begin risky.vbs
<e03lga$211g$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> __/ [ Roy Culley ] on Saturday 25 March 2006 14:48 \__
>
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <e03kuj$211g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>> Since Vista development fell back to the Server 2003 codebase
>>> (merely the same as XP, end of 2001) around September 2005 and
>>> Microsoft announced feature freeze last night, would it be fair to
>>> assume that the Vista milestone is the fruit of just 6 months in
>>> development?
>>
>> From a 'feature' point of view yes. Vista will be little more than an
>> XP SP. Only thing that is guaranteed is a load of new security bugs.
>
> I was going to allude to security, but I tried to stick to a single
> sentence. On several occasions in the past couple of days,
> Microsoft have admitted that delays are primarily due to security
> (among other, secondary factors they had listed). That _in its own
> right_ is a huge blow.
It really is telling tha MS blame security on the Vista delay. Normally
that is the last reason they would use. Clearly they are having serious
problems with vista and office. Too many years of hacking features into
both has come home to haunt them. Their SW is clearly unmaintainable.
This is nothing new of course. How many times have MS patches failed
to fix a problem properly or introduced more bugs? I bet Gates just
wishes he had chosen to do what Apple did. Borrow a free OS and glue
windows on top of it. Too late now of course.
|
|
