Slashdot Mirror
Looking Beyond Vista To Fiji and Vienna
Vinit wrote in with an article that describes Microsoft's strategy for future versions of Windows. It begins: "As we all know that Microsoft Vista was originally scheduled to be released in 2003, after two years of Windows XP, but it got delayed by over five years due to various reasons. Definitely, Vista is very very improved OS over the previous versions, but the delayed in the launch has cost Microsoft, billions of dollars. Now the question at the moment is, what exactly after Vista? Microsoft can't afford to wait another five years for an operating system. People are becoming more aware of the choices they have, and Linux is no longer a hobbyist OS, and that day isn't far away when it becomes simple enough to be a viable alternative to Windows. The competition is fierce. That is why, to stay at the top, Microsoft has planned a 'Vista R2', codenamed 'Fiji' which will be released some time in 2008. And after Fiji, there will be Windows 'Vienna'. Windows Fiji, will not be a totally different OS from Vista; but it will be an add-on. Whereas Vienna will be totally different from Vista."
Exactly what is the basis for spouting this load of crap? How about this list of why Vista is inferior to previous versions of windows:
.doc
No Support for IPX, Appletalk, WebDav, or NetDDE
Even less capable backup built in than XP, which itself had inferior backup to previous versions
High cost
Bloat #1 - takes over 10GB of hard disk
Bloat #2 - 2GB of RAM needed
Crippled wordpad can't read
Obtuse menuing requiring going in half a dozen or more levels in for basic controls
Stupid ReadyBoost trying to do what would be better done by simple swap/page to usb device, except RB is MUCH slower
Hardware vendors not in hurry to support Vista
in short, you'll gain nothing and lose functionality by going to Vista. save your money, just say NO.
Anybody who follows Gates knows that he has been serious about speach (sic) recognition for a long time.
It's hard for anyone who does not "follow" the cult of Gates to take anything he says seriously. He's been promising the moon and stars for decades but has yet to deliver anything but mild UI modifications. Generally, his company writes down a wish list of competitor's features and promises to deliver them bigger and better in his "next" release. As the years roll by he drops all of the features until he's left with something like Vista, which offerst the user little beyond DRM madness and a UI upgrade, which he then invariably promotes as "revolutionary".
Despite all of that, I thought he liked to talk about handwriting recognition. You know, the tablet PC, that' he's promissed the world since the Apple Newton. Palm, OpenZarus and Xstroke all beat him to the punch and his tablet PC has yet to catch on.
He might as well claim his next OS will have AI and do "seemless" speech recognition. He won't loose much credibility that way. At this point, he's got so little to use, I'd sooner believe penis pill spam.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
"There are lies, damned lies, and Microsoft promises."
We've heard it all before. Seriously. And it happens just like that: "Yeah, we know XP isn't that much of an upgrade to MS-Windows 2k, but you should see Longhorn! Oh, it's gonna be great! It'll milk your cows, skim the cream, and make fresh ice cream! It'll put your kids through college! Oh, and it'll, uh, make your complexion clear up, and get rid of your herpes!"
Every time Microsoft releases a less-than-stellar product (which is invariably), they start bragging about how great things will be in the *next* release, on which they haven't even started working. That's the Microsoft modus operandi: promise more than the competition currently has, and deliver less. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I've been thinking about this for a while and I don't think you're right.
The delay in Vista seems to have been caused by the desire to release (even internally) a single "OS product". But the fact of the matter is that an OS is composed of hundreds (thousands even) of small parts. MS is trying to release "the latest and greatest" of each part simultaneously. The inevitable ping-pong between departments trying to get it all to work with one another causes massive delays.
FLOSS usually avoids this problem because each project is developed completely independently. Most projects do not use the bleeding edge GTK library for instance. They use the latest "released" and "stable" library. Even though GTK development continues, projects usually don't care. They tie themselves to a stable rather than moving target.
It is generally the job of the distro to make it all work together. But again, they are working against stable targets for the most part. Nobody says, "Hey it's a week before release and the GTK guys released a new version of the library. Let's delay and make everything use it." (Generally speaking that is -- I'm sure there have been exceptions).
Of course there are some problems. Sometimes you just *have* to release 2 versions of GTK in the distro. But who cares (Yay for ld.so! Why the Windows people can't see the benefit of dealing with shared libraries like this in completely beyond me...) Of course worse is moving between versions of something like perl.
It's strange... I've tried to convince several of the companies I've worked for to operate in this manner, but I can't get anyone to try it. Have 2 different groups: Development - that works on a backlog of tasks and incrementally improves various pieces of the product; and Release - that takes versions of the development pieces, matches them with marketing requirements, makes a cohesive product and releases when the marketing requirements are met.
I keep trying to tell people that there is no need to freeze development just because you are doing a release. In some shops I've worked in I've literally sat on my ass for months waiting for the release to go out (while some other poor schmuck is camping in his cubicle trying to finish some last minute requirements).
You are confusing updates with upgrades.
Apple releases patches on a monthly basis, as does Microsoft.
Apple releases updates on a quarterly basis; Microsoft seems to do it on a yearly basis.
Apple releases upgrades on a yearly basis; Microsoft seems to take 5 years to do it.
Some further explanation:
A patch is a small change to fix bug.
An update is a collection of patches tested together, as well as small updates in functionality.
An upgrade is brand new functionality that was not available before.
GPL Deconstructed