[LINK] Microsoft

[Frank O'Connor]

At 12:19 AM +1000 on 6/8/06 Howard wrote:
>Malcolm Miles wrote:
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:58:43 +0930, you wrote:
>>
>>>It really does depend on your upgrade cycle.  But if Vista comes
>>>out this year then it will be another two years before deployment,
>>>just based on the time needed to organise these things. So that
>>>is an entire SA agreement without an upgrade.
>>
>>Hopefully it won't take two years to start deploying Vista.
>
>It might take that long to gain traction though...
>
>>
>>There are many new features that are much more beneficial to a company
>>than the enhanced graphics.
>
>...such as?
>
>Personally, I think Vista should be considered more as an overdue, 
>and late, version of XP Second Edition.  It's missing so much of its 
>original intent that it barely warrants consideration.

Ditto ... they sort of lost me when they ditched all those features 
over 5 years.  Most of the 'new features' aren't things high on my 
list of priorities. And from what I've seen of beta 2 of Vista, it's 
not overly stable at the moment.

MS should probably have bitten the bullet when Vista was first 
proposed, stopped rejoicing in the fact that they latest version of 
the NT kernel contains 50 million lines of code, realised that sort 
of complexity is a BAD thing, and also realised that there comes a 
time when a kernel is so long in the tooth that it's no longer worth 
working on. They should have gone with the BlackComb project rather 
than the LongHorn project, and built over a stable, secure and 
scalable UNIX kernel, added their codecs and API's and a neat front 
end (like Apple did) and Bob would have been their proverbial uncle.

Instead they decided to take the 14 year old NT kernel out for 
another moneymaking run, build added features onto it in addition to 
what they added to the Win XP rendition, killed a lot of the needed 
features (new file directory structure, cooler IP API's, real 
wireless support, more scalable directory services etc)... and 
suddenly realised that the code complexity was getting out of hand. 
Net result, they want to sell Vista ... which gives you better 
default security, better front-end graphics, .NET 3 and AJAX ... at a 
cost of course of higher hardware demands, an upgrade cost and what 
looks like a serious stability problem in beta 2.

That said, XP proved to be the variant of Windows NT that Windows NT 
should have been ... so perhaps MS may make Vista a goer.

							Regards,