others and patenting it as there own.
btw I use Xandros 3.0 and its great
www.xandros.com

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Dr. Fyzz — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:32:10 -0000

"I’d rather have a slipped date than a cruddy product."

Congratulations. Now we have both. :)

Seriously guys, just get out of the OS market altogether and stick to selling keyboards and mice. Those are the only halfway decent products Microsoft has had in years. You were relevant once, but everyone and their dog has shipped their "next gen" OSes literally *years* ahead of you.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Limeybloke — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:10:40 -0000

This must be killing you man.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Larry Leatherwood — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:37:43 -0000

Quality before Quantity is the golden rule.

I applaud Microsoft for not releasing the product. As a professional technologist I would rather see Microsoft test their products more thorough before releasing the product.

Besides that, no one is going to jump all over this 64bit OS that needs major hardware upgrades before deployment to the desktop. They made the right decision.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Jamil Ashour — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:54 -0000

Jeopardizing delivery in a cause of quality, is it justifiable?.
No, absolutely not.
In a world of furious competition, in a world where Microsoft is being chased by each software company on the planet, in a world where Linux is phenomenally growing, failure to deliver is not an option.
Why does Microsoft has to jeopardize quality in the first place?.
Why the delivery date is not being met in the first place.
I think risking Microsoft bread and butter-Windows OS- by some irresponsible highly compensated executives should have only one answer: get rid of them and get Microsoft back on track.

Jamil, a Linux lover

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Marty — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:39:51 -0000

What about photoshop?

I was thinking about articles I've seen on Cnet and else where speculating on the fallout of another Windows delay.

They are saying that 'if there's one company that stands to benefit from the delay of Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system, it's Apple Computer.'

That might be true in a consumer market segment outside Apple's traditional user base. Almost all my contact with Mac fans has been in graphic design, photography, or film. The problem is Photoshop and the other Adobe tools are not likely to be available for the new intel Mac's until second half of 2007. Forbes had an interview with Bruce Chizen Adobe's chief executive and he is quoted as saying that CS3 won't be out until second half 2007.

Adobe is also saying they do 'not plan to re-release current products as Universal applications that can run natively on both Intel and PowerPC based systems. This applies to Adobe Creative Suite 2 and Studio 8, as well as individual applications such as Photoshop CS2, InDesign CS2, Illustrator CS2, Acrobat 7.0 Professional, Dreamweaver 8, Flash Professional 8, and After Effects 7.0. Instead, we are focused on delivering the next version of these products as Universal applications that will run natively on the new Intel-based Mac computers. By incorporating the effort to support Intel-based Macs into our normal development process-inwhich we coninue to evolve our features and support for creative workflows in the ways that our creative customers expect from us-we can deliver optimal value for those customers.'

One big reason, according to an Adobe engineer who posted a comment on his blog, is there is no short cut as with the switch to OS X. Switching to OS X could be done with patches rather then recompiling the code and having to do all the testing associated with that kind of effort.

From having projects with large numbers of files that open quickly, to having compact debugging information, to having stable project formats that are text-merge-able in a source control system. These are things XCode is playing catch-up on. Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. And switching compilers always involves more work than you would think in a codebase of this size.

So where does this leave the question of market gains given that Microsoft is saying that Vista has been delayed? Probably will give them an edge in a consumer market segment thats looking for a fresh OS look and feel as well as a 'more secure' environment. Is that sustainable? On the professional creative front all is not well. Desktops aren't available till second half of this year and the G5 platform is being phazed out. The last speed bump for the G5 I'm aware of has already happened. So for the creative pro its limbo till second half 2007 unless they can tolerate Photoshop or other Adobe products runing at G4 speeds or less on the new Intel Macs.

In short I'm not so sure Apple has the edge the analysts say they do.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Dmad — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:39:55 -0000

Which category does Sidebar fall in to? Better security? Better diagnostics? Less reboots on updates? Support for new kinds of hardware? Better managabiliy?

What, exactly, will Sidebar help an average user do every day that they aren't already doing with their computer running XP? Please tell me this is not your tipping point feature add back in for Vista.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Jon — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:58:08 -0000

"A lot of the features that I thought were gonna be cut (like Sidebar) are now back in."

Seriously? The feature that made it back in is the "sidebar"?

Not WinFS. Not EFI support. Not monad shell. But wait--sidebar is back in! I better pre-order my copy of Vista ASAP then.

(I still can't tell if your comment was just a joke or if you were being serious).

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Scott Allen — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:10:07 -0000

From the individual user's perspective, I imagine most of us would much rather have the date slip and have a stable product. If I wanted to beta test products I'd sign up for the beta. Instead I grumble about Microsoft's idea that "public beta" means "gold release".

But in the enterprise, it's a whole different matter. When Windows slips, everything slips - hardware purchases, other major software purchases, internal development schedules, etc. The whole ecosystem slips. What does this do to a small software company? Microsoft may be in a financial position to weather a few months slippage, but everyone else isn't.

As a solo professional, I can wait, but I understand why others are pissed.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

scobleizer — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:24:51 -0000

Jon: really? A lot of the features that I thought were gonna be cut (like Sidebar) are now back in.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Jon — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:08:29 -0000

"I’d rather have a slipped date than a cruddy product."

The problem is, MS has been continually cutting features from Vista.

So what do we end up with in a year(?)--a cruddy product that's slipped more than one date.

But oh look shiny moving windows! And Dell is going to preload every PC no matter how much it lacks so who cares how cruddy it is right?

Re: Windows Vista delayed

scobleizer — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:53:11 -0000

George: there isn't a second beta of Windows Vista yet, so when you say you are using it you are lying. Why should we believe anything else you are saying in your post here?

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Christopher Coulter — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:15:26 -0000

Reading the Press Release...

"But the industry", "optimize for the industry", "Because of the way businesses test and deploy software"...

Gotta love Microsoft, their own delay, becomes the fault of industry deployment practices. "Shame on you all, you customers you, you don't deploy our stuff right. Yes, you."

Amazing the arrogance it takes to kick out PR like that.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Christopher Coulter — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:46:26 -0000

And now Office, is playing follow the leader, with its own delay. And yet another Microsoft reorg...but all the Office and Windows comparisons going on now are so much as meaningless, it's a differing beast altogether.

With Kevin Johnson going on and on about 'Ozzie'ism services', the "online advertising industry" and buzzword heavy "align[ing] our organization" and other quasi-post-Microsoft talk. The "optimize for the industry" cop-out in the Press Release was CLASSIC. Ohmigosh. So it's the INDUSTRY'S FAULT then? Hahahha. Comically sad, glad I got them outta my portfolio.

But being that Apple is too iron-fisted as to let HP, Sony or Dell in, and being that Linux is thousands of miles away from being mainstream desktopped, just grin, bear and wait, and suffer through all the beach-ball-bouncy happy-happy Evangelists, MVPs and Bloggers, eternally telling us the 'Emperor's New Clothes' are of the finest silk ever made (right before some new announcement of a dropped feature-set).

Re: Windows Vista delayed

TimTheFoolMan — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:20:16 -0000

BTW, the quotes were from the same post. Clearly, 7on7 isn't one of the "brainwashed hipsters" that Apple has created.

:-D

Tim

Re: Windows Vista delayed

TimTheFoolMan — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:17:30 -0000

Is it just me, or does it seem ironic to read:

"The only way to make money off of Apple is to try to appeal to the herd of brainwashed hipsters that Apple has created."

followed by:

"People who don’t already illogically hate Microsoft..."

Tim

(Written on a Dell Inspiron 1150, at lunch from my work managing delivery of an XP-Pro/Win2k3-Server product.)

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Dave — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:54:12 -0000

It appears that Vista may be undergoing a new round of featureset changes to go along with the management shakeup. Ouch. Talk about a morale killer.

Re: Windows Vista delayed

George — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:06:13 -0000

I've used the second beta of VISTA and it's GOD AWFUL. The one thing in Windows that I use the most - the file browsers - are so frigged-up and horrible that I'm going to end up being a Windows XP hold-out until I either lower myself to Vista or Son Of Vista or switch to Linux. I cannot use an operating system that offers me a cutesy, dumbed-down, mega-bloated file browser. Hec, I'd even consider Mac OS X on Intel if Apple ever grew a brain and decided to relent to the millions of people dreaming about using their OS without having to pay a fortune for their hardware.

Case in point: the new Vista file browser highlights the entire row when you select a file in details view, yet, I can still click anywhere in the highlighted area (not on the file name itself) to begin drawing a box to select more files. This is so frigged-up that it will confuse people even more: "why won't the file drag? I'm dragging on the blue highlighted area?! What gives?"

Another case in point: most Windows do not have a visibly-discernible control-menu-box (you know, the one in the top left corner). If you click there, you still get the control-menu, but you just can't see that one is there, unless you know to look there. This is also extremely dumb, Microsoft!

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Dave — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:49:51 -0000

D - here's my thoughts on your questions. Very good ones too!

(1) Vista has taken unexpectedly long. I think all people, inside and outside MS, will agree on that.

I believe the product was NEVER announced to be released in 2003. As for the 2004 version, after the (alpha) bits they released at the PDC in October 2003, they reversed course on their "three pillars" afterwards to the point of pretty much going back to the drawing board on the featureset.

They really didn't make this public until 2005, when they also made it clear that they would drop whatever features they had to in order to definitely make a 2006 release.

Which brings us up to this week. What happened? I'm betting very few know. My guess is that the management shakeup is a good indication of the state of things.

(2) Being a Mac guy myself, I'll take your questions as sincere and not just religious posturing. If one reads them (your words) objectively, they'll see how accurate you describe - and answer - your own question.

Microsoft simply cannot dump their existing customer base. They do not have that luxury. Their market would not tolerate it.

And opposite of that is Apple. We're barely a year beyond Tiger and I believe nearly 40% of Macs out there run on it. Five years after OS X and nearly 95% run it. Five years after XP? Penetration is nothing like that.

Different companies, different markets... and different strategies. But yet - both are successful in their own ways!

Re: Windows Vista delayed

Alejandro — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:30:44 -0000

as always: late