It seems that you have a problem comprehending then.
I have been monitoring the longhorn -vista evolution from the start...
I doubt that.
Who is telling you this stuff? Or is this just your conclusion? Did you take
the time
to read the review like I sent you.. most of the history is there...
Your own review contradicts you.
You seem that you don't understand the vastness of a company like Microsoft.
No, I fully understand. You don't seem to understand the way Microsoft
develops Windows.
Most probably it teams that work parallel on various products... they are
not waiting for one team to finish so they can work on another project!
Yes, they do have teams working in parallel, but at any given time the
majority of the Windows Development team is working on a single project.
In 2002 and 2003 that was Windows 2003 Server. In 2003 and 2004 it was
XP-SP2/2003-SP1.
Microsoft has thousands of employees... !
Of course it does, but they're not all programmers, and they don't all work
on the Windows development team.
and if you see some videos like the one synapse posted you can clearly see
that it was not a minor update that they wanted.. they wanted something big...
very different...
In 2003, that's true, but by then it was already late.
From the review you directed me to:
"There will be a Windows release between Windows XP and Blackcomb," a
spokesperson for the software giant verified that day. It was codenamed
Longhorn and would ship in 2003, Microsoft said. According to reports,
planning for the Longhorn release began the previous May when the Windows
XP development process started winding down.
Longhorn, at the time, was seen as a minor interim release between XP and
Blackcomb. Indeed, as I exclusively revealed that year, even the name
Longhorn was an indication of the product's status: While both Whistler and
Blackcomb are humongous ski resorts in British Columbia, Longhorn is the
name of a bar between the two mountains. "To get to Blackcomb from
Whistler," a friend from Microsoft told me at the time, "you have to go by
Longhorn."
new technologies that they had to drop off because they were disorganized.
Actually, the majority of the new technologies were because they were
confusing to end users, or were controversial that nobody wanted like
NGSCB. WinFS is a notable exception, and there are plenty of reasons for
that.
MS had real big internal problems.. and all this shows in the final
product...
Yes, they did. But that's beside the point. Vista is still only about 2
years worth of real effort by the majority of the Windows team.
and even more in the contrast of what they hype was in the longhorn era,
in comparison with Vista.
Concepts don't often pan out, for a variety of reasons. There were a
number of cool features that I wish they'd left in. They were done,
complete.. but they were removed because of negative feedback from testers
about usability.
Most of the 5 years was lost because of internal problems...
Most of the 5 years (3 years in fact) was lost in Microsoft's push to
re-create itself security wise.
and then they had to hack off all the innovation and work like crazy just to
release a buggy badly designed OS..
There aren't that many features that were dropped. Seriously. There's
hundreds of new features in Vista, and only about a dozen that got dropped.
Hello.. NEWSFLASH for you>>>> Vista IS a minor update... lol.. that's what
it ended up as.
Yes, a minor update that ships on a 2.5GB CD compared to a 700MB CD,
contains Millions of lines of new code, totally new subsystems (like WPF,
WCF, and WFF), Completely redesigned GUI architecture (not just the look,
but the way it works), etc... yeah, that's a minor update.
I cant believe anyone who can think of himself as a person who understands
technology could really like vista.
Then why do you care?
I will simply go with the flow because of the nature of my work.. I most
likely will use it.. but I will understand the history behind it, and its limitations... and I will never fall in love
with it...
Have you ever fallen in love with an OS? Sounds like you create emotional
attachments to inanimate objects.
