Microsoft Vista late -- but why?
Tags: microsoft, windows xp, windows vista, manufacturers
When Microsoft announced it would be delaying its Windows Vista operating system until January 2007, we weren't sure whether to react with anger, surprise or indifference based on its extensive catalogue of launch indiscretions.
By the time Vista is released (assuming it stays on its new schedule) it will have been in development for nigh on seven years. But what's the story behind the delays? Is Microsoft taking time to get things right; is it trying to be fashionably late; or is the whole thing a complete lateness balls-up that would make the rebuilding of Wembley Stadium look like a well-oiled machine?
Okay, so it hasn't taken as long to develop as the Great Pyramid of Giza (which claims the longest development time for any human endeavour -- 20 years), but it's been a long old stretch in anyone's book. By comparison, the original version of Windows took a mere three years to complete, and even that modest delay caused much mirth.
Some may applaud Microsoft for taking its time to iron out the types of kinks that have plagued XP. Others may shift the blame to manufacturers, who are said to have asked Microsoft to delay the release of Vista because they had insufficient time to test and prepare their systems.
Whatever the case, it's clearly rather unfortunate for everyone involved, as neither Microsoft nor any PC manufacturers will have wanted to miss out on the lucrative Christmas period that would surely have been an enormous sales catalyst.
Let's take a walk down the Vista delay memory lane:
July 2001
Vista, aka Project Longhorn, is first announced prior to the launch of Windows XP. Microsoft claims it will ship in late 2003 between XP and 'Vienna' -- Longhorn's eventual successor.
April 2002
Microsoft shows example videos of Longhorn in use in order to illustrate some of its key features. Dozens of fraudulent Longhorn details, screenshots and videos subsequently litter the Internet.
May 2003
Microsoft reveals a roadmap for Longhorn -- said to be the most important update to the Windows product line since Windows 95. Will Poole, senior vice president of the Windows Client Division says Longhorn is a "huge, big, bet-the-company move". The final release date is set as 2005.
August 2004
Longhorn development is overhauled. The OS will now be based on the Windows Server 2003 codebase. Many of its original features are dropped and replaced with those intended for Vienna.
Winter 2004
Many Longhorn developers are pulled off the project to focus on the development of Windows XP Service Pack 2. Development suffers as a result.
July 2005
Microsoft announces Longhorn's official name. It almost chooses 'Windows Seven' as the official name, but opts for 'Windows Vista' due to the greater emotional punch.
September 2005
Microsoft begins releasing regular Community Technical Previews (CTP) to beta testers.
February 2006
Vista deemed 'code-complete' with release of build 5308 CTP. The remainder of the work is said to focus on improving stability, performance, compatibility and documentation.
March 2006
Vista delayed until 'January 2007'. World reels in shock. -RR
- Share this article:
RELATED LINKS
UK iTunes store finally gets movie downloads
Asus Ebox: Desktop Eee PC launches 3 June
Acer Aspire Predator: Remorselessly hunting down Alienware
AnonymousThu 23 March, 2006 9:40am
I agree with the point about Vista being a resource hog -- but so was XP when it was first released. And so was Windows 95 before it. Face it: things change. Look at yourself as an example -- you use XP 95% of the time, right? You got with the times.
Yes you'll need a faster PC to run Vista, but computers double in speed every 18 months. Think back to the first XP PCs compared to the current crop. the new dual-core systems wipe the floor with them, and they're not even that expensive.
Then you go on to say something along the lines of "if developers start making games that only run on Vista, you'll get a mac". But most of the top PC games only run on XP. Why didnt you get a Mac in protest of the fact that many games don't run on Win 95?
Yawn.
AnonymousThu 23 March, 2006 9:53am
To answer your last question. I didn't use windows 95 till 1997. I didn't migrate to Mac at the time because I wasn't so fed up with this as I am now. You know when something bad happens once and you don't get too upset, but when it is repeated (or when you just grow older) you are not so easy on the same (or similar) situation? Well, this is it. And perhaps the major reason I didn't give up on Windows at the time was because in 2001, big as it was, the console gaming was just not at the same level as it is today. So if in a couple of years I decide to go only as a console gamer, I won't be missing so much as if I had done this in 2001.
Yawn indeed.
AnonymousFri 24 March, 2006 8:02pm
so let me get this straight. you're going to become a console-only gamer because you're fed up with ms releasing resource-hogging operating systems? And you're fed up because new games will only run on new resource-hogging operating systems like Vista?
Am i mistaken or does a new OS only come out every few years -- a bit like consoles do? And when the new consoles come out, you can only play their new games on old consoles.
Sure you can stick with one console, but they'll stop making games for it after about 5 years max.
If we all thought like you we'd still all be using Spectrums.
OomlopTue 16 May, 2006 7:45am
I think they are holding it off because I believe they are going to release H2 for the PC at the same time as WV ships.
AnonymousMon 18 September, 2006 12:58pm
Stop me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the key selling points of vista was that it was going to be less resource-hungry? I thought that was going to be one of the benefits of all the code rationalisation we heard about?
Or am i just being naive?
Ask questions, share opinions and find answers in the CNET.co.uk forums
9
6.9
6.3
7.5
EfthimiosThu 23 March, 2006 9:18am
I don't know, all major sites (like Cnet) give me the impression I am the only one with the following thoughts about Vista, but I will say it even if none else agrees with me.
Why this "love" for Vista? It feels like how some Apple fanatics act when Mr Steve is going to release a new imac or ipod. And love and crave for the desktop enchancements above all! Things that are nothing new for users of programs that exist for many years now, and for things that could (if they are not already) be also available for XP (at least).
Then the love for the extra security of Vista, like this has not been announced for every single version of Windows in its modern history.
The cherry on top is the almost complete joke of not mentioning the resource hog that Vista will be compared to XP. More and more bloated OS that gods know what kind of a PC you will need to run it on to make it not feel like you are working on XP with a 486. The fact that (again I don't have the details) you will need a top of the range current pc to make it work without killing yourself in waiting (gaming anyone on top of the OS (resources.....yammy!) ) goes mostly silently into the night from the same people on sites like this one when they are talking about the new DirectX.
Advancement for Windows is not when a more bloated slow resource hog has extra code for more special effects, the real revolution would be if the next version of windows would be more light, fast, easy to use and then on top the capability of using more (DX10) options for games that can fight a good battle with the "next generation" of consoles. Then also the stronger and more limiting DRM that is there to only hurt and limit the legitimate user than to stop piracy. Over the years as I keep buying software I am forced with more restrictions and problems, not talking simple copy protection since I don't copy my cds anyway, but more strict rules and software like Starforce. But nooo, nothing negative about the DRM since of course all the readers of this and other sites just want to get software for their 100K people companies only, forget about the average user.
To clarify a couple of things. I am not a Microsoft hater, or a Mac/Linux user. I use 95% of the time Windows XP. If Vista prevails and game developers make games that only support Vista, I will say goodbye to Windows, get a Mac or something and a game console and relax a bit.