Windows Vista delayed again ... maybe

We have to admit to occasionally sharing in some of the schadenfreude that surfaces on the internets every time Microsoft announces yet another Windows Vista delay. However, this time we're willing to cut them a little slack. While headlines have been screaming about a new delay all day today, most of them seem to be based on some fairly ambiguous comments by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Speaking with NEC execs in Japan, Ballmer commented that "We think we are on track for shipping early in [2007]. We've talked about the month, but we get a chance to critically assess all of the feedback we'll get from this beta release then confirm or move [the launch date] a few weeks." Ballmer also commented that he was looking forward to feedback from "hardware partners" about "when would they really like it." Now, a cynical take on Ballmer's comments would be that he's using the recently announced second beta of Vista, along with possible requests from hardware vendors, as an excuse to set the stage for a forthcoming announcement that Vista will indeed be delayed beyond January 2007. However, we'll look at the glass as half-full this time: Ballmer is truly interested in hearing from the beta testers and computer manufacturers, and really wants to factor their findings and needs into Vista's launch date. Besides, the thing is so late already; what's a few more weeks between friends, right?

[Striggity @ May 24th 2006 3:28PM]

lol I don't even know why people are so excited about Vista anyway. The average computer user isn't gonna have a PC powerful enough to run it.

[Sean @ May 24th 2006 3:35PM]

The question should be why is Baller just now getting around to asking the testers and OEMs these questions. Vista should be only a few months away from going gold, but considering the feedback Baller wants it seems like the new Windows has run into some trouble.

[bob @ May 24th 2006 3:48PM]

" "We think we are on track for shipping early in [2007]" - i like the 'insert year here style lmao, makes it easier for future delays.

[Osarkon @ May 24th 2006 3:55PM]

#1, Windows have released minimum spec for Vista now, and it isn't really that bad, the only problem that people are going to have is with graphics on the most part, everything else is pretty much on par for the average user. My desktop which is about 4 years old meets the minimum spec on everything but the graphics. 800Mhz minimum spec processor; most computers can meet that. the RAM is cheap to upgrade, graphics not so much, but that's only if you want the Aero interface.

[Justin @ May 24th 2006 4:02PM]

I'm not a fan of Microsoft or of Ballmer, but it seems to me that he's doing the kind of date hedging you see all over the software development industry. He doesn't want to get pinned down on a specific delivery schedule.

That said, I certainly expect that major hardware and software partners have been looking at Vista for a while now.

[cracka @ May 24th 2006 4:02PM]

gee, and people wonder why some view engadget as pro-MS and anti-Apple???

[anon @ May 24th 2006 4:04PM]

I'm looking forward to Vista. Nothing like a little OSX 10.1 nostalgia.

[Striggity @ May 24th 2006 4:17PM]

#4..hmm, that's cool

I just remember loading a (pirated) version of the Vista beta 1 on my PC and it running slow as molasses. lol. I'll chalk that up to a bad copy and hope for the best!

[SRD @ May 24th 2006 4:49PM]

Vista has been tested to run on even intel graphics with aero enabled and it runs fine. It doesnt need crazy specs what so ever. They always say that ever OS release.

[Echid @ May 24th 2006 4:56PM]

@6 What! Engadget has given MS a hard time on the their pushed back release date and it has decided to give them a break, besides, it seems like the headlines are wrong given what ACTUALLY happened.

[Justin @ May 24th 2006 5:09PM]

so basically apple will have torn through three OS updates, each different than the last and microsoft will still have Vista in Beta.

i'm by no means anti-microsoft. i admire Bill Gates and i think Microsoft has done wonders for computers so i'm anxious to see what vista has on the horizon, but there's no excuse for there to be this many delays. if they cut down the eighty million skews of Vista, then maybe they can release a functioning version without much issue.

[Fullman @ May 24th 2006 5:09PM]

Since it's all so popular to bash MS and Tom Cruise and Bush now-a-days...

I believe he's also including the fact that HP has been so lacksadasial (sp?) on getting their crap together and competing with Dell that a good part of the "Consumer launch in January" delay was entirely because of them. Perhaps HP asked for more time?

After all, if MS truly wasn't ready until January, do you think they'd really release a B2 (often expected as a "final beta" and near-RTM) this early???

We know how HP is a dedicated partner with MS, but maybe it's time MS got in bed with Dell, who is, *cough*, more dedicated to quality machines and pumping out these computers as fast/cost-effective as possible.

[Karl Entwistle @ May 24th 2006 5:14PM]

Gee this really sucks, I hope I can download a BETA of it soon!

[Noah @ May 24th 2006 5:21PM]

This Windows Vista had better be something huge, b/c we've been waiting a while. Honestly, I wish I had the money for an iMac or maybe I should just get a Mac Mini, b/c I really want OSX. I remember Apple's keynote in June 2005, saying they were "to release the next version of OSX by December 2006, when Vista is to be released...if it isn't delayed again". Good one steve, good one!

[Fullman @ May 24th 2006 5:23PM]

Let's all just look forward to the new Windows group chief, Steven Sinofsky. I have a feeling heads are going to roll soon, and he'll start cracking the whip in ways we haven't seen before.

No offense on Jim Allchin, but all this is starting to get really old without hearing about internal moaning and grumbling from anyone but Gates and Ballmer.

[187 John Doe @ May 24th 2006 6:01PM]

Vista actually made the computer more complicated for me. Pretty much most Windows versions have. Every time a new version is released I need to modify more settings, perform more registry hacks and use more third party software.
Why is that? Is it because of all this native working shit that they think will help people who are new to computers? Well, I saw people all new computers and try to use XP with problems where as 2000 was easier for them.

[Balls @ May 24th 2006 6:42PM]

Sad how Vista's graphics are already outdated.

Take a look at Xgl on SuSe 10.1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xgl

[Mark VandenBerg @ May 24th 2006 6:51PM]

It may be possible that Vista SP1 will be issued before Vista... not that that would be a bad thing, really.

[Devon @ May 24th 2006 6:54PM]

Being part of the beta program, i am notified of every internal release. (about once a week), although beta 2 has yet to be released. they are obviously working hard, but i agree that more time should be spent making it better, than releasing a new version for every bug fixed.

[rafael @ May 24th 2006 8:04PM]

number 16, oh look they can copy both apple (rotating cube) and microsoft (window look) at the same time. who uses linux anyway geekwad

#17 beta tester? my ass, you seriously posted that with Vista Beta 2 released YESTERDAY, March 23rd??? tall me sire, what build you running son?

[devon @ May 24th 2006 8:40PM]

#19, i think you were refering to me. you were right, v.5384 was released yesterday. on the 20th we were asked if we wanted the media for beta 2 or not, so i dont have it yet. im not even running vista, only because im wating on my macbook for the performance. no sense wasting my time using an ibm. infuriating isnt it?

[Boo Hoo Hoo @ May 24th 2006 9:05PM]

I want my Vista NOW! Boo hoo hoo!

ps DELL SUCKS

[Huey2k2 @ May 24th 2006 9:19PM]

Sometimes I wonder if people bash MS just for the sake of bashing MS. no matter what MS does people are never happy. They rush an OS to get it on the market and people complain because it's buggy. They take their time making an OS to make sure it's a bug free as possible and people complain that they are taking too long.

boo freaking hoo.

[scorp @ May 25th 2006 12:36AM]

nobody seems to have picked up on the fact that he was talking to a bunch of NEC execs in Japan, so his comments may have referred to the Japanese language version of Vista, not the English version. Seems like that is what a bunch of Japanese OEMs would care about, not the English version. If that was indeed the case, then a delta from Nov to Jan between ENU and JPN is not illogical.

[Isurus (at work) @ May 25th 2006 1:43PM]

"so basically apple will have torn through three OS updates, each different than the last and microsoft will still have Vista in Beta. "

Yes, that is because Microsoft offers free updates to their operating system over the course of the several years inbetween releases, whereas apple makes you purchase an upgrade everytime they want to update something.

[BC @ May 26th 2006 7:36PM]

10.1 (even fanboy's dog now with clarity of history), 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 EACH at $130: +$500 not chump money. But every one with "150 new features" added. SIX hundred features???

[The ZeroCorpse @ May 27th 2006 4:34AM]

@ #25

I get updates approximately every other month on Mac OS X. Sometimes they're small updates, sometimes they're big feature changes, but they do happen.

I can't even name the number of things Apple has changed in iTunes over the years. Each update seems to have some new feature or adaption to current technology, and these updates are free. Same with the iLife updates, and the Safari updates.

And #26: I never pay more than $70 for an Apple OS. That's the student price, and as long as you're a student or educator, you can get that price. So I don't know about paying that much... It's painfully easy to get a student ID and save yourself 20% or more on Apple products.

The boost from 10.3 to 10.4 was huge. The new features are worth it, and the difference is significant-- Especially when you consider the switch to Intel and the stellar line-up of Universal Binary programs in OS X Tiger.

What did XP SP2 give you? A firewall? Wheee! That's been part of OS X from the beginning. I'm surprised it took Windows until it was 3/4 of the way through its life before MS supplied a firewall in their OS. It would seem to me that things like a firewall and security features would be the first thing you'd want... Instead, Windows focused on a lot of fluffy programs, each with tons of security holes, and that bastion of stupidity-- THE REGISTRY.

I do not miss the Windows Registry. Even in my Mac Windows partition, I avoid that registry and do my best to keep the OS clean and untouched. It's far too easy to screw up Windows permanently via that registry and the programs that aren't smart enough to clean up after themselves.