Microsoft to Delay Windows Vista Release

V for Vaporware.

Anyone up for a nie game of Duke Nuken Forever?

As long as the delay means no need for updates...(giggle, yea right!)

God, what a nightmare! And they just wrote a check for half a billion for advertising. That screaming you hear may be the shareholders riding MSFT down the rollercoaster.

Given MS's track record, no one could have predicted that, eh?

It's already over 2 years late, what's another couple of months?

In the meantime, why wait for Vista when Mac OS X already gives you everything that Vista promises -- plus usability, stability, and actual security that works.

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Here's the thing that doesn't smell right: why, many months out, are they tweaking the launch only by "a couple of weeks?" That makes no sense. This far out, you don't have even close to that level of granularity in the predictability of your launch date.

My take on this (having gone through countless software releases): they are taking the pressure off Christmas with this move so that vendors won't scream bloody murder this Summer when MSFT announces the real release date of Summer '07.

For those interested, I just wrote a piece on why Vista's slip into '07 represents a unique opportunity for Apple:

Vista Slip Spells Opportunity for Apple

Why? Are they trying to fit in more SUCK?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

So, a need to fix flaws in the security. They should throw the bathwater and the baby with Vista and start from scratch. I am so glad I switched.

I'm with maxl31 on this. Why get Vista when you can get OS X now with everything that Vista is going to have? Not to mention that Leopard is going to be coming out in short order and it will have even more features. Rumor is that there will be some information on Leopard during their WWDC this year.

The only reason they are able to keep pushing back Vista is because for the majority of people XP is a perfectly fine OS. If we were all currently using '98 or ME, Vista would be shot out bugs or no bugs. But XP is just fine with a security patch every now and then. I wish they would push off Vista until '08 or '09, if that means that when it comes out the new file system is in place, it is relatively secure and stable and they keep working on it. Since service pack 3 is coming soon (for free, unlike Mac service packs) XP will just keep being just fine.

I use XP, 10.4 and Kubuntu with all about the same frequency and for the average tasks most people do, e-mail, web surfing, document writing, music listening there is very little noticeable difference for the average person.

thesonofhob: I agree whole-heartedly. The media are making a lot of the fact that it's been five years since XP's release, but given the massive improvements XP brought over 98 and ME, and the fact that I can't actually think of anything I want out of an OS that XP doesn't provide (other than security of course), I don't think this is a problem. Better graphics and transparent window edges sound nice and pretty, but hardly worth getting too excited about. Let them fix the security issues before release to limit the required number of service packs. The cynic in me is not the least bit surprised that security is what's delaying the release. I don't think MS thought much about security before XP, and now realise that they really do need to get it right. Imagine the cost of the server farms just to deliver service packs to the hundreds of millions of PC's that need them.

Since service pack 3 is coming soon (for free, unlike Mac service packs) XP will just keep being just fine.

Mac OS X doesn't have "service packs" - it has Security Updates, released in a timely fashion via Software Update - and they're completely free. It also has minor version upgrades (as in from 10.4.4 to 10.4.5) - these are probably the closest match to Windows Service Packs and they are also completely free.

Different versions of Mac OS X do cost, but a version upgrade in OS X (say, from 10.3 to 10.4) is actually much more like the difference between Windows 98 and Windows ME. Factor in that an OS X license is far cheaper than a Windows license, and I think Mac users get the better deal.

Arexx, thanks for explaining this to non Mac users. I am Mac guy since 2002. And there is not one Windows device at home, not even a mobile PC. I was laughing again this morning with Vista delay news. As predicted of course. On the other hand, we will have OS X 10.5 Leopard most likely by the end of the year. Which is not a service pack, a whole new OS. Mac users not only get a better deal, they actually get it.

The gloating from the Mac brigade is infantile.

If it makes you happy ... Most Windows users couldn't care.

Look, Macites, stop attacking the Win32 users. Don't bash me- I'm a Linux guy, and have no intent of using Windows, ever. However, bashing Windows using the same arguements ("MacOS is safer, faster, and...better!") isn't going to change anyone's minds. If you don't have anything to say on the topic of the article, don't post.

Another delay means another new feature being stripped out ... wonder which one it will be this time.

I've had an opportunity to play with a few betas, I see no compelling reason to upgrade from XP. The new shell wasn't included in the beta saw, and most of the new features seemed like cheap knock offs of MacOS X Tiger. The new file system would have been really nice, but that got stripped out too.

I will give it a point for having a very nice default theme, and the redesigned start menu is really slick. Apple should take note of the start menu as a way of organizing all the applications in the applications folder. The Dock doesn't cut it.

Another delay means another new feature being stripped out ... wonder which one it will be this time.

One guy asked whether they would still have support for the Mouse. They keep throwing stuff overboard to keep this thing afloat. Makes you wonder why they bother...

Clearly, Microsoft has lost the edge on innovation. Even the hardware requirements to run The Vista OPERATING SYSTEM are outrageous.

I am rather positive on this delay and even feel happier. It is rather quicker than my expectations, better to have a good quality product rather than just a product which respects to time-line. Everyone, now should start thinking how to be adjusted to the VISTA, with what cost? There are lots of users who still using Window 98, are you aware of it? I, myself uses the two, and very happy with the Windows XP-SP2 and looking forward for Vista sometimes later in the year 2007 or so.

This is not at all a disaster Microsoft faces, but the problem is the MEDIA.

Bill Gates is the man, bravo.

Vista is just XP rewrapped with better looking window borders, and some transparencies. They threw out the file system they were going to improve. so.. yeah lets pay 100$ for windows XP again! How about Linux, a new thing called XGL is making its way forward with transparencies and the eye-candy Vista is bringing. Linux isnt hard to use at all, now thanks to Ubuntu. its just the fear microsoft wants you to have that most people have that perception. dive into linux and save yourself a dollar and some for the same functionality.

This is not at all a disaster Microsoft faces, but the problem is the MEDIA.

@Cataloglu: Care to elaborate?

Microsoft can delay Vista until Jesus returns because I am sick and tired of having to upgrade my hardware to run their latest bloated OS.

It will probably run fine on anything that ran XP (maybe with some RAM added) so long as you're not fussed about Aero Glass.

By all accounts Aero is an off-putting novelty best turned off, but there are a lot of other features, individually modest, which make the whole package worthwhile - particularly on ease of use, security and search.