Windows Vista Delayed Again

Trenty writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Microsoft has delayed Windows Vista yet again. Jim Allchin told analysts that the OS would not ship in January of 2007, which is a 1-2 month delay. Oddly, even though they are citing the need for more time to tweak security, business editions will available to volume licensing customers before the close of the year."

Comments

Comparisons are looking worse...

[Coryoth]

I remember when MacOS X 10.4 got released there were plenty of comments from MS people that Vista had similar but "better" things and would be out shortly. Now Vista has been pushed back to the point where we can expect to see MacOS X 10.5 first (scheduled for the end of this year apparently), so really all those comparisons pitting Vista against Tiger were vastly premature - the comparison is Vista with Leopard - and we don't know what that will come with yet.

In the meantime the Linux side of things continues to move along. At the present rate I would expect it reasonable to find Xgl or AIGLX along with Beagle and similar as standard in distributions released around the end of this year, along with a more Cairo-ised GTK and a steadily improving GNOME. I don't know anticipated release dates for KDE 4.0, but I don't believe it's too far away (compared the the Vista release), and certainly promises to be impressive. A lot of Vista's claims to superiority are going to be already present in Linux distros before Vista gets released.

Certainly this has to be a worrying trend for MS. The Linux desktop used to be well behind and playing catch-up. While it could still use some polish in some areas, as far as new features are concerned Linux has pulled up to level pegging - that implies that the Linux Desktop is improving much faster, and Linux pulling ahead is simply a matter of time. In the meantime Apple has been managing a much faster release cycle and doesn't seem to be having any problems staying ahead of MS.

Jedidiah.

Re:Comparisons are looking worse...

[dbIII]

The Linux desktop used to be well behind and playing catch-up

When I ran enlightenment via X on a win2k box about five years ago everyone who saw it was struck with the differences and speed - even without shaped window support and the window manager being run on a different and lower spec machine over the network. The MS Windows desktop environment has the twin advantages of being widespread and of being taught to kids in schools - but in many ways it is inferior to even CDE from many years back (KDE was inspired by CDE). Compare both to apples and they both look inferior.

Re:When is XP not good enough?

[Pharmboy]

A desktop running XP is NOT a thin client.

MS has made it clear they will support older operating systems with security patches for at least 5 years after they discontinue selling it.

Businesses buy new computers on average every 4-5 years, if for no reason other than it is cheaper than maintaining the old hardware. Cost to maintain vs. new is one reason. Depreciation rules are another.

They will cut off XP update in 6 to 8 years. They will cut off all non-critical updates (bug fixes) in 2 to 4. All of this is published on their site, their policies for End of Life products.

My house is 50% Linux, 50% MS right now. We will not be making the transistion to Vista. By the time games won't run on XP anymore (5-6 years from now) I expect they will on Linux, or I simply won't buy the ones than don't.

So I really don't care when Vista comes out.

Re:Less and less relevant?

[bloggins02]

I normally don't reply to people who post ad hominem's but I actually had more to say and I didn't want to reply to my own post, so you're a convenient excuse.

3. Dealing with thousands of Linux whackos like you

Nowhere did I say I was a Linux whacko. I don't use Linux (for many of the reasons you cited, actually). I use Windows XP almost everyday, and I like it. I also use Mac OS X (which I love, rather than merely like). But that's the problem: you see, Windows XP is good, not insanely great mind you, but good. Windows 95 was worth the wait compared to the mediocrity of Windows 3.1 (and don't get me started on 3.11's "networking support"). XP is pretty fast, reasonably stable (I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen XP blue screen, and those were mostly due to crappy drivers for el cheapo hardware), and its development tools are excellent.

So, whereas when Apple releases yet another yearly release, I'm excited to try it and see all the nifty little gadgets they've put in there this year, when Microsoft waits three, four, even five YEARS to release another version of Windows, I'm thinking I'd better be blown-away. This rarely happens. In fact, all of the features that would have blown me away (*cough*WinFS*cough*) are steadily removed from the shipping OS every time the release date slips.

So, there's the problem as I see it. By waiting so long to make a new release, they build up excitement while at the same time watering down the release so much that it's quite anti-climactic when the product finally DOES ship. I still like Windows, I just think they're screwing themselves here.

13. Idiots (you fall into this group, too!)

Assuming I'm a "Linux whacko" becuase I submit a post critical of Microsoft release practices? Hmmm, no comment on this one.

Re:There's nothing odd about this....

[MBCook]

I agreed with most of your post until you got to Christmas.

Wouldn't MS want to get Vista out in time for Christmas? There are two big PC shopping times... back to school (August) and Christmas (December). They'll never get it out by August, and never said they would. But getting it out in November would be just in time to make a big blitz about "Buy a new computer with Windows Vista to put under your tree this year." The OEMs would love this, and MS could get massive sales.

Frankly, by November I don't think you should buy a new computer until Vista comes out and is pre-installed (Wintel only, if you are buying for Linux or a Mac, this doesn't apply).

If anything, I think this would HURT MS and the OEMs.