Slashdot Mirror
MS Upgrades To Be Smaller And More Frequent
duplicantk8 writes "Following the numerous delays to the Vista launch, MS is planning to have more frequent and smaller incremental upgrades, according to the Financial Times." From the article: "Those delays are set to end late next year with the simultaneous launch of new versions of Windows and the Office suite of PC applications in the company's most significant new product cycle since Windows 95. The new versions of the company's key PC software are likely to rekindle higher growth after a period that saw its growth rate slip below 10 per cent for the first time last year, according to Wall Street analysts. Mr Ballmer's comments are the most public sign yet of the dent to Microsoft's confidence in its core development process that resulted from the Vista delays."
Wonder if they have finally figured out a way to update the OS without performing a reboot.
I don't think they can get much smaller than the changes planned in Vista.
FanFictionRecs.net
For some reason windows update will be replaced by the commands.
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get upgrade
Wasn't WinFS originally supposed to be out with NT 4, and they *still* can't make it?
No, this is an attempt to make you *pay* for Service Packs.
2008: Upgrade to Windows Vista version 2.0 for only $200!
2009: Upgrade to Windows Vista version 3.0 for only $225!
2010: Upgrade to Windows Vista version 4.0 for only $275!
2011: Upgrade to Windows Vista version 4.0 for only $350!
2012: Upgrade to Windows Vista version 5.0 for only $1000!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Smaller, more frequent upgrades will cost more to publish, will increase their support costs, and won't result in increased sales/upgrades. Most home users upgrade automatically when they buy a new PC, most corporate users upgrade en masse when there is good reason to do so. Trying to shorten the upgrade cycle in the corporate environment will backfire. Smart IT managers will still only upgrade when there is a compelling reason to do so, and now they might have the opportunity to cherry-pick smaller upgrades that would theoretically be less expensive.
Microsoft almost got it right with XP, but then they got greedy/stupid at the last minute and fragmented the product line (first Pro v Home, then Media). The 31 flavors of Vista is bad enough, but to compound that with multiple, more frequent upgrades will be even worse.
Basically they are saying that "Black Tuesday" becomes "Black Nine Fifteen In The Morning."
I'm sure sysdmins in MS-centric shops all over the world are rejoicing.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Remember the 1997 buzzword "beleaguered"?
Does anyone else remember in the mid 1990s when Apple announced the same thing? It was around 1996, and Apple was finding it impossible to get its next generation Copland/Mac OS 8 operating system out the door. I think it was then-CEO Gil Amelio who announced after several years of delays that Apple wasn't going to do monolithic releases any longer. They would do little ones to be more manageable. Eventually, they came out with Mac OS 7.6, Mac OS 8 (what many considered to be 7.7), and Mac OS 9. That's also when they started shopping around, looking at Be and NeXT.
As Apple discovered--and now, I guess Microsoft is discovering the same thing-- it's really hard to keep backwards compatibility, drive new features, and do it within a reasonable budget when you have a big installed base. Apple's installed base was never more than a small fraction of Microsoft's, but Microsoft's resources were also proportionately more extensive.
Microsoft is having as many (or more) delays with Longhorn/Vista as Apple had with Copland/Mac OS 8. In the mean time, Apple bit the bullet with NeXT/Mac OS X back in 1997, and now they're seeing some pretty good returns on their investment. Releases have been fairly rapid, and they've introduced lots of innovative features.
So as far as coming up with their next OS, Microsoft, you can use the word now. Apple doesn't need it any more.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
it reboots your system for you. really pissed me off how many times i lost work to it.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Wouldn't you love the be the developer who gets Ballmer or Gates as your pair programmer.
[developer]:You forgot to comment that code
[Ballmer]: (pickup chair and tosses it smashing his triple head display of Dell 2405 monitors) The code comment's itself!!!
[developer]: What about best practices? I'm suppose to be learning from you.
[Ballmer]: Well then start by getting off you ass and picking up that chair. Now with both hands on the arm rests.....NO NO NO...use you're back to lift, not your legs.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
That's not funny.
...
I think the folks who suffer with Windows are used to rebooting for all sorts of reasons. E.g. IE runs too slow, my app just crashed, I need to install a new program, something is not working,
Due to their inability to admin their own machine, some resort to throwing it out and trying again, with new hardware.
I think it is the Unix admins who have the fetish for the no-reboot. Or perhaps a single, precisely done reboot, to remotely bring up a machine with an entirely new OS.
Similary, folks who use windows think they need anti-spyware, anti-virus, extra-special firewall crap --- because they think there's no way a computer can withstand the tide of crap without extra-special help. It is just impossible to imagine that an OS could withstand it all.
Lately it seems that hardware companies are in the game -- e.g. Intel processors with features designed to make up for the deficiencies of Ballmer's bunch in Redmond.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
I updated several of my devices without a reboot. Those sort of patches seem rare, and likely for good reason.
The catch is that if you need to patch a critical system file, it's orders of magnitude more simple to just replace it upon reboot (since nothing's running). Otherwise you need to close down any applications and services that are using that file. Some system files are used by the GUI interface itself, at which point you're crossing your fingers and hoping it pops back to reality during the patch process.
It's probably technically possible to do certain patches without rebooting, but you'd have to have a savvy enough user to shut down and bring back dependent services. Linux admins are used to that sort of thing. For home users, it's far easier to simply reboot.
2005: with the simultaneous launch of new versions of Windows and the Office suite of PC applications in the company's most significant new product cycle since Windows 95
IIRC, wasn't almost the very same sentence used in 2001 prior to the launch of Windows XP?
For Linux that is.
/. users will voice complaint -- Linux on the desktop sucks. The key to break into that market is ease of use and while as /.ers we can generally 'figure it out' even if we are unfamiliar, the average Joe will not. Apple is going in the right direction there but with limited hardware and inflated prices, it's not a viable alternative for the desktop, as pretty as it is.
:)
Tell me which corporation will install a new point release of ANY Microsoft OS? Hell, remember service pack 2? That's technically speaking, a whole point release. And where I work, and countless other places, IT managers opted NOT to install it for a *very* long time until the bugs were worked out in that point release.
This idea of 'smaller' and 'more frequent' upgrades plays merely into the Linux world's hands. The problem with Windows is that there's a tie-in to everything. So if a change must be made, it affects the OS at the kernel level. With Linux, kernel updates aren't as frequent nor as impacting. However, KDE can release a new version and since it's part of x windows and not attached to the OS in a surgical manner, it really doesn't matter. People don't know that now because Linux isn't mainstream, but they will when they find themselves extensively testing for compatibility with legacy apps they have in-house, or whatever with regards to Windows.
This is the opportunity for the Linux community to come together and offer a *true* desktop competitor to Windows. As it stands right now, and I know the
If Linux as a desktop becomes EASY to use (and I mean damned near idiotproof), the server can pretty much remain as it is. Nobody cares about the server when they are using their desktop, especially as an end-user in say, Accounting. They just want to get their figures out the door without having applications crash and close on them.
Now's the time to do it though.. Microsoft is going to set themselves up badly with Vista... and sometimes you only get one good chance to whack the bad guy in the back of the head. And then kick him while he's down
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Smaller and more frequent also means less expensive and yearly. Which basically means that Microsoft is moving to the subscription model it always wanted. Windows users will pay a "small amount" e.g., 20 bucks, every year for minor and insignificant updates. In other words, we'll be paying for what we now get for free.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.