__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Wednesday 22 March 2006 13:40 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ William Poaster ] on Wednesday 22 March 2006 12:42 \__
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:32:45 +0000, Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:27:00 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> addendum: it all makes perfect sense. Microsoft said that Windows XP
>>>>> Service Pack III will be released in 2007.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.schestowitz.com/Amusement/vista-upgrade/
>>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't be more true if you ask me, despite the sarcasm.
>>>>
>>>> So Vista really WILL be XP SP3 then.......
>>>
>>> The way they've chopped stuff out of the *original* specification of
>>> Fista, & I'll bet they haven't finished yet, it probably will be.
>>
>> I read the following when it was first published, so thought it was worth
>> revisiting:
>>
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1822972,00.asp
>>
>> ,----[ Longhorn's Missing Snap Factor - Quote ]
>>|
>>| All we hear about Longhorn, though, seems to be about the removal of
>>| one promised feature after another. I had lunch recently with a former
>>| Microsoft product manager who was bemoaning the fact that the "three
>>| pillars of Longhorn," which he said were the basis for its development,
>>| had all been removed. These were the fancy file structure, the new
>>| presentation manager, and a communications system?things that were
>>| going to make the OS a platform for what were described as
>>| Service-Oriented Applications (SOA).
>> `----
>>
> <mini snip>
>
> It appears to be reduced to a service pack, which means Vista is going
> to be Windows NT 5.2 instead of Windows NT 6.0. With that in mind,
> even the most pro-Microsoft customers will surely question the wisdom of
> upgrading for the sake of it. Added to that the complexity of different
> versions, each of which will undoubtably need additional payment to
> upgrade when the user realises that his home network needs it, or the
> business user finds that he's limited to 2 accesses to a machine or
> whatever... this is probably going to be very messy indeed for those
> brave enough to take the plunge.
>
> That said, I've no doubt that a new release of Office will aim to make
> Office97 unusable, so MS will probably push for a series of upgrades to
> older machines (which tends to be how businesses really work - they
> don't upgrade the ones on XP, they'll upgrade the ones on 2k instead).
>
> I wonder if the emerging market version will be remotely competitive
> with Linux?
Vis-a-vis Office, I have just read that the head of their Office division is
moving. He is rumoured to be put in charge of Windows. What in rotten hell
is going on there in Redmond? Jointly with last night's announcement on the
delays, this reflects very badly on administrative, _as well as_ technical
issues, which are kept hidden from public sight. Here'e the link:
http://news.com.com/2061-10805_3-6052452.html?part=rss&tag=6052452&subj=news
As usual, CNET are the first to report (it's an hour old and reached no other
outlet yet). As a general rule, Avoid CNET if at all possible. It's evident
that Microsoft pay them s**tloads to promote Vista in their site, through
articles included.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Proprietary cripples communication
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:50pm up 14 days 6:27, 8 users, load average: 1.85, 1.58, 1.31
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
