Windows Vista to be delayed yet again?
By Marc Perton 
posted May 2nd 2006 4:15PM
posted May 2nd 2006 4:15PM
Given
Microsoft's recent woes -- the company seems to be under attack by everyone from Wall Street analysts to Google -- the
last thing the company needs is a rumor that Windows Vista won't be available by its recently revised January launch date. But that's
what Redmond is getting hit with today, in the form of a research note from Gartner, which predicts a delay until at
least June for the consumer version of the program. According to Gartner, the new OS is "too complex" to be
ready by January. Microsoft has responded by saying that Vista is on target to make the launch. Gartner also says that
a delay until the spring is "nowhere as bad" as the slip from fall to January, which will result in a
Vista-free holiday season. Somehow, we suspect that beleaguered PC makers hoping for a sales bump from Vista upgrades
might have a little trouble taking solace from that argument.
Windows Vista Forever!
in the way things are going, expect Windows Vista to be released by the time that Apple releases Mac OS XI version 11.5 !
Ha not surprising.
Vista (n): A distant view or prospect.
Indeed.
Wow! 0_o It just gets sicker and sicker every day... How long has Duke Nukem Forever been vapourware? Microsoft is just a fucking mess these days, isn't it?
Between them, Intel, Apple, et al, the computer industry is looking worse and worse every day...
guess this is what happens when there's a monopoly. stagnation.
#3 --> Very clever!
I wonder if they've figured out how to fix explorer.exe yet...
I've never been much of a Microsoft-basher, but this is a joke. Why are they having so much trouble with the complexity of the OS? They've already cut WinFS, which was the only legitimate reason to buy (cough) Vista. Honestly, what is wrong? I thought OS development is WHAT THEY DO.
I'm running a recent beta 2 build now and although it's clear they still have some work to do I see no reason why they can't be ready in time for January. Between the Feb CTP and now I've seen huge improvements in stability and UI. If they continue to make these large improvements in the coming months I think they'll be right on target.
I'm still waiting for them to fix Windows XP.
Though on another issue ... MS should change the name ala Nintendo (their neighbor) from Vista to Pii. (pronounced pee.)
When Microsoft originally said it would be in January, did they specify WHICH January???
How much you wanna bet the first service pack release beats the actual OS release?
You can diss microsoft all you want but in the end they own you and your mama.
I'd rather run Win ME! :)
I agree with needles that this is what happens when there's a monopoly. This is what we get when we fail to use the government for one of the few things only it can do: regulate monopolies. This is business as usual for an unhampered monopoly. They can shovel in the cash for years operating like this. As long as they are an unregulated monopoly, they don't NEED compelling new products. If they can ever produce Vista, it's just a little extra gravy. The meat and potatoes is the monopoly power.
i do ok with out them, and plan to go on so
Looks like here we are full of stupid people. I'm pretty sure these claiming fixed for XP, explorer, etc NEVER saw one of these errors, all of you are like parrots, repeating what others say.
I have a network of 300 PCs and never a single issue stopped the work. All OSs need patches, updates, etc. from Linux to your beloved crapMac, which by the way two of my xservers went down in their first month TWICE !
Hope some of you develop software someday just to have an idea what this mean, it's not only a matter of say I'll do it. Setting a time for a software project to be finish must be included in the Olympics.
I think they should release it now, charge 129$ for it, and then fix some of it by December, charge another 129$ for that version, and then release a version in the summer of 2007 that finally gets most of it right and charge another 129$ for it.
I mean ... how evil is it of Microsoft to support XP Pro for 10 years! They can't be allowed to get away with that. 18 months tops.
I think Google and EU should sue to demand support for XP Pro stops today! Its undermining business confidence in OS X and Linux when those operating systems only get 11 to 18 months of free security/bug fixes without an install of a new version!
#11 ... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Good I hope it never gets out.. STOP THE WINDOWS VIRUS!!!
wow...yet another delay...ummm...wonder how much more PR can MS milk out.
Its a good thing they dropped the year-based naming standard because I'm not sure if Windows 2006 coming out in 2007/8 would be a big hit.
We might end up seeing Duke Nukem Forever befor ewe see Vista. That'd be a kick in the nuts for MS .. and boy would the jokes fly then.
wooooohoooooo maybe stupid M$ users will realize that this is never gonna come
serioulsy
my binder for school (im 13) has a nice litte reminder that says infinty days until Vista along w/ tons of other stuff
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAA What's the matter MicroSHIT, photocopiers broken?
Close shop and go to hell and save urself the humiliation. You're Pathetic!
HASTA LA VISTA!
I mean ... how evil is it of Microsoft to support XP Pro for 10 years! They can't be allowed to get away with that. 18 months tops.
---
Support? What have they been doing... making sure everythings.. air tight.. in XP?
You can talk all you want, but the bottom line is every OS X release has been faster, and added more features and programs...
What you think Jobs would get up and talk for an hour and a half every year about "It's true.......... we finally got 3rd party printers to work! "
It's like a car.. you can snicker about how Mac users got new cupholders, but that's because our the car itself was perfected ages ago
I find a lot of ignorance in these comments. For one thing, Microsoft is not a monopoly in any shape or form. Linux and Apple provide adaquate competition, and Apple is picking up a great deal of market share.
For another, saying WinFS is the only reason to buy Vista is stupid. The networking is going to be completely redone in Vista, and the domain controller will become unnessesary. The UI has been nearly redone, and WMP is integrated.
And XP is fine... I dare you to go ahead and run 98 or ME again... I'm a computer tech. You will be laden with virii and getting popups like crazy inside a week. I rarely ran an OS for more than a month before XP, because I tinker and surf too much. XP has been running for over a year on my PC with no problem. Try that with ME.
#3, Silver: Brilliant!
#8, Jason: Apparently they are rewriting a good portion of the OS. I, for one, am all for this and happy that MS is finally taking responsibility of it's shortcomings. There will be issues, but hopefully the delayed release will be better for it. he downside for MS is that this gives Apple more time to prepare Leopard as a straightup competitor and will certainly create doubt as to MS' viability in security conscience age of computing.
#17, AcidSCAN: Both going down sounds like you did a poor job of configuration. Pointing more toward poorly written 3rd-party software. In spite of that, until Apple replaces the Mach kernel Xserve will not be a viable enterprise server over Windows or Linux/Unix.
#23: All you know from this article is that there 'could' be a delay. This doesn't necessarily mean there will be. I mean honestly, are you hyped up on pills or just plain retarded?
I'm rather sick of reading junk coughed up by people who don't know what they're talking about. Microsoft is decidedly NOT a monopoly. And the history of antitrust demonstrates conclusively that the government is, and always has been, totally incapable of administering rational, or successful, corrections to companies and markets, even when it is obvious to all that a monopoly, properly defined, exists.
It's a complicated subject. And it's WAY over your heads. Microsoft is in trouble, Windows is a mess, and we're all waiting to see what happens. But one thing is for sure - none of this has anything to do with monopolies. Those of you who think otherwise should (1) shut up, (2) go read a book on the subject, and (3) stay quiet after you realize how much you don't understand.
"I thought OS development is WHAT THEY DO."
Nope, not really. I believe the problem with Microsoft is they feel obligated to have their sticky fingers in everyone's pot. OS and office app domination isn't good enough. If it has to do with technology, they feel the must own it. ALL of it. So they go for game consoles, business services, Internet search, tablets, handhelds, online music, peripherals, database platforms, Web servers, etc. I'm still waiting for them to announce an online auction service and a major social networking service assault.
If a tech company starts getting too much press, expect Microsoft to announce a competing product/service.
It's a shotgun approach of the greatest magnitude.
Here's what Microsoft should do: pick ONE thing, figure out how to actually do it well, then move on to number two. Revolutionary, I know.
"I find a lot of ignorance in these comments. For one thing, Microsoft is not a monopoly in any shape or form."
I think your second sentence proves the first, eh?
"I'm rather sick of reading junk coughed up by people who don't know what they're talking about. Microsoft is decidedly NOT a monopoly."
Sorry Sam, but courts worldwide seem to disagree with you.
"Those of you who think otherwise should (1) shut up, (2) go read a book on the subject, and (3) stay quiet after you realize how much you don't understand."
Yes Sam, you should.
well its not surprising, since when did complexity=reliable,good product. Perhaps more people will consider Apples's OS X instead since it is an inherently more operating system based on a well tried and tested even older OS and without so much legacy stuff.
And I havn't even mentioned the V word!!!
"Complex" is definetely the understatment of the century. I'm looking forward to installing all the hotfixes Vista will need before it truly becomes a stable build.
To Silver:
Thanks for proving my point (and dramatizing its value as well)
1) "[C]ourts worldwide?" Since when did that matter? I suppose you'd be happy with justice meted out by any court in any nation I, or anyone else, might randomly pick out on a globe. Or maybe you'd prefer American courts? Come on - use your head.
2) And anyway, even assuming that you find other courts persuasive on a point, the EU (to whom you presumably refer, principally) is woefully unskilled when it comes to this sort of analysis. Hardly serves to undermine my core assertion. If they don't understand it, what chance do you, Silver, have? None at all.
3) And the American courts, which have historically gotten this sort of thing dead wrong themselves, are divided on the matter (Microsoft).
So, your absurd retort at the end notwithstanding, I suggest that we'd all be best served if people like you would acknowledge that you simply don't know. Because you don't. And it obfuscates things for you to claim otherwise.
I have a few simple things to say.
1) Microsoft didn't say it was being pushed back, some other company with no actual knowledge did. They may be right, but they would have a hard time proving it.
2) Like mentioned a few posts above, when developing software it is nearly impossible to accurately and consistently project how long a project will take to develop since every project is unique (doing the same project twice would not make any sense). When trying to forcast it, the margin of error increases exponentially as the expected number of lines of code increases. If you don't believe me, ask your friendly neigherborhood software developer.
3) Those discussing Microsoft's Monopolistic status have forgotten 1 thing: Postponing the release of Vista would be Monopolistic if it made them money. But by delaying it, they are postponing (if not reducing) the income they will receive.
4) Microsoft evil for supporting products (at no additional charge) for more than 18 months? You must be joking or crazy.
Thanks for your time!
Vista should be delayed until all of the original promises can be met. From everything that I have read about Vista it seems like it will be little more than XP Pro SP3 rather than a new OS.
I am not sure that there is that big of a need for people to "upgrade" to something that is only marginally better than XP Pro...
Being able to satisfy all of the original promises would also likely help with the stock price although I am not sure that is a concern of Microsoft...
Ugh. Young_Dev's points 1, 2, and 4 are valid. Point 3 is totally irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter whether a postponement makes money to the question of whether a monopoly exists. There is no such test in antitrust jurisprudence or economic analysis.
I will grant that I forgot that 1 thing, though. There are many totally wrong, irrelevant things that I've forgotten, or perhaps more accurately, never knew in the first place.
Stay away from antitrust commentary. I'll say yet again - you don't know what you're talking about. Keep the discussion focused on points like whether you like the colors in XP or OSX better.
Well Sam, I didn't realize when you said "Microsoft is decidedly NOT a monopoly," that you were qualifying that statement based on what one thinks the meaning of the word "is" is. Gotcha.
I'll give you this: Microsoft's attorneys agree with your position. So that's something...
I feel sorry for all the people who are dumb enough to install this POS. It is hard to imagine that Microsoft will fix all of the apparent problems by the time it is released - even if they keep pushing it back. If MS wants to make a reliable OS, they need to keep it simple instead of trying to shove all kinds of crap that people won't even use. One of the Windows admins at my work is all proud of his beta copy of Vista running on his PC... I asked him what new stuff it has and he told me "well, it has a bunch of new icons in control panel...". I rest my case.
This all reminds me of Mac Copland, the "great" OS that was talked about for ages and never came out. If only MS had some competition then they would be on top of their game but without any they just suck.
#18 "I think they should release it now, charge 129$ for it, and then fix some of it by December, charge another 129$ for that version, and then release a version in the summer of 2007 that finally gets most of it right and charge another 129$ for it."
Who leaked the OSX release schedule? Don't forget widgets. Widgets and trinkets pacify the masses.
Silver: I don't know what your comment is supposed to mean. Just because a bunch of people have it wrong doesn't mean that those who have it right are being relativist about it. The suggestion otherwise hardly amounts to a "gotcha," unless said "gotcha" is advanced in some bizarre form of self-parody. Which I assume it was.
You're closer, however, to getting out of the discourse altogther, which is a positive development. Keep wading to the shallow end, crawl out, and get in the kiddie pool. Then all will be in balance.
"I'll say yet again - you don't know what you're talking about."
Thanks for the repetition, Sam. Yet surprisingly it fails to convince.
American courts: "Microsoft is a monopoly."
EU courts: "Microsoft is a monopoly."
Korean courts: "Microsoft is a monopoly."
Sam Snead on Engadget comments board: "Microsoft is decidedly NOT a monopoly."
Hmmm, who could be right?
Your five-dollar words and pompous attitude are failing to make those of us who believe Microsoft is a monopoly look like idiots (drat!). Though we're to believe we should all just "shut up," "read a book on the subject," and let the brilliant-minded among us (you) tell us the way things are? Gotcha.
If only MS had you on their legal team, they would have saved billions in court costs and legal settlements. Bummer for them. Give Bill a ring - he could use you.
Do we really care? Delayed, fine, wake me when its all over. Productive work can be done today. I use Linux, OS X and XP, I don't see the buy-in here for Vista, what do they bring to the table thats so compelling that I cannot get elsewhere with apps on XP or another OS. Probably includes built-in DRM for your 'protection'. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
That's an impressive list, Silver. Wonder if anything other than antitrust analysis motivated those courts? Hmm?
Again, no "gotcha" there, although it's fun to envision you all bouncy-bouncy in your seat, certain you've scored a hit! Gotcha! indeed.
The truth of the matter is that it never mattered what attorneys MS had. It was never about antitrust or the law, and still isn't. I imagine this point is lost on you - not many folks care about this sort of thing anymore.
As to the Monopoly issue, dealing with monopolies presents a problem.
The first thing you have to do is prove the company harmed consumers or unfairly harmed competitors. This has been and always will be difficult, except when it is blatantly obvious (like the only gas station in town charging $5 a gallon).
The next thing that has to be done is you have to prove that the monopoly did nothing to try to remedy the damage, also very difficult. The EU told Microsoft to offer a version of XP without WMP, and they complied (although they said it was a bad idea). Microsoft was right. Since that version of XP was released, it has had a "0.005% of overall XP sales in Europe". Obviously, the consumer did not beneift from the new version, which implies that they were not harmed by the old. (That statistic came from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4941664.stm )Microsoft also offered to include competing browsers and media players with XP, but the EU said no. I cannot find the article at the moment, otherwise I would post more on it. Theoreticly that would be the perfect solution, but apparently some people didn't like it. Microsoft has also offered a great deal of technical support for developers writing software for their OS (more than Apple provides, and far more than any Linux release provides) and has also provided a portion of XP source code to people who want to develop an OS to compete with XP.
So if someone looking at a monopoly can get past the first two points, the last thing they have to do is figure out what to do about it. Again this becomes a problem, because the action that seems to satisfy all but the one being prosecuted is for the prosecuted to turn over their product to their competitors. Thats what the most recent case in the EU, brought by Novell, Oracle, IBM, and others, is demanding. This creates a problem, and anyone who has worked in the industry or at least read most of the news articles on the issue will agree. Why innovate when the competitive edge you gain will be taken away by the courts and given away to your competitors? It is because of that very problem that this case has not been brought by these same companies in the US. The only reason the case is even being looked at in the EU is a fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism: Capitalism strives for equal oppritunity for all, while Socialism strives for equal outcome for all.
I apologize I did not mean to ramble. Also, to all parties involved, please try to play nice. I will stop for now, I swear!
They've added engadgetmobile.com so when is engadgetrumors.com gunna come out? It's no longer news, it's 95% rumors. Let's weed this out already!!!
"The truth of the matter is that it never mattered what attorneys MS had. It was never about antitrust or the law, and still isn't."
Ah, I wondered when the "vast right-wing (or left-wing, pick your poison) conspiracy" card would be thrown. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
I suppose I'd rather be playing in the "kiddie pool" than drowning in the murky depths of self-delusion. The problem, Sam, is you're blinded by your own dazzling intellect. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, it's been decided in multiple courts in multiple countries, and those are the facts as we know them. You're entitled to disagree with that position, but to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is an imbecile, well, that's just obnoxious. Particularly when those who disagree with you have the courts behind us.
And as far as governments not being able to effectively deal with monopolists, you're absolutely right. However, it HAS been nice not to have to rent a telephone from the phone company for the last 20+ years.
Perhaps someday I'll be able to visit every website I'd like on the Internet without having to use IE. Hope springs eternal.