He blames the OS's delay largely on the infamous 2003 Blaster worm outbreak, which he says forced Microsoft to put Vista on the back burner while it worked to beef up Windows XP's security.
Uh, yeah, of course... Surely it was Blaster that forced MS to patch XP - instead of XP's very inert lack of security, really, no kidding. (Also, I fail to see how patching holes in XP should have delayed Vista's development for years.) Anyway, given MS's strategy of milking it's customers for what it's worth, this really smells like "providing a functional version of Vista and selling it as a new product to make more money".

I have done a little sampling of the current 3rd-party hardware and applications software status of Vista. And it is truly horrid. Still-missing drivers plus key applications that will never be patched - instead, an excuse for releasing a new version of the application and charging mucho bucks for it.

For example, take a look at Adobe's stable of professional applications that will never be patched for Vista. Adobe in some cases is guaranteeing that there will be a latest version that will (eventually) support Vista, but has no compunction whatsover about charge you a fat UPGRADE fee to that latest version . Example: Premiere Pro1.5 does crash on Vista and will never be patched for that OS. Upgrade to 2.0 required...only $199....and of course you might want Encore-DVD 2.0 at the same time... only a $149 upgrade... Pro 2.0 also crashes with Vista, but will reputedly be fixed some time in the future...

For an example of 3rd-party hardware driver status, Matrox state that they have not yet even tried their PC-based DV editor-accelerators, the RT X100 or the brand-new RT X2 on Vista, and in their forums they strongly advise both existing and prospective owners to stay away from Vista.

For an example of the sad state of some excellent XP utilities, Norton Ghost will be updated "sometime in the future" for Vista and Partition Magic is nowhere to be found in the list of Vista-compatible prospects. Neither function properly under Vista, even with the latest XP patches.

It seems as if Vista is solely useful for simple business applications (mostly MS) and in motherboard-centric multimedia PCs... anything that will nicely function on a plain-jane machine. I suspect that one prime reason for this state of affairs was the late jelling of the OS... the 3rd party developers were finally given stable documentation and kernel-code far too late. And MS compounded their problems by not incorporating a true XP emulation mode into Vista. VirtualPC 2007 is totally useless if an XP application is required to interface with any form of dedicated hardware.

My advice to those contemplating a new PC with Vista installed (or even upgrading their current one to Vista ) :---

BEFORE any purchase of Vista, whether with a PC or by itself , check all the applications and hardware that you expect to run under the new OS for Vista compatibility - if the manufacturer's website does not mention Vista compatibility, assume the worst. Otherwise you may find that the joys of going with the latest and greatest OS will be severely dampened by the true costs of its ownership . If you acquire a Vista-installed PC, you might find yourself also making an unexpected purchase of WindowsXP so that you can achieve your applications-objectives, avoiding the lack of Vista-compatible software and/or the costs of unwanted upgrade purchases. That pretty Aero interface gets "old" rather quickly if the motor underneath requires premium fuel and lacks the hardware ability to point in the direction that you want to drive.

Riiiight.

Vista is 50 million lines of code. If you know a way to make that in any reasonable timeframe profitably, let me know so i can patent the method and live off it.

I'm going to guess that windows' code bases are following some crazy progression for each major release. It has to be at least linear in my view, and could in fact be closer to quadratic (more stuff has to be done, and it has to interlink in more ways with other stuff, ad infinitum).

Best resource I can find is this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/technology/27soft.html?ex=1301115...

Bung those figures into a graph and it becomes superlinear.

My point being that if this is a minor release, the next version of Windows will probably be something like 60-70 million lines of code. If it's a major release, that becomes something like 100 million if not more. Making that in 2 1/2 years doesn't seem feasible to me.

This reminds me of Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 was a nice improvement to Windows NT 4.0. However in in about 1.5 years, XP was released which addressed many of the short comings of Windows 2000 (though XP made somethings unnecessarily complicated like home networking).

I guess the next version of Windows will be a refresh to Vista where they get to add the stuff that was taken out to make the release date.

How much space does a Vista install take anyway?

Cool! It'll be out in time for Half Life 2 Episode 3!!

2 - 2.5 years is too soon between new releases if you ask me. Technology changes, sure, but not enough to justify new versions of Windows that quick between each other. Going from Windows 95 to Windows 98 three years apart back in the day was OK because three years between a new PC is fairly standard in my books. New PC = New Operating System. But they should price upgrade editions of Windows like they did for the Windows ME upgrade for Windows 98 users.

they are actually gonna make something worse than vista? WOW! Cant wait for 2009! Let me guess, a 50 gig installation?

doubtful, i see something more like 2.5 years of delays. If they actually do get it out on time this time, then you may as well keep XP since it is gonna be supported all that time anyways, just skip Vista and save some money. Unless you can get it for free that is... like us lucky college kids!

Hey cool, I can skip Vista altogether then.

I don't want a new OS to relearn every 2.5 years.

I guess they want a steady income, poor microsoft :(

So this is what came to mind when I read the headline:

* Guess that's how long it will take Microsoft to copy Leopard's features!

* Microsoft should not confuse Vista SP 2 with the next version of Windows.

* Windows ME2

Ba dum pum ... *tish*

Thank you, thank you, I am here all week.

All new software from MS. Umm... aren't we suppose to wait until version 3 :)

Anyway I don't intend to upgrade any existing computer's WinXP to Vista as there doesn't appear to be any compelling features at this time. The 2009 release (2010 if we're lucky) could however (hopefully) bring some good upgrades.

XP FOR LIFE!!!!!!

tried vista and didnt like it

Use Vista for 3 months and you wont go back to XP.
Vista ftw.

LMAO...Blaster my ass....vista is late for the same reason we have C2D now instead of P4, it was fatally flawed in its original form, the difference, intel is able to change gears faster...

Meanwhile, XPSP3 furthers its spiral into oblivion...

I laughed so hard milk came out of my nose, and i didnt even drink milk.

I'll believe it when i see it. Microsoft's track record has shown a different story, one that says the 2-2.5 year estimate has a hidden factor of 2, so more like 4-5 years is more reasonable.

Vista SP3 + WinFS + DRM DeathStar Edition, and a handful of miscellaneous knick-knacks. Taking bets now at the window on your right.

Windows ME2

I suspect this version will be the "real" Longhorn not the 1/2 XP + 1/2 Longhorn hack that is known as Vista.

This latest development is just another parallel that Vista = Windows 95 and the upcoming verison of Windows = Windows 98.

If it's a point release along the lines of Win2K->XP, and the 32-bit versions are dropped (which seems likely; the 32-bit server versions are definitely going away after Longhorn Server), I think MS will be able to manage the 2-2.5 years. But they really ought to plan on doing two minor versions for every major version instead of trying to alternate major and minor versions. They usually end up doing an effective second or third minor version (98 SE and ME for 95->XP; XP SP2 and the annual MCE releases for XP->Vista; the Option Pack for NT 4->Win2K) in the always much longer than anticipated gap between the first point release and the expected major-release follow on.

Is this Microsoft copying Intel's tick tock strategy? I just want some damn drivers this century, please.

The next version of Windows will be created in Microsoft's new First in Boundary Execution Reorder (FIBER) development environment. They claim it will help them release crap faster.

MS should stop overpromising and underdelivering.

expect this to be released like 2015