[snips]
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:00:02 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> Incomplete (feature-wise), half-baked, not secure, and released beyond the
>> originally-named date. It's a recipe for a blunder.
>
> If they're not careful. Win95 was delayed, too, and was one of
> Microsoft's more notable successes.
True, but that was coming off Win3.x, which was, let's face it, a steaming
pile of dingo's kidneys. Very limited UI, memory management, etc, etc,
etc.
Win95, for all its flakiness, was an enormous step forward. 2K was even
more so, getting the "perks" of the 9x series with the stability of the NT
systems (more or less). Not perfect, but a lot better than '95 or '98
could manage.
Here, though, we have a case where, between 2K and XP, Joe Sixpack's
desktop box should be reasonably stable, the UI is reasonably flexible,
and, basically, while the power user may find a lot of limits, Joe Sixpack
probably doesn't.
So what's the impetus to upgrade? Security, perhaps. Except the seem to
have blundered that one. New features? They keep dropping like flies.
Delaying until they work out the bugs, this is a good idea, sure... but
delays, combined with feature amputations, combined with concerns over the
security of the system, combined with not really offering anything "sexy"
to the user... I don't see how Vista is going to be anything but a
terminal flop.
|
|
