Slashdot Mirror
Why Vista Took So Long
twofish writes, "Following on from Joel Spolsky's blog on the Windows Vista shutdown menu, Moishe Lettvin, a former member of the Windows Vista team (now at Google) who spent a year working on the menu, gives an insight into the process, and some indication as to what the approximately 24 people who worked on the shutdown menu actually did. Joel has responded in typically forthright fashion." From the last posting: "Every piece of evidence I've heard from developers inside Microsoft supports my theory that the company has become completely tangled up in bureaucracy, layers of management, meetings ad infinitum, and overstaffing. The only way Microsoft has managed to hire so many people has been by lowering their hiring standards significantly. In the early nineties Microsoft looked at IBM, especially the bloated OS/2 team, as a case study of what not to do; somehow in the fifteen year period from 1991–2006 they became the bloated monster that takes five years to ship an incoherent upgrade to their flagship product."
management just said get it out now and we will fix the bugs later.
He wants them to remove restart and log off as he feels they're overkill?
Idiot. Seriously. What a moron. Turning the power off and back on is not the same thing.
You could maybe argue that shutdown menu isn't arranged well, but I really do think they're all necessary options. Perhaps they could be arranged into shutdown, logoff, and hibernate and then give sub options under each one, but don't remove them. That'd be really silly -- resulting in yet another "powertoy" I'd have to download to turn them back on.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
Oh you libertarians. You're so cuuuuuute!
(pinches cheek)
Aren't they really the most darling creatures?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I refuse to listen to OS design principles from someone who cannot even spell the word 'kernel'.
Yet I know quite a few gamers who refuse to switch to Vista because with all that Aero Glass crappola, it'll be too weighted down to let them play their games at a proper speed without hardware upgrades out the wazoo.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
The other poster is right; a price increase of that level would mean market dominance for Linux in the space of a few years.
Large corporations can't run pirated Windows, they'd get busted by the BSA. Depending on switching costs, they'd either eat the 3000$ per station or move to Linux. Those who don't move to Linux immediately would plan to do so when feasible. (Macs wouldn't get a lot of market share because they really aren't designed for corporate use.) The home and small business markets would switch to pirated Windows as you say, but in the long term the network effects from the increased corporate use of Linux would drive them to it too.