Heads Roll After Vista Misses Vista Target

[$cirisme]

From InformationWeek.

After another delay in the release of its Windows Vista operating system, Microsoft last week put a new executive in charge of future Windows projects and replaced several other managers. The changes are designed to better align Microsoft's desktop and Internet software teams and get products to market faster.

That's imperative after Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin said last week that the already much-delayed Vista system won't be generally available until January, months later than promised. It means Vista will ship too late for the important holiday sales season, a deadline few in the industry expected Microsoft to miss. Versions of Vista for Microsoft's largest business customers will ship in November. The stakes are high: Goldman Sachs estimates Vista will add $1 billion to $1.5 billion in revenue to Microsoft's top line in the six quarters after its release.

Something's wrong in Redmond. After delaying Vista again, there's also rumors that they moved a bunch of XBox guys to help speed development up (yeah... that'll work ), etc.

Then again there are rumors that they were working on a .Net version of Windows and only scrapped it as late as November 2004 because the performance was too atrocious. I bet they wish they could have had those 2 years back. It also sounds like they switched from an XP kernel to the 2003 kernel and had to rewrite a ton of code to accomodate the change.

Microsoft has a ton of great technical people who are truly brilliant. But it seems that management has really really really screwed up. Too many changing goal posts, and all the consumer gets out of it is some cheesy new interface that should have been a 6 month project rather than 4+ year project.

[Meh_Gerbil]

From InformationWeek.



Something's wrong in Redmond. After delaying Vista again, there's also rumors that they moved a bunch of XBox guys to help speed development up (yeah... that'll work ), etc.

Then again there are rumors that they were working on a .Net version of Windows and only scrapped it as late as November 2004 because the performance was too atrocious. I bet they wish they could have had those 2 years back. It also sounds like they switched from an XP kernel to the 2003 kernel and had to rewrite a ton of code to accomodate the change.

Microsoft has a ton of great technical people who are truly brilliant. But it seems that management has really really really screwed up. Too many changing goal posts, and all the consumer gets out of it is some cheesy new interface that should have been a 6 month project rather than 4+ year project.

Frankly they can slow down development if you ask me.
I'm tired of having to re-learn VB every time it gets a redo.
Would it kill 'em to let a language sit for 5 years?

VS.NET 2005 is perfect.
LEAVE IT ALONE UNTIL I CAN LEARN IT AND ENJOY IT.

[$cirisme]

Frankly they can slow down development if you ask me.
I'm tired of having to re-learn VB every time it gets a redo.
Would it kill 'em to let a language sit for 5 years?

VS.NET 2005 is perfect.
LEAVE IT ALONE UNTIL I CAN LEARN IT AND ENJOY IT.

They don't need to release a new version of vb with every os

[Meh_Gerbil]

They don't need to release a new version of vb with every os

Please let them know this....

[Darth Executor]

VS.NET 2005 is perfect.

Can it cook pizza?

[HerodionRomulus]

Frankly they can slow down development if you ask me.
I'm tired of having to re-learn VB every time it gets a redo.
Would it kill 'em to let a language sit for 5 years?

VS.NET 2005 is perfect.
LEAVE IT ALONE UNTIL I CAN LEARN IT AND ENJOY IT.

Indeed, I'm not learning vb, whatever that is, but XP is plenty good enough. There is too much bloatware and planned obsolescence as it is.