Slashdot Mirror
Vista Followup Already in the Works
DesertBlade passed us an InfoWorld article, which has the news that Microsoft is already hard at work on the next version of Windows ... and we may see it as early as 2009. Possibly codenamed Vienna, the next Windows iteration will be coming a brief two and a half years after Vista's launch. This is the same timeframe Microsoft claims it would have utilized for Vista, had they not put Longhorn 'on the back burner' to deal with security issues in XP. Corporate Vice President of Development Ben Fathi is already discussing features for the next OS: "We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is ... Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers. It's too early for me to talk about it ... But over the next few months I think you're going to start hearing more and more."
"It's too early for me to talk about it"
Translation: "We haven't figured out who we're going to rip off yet. Probably Apple."
There is no shortage of manpower at Microsoft. There is a severe shortage of vision, and managerial competence.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The more people you put on a project the more managers you require, the more meetings, the more decisions, more designs etc...
Larger code base means more bugs, more test time, more bug fixing teams etc..
You can't put twice as many people at a project and expect twice the work to result from it.
"After Windows is finished, the dev team proceeds to work on the next version, while a team called Windows Sustained Engineering takes over the released version."
And therein lies the problem. There is zero incentive to do it right the first time. After all, once its' out the door, its someone else's problem.
The people who actually wrote it should be responsible for fixing it - not writing the next-gen fuckup.
Really? You mean that you checked the inventory levels in the computer, and noticed you only sold two copies?
Actually, I work at a large ISP located in the metropolitain area with subscribers across the country and we keep statistics of what OS people connect with (in our call center as well as various trackers on servers) so we can better support our users and we haven't noticed a significant (i.e. => 1%) portion of Vista installs...
PC sales for the week of Vista's release are up 173% compared to the week previous, and up 67% versus the same week in 2006.
Sure, but hardly any of those PCs run Vista. If the point you were trying to make was about Vista selling more, quoting sales of PCs that haven't shipped with Vista is hardly the way to do it...
A lot of this is because of the massive FUD campaign against Vista that seems to be prevelent in the media....Hasn't anyone noticed that people said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Windows XP? Antivirus and CD burning programs were incompatible. Hardware support was sketchy. Games didn't run as fast. Everyone was going to stick with Windows 98, because it was "good enough".
Hasn't anyone noticed that MS saied the EXACT SAME THINGS about every other OS they've sold? "It's the most stable," "Easy to migrate to," "Most secure windows evar!" etc? Maybe people are finally starting to exercise caution? Maybe people are starting to think it's "just marketing"? Nah.. can't be.
There were complaints about how much XP Pro cost ($299/$199 upgrade). Five years later, and the "business" version of Vista is still $299/$199 - effectively, it's actually cheaper than XP professional was at launch.
Sure, now they have more competition, and realize they actually have to live up to their TCO claims, and even gain consumer goodwill, clean up their image. Even MS have acknowledged this. But wait'll you see how many tie-ins they have to get you to eventually purchase Ultimate if you want to do get a coherent experience, or even make use of otherwise "free" features in other software (since they tie-in to the convenient and already available Ultimate features... how many apps require WMP but actually really need it? Same with IE? Come on, there are more efficient and secure stacks for this...), etc.
Yes, just like XP Home refuses to upgrade over Windows 2000. This is neither new nor unexpected
Are you kidding? It's these kinds of artificial limitations that MS are really pissing off their users with.
At this point, I think you are just making shit up.
Vista isn't going to change anything.
Ah, the first thing you've said that I can fully agree with...