__/ [Roy Culley] on Wednesday 01 February 2006 00:36 \__
> begin risky.vbs
> <44acp4F17k0eU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> B Gruff <bbgruff@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?NewsID=5263
>>
>> "Microsoft has hinted at the possibility of delaying Windows Vista if it
>> does not meet quality expectations"
>
> Quality! They don't even know what 'new' features it will have yet.
Surely, Vista is still unstable.
http://chris.pirillo.com/blog/_archives/2005/4/26/624829.html
<quote>
And because of that, we end up with sloppy, "just good enough" experiences.
My earlier post on the pre-beta of Longhorn illustrates my point ENTIRELY.
And I'm complaining not for the sake of complaining - I truly, honestly want
to make this better for myself and the rest of the world (simultaneously).
I've given pages upon pages of valid feedback and ideas to the MSN Search
Champs, Featured Community Summit leaders, et al - but the loop needs to be
made tighter. I also know the marketing / PR departments aren't going to
understand a word I say.
</quote>
See: http://chris.pirillo.com/blog/_archives/2005/4/25/619252.html
Also, let us forget about the (in)famous three pillars for a while... a
_long_ while.
>> I'm sure that many of you will agree with me that it would be a
>> shame if it were delayed, and that it is not necessary to do so.
>> Surely, it would meet *our* "quality expectations of Vista" if it
>> were released *now*, would it not?
*LOL* Good one, Bill.
> Ain't XP SP3^H^H^H^H^H^HVista due around 2007? Doesn't matter when MS
> release vista. It will be more of the same 'insecure by design' crap.
Good observation. I thought Vista /was/ SP3 until I read about that
ridiculous agenda for Service Pack III.11.
|
|
