Vista: To Delay or Not To Delay?
|
When Microsoft revealed on June 29, right before the end of its fiscal year 2006, that it was delaying Office 2007 by some unspecified number of days/weeks/months, Microsoft watchers understandably began wondering whether Windows Vista would suffer the same fate. The Office postponement led the Windows team to do some internal soul searching, questioning whether delaying Vista would be a sound move, according to our sources. A recent internal Microsoft e-mail debating the merits of a delay hinted (between the lines, we hear) that yet another Vista delay could be in the cards. Officially, however, as of early July, Microsoft was holding fast to its existing Vista ship schedule of fall 2006 for volume licensees and January 2007 for retail availability. Should Microsoft delay Windows Vista? Or would yet another Vista postponement wreak more havoc on tech vendors and users than it would save? Testers, partners and shareholders all have their own takes on this ongoing debate. There are plenty of good reasons that Microsoft should refrain from delaying for the fourth? fifth? do I hear a sixth? time Windows Vista. Another delay could At the same time, there are just as many reasons that Microsoft should strongly consider pushing back Vista's release date. After all, given that Microsoft already missed its holiday 2006 target, its partners already have factored the Vista-delay impact into their plans. By postponing Vista a few more months, Microsoft could After talking to testers, I'd say Microsoft is going to have trouble making its fall release-to-manufacturing (RTM) target. A number of the ones with whom I spoke said another Vista delay wouldn't really matter. Several said they'd be in favor of another one- to three-month pushback to allow Microsoft to iron out the final kinks. What do you say, readers? After seeing the Beta 2 and the first of the post-Beta-2 (Build 5456) releases, do you think Microsoft should proceed, full-steam-ahead, and release Vista to manufacturing this fall, as planned? Or do you think a delay of a few more months would help Vista more than it would hurt? Talk back below or write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and |

Comments (3)
I'm not in any rush to install Vista on any production machine. I had a couple problems with the IE7 beta, including mis-identification of an IE7 "rootkit" problem by Spy Sweeper. Wasn't able to remove IE7 until I spent 2 hours on the phone with MS tech support. They ought to hold the Vista general release until they'd otherwise be ready to issue Vista SP1.
Posted by Myles Lamson | July 10, 2006 1:14 PM
Posted by B. Goodman | July 11, 2006 7:59 AM
the xp infrastructure is only now being fully developed; any pc can run it; any 512mb can run it sufficiently for all business purposesoon, and very soon at that, the hardware requirements could be packed into the base of a $150 screen for 300 all-in (the cost of a cheap notebook less the cost of battery, wifi, etc. thus, for 350 - 400 any office worker can achieve ultimate productivitysince more and more of the sophisticated programs are server or internet based, who the hell needs more computing power on the desktop; who the hell needs to go through another round of upgrades, retrains, and bug workouts.getting people to work involves simplifying their lives, not making them more complicated
Posted by liora stattenhouse | September 3, 2006 12:10 PM