will Vista last longer than XP ?

[Jon Davis]

Famous last words to which you will not be held.
Based on XP -> Vista expect Vienna in 2012.

Microsoft has formally announced that the Vista life cycle, like the service
pack release schedule for Windows NT 4.0, was flooded with release-related
errors, namely that it went on for far too long, and that this OS delay for
a new super revision OS will NEVER happen again, ever. Instead, Microsoft
intends to release continuous increments, a la Windows Update, and release
the next OS after all the updates have proven solid within Vista itself.

Not sure how this will work once Singularity comes out of Microsoft Research
years from now and into production development, but that's what their
announcement was.

Jon

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Just a comment: Had not XP SP2 been all about security and had not MS been
concerned that it would not be widely enough adopted to meet their security
concerns as a new version of Windows, XP SP2 would probably have been the
missing link and been called something like XP Second Edition or XP R2 at a
new edition price like 98SE and Windows Server 2003 R2 were. From that
point of view, there is not really such a gap between new editions.

 

[Jon Davis]

My, aren't we snippy today.

The fact remains that the myth of "software rot" isn't entirely a myth,
especially in an Internet-connected computing society. For example, a
Windows 98 computer running on a 200 MHz processor that was "fine" in its
day for web browsing would not be able to browse the web today, there's
simply too much bloat on web pages. In the business world, IT decisions are
made behind the backs of those using a particular PC, sometimes by second
party business partners, requiring software updates that in turn require
hardware updates.

The notion of a computer doing everything one needs it to over a long period
of time meaning doing the same tasks it was originally assigned to do is
extremely unrealistic, and is reserved for a few dedicated services like
DNS, or for a tiny few bunch of consumers who will never use a computer for
anything more than Microsoft Word and instant messaging. Maybe throw in the
MAME crowd since that's vintage anyway.

Jon

 

[Roy Coorne]

MicroFox schrieb:
....

Here is a open multinational, multicultural, multifaceted and multithemed
vista newsgroup talking about general things regarding vista.

I dont have to explain anything. I have no need to prove anything. If you
don't like what I say, tough luck!

....

Do you still count the number of killfiles you are in?



rOy

 

[Mr. Vista]

I bet the boys at NASA were not "unreasonable" when they "suddenly shifted"
position due to an unusual event like a shuttle blowing up. Using your
logic they should have ignored this "exceptional circumstance".
I wonder what Chad's comment is on this...

 

[David Wilkinson]

Sorry David but you are still missing the point - one exception
circumstance does not change an overall plan.
It would actually be an unreasonable person that suddenly shifted
there position based on one unusually set of events.

As to "who knows" well some of us do, and we are not tarnishing our
perception of timescales based on one hiccup in a long term plan.

Mike:

This seems like a "it's so because I say so" argument to me. One
exceptional circumstance? I would say that there were several
circumstances that contributed to the long wait for Vista. And probably
not all of them could have been foreseen. So it "could" happen again.

But you are probably right. The wait for Vienna will not be so long,
because MS will do everything they can to prevent it.

David Wilkinson

 

[Robert Moir]

My, aren't we snippy today.

Yes. It comes of having words put into my mouth that I never said. I can
cause enough trouble by myself, I don't need any help ;-)

The fact remains that the myth of "software rot" isn't entirely a
myth, especially in an Internet-connected computing society. For
example, a Windows 98 computer running on a 200 MHz processor that
was "fine" in its day for web browsing would not be able to browse
the web today, there's simply too much bloat on web pages. In the
business world, IT decisions are made behind the backs of those using
a particular PC, sometimes by second party business partners,
requiring software updates that in turn require hardware updates.

Fair point, and I agree, but these would be an example of changing
requirements. To balance this, lots of companies have old computers running
basic connections to a company database in their factory or warehouse or
something. And let us not forget that talking about Windows 98 or Windows
3.1 being viable today is an extreme example (though I bet you wouldn't have
to go that far to find a business using them).

There are lots of businesses using Windows 2000 quite happily, to use a more
reasonable example.

The notion of a computer doing everything one needs it to over a long
period of time meaning doing the same tasks it was originally
assigned to do is extremely unrealistic, and is reserved for a few
dedicated services like DNS, or for a tiny few bunch of consumers who
will never use a computer for anything more than Microsoft Word and
instant messaging. Maybe throw in the MAME crowd since that's vintage
anyway.

Indeed but I wasn't talking about extreme examples. In fact, I wasn't
talking about the computer at all, I was talking about the operating system,
and the rush to upgrade from the current version to the new version. And I
stand by what I said.

 

[Alias]

Mike:

This seems like a "it's so because I say so" argument to me. One
exceptional circumstance? I would say that there were several
circumstances that contributed to the long wait for Vista. And probably
not all of them could have been foreseen. So it "could" happen again.

But you are probably right. The wait for Vienna will not be so long,
because MS will do everything they can to prevent it.

David Wilkinson

Vienna won't see the time of day as everything is going on line now.
Windows Live ring a bell? Vista is just MS making one last grab for the
money.

Alias