RC1-CLOSE ENOUGH?!

[Guest]

Dont you think Vista RC1 is close enough?! More Like FEW DAYS AWAY?!

THINK of the Evidences By Microsoft !

1- DirectX Software Development Kit
-(Source:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...1E-53F3-4747-8490-6801D8E8B4EF&displaylang=en)


Quote1: 'Direct3D 10 Technology Preview

Windows Vista RC1 Is Required for the Direct3D Technology Preview

The August 2006 Direct3D® 10 Technology Preview is only supported on Windows
Vistaâ„¢ RC1: it is not supported on previous releases of Windows Vista.'


2: Look at http://www.winvistainfo.org/vistaRC1.aspx


Quote: (BUG YOU HAVE REPORTED HAVE BEEN FIXED IN VISTA RC1)


means microsoft is on vista RC1 ,working on it and making it to be finished


WHAT YOU SAY?!

 

[display name]

Close enough to what?

The things you listed only imply that Vista will be ready later this year.
Nothing to indicate "days away".

Besides, what difference does it make? A Release Candidate isn't a finished
product. It's just another stage in the beta cycle.

 

[Guest]

Wrong! A release canidate is MS saying this is the 1st stable build that we
want to ship, take a look through. RC's are NOT beta's.

Umar,

I hope to god not. Vista needs work, you don't want to buy a 'up-to-date
Windows ME', do you?

 

[display name]

The first stable build that we want to ship? OK, let's say that's the
official definition. The question remains, why do people keep asking when
it's going to ship and why does it matter?

 

[Chad Harris]

I think you should ask Colin if he can get you with some of his homies who
fill a "Cafe" group with endless miles of "mommy mommy kin we done have
another build pullleassse mommy mommy mommy" You'd think their damn life
revolves around the next interim because they spend a helluva lot more time
asking Mommy for new build than they do testing and filing bugs or trying to
understand how Vista really works.

CH

 

[Chad Harris]

RC's for Windows are

1) Most definitely Beta builds on the way to RTM.
2) Are defined a number of ways but considered in the MSFT culture as
possible release candidates literally barring major problems. This is not
going to be the case however with this one--believe me.
3) This is also considered a "milestone build" for what it is worth.

Most people who have it now are not very happy with the progress on a number
of fronts, and a number of major components do not work well.

If MSFT does not add another 5-6 months onto the Vista Beta cycle, then a
very broken Windows will be shipped and I think it will embarass Jim
Allchin. I don't think he wants to be embarassed with what he has invested
in Vista.

CH

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It is the first build released which can be fairly criticized for not being
ready for public release.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Human nature. Curiosity.

The first stable build that we want to ship? OK, let's say that's the
official definition. The question remains, why do people keep asking when
it's going to ship and why does it matter?

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Chad, what are you talking about? What are homies? Where do you get this
stuff?

 

[Lang Murphy]

I think Vista's RC1 is going to deviate from previous RC1's in that it will
have numerous releases prior to RTM. IOW, RC1 -is- Beta 3.

Just a hunch... ;-D

 

[Chad Harris]

I was referring to the endless TBT (some of them beggging for a new build
every couple weeks--homies was used in no perjorative way it meant
collegues). It's the penchant for the newest thing that seems to be so
prevelant in most but not all computer users who have a Windows bug.

CH

 

[Chad Harris]

I'm hopeful that enough careful responses and bugs can be filed for RC1 that
will cause a decision to delay Vista's RTM a few months. This is somewhat
interesting. I could speculate and you could speculate but I wish Ballmer
had gone into considerably more detail in an MSDN Radio 9 video. I think
it would not only be very interesting, but instructive as to how MSFT
conceives an agenda early on for Vista or an OS--From Paul Thurott's
www.wininformant.com (there is probably more detail on the web--Ballmer's
speech would be retreivable, but you'd probably have to find an MSDN MSFT
blog that is reacting to this. I'm going to see if I can get someone from
the Vista teams to respond to this. I'd like very much to know what thing
or things constituted a "mistake" and it probably is a concept of getting
things to work together that would have taken a lot more time. I'd also
like to know what is getting left out. I don't think he is referring to Win
FS which wasn't going to be part of Vista's RTM anyway.


Ballmer Details Single Mistake that Led to Vista Delays

Here's one of the more interesting factoids that came out of last week's
Microsoft Financial Analyst Meeting 2006: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said
that a single mistake led to Vista's multitude of delays. But I'm guessing
that if he could go back and develop Vista in the same way all over again,
he would. "We made an upfront decision that was, I'll say, incredibly
strategic and brilliant and wise ... and was not implementable," Ballmer
told financial analysts, explaining away the past four years in about nine
seconds. "We tried to incubate too many new innovations and integrate them
simultaneously, as opposed to letting them bake and then integrating them,
which is essentially where we wound up." Bake and integrate--that's the
ticket.

CH

 

[Chad Harris]

I'm hopeful that enough careful responses and bugs can be filed for RC1 that
will cause a decision to delay Vista's RTM a few months. This is somewhat
interesting. I could speculate and you could speculate but I wish Ballmer
had gone into considerably more detail in an MSDN Radio 9 video. I think
it would not only be very interesting, but instructive as to how MSFT
conceives an agenda early on for Vista or an OS--From Paul Thurott's
www.wininformant.com (there is probably more detail on the web--Ballmer's
speech would be retreivable, but you'd probably have to find an MSDN MSFT
blog that is reacting to this. I'm going to see if I can get someone from
the Vista teams to respond to this. I'd like very much to know what thing
or things constituted a "mistake" and it probably is a concept of getting
things to work together that would have taken a lot more time. I'd also
like to know what is getting left out. I don't think he is referring to Win
FS which wasn't going to be part of Vista's RTM anyway.


Ballmer Details Single Mistake that Led to Vista Delays

Here's one of the more interesting factoids that came out of last week's
Microsoft Financial Analyst Meeting 2006: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said
that a single mistake led to Vista's multitude of delays. But I'm guessing
that if he could go back and develop Vista in the same way all over again,
he would. "We made an upfront decision that was, I'll say, incredibly
strategic and brilliant and wise ... and was not implementable," Ballmer
told financial analysts, explaining away the past four years in about nine
seconds. "We tried to incubate too many new innovations and integrate them
simultaneously, as opposed to letting them bake and then integrating them,
which is essentially where we wound up." Bake and integrate--that's the
ticket.

CH

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

You make the TBT folks sound like a bunch of whining juveniles. Why? They
sure don't sound like it to me.

There are a number of other TB testers who post here regularly and I bet
they will agree with me that TechBeta is a structured testing environment
with a lot of professionals who have helped MS with testing Windows for a
decade. Quite a lot of them aren't even testing Vista. Some of the testers
will spend the whole 18 months of testing on just things like NetIO in
Server.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Perhaps one or two interim builds, but the need for interims is less in RC1
because there are no new major additions. This all sounds like Whistler's
last few months before rtm.

 

[Chad Harris]

Everything you said positive about the testing environment is very true.
Many are terrific users, very dedicated and unselfish with their time to an
unbelievable degree, and very talented people and unselfish helpers, but
there is a segment that posts that are whining juveniles. I only make
that reference when it comes to "are we there yet posts or do when do we get
another build." The only thing on the when that matters in Vista IMHO is
that they give it the 6 more months past their current RTM target that it
desparately needs.

CH

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I find far more in the public Vista groups than I do in the beta.longhorn
groups. They are most likely the ones that won't be around for Vienna beta.

There were folks who wanted Whistler to have six more months. They didn't
get it. Would the OS benefit with more time? Yes! Would the OS benefit
just as much anyway if they simply go to rtm and then continue working?
Yes!

 

[Chad Harris]

I don't understand. You find far more ***what*** in the Vista groups than
in the beta.longhorn. What won't be around for Vienna beta?

It's said proverbialy in essays/articles on beta testing in Windows that
Beta testers always want more time. I badly want more time for Vista. I'm
not sure what you mean then continue working--I suppose you mean working on
it post RTM as to functionality as opposed to pure security.

Using XP as a model, I don't think there were a lot of functional
improvements to XP with the service packs from MSFT. The improvements came
with the hacks and applications 3rd party people followed XP's RTM with.

CH

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Whiners.

I don't understand. You find far more ***what*** in the Vista groups than
in the beta.longhorn. What won't be around for Vienna beta?

It's said proverbialy in essays/articles on beta testing in Windows that
Beta testers always want more time. I badly want more time for Vista. I'm
not sure what you mean then continue working--I suppose you mean working
on it post RTM as to functionality as opposed to pure security.

Using XP as a model, I don't think there were a lot of functional
improvements to XP with the service packs from MSFT. The improvements came
with the hacks and applications 3rd party people followed XP's RTM with.

CH