Slashdot Mirror
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."
...beta software I've ever heard of.
This means Vista is still in development development development development?
Now please explain the hefty price tag for your unfinished product.
Also, maybe you shouldn't release a work in progress.
It is a failure. Why not just name the child by its real name?
Read the article you linked...
"The current embassy, which opened July 1, 2004 in the "Green Zone", is being replaced with what has been described as the largest and most expensive embassy in the world. The new embassy has been mired in construction delays, but is expected to be completed in 2008."
Like turd only halfway out is a work in progress.
Marketing translation: "Like any other release, there are occasional issues, but we're working to resolve those issues."
Real-world translation: "It's buggy bloatware, but it's our buggy bloatware, and if I catch you even thinking about another operating system I'll start throwing furniture again."
Hope that helps.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
HEAD/source code = Work in progress
Tagged release/distro = Finished release
There is a difference between always working on a project and releasing crap.
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).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
There's a difference between "Work in progress" and "Oh bugger, that's broken."
... There was a time when hardware resources were limited and expensive and programmers programmed accordingly and software was faster and easier to use in ways it is no longer easy.
Granted applications have become more integrated thru the operating system improvements but as technology and its use changes from the mainframe to the cell phone, the cycle of programming should be moving from the packrat (use all the memory and resources you can in your application) back to compactness of providing the right functionality only.
Where does this put Ballmers statement?
He is in essence saying MS will remain stupidly behind the times while claiming to be the forefront.
As the user base becomes more and more adapted to computing in a second nature manner, the more and more the user base will perceive the obvious babel of MS and as such move to alternatives for which third party commercial development will not be able to ignore and stay in business.
And we all know from experience that this is not going to happen over night but more at the rate of evolution via human generations, where each generation will put up with the babel less and less.
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.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
-Possum Lodge Motto
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.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
Oh, in software developer, it's "Oh, shit--Marketing says release it now. We're toast!"
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
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.
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.
I also doubt that Steve meant hardware support when he made that statement. There are more fundamental changes needed.
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.
throw new NoSignatureException();
I don't know if I'd call Ballmer a fanboy. He is the CEO after all, and he would certainly know how bad Vista is. If anyone has the right to bash MS, it's him.
I don't think you can complain when he takes an opportunity that's handed to him on a platter.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
May I present to you my second favorite web site, Mac Fix It. Seriously, not everyone has problems with OS X, or XP or Palm or whatever. But as a recent switcher (and I still like Macs and OS X despite the glitches), it's much less stable and problem free than I expected. This is on bolt stock, 99% Apple Certified parts (I added my own HDs to my Mac Pro - they've been fine). Four Mac Books and a Mac Pro (along with a Linux server). 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. Now, just as when I was responsible for an XP network, I don't touch an "update" until it's out for a couple of weeks.
YMMV.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
You have been able to buy PCs preloaded with linux from Walmart, Dell, IBM, HP and many others for several years.
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
It's a Unix system - I know this.
Please sir, may I have some more.
If you, kinda like, wouldn't mind, just putting a *little* more work into the product I purchased, I would ever so much appreciate it --not that I'm not grateful for the opportunity to use it, I mean, just if you don't mind a little work on the whole "make it work" thing. Thanks ever so much good sir!
is linux not a work in progress?
Yes and no.
YES:
The Linux souce code/kernel is release on release improving, so it could be called a work in progress if you look at the bigger picture - You might draw a comparison by calling "Windows" a work in progress as in progress from 98 to 98se to ME to XP to Vista. Every Windows release has (supposedly - I am not an expert on that subject) a new kernel, architecture updates. Similarly the progress can be shown by comparing the progress from Edgy to Feisty to Gustry to Hardy.
NO:
Every release of the Kernel, and every full public release of a distribution is supposed to be a finished product (excluding testing, alpha and beta releases.) Hence Feisty was a finished product, and Gutsy was a finished product and Hardy upon release should be a finished product. Similarly Win98/98se should have been finished products, Me -> XP -> Vista should have been too.
GREY AREA:
Now, as to your comment quoted below;
isn't ALL software these days not a work in progress?
There is a gray area in the use of the term "work in progress" that lends some weight to your statement. It is difficult to determine how it is used in each scenario - by Mr Balmer and by you - language by nature can be very fluid, it is actually a beautiful thing but I digress...
Defining the term "work in progress" might go as follows:
To say a Linux release is a work in progress could be defined as I used above - but a detractor might say that the constant refining and bug fixes that takes place after release in the OS, and in any OS (a good example are Microsoft service packs), could point to a "work in progress" scenario. Did Steve Balmer use it this way? If he did, then he is essentially saying the following: Linux is essentially just as good and "desktop ready" as Windows Vista is.
However, the detractors of Linux desktop operating systems are continually saying "Linux is not desktop ready" hence it is still an unfinished work, and thus can be said to be a work in progress. Because this statement is used in a comparative sense with Windows operating systems it infers "Windows is desktop ready" and thus should be a finished work upon release. If it were the case that the term was used thusly it would be a bad thing for Mr Balmer to say that about his own product.
software design can respond to user experience and feedback, and move with the times.
Yes. That is quite correct - that is how it should be. However I contend that the five-year release cycle of Windows hinders this a bit. The service packs might smooth this over a bit, but as I see it response to user complaints - with the possible exception of security alerts - is almost non existent. Bear in mind that as a Linux user my view may be skewed - a lot. Would you think that if enough customers/Vista users complained that DRM is not wanted in Vista that Microsoft would issue a patch to completely remove it? I would think no. In fact when DRM is disabled by a third party "hack" Microsoft is quick to release a patch that disables said "hack", pointing out to me that the wishes of the customer does not come first.
Is Vista a work in progress? Okay - then define exactly where the "progress" is needed.
Was it desktop ready when released?
Was it user ready when released?
Was Microsoft satisfied that it was ready for release when it was released?
I contend that it was not completely desktop ready when released - this might in part be due to the slow reaction of third-party vendors to release drivers so let's set that aside.
I contend that it was not user ready when it was released - partly this is because users needed to "learn the software" before being able to use it properly. This is in part due to newer features, not a bad thing, and (arguably) questionable interface design decisions - lets strike that one because it is really a question open to debate in the end.
Did Microsoft think it was re
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
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.
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.
No sig today...
Except that Ma Bell wrote a better OS.
Your last paragraph is the critical one. A 5 year timescale is impossible to manage without having milestones. With a 5 year window, people only start feeling the need to integrate and consolidate after 4 years. No wonder Winfs is always killed: too much effort for not enough feature.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Windows NT completely replaced the infrastructure of Windows, and gave Microsoft a golden opportunity to draw a line under years of hacks based on a bad design. They even came up with a mechanism, subsystems, to make the business of replacing the Windows API with a better one while retaining full compatibility with the existing API... much as Apple did a few years later.
THAT was when they were building a new house from the ground up, and that's when they decided to build the same house pn the new foundations, leaky roof and swinging open front door and all.
Vista is not a new foundation, it's the same basic foundation as NT3, NT4, and NT5 (Windows 2000 and XP). The majority of changes in Vista are just there to stop the end user from running cable from their neighbor's CATV box to their own TV set (or at least figuring out you did it and scrambling the signal). It's not the Emperor's New Clothes, it's the Telescreen from 1984, with the indows logo instead of Big Brother.
And it's got the same basic Win32 house built on that foundation.
And the roof still leaks, it just tells you "Your roof is leaking... do you want to stay sitting under the drips or move to another chair?".
Windows 7 is rumored to be a new house, with a big old storage shed in the back yard with all the bits of the old house packed away in it so you can unpack the leaky roof only when you need it.
We'll see.