Slashdot Mirror
Early Testers Say Vista RC1 Not Ready
digihome writes "A number of partners and analysts who have downloaded Vista RC1 say the code is solid but they are not convinced it will be ready for release this fall. A Directions on Microsoft analyst said, 'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One.'"
Microsoft has always rushed it. No new version of Windows has ever been ready for primetime. Windows 3.0? Crap. Windows 3.1 made it barely usable. Then there's 3.11 to add the microsoft networking. Windows 95? Crap. There's four versions of that, at LEAST; Win95, OSR1, OSR2, OSR2.5, and OSR3 that only went out to a handful of corporate customers. Win98? There's a second edition. Windows ME? CRAP. PURE CRAP. Windows 2000? There's what, six service packs now? And at least one of those broke more than it fixed. Windows XP? Two service packs, and there really ought to have been a third by now due to the sheer number of updates that get installed after SP2.
All microsoft operating systems are crap until near their end of life. It's like a law of nature.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This isn't a beta; this is a release candidate. Despite the feedback from beta testers who wanted a Beta 3 or at least an RC2, Microsoft has released RC1 and already forked an RTM branch off of it. It's full-steam ahead with this thing.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Windows 2000? There's what, six service packs now?
Four service packs. SP4 was released June 2003.
BTW, its kneejerk posts like yours that make Slashdot a diminishing resource for all things Microsoft.
It was NT4 with 6. Sort of.
/. a poorer Microsoft resource when we can't even get /. editors to get the summaries straight. It's just articles and comments, for better or worse.
NT4 SPs 2 and 6 broke more than they fixed. SP3 was rushed, as was "6a" (which shows up in winver as Service Pack 6) to fix the problems that the prior SP broke.
You could make the arguement for Windows 2000 having 6 as well, 4 proper SPs, a post-SP4 rollup, and the malware removal tool. Suffice to say, you can't simply download one or two items to be patched to date with Windows 2000, even in a bare configuration.
Moreover, I wouldn't worry too much about being critcized as making
But a quick list from the top of my head (ways it's better than XP):
And that was just off the top of my head. There is LOTS of other stuff if you bother to do some research. I can't speak for Ubuntu... one thing is for sure, Vista has a much cooler name.
'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One
.NET 3.0 and other new API systems are finalized for syntax, so developers can start testing new products against the OS and not have to worry about API changes.
.NET 3.0 APIs were changing on a monthy basis up until July, as you will notice that there were .NET3.0/WinFX releases each month, with the APIs for the developers changing. And that is just ONE new API subsystem of Vista.
Ok, why is this a RC and not a Beta? Well in the MS world since about 1992 that I can personally 'testify' to, a product makes the RC milestone when it is feature complete from a DEVELOPER standpoint.
This means that the product is feature complete and 99% of the OS bits and all the APIs are how they will be in the final release.
Why was Beta2-Pre-RC1 NOT a RC. Simple, from a developer's standpoint the OS was not feature complete.
RC1 is the FIRST release that that
Sure things will be optimized, and this will be polished, but this IS A RC solely based on the definition that MS has used FOR YEARS. It is feature complete for developers...
(So aside from all the Joke at MS and other FUD, this is technically a RC, and even though it is not a 'finished' polished product, it is the first feature complete versions, especially from the API standpoint.)
This is NO different than they did with Win2k RC1 which was actually less stable than Vista RC1, but AGAIN it was API feature complete for developers, hence why it was called a RC and not a Beta, just as this release.
As for proof of this, look at the Win2k Beta history, or even lookt that Vista Beta History, the
So once again repeat,"This is a RC, this is a RC because it is API and Developer complete."
PERIOD.
A quick clarification since I think many Slashdot users don't realize this - the $200 is a family pack license which covers up to 5 users. So it's hugely cheaper to legally upgrade multiple Apple machines than Vista. An extra Vista Home Advanced license is $243, a whopping $16 discount over the charge of $259 for one.
This doesn't even consider the fact that newer Apple operating systems run better on old hardware than their predecessors. Tiger on my ancient laptop still runs great and is a wonderful upgrade. By contrast, I don't have any PC hardware, even computers bought at about the same time as my Macs, that will run Aero [Vista's MacOS X-like interface] at all.
D
The term release candidate refers to a final product, ready to release unless fatal bugs emerge. In this stage, the product features all designed functionalities and no known showstopper class bugs
Notice the terms 'final product' and 'features all designed functionalities'. If those two are not met with, we are still not at RC, but on the way from "beta", probably. Ok, let's say there are no fatal bugs in this RC, then apparently (according to testers) still a lot is missing from it to make it a 'final product'.
Now I wouldn't want to be the head product manager of Vista, but I guess a problem in this complex product will be the fact that they're constantly changing its main features and goals, so it will hardly ever be a final product. If someone should just make hard demands on what it should do, it might actually work out to at least something final.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling