Is Vista so bad?

January 24, 2008 at 9:40 am | Posted in technology | 5 Comments

Rumor has it that the new version of Windows will be released sooner than expected.

Here’s the article.

5 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Don’t believe it. Microsoft always announces insanely-stupid dates for new products.

    Microsoft began work on Vista (codenamed “Longhorn”) in May 2001. It was originally scheduled for a 2003 release, as a quick update to Windows XP, meant as a transition to a future major release. In 2004, Longhorn’s original design got scrapped, starting over from the Windows Server 2003 code-base, with many of the gee-whiz features removed. They named it Vista in 2005. In March 2006, they announced it for the Christmas 2006 release. It finally shipped in January 2007.

    In other words, it shipped four years after the date they originally planned, and with its most interesting features removed.

    There are similar stories for all previous Windows releases. Going all the way back to NT version 3.1, Windows releases have ended up shipping at least two years from the first-announced date.

    If Microsoft is publishing roadmaps with a 2009 release date, that tells me it won’t possibly ship before 2011. Note that Windows 7 was originally codenamed “Blackcomb” – a project that was originally scheduled for 2005. So even if the 2009 date is real, it’s still four years late, and with key features from the original design (like WinFS) still absent.

    And this still isn’t a product-release announcement. It’s just a publication of an internal roadmap.

    When it comes to Microsoft, you should always be extremely skeptical. They have a multi-decade history of pre-announcing products years before shipment, and with features that never actually ship. They do this deliberately, so IT managers will wait for the promises and not switch to competing products.

    Comment by David Charlap— January 24, 2008 #

    Reply

  3. But to answer your question, Derek, it does seem that consumers aren’t embracing it as much as “usual” (which isn’t too good to begin with). I don’t have it personally, but I have been spooked into waiting a bit longer before buying a new computer until I can learn more. Sounds like it takes up a lot of memory (Hard drive and RAM), and most of its features are of questionable value. But until I try it, I won’t know for sure, but I don’t want to try it until, well you get the idea.

    Comment by SCD— January 29, 2008 #

    Reply

  4. That seems to be the consensus. Yeesh.

    Comment by dereksh— January 29, 2008 #

    Reply

  5. I, for one, will never install Vista on any computer I own. I can’t stop my employer from making me use it at work, but I’m keeping it clear of my own computers. If Windows software starts coming out that won’t work without Vista, then I’ll simply stop using Windows altogether. I’m already a Mac-and-PlayStation guy for most of what I use computers for, but there are still a few things I find work better on Windows.

    As for why I have this extreme opinion? http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html says it best. Vista has “features” that require massive hardware upgrades for no good reason (other than to satisfy a few movie-studio executives that only care about themselves.) The article describes a horrible suite of draconian rules, requirements, and penalties. And this is how it is supposed to work. In the past, you could attribute Windows’ problems on bugs, but now, your system may end up crippled to death, by design.

    Comment by David Charlap— January 30, 2008 #

    Reply

Leave a reply to David Charlap Cancel reply

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.