Windows Vista Delayed Again

Trenty writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Microsoft has delayed Windows Vista yet again. Jim Allchin told analysts that the OS would not ship in January of 2007, which is a 1-2 month delay. Oddly, even though they are citing the need for more time to tweak security, business editions will available to volume licensing customers before the close of the year."

Pre Sale

Oddly, even though they are citing the need for more time to tweak security, business editions will available to volume licensing customers before the close of the year.

Not really all that odd. I believe it's called a pre-sale. People do this on eBay all the time, selling items they don't yet have, but will send along when they get them.

In the software world, we've had a vendor offer us a new product, which we may actually like, at a 75% discount if we sign up by September. The product isn't entirely finished yet and it would likely be two years before migration, but the pricebreak is clearly meant to ensure they have some income. I have no idea what their books look like, but suspect this move is the result of a dire need of revenue, so it makes us go "hmmmm..."

Where do you suppose Microsoft would like to enter the income for these early sales? Revenue recorded early is revenue you can't record later. I rather doubt they are turning over a Special Bug-ridden Business User Version early. They'd be flayed in the Information Trade press. (Then again, it's probably happened a few times already, which could explain how little attention CIO's pay to these magazines, they just scatter them on their desks to look Connected and Managerial.)

Re:It's the DRM

No DRM in the business edition? Then everybody and his brother will install Windows Vista Corporate with a Volume License Key which requires no activation, just like people did with Windows XP.

Re:It's the DRM

If they install the business edition, they won't be able to play high-definition video in MS's proprietary DRM format.

Unlike with XP, the home version isn't just the business version with some newtorking functions taken out. It has some extra (DRM-crippled) multimedia stuff that businesses don't get.

Re:It's the DRM

If they install the business edition, they won't be able to play high-definition video in MS's proprietary DRM format. Unlike with XP, the home version isn't just the business version with some newtorking functions taken out. It has some extra (DRM-crippled) multimedia stuff that businesses don't get.

Err...so what version do people in the high-definition video business buy?

Re:It's the DRM

Err...so what version do people in the high-definition video business buy?

Macs, duh.

=tkk

Re:It's the DRM

Macs, duh

Of course, but if they want to watch the videos in HD format, they will have to buy a separate player or another computer with Windows Vista.

DRM and the HD HDMI restrictions are part of the HD media formats, and have nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft is providing the ability for their OSes to play the media, and unless Mac or Linux also make the same concessions, they will also not be able to play the content in true High Definition.

(Your post was funny, but since it was popular thought this would be a good place to stick these facts. People think that Windows is 'crippled' by DRM and HD HDMI standards, when the movies themselves ship with copy protections, Windows is so far the only OS offering support for them.)

It is like this, regular DVDs have region and DVD copy protection, it is just all DVD players came from the factory supporting the decrypting of the copy protection, and even though it has been hacked and bypassed, 99.9% of the when any of us watches a DVD on a computer or a home player, we are still using the Copy decryption technologies installed in both the players and the computer software.

Same will be for HD DVD and other media. Vista will support the new copy protection, just like the new stand alone players will. So Vista actually 'adds' in the ability to play and decrypt the newer standards. Where people are calling Vista crippled, it is actually the opposite, as it supports the new formats. PERIOD.

Re:It's the DRM

And if they are in the movie industry they will also be privy to information that the movie isn't worth watching (let alone copying) before any of us.

Re:Missing digital media/entertainment features

Maybe, but I think you're underestimating the ingenuity of crackers. Just because those features are "left out" of the VLK edition doesn't mean they can't be added via other means. It might even be as easy as a simple slipstream, but even if its not, it may be easier to add the missing components to a VLK edition than remove the protections from the home/ultimate editions.

Not that it really matters either way. I predict a 99% chance that illegitimate copies will be widespread before February 2007, a 90% chance within a week from release, 75% chance within 24 hours, and 50% chance before the actual release.

Hey!

I thought there wasn't going to be volume licencing for Vista. That's just something I heard on Slashdot, so it is probably untrue.

Hey look everyone! There's not going to be volume licencing for Vista!

Now you have a source - that's how the internet works my friend.

Vaporware

It's also commonly called vaporware, and MSFT's gotten in trouble for it in the past Vaporware [computerworld.com]

Last month, the U.S. District Court jurist in Washington suggested barring Microsoft from making vaporware announcements because doing so can allegedly freeze the market and discourage buyers from purchasing competing products.

Seems not much has changed since 1995.

OEM vs upgrade pricing

I think it has a lot to do with not wanting to sell before Christmas. Many people who are buying new PC's for the kids will do that at Christmas, and you'll see a lot of "Vista Ready" PC's being advertised. However, many of the new games that come out starting next year will use DirectX 10, which will only be available for Vista. This will create a lot of kids whining for an upgrade to Vista next Christmas.

Why sell it now (at OEM pricing, around $50US) when you can sell it a few months, maybe a year, later at upgrade prices (at least $100US). They even get to keep the 50 bucks they made selling the OEM copy of XP.

The PC makers like the idea because it will boost PC sales in the early part of the year, a traditionally slow period, but probably won't seriously impact Christmas sales.

Gee, go figure

Like anyone didn't expect this. Are they too busy with Organimi or whatever? Xbox 360? Their URGE music store?

Has Microsoft EVER released anything that was ON TIME?

Re:Gee, go figure

Windows ME

Re:Gee, go figure

s/3//g;
#Please be kind, o lameness filter.

Re:Gee, go figure

Like anyone didn't expect this. Are they too busy with Organimi or whatever? Xbox 360? Their URGE music store?

Well, these are typically different divisions and Microsoft is rather a large corporation.

Has Microsoft EVER released anything that was ON TIME?

Probably, but usually to everyone's mutual regret. I think the right time is when it's ready and not a moment sooner.

Did you hear about the Wembley Stadium roof collapse yesterday? Would they rather have that thing completed on time, filled with 100,000 people and then have the roof drop 1 metre?

Massive failure on Microsoft's part is taking a toll and they really have a lot at stake this time, after promising XP would be bug free and the best security ever, just before 1.04e7 bugs and security holes were revealed and exploited. Make Wembley look like a tempest in a teapot.

Re:Gee, go figure

Has Microsoft EVER released anything that was ON TIME?

Yes, all the time.
They are called "press releases."

Less and less relevant?

Is it me, or is Vista just becoming less and less relevant?

And the thing is, I use to be an MS fanboy but with the rapidly changing environment of security issues and such, who can wait _years_ before considering other alternatives?

-- Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net]

Re:Less and less relevant?

Is it me, or is Vista just becoming less and less relevant?

Look at it this way. Although some may not consider Vista relevant now, they will several years after it has launched. Like Windows XP and Windows 2000 before it, Vista will be preinstalled on all new computers, and vendors will slowly deprecate their support for older Microsoft operating systems.

As long as the executives at Microsoft are capable of maintaining their OEM agreements with the popular brand name manufacturers, Windows will always be relevant.

Re:Less and less relevant?

Perhaps you just haven't been around long enough to have seen MS in action, but we've heard that before. Actually, before MS released the first version of NT. It was called "Cairo" and MS has had fifteen years to finish it, and they've failed. They borrowed things and hacked things together, but in fifteen years, they still haven't managed to do what others had done.

Copy and paste from Wikipedia:
        * DCE RPC
        * An object-oriented User Interface
        * X.500 Directory
        * X.400 Messaging
        * Content Indexing
        * Object-based file system (see WinFS)

Those are what Cairo was supposed to be, as announed in 1991. It was even demoed in 1993, but not in an even slightly usable form. They managed to accomplish the directory by taking LDAP and writing a custom schema and tools. Messaging was accomplished by their email system (Exchange), which used previously established standards. They do half-assed indexing. There has been over 10 years of security problems with their RPC implementation, and it's still not fixed. They have nothing resembling the object FS, and cancelled the attempt, as we all know.

NT3.x brought the DCE RPC, NT4 brough the UI and messaging. Win2000 brought the directory, and eventually the indexing. XP/2003 brought nothing more than revisions to those existing components, and Vista is no different. The things that *mattered* have been cut from the platform.

Do you really believe that Vista, something that realistically amounts to security fixes, a new and more annoying UI, and a few toolkits that exist elsewhere, is a bigger release than W2K? I hope not, because that's asinine. I can confidently say that AD was far more important than *ANYTHING* new in Vista. XAML/WPF is another MS copy of existing technology, and one that doesn't even really exist yet. Even if it doesn't suck, it would certainly be many years before it mattered. People like being able to use their computers without requiring internet access, and the entire concept would not allow that.

Anyway, you need to think through things more, and look at past performance. You can't trust anything that MS says until you see it yourself. Every "revolutionary" technology that was so heavily pushed by MS propoganda has been dropped eventually. The current ones are DirectX and .NET. Just in their wakes are large version incompatibilities, and lack of support. When you get into something like .NET or MFC, etc, you see that MS barely uses it, and eventually drops it for their newest shiny toy that will sell more copies of new version of all their products.

Re:Less and less relevant?

I didn't say that Vista hasn't had a lot of internal changes, just that they don't matter in that way. They don't enable new applications or technologies; they fix shortcoming in the previous implementation.

So... Just like very other update to a mature platform, then ?

I'm not as much talking about vendors as technologies. MS comes up with their own versions of things, pushes everyone to use them, and then they drop it from something shinier.

So... They're just like everyone else ?

The non-MS part of the world has been using things called "standards", and they have been doing so far longer than Windows has existed, let alone been used.

Really ? What's the standard API for a "unix" GUI application ? How about using audio devices ? Which API should I use to make sure my hardware driver compiles on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris and OS X without modifications or special cases ?

We have POSIX as an API standard, and that's been around for a long time.

And is basically useless (not to mention largely ignored) for anything except trivial command line applications.

Heck, it's not at all uncommon to find trivial open source "unix" applications that only work on x86 Linux machines with particular versions of glibc.

Most "cross platform" unix source code doesn't compile on a wide range of platforms because of "standards", it does so because of the amount of work done by things like autoconf and make.

Jeez. One of the biggest hurdles to wider commercial adoption of Linux is the sheer volume of different APIs (many of which all do essentially the same thing), and you're here trying to say there's no such problem at all ?

MS has had no less than six APIs that I can think of, just off the top of my head.

And "unix" has dozens (if not hundreds). Your point ?

They tried to have their own networking protocols, their own email formats, APIs, and on and on.

So... Just like every other commercial vendor ?

They have all been problematic, and largely dropped for the standards that were already there. In that regard, yes, I can think of "vendors" that it doesn't apply to.

Such as ? Certainly not Apple, Novell or IBM. Maybe Sun, but the intersection of markets between Solaris and Windows is vanishingly small.

You act like Microsoft come up with something, then run away from it the first chance they get just to screw everyone over. Yet things like Win32, MFC and DirectX have been around for over a decade, and will *still* be in legacy support 5 years down the track, if not longer. Heck, Vista will still support Win16 on 32-bit x86, an API that's around twenty years old.

Re:Less and less relevant?

I think Microsoft is making a fundamental mistake here: they are sticking to the same release strategies and timelines they used when software was released on stacks of floppy disks ("please insert disk 37", ahhh, the memories).

Meanwhile, we have the "release early, release often" philosophy of the Free Software Movement as well as the "release often enough to keep things interesting" tactic from Apple. These two tactics make more sense in this new era of software construction, testing, and distribution.

Users have grown accustomed to more frequent releases by software groups and companies they respect. These releases also satisfy an obvious, common human desire: instant gratification. As more and more users grow used to and satisfied with these accelerated release timetables, these multi-year release schedules used by Microsoft (and Adobe, while we're at it) look more and more comical.

Recently, Gates admitted the faux pas of allowing Internet Explorer to stagnate. I believe they have similarly misstepped with Windows. By the time Vista not only comes to market, but comes to be used by the majority of PC users (and don't kid yourself, you know that will happen), it will be very difficult to catch up to the psychological success of the multiple releases of Linux and Mac OS X.

Re:Less and less relevant?

re: This is something I've never really udnerstand when Linux afficianado's criticize Microsoft.

Well, patch Solitaire in Windows, you have to reboot (okay, slight exaggeration), leading to downtime ranging from minutes to hours (in the case of extremely large databases)

Patch anything but the kernel(and modules) in Linux? Just keep chugging along, perhaps restarting a single process or two, and a fairly transparent experience from the user perspective.

There is a difference.

Also note: downtime due to patches, maintenance, etc., is not counted as "downtime" as defined by Microsoft - just the rest of the world. So when you read downtime/uptime comparisons from Microsoft, ignore them. They redefine the terms.

Re:Less and less relevant?

provided you haven't changed anything that changes the linux image itself and only changed modules you should be able to load the new modules without rebooting.

Re:Less and less relevant?

They don't have to release yearly for it to be more effective. But going *over* 5 years between major releases of a desktop operating system takes it to the opposite extreme. As it stands, Windows XP was released 4.5 years ago. In comparison, people constantly complained about Debian Woody being ancient, but the lapse between Woody and Sarge was almost exactly 3 years.

Microsoft's biggest problem is that they're coming to realize that their operating system just plain was not designed with some of today's realities in mind. As a result, they end up undertaking massive reengineering projects instead of solid incremental updates.

Re:Less and less relevant?

I normally don't reply to people who post ad hominem's but I actually had more to say and I didn't want to reply to my own post, so you're a convenient excuse.

3. Dealing with thousands of Linux whackos like you

Nowhere did I say I was a Linux whacko. I don't use Linux (for many of the reasons you cited, actually). I use Windows XP almost everyday, and I like it. I also use Mac OS X (which I love, rather than merely like). But that's the problem: you see, Windows XP is good, not insanely great mind you, but good. Windows 95 was worth the wait compared to the mediocrity of Windows 3.1 (and don't get me started on 3.11's "networking support"). XP is pretty fast, reasonably stable (I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen XP blue screen, and those were mostly due to crappy drivers for el cheapo hardware), and its development tools are excellent.

So, whereas when Apple releases yet another yearly release, I'm excited to try it and see all the nifty little gadgets they've put in there this year, when Microsoft waits three, four, even five YEARS to release another version of Windows, I'm thinking I'd better be blown-away. This rarely happens. In fact, all of the features that would have blown me away (*cough*WinFS*cough*) are steadily removed from the shipping OS every time the release date slips.

So, there's the problem as I see it. By waiting so long to make a new release, they build up excitement while at the same time watering down the release so much that it's quite anti-climactic when the product finally DOES ship. I still like Windows, I just think they're screwing themselves here.

13. Idiots (you fall into this group, too!)

Assuming I'm a "Linux whacko" becuase I submit a post critical of Microsoft release practices? Hmmm, no comment on this one.

Re:Less and less relevant?

The problem with your comparison is that Windows is a mature product, whereas OS X is not.

That's got to be about the stupidest thing I've seen on /. in a long time, and I REALLY try to refrain from saying stuff like that.

By what standard is Windows a mature product compared to any other OS? They release updates and fixes every MONTH and there are like 15-umpty "versions" of Windows in the wild right now. The MSKB is FULL of "bug reports" and stupid workarounds for things that SHOULD have been fixed long ago.

By any rational measure, OS X is every bit as 'mature' as Windows; just ask the millions of people who use it everyday in demanding production environments (I'm not one of them).

Comparing commercial release schedules to OSS is largely nonsensical, because the latter has none of the pressures and/or responsibilities of the former.

Since when is OS X an OSS project? And even if you can somehow claim it is, Apple is a fairly large commercial enterprise with all those pressures and responsibilities you mention.

When is XP not good enough?

The only way I can see Microsoft being able to have Vista succeed faster than just by licenses bundled with new hardware is to cut off patches and support and upgrades from Windows XP.

After working *so* hard to get corporations to upgrade from Windows 95,98, and Windows NT to Windows XP... It's going to be a hard sell to explain that Windows XP is no longer good enough and that corporations need to not only upgrade their OS, but also need to upgrade their *HARDWARE* to take advantage of Windows Vista.

Regardless of how you define "thin client", a desktop running Windows XP fits that bill quite nicely. IE6 is good, Firefox is available, everything is going browser based. Even *if* Microsoft tried to withhold a future version of Internet Explorer from Windows XP users, there will be Firefox and Opera. If microsoft tries to require non-portable components on the client side of their web components, they're going to cut off mobile users, OSX users, Linux, etc.

How exactly can Microsoft make Vista a compelling upgrade other than releasing new game titles that will not run on Windows XP?

Certainly, they cannot cut off security updates on Windows XP at least for the next decade or so.

Re:When is XP not good enough?

A desktop running XP is NOT a thin client.

MS has made it clear they will support older operating systems with security patches for at least 5 years after they discontinue selling it.

Businesses buy new computers on average every 4-5 years, if for no reason other than it is cheaper than maintaining the old hardware. Cost to maintain vs. new is one reason. Depreciation rules are another.

They will cut off XP update in 6 to 8 years. They will cut off all non-critical updates (bug fixes) in 2 to 4. All of this is published on their site, their policies for End of Life products.

My house is 50% Linux, 50% MS right now. We will not be making the transistion to Vista. By the time games won't run on XP anymore (5-6 years from now) I expect they will on Linux, or I simply won't buy the ones than don't.

So I really don't care when Vista comes out.

Dupe?

Wouldn't it be "news" if you posted a story when a Windows release wasn't delayed?

Dupe

" Windows Vista Delayed Again"

-1 Dupe.

The real reason --

They are replacing the bundled mine sweeper with Duke Nukem Forever.

Better

An OS with less holes is better than an OS with more holes. Let us wait patiently...