backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by wani123.. on May 3 at 3:48 PM
Gartner Inc. says that we may wait an additional three months

Is there another delay in store for Windows Vista? According to Gartner Inc., it appears so. Microsoft announced in March that Windows Vista would be delayed until January 2007 for consumers (RTM in November of 2006), but that date could be pushed back another three months according to Gartner.

Gartner contends that the Windows Vista operating system is just too complex for the company to reach its November target for volume licensees. Microsoft has of course denied any reports that it is falling behind schedule and reaffirms that it is still on target to reach the announced November/January release dates. From Reuters:

Gartner targets a Windows Vista release in the April-June quarter of 2007, nine to 12 months after Microsoft conducts a second major test, or "beta," release for Vista during the current quarter.

"Microsoft still wants to get it out as soon as possible, but slipping from January to March is nowhere near as bad as slipping from shipping before the holidays to after the holidays," a group of Gartner analysts wrote in the report.

So are these analysts blowing smoke, or is there something concrete that they know and we don't? I guess we'll see within the next six months.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Another Delay?
By couppi on 5/2/2006 3:46:43 PM , Rating: 1
*groan*




RE: Another Delay?
By creathir on 5/2/06, Rating: 0
RE: Another Delay?
By rushfan2006 on 5/2/2006 4:06:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Heads will roll at MS if this happens...


Yeah yeah whatever...just like heads would roll if NT 4.0 wasn't released on time, or Win 98 or Win XP....people say silly stuff like this all the time. I've yet to read a single story about a senior level employee at Microsoft being so much as admonished, let alone fired solely and explicitly for the fact that an OS missed a planned released date.

I for one don't give a rat's arse if the release date is pushed back until 2008. I'm in no rush to splurg more money on new hardware to support Vista and all its "features"...nor do I need to change from XP right now -- all my games are quite happy running on XP at the moment....


RE: Another Delay?
By creathir on 5/2/2006 4:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
Vista is YEARS over due.... not 12 months... not 18 months...
YEARS...
The product release lifecycle for Windows before Vista was around 3 - 4 years....
XP has been out for 4-5 years... When Vista finally hits shelves, it will be closer to 5-6 years...
MS stockholders cannot be happy about this...
- Creathir


RE: Another Delay?
By Lifted on 5/2/2006 4:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft makes most of their OS money from volume licenses and new computer sales, not from upgrades. This release is holding back other apps, such as Office. That's why folks at MS and the stockholders are peeved.


RE: Another Delay?
By rushfan2006 on 5/3/2006 8:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
Its not nearly as dramatic as you want to make it sound. You are going purely on dates alone and if you do that of course it looks YEARS over due. In actual terms of progress for the OS and the differences between versions though -- its not that far off as you make it sound. For instance the Jump from XP to Vista is a big one in the world of the Windows OS, equal to the jump of 3.1 to XP or at the VERY least Win 95 to XP. And guess what it took 9 years to go from 3.1 to XP (or 6 years to go Win 95 to XP if you think that is a more reasonably comparision).

So the fact that that Vista is winding up taking 6 years to come out...really isn't all that dramatic to me.

Besides, people need to make up their minds....one hand types like you scream and bitch about "HURRY UP HURRY UP"...then when a company does Hurry UP...you switch your screaming and bitch to rip the product apart -- trash it, denounce it and label it as a buggy piece of shit.

Can't have it both ways.


RE: Another Delay?
By Orpheus333 on 5/2/2006 4:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to vista and IE7...aside from whatever is going on with DRM.

I don’t think I really care about the delay as long as they produce a quality product so I can shove it in all those ignorant, self-righteous mac lovers faces. *ANGER*

IMO DooM3 was better for all the delays than say CSS and its bugs/glitches/constant updates... Or any EA game too. Operating systems are a different playing feild entirely, but I'd rather something solid... Not another winME.


xp is good enough
By Xorp on 5/2/2006 3:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I for one don't care. They can take as long as they want and not release it until it is perfect. Actually I perfer that, because I am more than happy with my current XP configuration.




RE: xp is good enough
By Sunbird on 5/2/2006 3:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
Long live XP!


RE: xp is good enough
By segagenesis on 5/2/2006 4:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
Windows XP is fine here, it does not even feel like its 5 years old already. If it aint broke, dont fix it! Most of the "new features" in Vista seem to already be available in OS X already, but I could care less either way. Aero Glass does not increase productivity and like the XP themes service it would be the first thing I disable.


RE: xp is good enough
By DigitalFreak on 5/2/2006 4:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sehnen sich Phasenpussy!


RE: xp is good enough
By miahallen on 5/2/2006 10:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see, XP "automatic updates" just finished downloading another hotfix for a security vulnerability...hummmm, we could attempt to wait for a "perfect" version of Vista...but that will NEVER happen!


The latest build is quite good #5365
By RyanLM on 5/2/2006 8:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
I am using the latest build as my main OS now. It works well, it isnt fully cooked yet, but it does work. I have Visual Studio 2005, SQL 2005, Photoshop, and other beefy programs all working fine.

Glass/Areo is really beautify at times, other times, just looks damn good. Vista really needs a killer background image to make it shine, as the chrome is now transparent, your background bleeds through your applications, its a killer look that actually doesnt get in the way due to the bluring effect.

People like to comapre it to OSX alot, and while feature for feature they do compare well, things just seem better in Vista. I would take Flip3d over Expose any day of the week. The Searching is much better, the whole OS looks much better, and it is finally starting to have continuity to it - where the all the dialogs & windows look uniform and well thought out.

OSX to this day still feels slow, at least not snappy. Also, I have to be way to careful about where I move the mouse, hit the wrong spot, all the windows get screwed up, or the screen saver comes on, bah! I think apple should make a hot spot that just shuts downt he PC next.

IE7 has gotten a good amount of polish, and looks great, not nearly as bad as the XP version :) it is all functioning well. The best thing is the new Address Bars, Slashes are now Arrows that are dropdown buttons, it lets you navigate the file system twice as fast.

I am on day 9, and while there are bugs (I cant have my apple 30" and my second display on at the same time, Glass/DWM needs a restart every so often (task 10 seconds) but this is more likely driver related. Some rendering issues in IE, I have had 2 video lockups) but, it is now showing maturity, expecially from the last build.




By caboosemoose on 5/2/2006 9:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Dude - are you running Vista at 2,560 x 1,600 on your 30-inch apple CD? I've tried above five different builds of vista as high res(both 1,920 x1,200 and 2,560 x 1,600) and all are internittently very choppy. Up until the most recent build (5365 or whatever) is was pretty awful, basically just choppy most of the time maing motion video pretty unqatchable. The latest build is better and is smooth most of the time, but still intermittently choppy making it really not juch use a main OS - have you managed to get the desktop rendering consistently smoothly?


RE: The latest build is quite good #5365
By rushfan2006 on 5/3/2006 8:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
I LOVE IT......oh not the OS, but when people talk about how beautiful the OS is....OMG, its amazing to me....Why do I need a graphically stunning OS? Tell me ...WHY? I'll stop you short of saying anything that it relates to increased productivity or efficiency, has the "pretty factor" has NOTHING to do with being productive or efficient. The speed of the OS, the feature set, ease of use...that plays into making an OS productive not how "cool it looks".

I want my GAMES too look awesome, but I don't care to have to require a gig of ram and a 800000 ghz CPU to run the interface of an OS....that's just silly to me.

give me SPEED, STABILITY, and EFFICIENCY.....if only *nix ran all my games and hardware.....ugh...



By Ringold on 5/3/2006 2:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think people are overlooking some of the huge improvements "under the hood".

New driver system, security enhancements, and a kernel as well secured as can be without breaking backward compatibility (something linux doesn't give a crap about at times). I've used the latest build, and it worked just fine, and the fact that I don't have to be constantly paranoid that my rig will get compromised on horribly deep levels alone makes it a less stressful envrionment ;)

Graphics wise, a lot of people are totally exagerating what will be needed I think. 800000ghz CPU wouldn't help the GUI run one damn bit better; you guys forget, for the first time it finally uses what the GPU is really there for in the first place, asides from idling 99% of the time! And since it's not exactly Doom3, it's been very, very smooth for me on my mid-range card.

In every other aspect, computers for a lot of people aren't just about productivity, which seems to be what some complaining is about. It's enjoyment. In that case, a better interface CAN improve 'productivity' of 'enjoyment', and i DO tend to get college work done a wee bit better on Vista for whatever reason; perhaps the background I'm using is relaxing when mixed with everything else? I don't know, but it's just.. nice.

People concerned only about basic productivity can have my P3 500mhz system and drop Win98SE on it, or linux & OpenOffice/KOffice. As far as linux goes, about three times a year I give a new distro a try (but keep coming back to gentoo), and it's never worked perfect. Windows takes awhile, but I know at the end of the tunnel is a very bright light. At the end of the linux tunnel is a problem like a house full of lexmark printers and not a single damned driver on Earth to run those particular models on Linux. Or my digital cameras. Bleeding-edge support in general is horrible. It's not even a fair comparison for a consumer OS. No consumer should ever have to drop to a command line with XOrg takes a crap to fix xorg.conf or anything else.


By wani123 on 5/3/2006 3:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Looks who is talking about "productivity". The only thing that he can use to backup his statments is GAMES! Hmmm, if only you can get all your games on UNIX then you would be really productive?? And stability, effeciency and speed is only defined by how well you can play your games???!!

Go do some work on your unix machine for a change and get productive.


Is it important?
By Scrogneugneu on 5/2/2006 8:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
I mean, it would be really stupid to buy Vista on the first day, week, or month. When it gets out, whenever that may be, just let the Joe Schmoe crowd test it for you. MS will release a Service Pack to fix most of the important bugs, and everyone will adapt to it. Say, wait roughly a year after release, and then you're ready to make a safe jump without any trouble. So a 3 months delay isn't bad, if it takes 3 months less after release to make it work.




RE: Is it important?
By TomZ on 5/3/2006 11:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
First, software is never done. It is always a work-in-progress. This is the nature of software. It (usually!) just gets better and better with time.

Second, Vista has a huge beta community. There are lots of people and companies running Vista all day long and reporting bugs. Because of this, it should be perfectly fine to run it on day 1 of its release, or earlier.


Do not rush it.
By mindless1 on 5/3/2006 9:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
I want Vista delayed as long as possible. IE- until it's finished. This is a major change and the entire world (due to the market) will largely depend on it for the next few years. It is not at all good to need a service pack to resolve issues, even every week it is delayed is the chance for more bug corrections.

On the other hand, a massive beta program might be a great idea, those more technically inclined on the internet (opposed to OEM customers) could provide a great deal of feedback on multiple and more advanced system configuratons.

So I compliment MS on not doing what video game developers et al do, trying to hit a release date no matter what.




RE: Do not rush it.
By TomZ on 5/3/2006 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, this is one of the benefits of having a near-monopoly - they can afford to push out the dates to get the job done right. If that market was super-competitive like the game market is, they would have to hold to their dates at all costs.


Why those delays