backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by SiliconAddict.. on Jul 11 at 3:30 AM


Microsoft's Steven Sinofsky helped lead the design of Windows 7 and get Microsoft out of a slump. As a reward, Microsoft is promoting him to Windows president.  (Source: Microsoft)
Windows' new boss looks to build on Windows 7's successes

You can have a rock-solid OS, but poor partner support and lack of polish can ruin its public perception. Steven Sinofsky realized that and he worked hard to transform Windows 7 into one of the most highly anticipated Microsoft operating systems to date.  As a reward for his exemplary work, Microsoft is promoting him to Windows President.

Mr. Sinofsky previously had been in charge of the development of Microsoft Office.  He also served as a former technical assistant to Microsoft's founder Bill Gates, a stepping stone position.  When Windows Vista turned into a sour experience in terms of PR and failed to outsell its predecessor, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer shuffled staff and brought Mr. Sinofsky aboard.  Internally, Microsoft blamed much of Vista's problems on two years of delays, which made it harder for software programmers and computer makers to plan for compatibility.

As senior vice president of the Windows and Windows Live engineering group, Mr. Sinofsky indeed righted the ship, making sure that Windows 7 stayed ahead of schedule.  He also worked diligently to communicate with the public, as one of the two co-editors of the Windows 7 blog.

Matt Rosoff, an analyst at the Kirkland, Washington-based research firm Directions on Microsoft praises, "He runs a tight ship.  He always did a good job getting Office out on time, and he appears to have done the same thing with Windows."

Mr. Sinofsky's former fellow Windows vice presidents -- Bill Veghte and Jon DeVaan -- will now report to Mr. Sinofsky, rather than to Steve Ballmer, the former arrangement.  Mr. Veghte will be assuming new responsibilities, while Tami Reller is being moved to the Windows team as the manager of sales and marketing.

Windows 7 is set to release on October 22 and should be one of the most polished software releases in some time, with thousands of bugs captured and fixed thanks to an extensive public testing period and a refocused Microsoft.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: A necessary Evil
By 91TTZ on 7/9/2009 12:07:12 PM , Rating: 4
This conversation just went around in a circle and arrived at the starting point again.

Like I said, the fact that it's been made faster does NOT necessarily mean that the core of the OS has changed much. It may just mean that minor changes have been made to improve performance.

To quote Calin below:

"Just think that the same Linux kernel can be used from Damn Small Linux (installable on some 50MB) and the latest and greatest Ubuntu or Red Hat Enterprise Linux or whatever (using 5+ GB of hard drive space). As for the memory use, Damn Small Linux is happy with 32MB, while RHEL would neet at least 16 times as much"

What he's saying is true. The core of the OS hasn't changed in his examples, but the appearance to the end user is very significant. Still doesn't mean the core has been changed.


RE: A necessary Evil
By StevoLincolnite on 7/9/2009 12:46:53 PM , Rating: 3
I never stated anything about the "Core of the Operating System", merely pointing out some of the inefficiencies of Vista in general.


RE: A necessary Evil
By waffle911 on 7/10/2009 9:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
This conversation actually was about the Core of the OS at the beginning with the comment made by Fireshade about Win 7 being very different at its core than Vista, and this core difference being the cause of the boost in efficiency. So what you were saying was somewhat irrelevant to the argument being made--that Windows 7 is largely based on Vista and is effectively a refinement of Vista with the core of the OS remaining largely unchanged while the rest of the OS around it was streamlined, as opposed to Fireshade saying that the boost in performance stems primarily from changing and streamlining the core of the OS and not its surrounding components. Both arguments agree that Vista was wasteful with resources and that 7 is all-around faster--they just disagree upon what changes must have actually taken place that would improve performance so drastically.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki