Ballmer Calls Vista 'A Work In Progress'

shanen tips us to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer story about comments from Steve Ballmer at a conference earlier this week during which he referred to Vista as "a work in progress." He also admitted that the 5-year release cycle wasn't a good idea. Despite the approaching deadline for the end of XP sales, Ballmer's remarks about the older operating system were more ambiguous: "Vista is bigger than XP. It's going to stay bigger than XP. We have to make sure it doesn't get bigger still, and that the performance and that the battery life and that the compatibility, we're driving on the things that we need to drive hard to improve. I know we're going to continue to get feedback from people on how long XP should be available. We've got some opinions on that, we've expressed our views. ... I'm always interested in hearing from you on these and other issues."

Comments

Remember ME?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we were just going to ignore Vista until Windows 7 came out...

It's Windows ME all over again.

Re:Remember ME?

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. This appears to be the strategy now. "Don't worry about Vista, because Windows 7 will knock your socks off". I must tell you that in the organization I work in, and in a number of others that I am familiar with, this is precisely the attitude. Windows 7 will likely fit in with the hardware upgrade cycle. Vista appears to be the great forgettable OS, though IT departments will still have to deal with it for years to come on various machines that, through OEM or upgrade, managed to become infected with it.

interesting

[apodyopsis]

So.. basically by implication he admits they released an unfinished project that they knew was bloatware?

Well we knew it, buts its nice of him to admit it. (Bet MS PR just loves him)

:-)

And if they said this about linux?

[cliffski]

is linux not a work in progress? isn't ALL software these days not a work in progress? That's a GOOD thing. software design can respond to user experience and feedback, and move with the times. That's called running a software business responsibly. Face it, if linus stated this everyone would triumph it as showing that linux moved with the times, and was better than monolithic old vista.
This is a poor, half assed attempt to bash microsoft by the fanboys.

Re:And if they said this about linux?

[Concerned Onlooker]

There's also a difference between something that is given away for free being called a work in progress and something that is a pricey commercial product being called a work in progress. Of course, you're right about feedback and improvement. This seems more about a poor choice of words by Ballmer.

Re:And if they said this about linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree with your statements about software evolving, and of course Microsoft does catch hell simply because it is Microsoft.

However, I do see a difference. Microsoft can and will stop selling their previous versions, so at some point, I have to accept their design decisions or get over it. With other OS's, I can download the specific version that tickles my fancy.

Given the Vista debacle and Microsoft's tendency to push their latest and greatest as hard as they can, can you blame me for being cautious when Ballmer talks about his software evolving in some unknown direction?

Re:And if they said this about linux?

[timonvo]

The kernel is under constant development, but the releases are always quite stable. And nobody forces you to run the latest kernel.

Re:And if they said this about linux?

[Runefox]

I wouldn't be so sure. Linux is something that's more ambiguous than Windows is - Windows is a packaged, supposedly complete product that costs real money (a lot of it), is extremely widespread, and most importantly to your point, used by almost everyone in North America at some point in their lives - Which, in essence, means that Ma, Pa and Uncle Tusky are alpha/beta testers. And they're paying for it.

Linux is at its core a community effort, rather than a commercial product (though many have been made from it). As such, it is constantly changing and evolving, and is quite difficult to "keep up" with for most who aren't enthusiasts (Windows version upgrades gives most people a hard time to begin with). There exist shiny, polished distros like Ubuntu and Fedora that are meant to be a "whole product", being almost literally a snapshot of stable, tested software bundled with a stable version of the kernel, but these OSes are generally non-profit or free (as in both these cases).

The core difference between them at first glance is that Windows costs money. Coupled with what Ballmer went on record with in TA, that basically means that Microsoft doesn't consider Vista a "complete" product as yet, but has no problem charging inordinate amounts of money for the privilege of running it. That said, my experiences with Ubuntu in the past have always been a lot more polished than my experiences in Windows, and I would consider Windows to be an inferior product on most days. I still use Windows XP (my X-Fi doesn't yet have a driver for Ubuntu and Wine still isn't perfect), but I doubt I'll be making a jump to Vista "Just Because". There don't seem to be any compelling reasons to make the change (aside from having Aero and DX10 support, the latter of which won't run on my system and the former of which is a memory hog for a decrease in desktop CPU usage), and a lot of people feel the same way - Even Joe and Jane Average.

Another difference between Windows and Linux is that while the Linux kernel itself may be in perpetual development (as is the general mindset of Linux), this is because it falls under a different development model than the Microsoft mindset. Linux' greatest trait is that it IS in perpetual development - Because this is desired and necessary. For Microsoft, it's supposed to be one spit-shined, heavily-tested operating system every few years. A different model; Not necessarily better or worse, but different, more similar to Mac OS and most traditional software development cycles. In this model, however, being in a state of perpetual development is something that is absolutely catastrophic, because as with the XP->Vista jump, more development time is spent fixing holes and bugs in the previous generation of software to bring it up to spec than is spent working on the next big release. This is what we're looking at with Vista, which Ballmer confirmed.

The very fact that most of the more impressive features of Windows Vista (hi, WinFS!) were ripped from it later on in its development stunted its ability to really compete against even its own predecessor, and for me, cast doubt upon its legitimacy as a valid entry in the product line.

Re:And if they said this about linux?

[mysticgoat]

Face it, if linus stated this everyone would triumph it as showing that linux moved with the times, and was better than monolithic old vista.

If Linus made this statement about Linux, it would be within the context of operating systems whose kernels and other low level components have an established history of successful upgrades with minimal negative impacts on userland. However I doubt that Linus would ever make this statement since he rarely casts glittering generalities before the public.

But the statement was made by Ballmer, and needs to be evaluated within the context of Microsoft's history of software releases. Within that context, the statement is clearly a piece of spin doctor legerdemain to cover the damage that Vista does to the userland experiences of those unfortunates who have had Vista inflicted upon them.

I suggest that author of PP sell off his MSFT stock and invest in something with a better future, like maybe a recycling and disposal company. It should be obvious to everyone with a brain that when a stockholder has to take up fanboi behaviors to protect his investment, there is something wrong with that stock.

Re:And if they said this about linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is at its core a community effort, rather than a commercial product Linux -- at its core is a commercial product. Some of the biggest contributors are commercial entities like IBM, Red Hat, Novell, etc. Check out who makes contributions to the kernel sometime.

It just happens to be a non-proprietary commercial product.

Re:And if they said this about linux?

[colinrichardday]

Except that Ma Bell wrote a better OS.

Re:And if they said this about linux?

[zenkonami]

Linux -- at its core is a commercial product. Some of the biggest contributors are commercial entities like IBM, Red Hat, Novell, etc. Check out who makes contributions to the kernel sometime. It just happens to be a non-proprietary commercial product. Humbug. Major commercial entities may all have a stake in Linux, but it is still a community effort...it's just that a large block of that community are corporate interests. In many cases companies that actually care about real innovation and end user satisfaction as much as profits. This does not detract from the fact that there is community involvement, and that there are still many non-corporate contributors to the construction, maintenance and promotion / distribution of the OS.

that was my reaction

[Presto Vivace]

Also, maybe you shouldn't release a work in progress.

Re:that was my reaction

[blowdart]

Why not?

Software is never perfect; releases tend to be when it's "good enough". If you wait for perfection it never gets released. Linux is still a work in progress, if it wasn't there would be no more kernel updates. As long as there are patches then a system isn't finished. MS even released a feature pack for Vista this week for bluetooth and networking. SP1 improved sleep and startup times. Visual Studio is getting regular feature additions these days, the asp.net ajax stuff is a good example.

When *isn't* something that is still "alive" and used a work in progress? Heck if you shouldn't release work in progress goggle wouldn't have any apps; and putting daily builds/feature based check ins on sourceforge wouldn't happen either.

Disclaimer: I was in the audience; the conference in question was the MVP summit.

Re:that was my reaction

[jollyreaper]

You're right that software is never done, but considering the revelations of what was happening in the final months before Vista's release, even die-hard Microsoft apologists have to admit that it was a victory of marketing over engineering that got an operating system like Vista through the starting gate. It wouldn't be so bad if it was labeled that way. I've installed bleeding-edge Linux kernels in the past out of pure curiousity, but never in my wildest dreams would I dare throw one on a production server or on to someone's PC. My rule of thumb for keeping customers happy.

#1 Never take away functionality in the new version. You will only piss off people who have come to depend on the features.

#2 If you have a tiered product model, i.e. same software with more features turned on for basic, regular, pro, etc, NEVER bump a feature from a lower tier to a higher one, thus making the upgrade more expensive. This will only antagonize.

#3 In general, the new version should AT LEAST work as well as the previous one. But it SHOULD work better and have a compelling reason for someone to upgrade. Playing the "year as version number" ploy and making people think they have to upgrade when nothing new is offered is LAME. Intuit does this with Quicken now and I think it's even more shameful than Microsoft. At least they wait a few years between Office releases, it's not like we have to buy Office '07, '08, '09, etc.

Vista compares poorly with XP, let alone presenting any "omfg I gotta get it!" coolness for the customer. Epic fail.

Re:that was my reaction

[Dhalka226]

You're right in the point that you make. There's absolutely nothing wrong with works in progress. I enjoy when my favorite software gets some cool new features, or companies like Google release neat new products. I expect continual improvements from things like the Linux kernel to enhance support for new hardware.

The problem is that this isn't a "work in progress" in common usage, but rather in PR terms. This is a "work in progress" that leads people to question if it is even ready for its intended purpose yet. As other posters pointed out, this is beta-quality software at best; the bugs are getting in the way of your everyday use of the product, rather than it being ready to roll and new things and enhancements being dropped in later.

Worse, it's a "work in progress" that the company is going to force upon you, with no guarantee that it will be ready even then. The fact that people and business see so little value and/or quality in this product that a monopoly is having trouble getting it out is strong evidence that this was not "good enough" for release. Add to that the fact that they removed all of the features that would have made it interesting and still couldn't hit their release dates and there's an even stronger indication that this product was rushed to market before it was ready.

I don't like Microsoft as a company because of the things they do and the manner in which they do them, but I have no problems with XP; I use it on my laptop and linux on my desktop, so I'm not just a Microsoft hater. But this is silly, and calling Vista's shortcomings a "work in progress" is disingenuous at best.

Re:that was my reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

...even die-hard Microsoft apologists have to admit that it was a victory of marketing over engineering... Close. But wrong.

That's exactly what happened with Vista. It simply wasn't ready, and worse, it appears that the backroom way which Microsoft works with major hardware companies even knocked it back a few notches. It's not surprising to me, as I had heard some rumblings long before the revelations a few months ago. The marketers wanted an operating system ASAP, the teams didn't think it was ready, but the marketers won, and now Microsoft's credibility has fallen through the floor. What really happened is a complete failure of engineering, not a victory for marketing. With the immense armies of developers swarming like locusts across the vast Microsoft campus for years and years and years, they couldn't build jack shit. Even after top management did an about face by removing every innovative promise from the product in order to reduce the OS to something you could spoonfeed a baby, the engineering group still could not build jack shit.

All those people in all those buildings for all those years earning all that money. For nothing. It's a crime. A business crime. Especially as your gnat-size competitor has an amazingly superior product for years which they find a way to grow by leveraging the popularity of a portable music player. And, in the far off distance, Linux desktop begins to be something other than vaporware.

Your fly is unzipped and you've got nothing to show.

It wasn't a marketing victory. It was top management desperation to output anything -- anything at all -- to give the appearance of relevance, stave off stock price drops, and otherwise throw glitter in the eyes of those who might point out the emperor had no clothes.

I'd fire the entire line of engineering staff. Baby and bathwater. Wholesale. Cut the cancer out.

Re:that was my reaction

[ShieldW0lf]

Ok, you don't like the word conspiracy. You're too propagandized, and it makes you think of crackpots. How about this.

I'm telling you that there is an open collaboration among the people who exercise monopoly control over the tech industry, with the goal of giving them total information control and selling that total information control to governments and corporations. The technology is not a secret, and it is embedded in modern computers, and in set top boxes, and in playback devices. It is functional, and Vista is made to work with it. Which is why it took so long to get working, and why it works so slowly.

This is not a secret. However, there are a legion of people like you, trying to spin it into irrelevance. But at the end of the day, your arguments amount to "So What? You're a poopy-head!"

We've all got problems. Some of us see them before they roll over us, and most don't. You don't.

In Other Words

[fluch]

It is a failure. Why not just name the child by its real name?

XP SP2!

[headkase]

We didn't know it at the time but XP pre-SP2 sucked. When Vista reaches SP2 it'll probably be decent (from an average persons point of view - for me it already works absolutely fine). By then Windows 7 will be out and I'll be one of the people sticking with Vista for SP3 and go to 7 when it's SP1 comes out.
Linux and Windows both suffer from the same issue: theres so much variety of hardware out there that you just can't write it perfect for everything right off-the-bat so you need to release and incrementally improve. Mac's suffer less from this situation as Apple rules their hardware configuration with an iron fist - which is the source of their mythical "it just works®".

Re:XP SP2!

[ColdWetDog]

Linux and Windows both suffer from the same issue: theres so much variety of hardware out there that you just can't write it perfect for everything right off-the-bat so you need to release and incrementally improve. Mac's suffer less from this situation as Apple rules their hardware configuration with an iron fist - which is the source of their mythical "it just works®".

The problem being your description of the phrase "it just works" as "mythical" is correct. Even with a limited number of hardware targets to run OS X on (and a relatively small software universe), Apple still can't get upgrades not to screw up on a regular basis.

The real problem, to correct a poster a few P's above is:

"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy all of civilization"(Weinburg's second law).

Despite all of the truly gifted programmers, the wonderful development tools and several decades of experience, computers still aren't toasters (except Pentium IV's of course).

Re:XP SP2!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac's suffer less from this situation as Apple rules their hardware configuration with an iron fist - which is the source of their mythical "it just works®".

Just because you've figured out how it "just works", doesn't mean it's mythical. Macs -do- just work, for the most part. Just because the hardware and base operating system comes from the same company doesn't make it any less valid.

Re:XP SP2!

[Hadlock]

I've been using OSX since oct 2000; I have yet to experience a screwup due to an OS software upgrade. I'm sure many other people feel the same way...

Re:XP SP2!

[AhtirTano]

I've been using OSX since oct 2000; I have yet to experience a screwup due to an OS software upgrade. I'm sure many other people feel the same way...

4 years, never had an upgrade screw up either, though one of my co-workers has.

However, I have had hardware compatibility issues that demonstrated to me that it doesn't "just work". The free printer they give out (HP Photosmart Express) couldn't even be installed without downloading stuff from HP's website. HP bears much fault in this, but Apple shouldn't be featuring peripherals that have problems like that, or should at least have some helpful information on their website to fix the problem. I know I'm not a solitary case, because Google gave me the solution very quickly.

Re:XP SP2!

[benbean]

There was a night and day architectural difference between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X though, and it was worth suffering through the transition to get to the end-point of an infinitely better designed core OS. The underpinnings of XP and Vista are still essentially the same and still fundamentally flawed.

If Microsoft is going to make its users go through that sort of transition, it would have been far better to make a completely fresh start on a better foundation with a compatibility layer for older software, just as Apple did.

Re:XP SP2!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has chosen that approach and we are very happy about that... that is the reason why Linux runs on everything from mp3 players to mainframes.
Microsoft has chosen to let uncontrolled code to run in kernel space, that's their problem.
Everything is a matter of choice... so no, they do not suffer they have chosen a path which may or may not be less than perfect...
Apple made a choice too... a choice which gave them full control over both the hardware and the OS (very much like IBM on Systems I, P & Z), it is a good choice if the customer don't mind a little higher price tag.

Re:XP SP2!

[theurge14]

Again with the excuses about 'multiiple hardware configurations that Apple doesn't have to worry about'.

Microsoft does operate a Winlogo program. You know, the 'Certified for Windows Vista' stickers you see on every box at Best Buy and Newegg? If Microsoft isn't operating that with the same 'iron fist' that Apple is, would you say that the Winlogo program is nothing but a marketing scheme to spread the Windows logo on every box in the store?

And enough with the 'wait until SP2' or 'this happened with XP too' excuses. XP came 2 years after Windows 2000. Vista has been in development more than twice that amount of time.

Re:XP SP2!

[cshbell]

The 7.4 Quicktime upgrade hosed Premiere Pro on two machines. I had to back out of the last security fix to get SSH to work again.

To summarize, your Premiere installation was broken by QuickTime because "Adobe products don't write the headers until it renders the movies" and your SSH was broken because you installed a hack that the developer admits had a bug that caused the issue.

Your problem isn't the operating system or that you're living on the bleeding edge of updates. Your problem is that you use software from two third-party developers that had bugs. Not Apple's problem.

Lies, Lies and More Lies...

[jr76]

Look, if anyone just does a basic analysis, you'll see that there's this circular process where the heavier operating system requires new hardware, forcing people to buy both to keep up with the times, which both them and the manufacturer want.

Therefore M$'s strategy of making it bigger and bigger is clearly intentional, so that they both continue their same profit model.

This will not end until they have a solid competitor, period, and that means the linux geeks have got to get off their high horse and make an easy, packaged, "buy your box from dell with it pre-loaded" version of it your grandma can use.

Because, personally, i'm getting a little sick of getting these operating systems from Microsoft which I swear to God have code running several extra loops just to bog it down so that only the most bleeding edge (aka money I don't want to spend) boxes can handle it reasonably.

Re:Lies, Lies and More Lies...

[MightyMartian]

And Ubuntu is still a pain in the ass to get working on a good many laptops. Now, that's not entirely the fault of the open source community, as a lot of hardware vendors won't or can't deal with Linux, and force developers to either do hacks like ndiswrapper or reverse engineer Windows drivers. But the fact remains that laptops remain a huge problem for Ubuntu, and for all Linux distros.

5-year release cycle

[michaelmalak]

He also admitted that the 5-year release cycle wasn't a good idea

Windows was complete when NT 4.0 came out in 1996 -- 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking with a normal user interface (i.e. no Program Manager). With the possible exception of Active Directory, everything else could have been a service pack or patch: USB, WiFi, CD-R. When the calendar drives a release schedule rather than needed features, Microsoft is not only acting just to fill its coffers, but it costs companies massive admin overhead.

Ballmer is right -- it shouldn't be a five-year release cycle. It should be 10 years. 64-bit is a good reason to have a new release after NT 4.0.

Re:5-year release cycle

[dHagger]

I partially disagree. In my opinion, it is better to make small iterative releases a few times a year - while still not pushing features that might break things as patches. Smaller upgrades would make it easier to keep the system updated - instead of having to make a risky major upgrade after many years. How many of you have managed to upgrade windows from one version to another without any problems at all?

And a calendar driven release schedule - why not? Features that are ready to be deployed will be included - others will have to wait until they are ready. With short time span between the releases - it is not such a big deal to hold a feature back, as it is when the next release is several years away.

Leadership...

[Woodmeister]

You know, Vista may be a work in progress, but Balmer's leadership of the company has most definitely stalled. Microsoft's reputation in the PC marketplace is anything but positive (i.e. neutral at best). They (and their software) are only big and popular (read: ubiquitous) due to inertia and lock-in. It's time for the tech community to just move on - completely ignore MS, deal with their s/w as needed, and replace it with "futureware" when it makes sense. Really. The "deadhorse" tag most certainly applies to this OS. Stop paying attention to anything Balmer blurts out of (any of) his orifices. He's prolly some of the most dead weight at that company anyways.

Dear Steve

[cmacb]

"I'm always interested in hearing from you on these and other issues."

Your products suck. They threaten people's hardware, waste their time, cost them too much both in dollars and in lost productivity. They have created a far too large an infrastructure of people who could be made more productive elsewhere (MCSE and the like = Amway pyramid schemes). Furthermore they pollute useful infrastructure used by non-Microsoft solutions by serving as a growth medium for malware and by causing millions of Windows users who can't rid themselves of your products to run helplessly to those who have for help. Ultimately as with any widespread systemic defect, your products cost lives.

Please go to hell. And take Windows with you.

Thanks for listening.

I can't believe...

[Capeman]

how he simply calls it a "work-in-progress", even when microsoft wants windows users to adopt Vista. So let's get this, if you buy Vista, you are testing a work-in-progress OS until microsoft gets enough feedback to "perfect" Windows 7 because they will abandon Vista, and then you will have to buy the new "finished" version. Hell, if Windows 7 doesn't work out, it will simply be called another WIP.

Re:That's great Steve.

[Flavio]

That's easy.

Price is dictated by the market. As long as there are people willing to buy Vista, Microsoft has no incentive to either lower its price or improve its quality.

Vista changed a lot

[Toreo asesino]

There are reasons the earlier versions of Vista sucked, and like Balmer said, are still work in progress. To summarise the three main points I see:

-Actual security (UAC); breaking a shed-load of applications that would write to C:\Windows and think nothing of it

-64 bit. It's the first serious consumer Windows that's 64 bit. XP 64 bit is rare at best; Win2003 isn't for consumers.

-New driver architecture. Video, audio, and network driver stack has been re-written from the ground up after nearly 10 years to being more or less the same. New changes are worthwhile too; a bad video driver should (in theory) never be able to bring a system crashing down like in XP, for instance.

All these things had to be done; all these things broke stuff. They are massive and necessary changes, and in the long run will pay off, but in the short run have been a bit of a system-shock.

Things are changing though; but Vista has been as much a change from XP under the hood as 98 -> 2000 migration was in my opinion.

Re:Vista changed a lot

[Toreo asesino]

"You should not be considered a savior as you try to dig the world out of the mess you created."

It's not that simple. 10 years ago, would you have designed a driver model bearing in mind that now you'd want to want 3d graphic viewports to seamlessly interact and overlap together; for 2d plains to be treated the same as 3d? That's what Vista does now, and not even Linux does that; it's a completely different way of programming, and required a different model of driver therefore.

Re:The most expensive...

[leamanc]

Beta? More like EARLY alpha software!

You've got a point. A point that Microsoft should really be considering. If you can't get past Alpha quality in six years (people like to talk about Visata's five-year cycle, but six years later, we're at SP1 and it's still not ready), then you need to consider some options:

• 1. The project you are working on (Vista, in this case) is hopeless and should be abandoned
• 2. You should seriously revamp your software development team and associated processes
• 3. Maybe you should get out of software development altogether

Like a lot of us here, I'm the "techie guy" who helps everyone with their computer problems. Most of these people are clueless and just nod their heads with blank stares when I try and explain what the problem was and how I fixed it. But now, even these Average Folks are talking about how bad Vista sucks, how they feel burned by buying a PC with it pre-installed, and wanting to know how can they get "real Windows" back.

Fortunately, I've made more Linux converts over the past year than I had in the previous five combined.

Windows users have no choice, Vista is your future

[Locutus]

Microsoft will drive Vista through you skull just like they did with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. It may take 3 years to get it through your thick skulls that Vista is your future but you will eventually get it.

What could possibly give them reason to not force Vista on its customers being in the position they are in?

This stuff about Vista uptake/etc is getting old and it appears that even 8 yours is too long for people to remember how it was the last couple of times. Surprise, you're stuck with what they give you.

LoB

Yeah long development cycles suck

[Unnngh!]

I can sympathize with the drawn out development cycle. Whenever this has happened at places that I've worked, it gets impossible to keep up with the changes. Scope creeps, because what you developed last year is no longer relevant. Plus, there's something that simply *has* to go into this upcoming release because everyone knows its going to take a while and you have told a customer they can have it. If you don't know when the current release is going out, slating anything for the next one is pretty much saying it'll never get done. These kinds of things just don't stop coming up.

The landscape changed a lot between when MS started Vista and when they released it. They were behind the times, trying to play catch-up, and they botched it. I had high hopes for Vista when they were planning it...new file system, powershell, lots of unfulfilled promises. They ended up delivering something that is passing fare IMO but is behind the times, and I don't see them changing the tune with their next release. They are wed to this beast now.

Basic analysis

[symbolset]

Look, if anyone just does a basic analysis, you'll see that there's this circular process where the heavier operating system requires new hardware, forcing people to buy both to keep up with the times, which both them and the manufacturer want.

According to this basic analysis(pdf), debian Etch is an order of magnitude larger and more complex than Vista. And yet it doesn't require this "new hardware" you're speaking of.

In fact in addition to the x86-32 and x86-64 targets Vista aims for it also runs on alpha, sparc, arm, powerpc, hppa, ia64, mips and s390. From the toys to spacecraft, from webservers to 85.2% of the world's top 500 supercomputers it'll run on almost anything. That's engineering.

This will not end until they have a solid competitor, period, and that means the linux geeks have got to get off their high horse and make an easy, packaged, "buy your box from dell with it pre-loaded" version of it your grandma can use.

You have been able to buy PCs preloaded with linux from Walmart, Dell, IBM, HP and many others for several years.

Because, personally, i'm getting a little sick of getting these operating systems from Microsoft which I swear to God have code running several extra loops just to bog it down so that only the most bleeding edge (aka money I don't want to spend) boxes can handle it reasonably.

So switch. It's time. Ballmer says Vista is a work in progress. Gates says its replacement is a year out. Let's take their word for it. This is a great window of opportunity to justify looking at alternatives.

Re:So...

[wellingj]

Regardless of its stage in development, if I were a paying $300 for an OS I would expect something as stable as Linux, not something as stable as Vista. I run Debian testing on my laptop. It's been more stable than my friends Vista install and I update everyday.

Very simple...

[Joce640k]

Microsoft told us time and time again that Vista would be released "when it was 100% finished, not before". The the reason it was so late was that they wanted it to be perfect, etc., etc.

It was pretty obvious that in the end they rushed it out for Xmas when it really needed another six months/year.

Re:Very simple...

[sjames]

So they couldn't even get "rush it out the door" done on time!

Correction

[unity100]

Commercially bundled distros of linux are commercial products.

Re:The most expensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm lets see.

And Alpha release is generally not feature complete and still has serious bugs and has undergone limited or no bug testing.

Vista has bugs... serious ridiculous bugs... check.
Vista is not feature complete... features being added in SP1, etc... check.

A beta then being something that is feature complete but still buggy.

And then onto RC's which are feature complete or at least feature locked and potential final releases pending bug testing.

Well it's a little harsh to call Vista Alpha software... but its hard to reward it with the prestigious Beta title.

the reason vista failing is

[unity100]

I dont want to have an "experience" with my os. i just want it to run the programs i want to have 'experience' with. so i dont care about what 'experience' vista is offering, since its not able to run what i need properly.

Those of us who know stuff...

[symbolset]

We don't buy hardware that doesn't have open specifications. It's a winning strategy. You should try it.

If you think wireless is a pain to get working on a Ubuntu laptop you should try getting Vista to install on an eee 2G. Fun times.

Re:I don't see what the big deal is.

[colinrichardday]

There is a difference between software's being a work in progress and a software product's being a work in progress. When Fedora Core 9 is released next month, it will no longer be a work in progress (at least not to the extent of Vista), although much of the included software will still be works in progress.