Slashdot Mirror
Possible Delays for Vista in Europe
tttonyyy writes "After Microsoft was hit with fines for anti-competitive behaviour in 2004 and 2006, it seems that the launch of Vista may be delayed in Europe. Microsoft is blaming this delay on a lack of guidelines from the European Commission. The Commission denies causing any delay, declaring that the impetus is not on them but on Microsoft to produce a product that conforms to the EU competition rules." Further,
The New York Times reports "Delaying the introduction in Europe, [members of the European Parliament] said in a letter made public by Microsoft on Thursday, 'would put European companies at a competitive disadvantage with every other company around the world who does have access to these new technologies.'"
Lucky bastards!
without Aero how will we visualize/optimize our corporate paradigms?
Nice business ya got there... would be a shame if anything 'happened' to it...
Is it me, or is this just yet another example of MS abusing their monopoly? I see the logic, but can't understand the justification for this argument -- MS shouldn't have to comply with anti-monopoly regulations because any delay will hurt European businesses due to MS's monopoly?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Windows Genuine Advantage.
Personally, I think companies that rely exclusively on Windows are shooting themselves in the foot. These days, there are numerous technologies people can use to make portable applications, including Java, C# (yes), Python, Perl, Tcl/Tk, WxWidgets, Qt, GTK, PHP and other web technologies, etc.
Portability isn't everything, but relying on a single, unreliable vendor is lunacy.
It's amazing how many IT people I've met who have "heard" or Linux. All they've ever known is Windows. Perhaps Microsoft's failures will encourage developers to investigate alternative platforms. Windows is important, and you should support that platform, but when Windows fails you, you really need to have a backup plan.
... Microsoft is considering renaming Windows Vista to Windows Atlantis.
"would put European companies at a competitive disadvantage with every other company around the world who does have access to these new technologies."
What Dribble. Does that mean all those companies still using Windows 2000 / NT are at a competitive disadvantage with companies who got conned into upgrading to the virtually identical Windows XP?
I fail to see what competitive advantage Vista will give businesses who upgrade to it immediatly. Maybe companies could run into problems in 5 years time when compatability issues arise, but not in the short/medium term.
Sounds familiar to European PS3 Launch Delayed to 2007
Microsoft really seem to be shooting themselves in the foot lately, even if this isn't their fault.
Consequently, the European Vista will be be bundled with Microsoft's new killer app, Duke Nukem Forever.
One of Microsoft's biggest problems (along with their seemingly insane devotion to their own proprietary formats and obsession with control) is something they've always done: early overhype. The same thing happened with the Windows XP. They put out so much overblown hype early on in their product announcements (making ridiculous claims like "this will be more powerful than a supercomputer" and other such bunk) that later, inevitably, when they have to pull back and announce REAL specs and features, it comes off as a disappointment.
They are nothing less than the victims of their own unrealistic promises.
-Eric
Sony for Microsoft
Vista for PS3
And so on...
My city: Barcelona.
Editors?
[crickets chirping]
Haida Manga
It's not MS who've said that but four British MEPs, sadly unnamed, who show that they have the same grasp of technological issues as the average amoeba. I'd like to know who they are so I can set them straight, pointing out that if Microsoft would just obey the law this would be a non-issue.
Is it me, or is this just yet another example of MS abusing their monopoly? I see the logic, but can't understand the justification for this argument -- MS shouldn't have to comply with anti-monopoly regulations because any delay will hurt European businesses due to MS's monopoly?
Yes, the ultimate harm of monopoly is exclusion. Competitors are not allowed to offer better goods and services and the monopolist is able to deny service to any they please.
This time, it's pure bullshit and won't work. No business that waits for Vista will be at a competitive disavantage. It's the businesses that adopt yet another secret format for communications that will have problems. It is incredible that M$ tries to spin abuse of formats into some kind of advantage. It took years for XP to gain any significant business presence and to this day, many if not most businesses use w2k. Sensible companies store their publications in PDF that can come from any source. We've all been through this song and dance before and most are sick of it. The massive inefficiency of the M$ upgrade train is the motivator for mass migration. Vista is going to flop when people see that it's only feature is buggy access to ancient non free music and movies. Superior alternatives exist and have been adopted by many, such as Lowes, IBM, Chrysler and countless small businesses and individuals. The Microsoft monopoly is cracked and will soon shatter.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The EU commission has the attitude of an angry girlfriend/wife - "if you don't know why I'm mad at you, I'm not going to tell you". Damn.. I HATE it when I get that line. Sure MS does too..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Slashdot sounds like those hockey commentary people...
"Ballmer's got the CD and he's headed for the RTM... he shoots, OHH! A bug shuts him down!!! Oh that crowd is really upset"
"Well Tim, that was a close one, he's oh for 10 now, he really needs a break"
"Now Gentoo has control, passes it to Fedora, passes it to SuSE, passes it to Ubuntu, passes it back to SuSE... they seem to have their passing game working really well"
"Well Tim, they have heart but only a small group of the audience seems to be cheering for them"
Sorry.
Oz
Oh boy, these guys in Redmond...do they actually believe their flagship product is providing competitive advantages? Someone needs a reality check. Clearly no version of Windows since, shall we say, 2k have given companies any form for cost savings, productivity improvements or the like. The only European companies in competitive disadvantage is the IT implementors, who might have to wait a bit in getting hold of their upgrade service fees. But then again, show me a successful corporation who installs OS'es imediately after releases. Way too big a risk! At least for the banks it's a cycle of easily 1-2 years delay before they are going to install it company wide. And who knows, by then we might even be able to install OS X on non-Apple boxes. As a European, I feel rather relieved!
But I sure cant find em...
MS: I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
EU: Thats the Display Department.
MS: With a torch.
EU: The lights had probably gone.
MS: So had the stairs.
EU: But you found the plans, didnt you?
MS: Oh yes, they were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the leopard.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
...is the same as Microsofts:
if you don't start immediately, after 5 years you'd be only at 50% completed instead of 80 or 90% like your competitors?
And your point is...? I know of no busines in existence in the world today that states in its mission statement that "we shall strive to complete a softweare upgrade rollout faster than any of our competitors"--there is no point to have a goal of getting all employees upgraded to the latest OS before everyone else. Businesses strive to offer the best quality of product or service, or to be the lowest-cost supplier, or be among the best employers, or be first to market with a new invention. These goals have little to do with what OS a company runs on their computers.
I know, it certainly could put a company at a disadvantage if it was still running ancient VAX machinesand had DEC VT green-screen termials and '386 PCs running Windows 3.1 for Workgroups on people's desks. However there has to be a balance--a company that hastily rolls out a new release of software just so it can get there first is at an equal disadvantage as the company that limps alog on ancient unsupported software and hardware. In fact, upgrading too quickly can be MORE costly to a business than waiting too long. This is especially the case with closed, commercial software because of added licensing costs.
Here is what I found was the case with nearly ALL the companies who upgraded their Windows boxes to XP before SP1, or 2003 before it was ready: the licensing costs were at their highest at initial release, proper drivers were not available for all their hardware resulting in unanticipated hardware upgrade costs, they got smacked by extra vulnerabilities or bugs not present in older software, and important applications broke upon upgrade (in particular, custom applications, ERP/EAM/other enterprise apps, industrial software like HMIs PLC programming software and communications drivers and so on).
I'd have to say MS has it backwards--the EU is helping enforce responsible behavior on its industries by delaying early adoption of unproven software, so it has the ADVANTAGE over the rest of the world. The best way to upgrade is to phase in new software gradually, for example as hardware is replaced, and periodically evaluate the benefits of upgrading. Quite often, there are no compelling benefits at all until the vendor starts dropping support. For example, only within the last year has it been justifiable to upgrade Win2k machines to XP just for the sake of upgrading--reason being is that some important new software and hardware support will not be available (things like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD media, and IE7, and limited support for SQL 2005 on win2k servers). For most companies I've dealt with, XP was not at all considered until SP1 was released, and even then the upgrade strategy was to phase it in as new machines came online.
I think MS is just showing a bit of desperation in trying to get the Windows upgrade cycle back on track, as well as frustration at being reigned in by anti-trust regulations. I don't even think members of EU parliament are stupid enough to swallow such tripe.
These are pure lies by Microsoft to gain some PR-advantage against the European Union. The EU has issued a statement that the release-date of Vista is 100% in the hands of Microsoft and that it does not intend to interfere(see http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77945 for a german news-post about it). The EU had issued in january a questionaire to MS about the conformity of Vista to the several sentences MS got because of it's monopoly. MS answered LAST WEEK. This is not different to the US-market: MS has to conform to certain rules because of several past lawsuits. MS knew this from the start. If it does not conform, it is 100% MS's fault.
Trying to care, trying to care, trying to care ... Sorry it ain't happenin'. Come back when there is something that actually matters.
How the hell did you do this without using the word "solutions"? Me, I'm waiting for biz types to start saying "solutionize".
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love