| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
A problem too jumbo-sized for Bill Gates to solve? | |
|
||
| Time: 13:17 EST/18:17 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
It will not have escaped your attention that Microsoft is labouring to finish the next version of its Windows operating system, Vista. A version aimed at the corporate market is supposed to be ready for Christmas, with the consumer edition following some time later (missing the Christmas market, which has irritated computer manufacturers and retailers more than somewhat). Last week, Gartner, a leading IT consultancy, predicted that Microsoft would miss those shipping dates. 'Microsoft's track record is clear: it consistently misses target dates for major operating system releases,' the firm wrote. 'We don't expect broad availability of Windows Vista until at least the second quarter of 2007, which is nine to 12 months after Beta 2.' Microsoft challenged this. A company spokesman told CNET News: 'We remain on track to deliver the final product to volume-licence customers in November 2006 and to other businesses and consumers in January 2007.' | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:21:30 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/11/2006 1:42:50 PM |
|
I'm assuming the author wrote this before Morton and Torvalds admitted that the Linux kernel was an unstable, buggy mess becasue the "collaborators" would prefer to work on the cool parts of the kernel instead of the boring bits - like bug fixes and security.
If the Linux collaboration technique is so good, why has IIS 6 had so few security problems compared to Apache 2.x? Why do OSS fanatics tell people to avoid the Linux 2.6 kernel like the plague? Why is Firefox keeping the details of most of the recent 22 exploits secret? How "open" is that? This post was edited by NotParker on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 13:48. |
| #2 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 5/11/2006 2:48:19 PM |
| The article primarily dealt with the complexity of operating systems and how maybe Vista is too complex for just Microsoft to handle in a timely manner. It mentioned how the open source process may be the solution to growing software complexity. Security was never mentioned. The only allusion to bugs or defects might have been assumed in the concept of complexity. If the article had tried to claim that open source was a possible solution and that it was less buggy or had fewer security holes, then your point would have had relevance--since open source and MS products have a history of both. Otherwise, you comment appears to be simple MS zealot misdirection. |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/11/2006 3:33:30 PM |
|
I wouldn't say Microsoft doesn't deserve criticism for the delays, but these articles and comparisons always seem to leave out a few very important facts. The biggest one is that Vista hasn't been undergoing full development since XP's release--the work on XP SP2 is the most notable example (and it's also consistently completely disregarded when discussing XP's age... if Microsoft had called it XP R2 instead--and better yet, charged for it--no one would say XP is 5 years old). Then, there have been changes in the Windows development process, along with the Longhorn "reset." Here, it's likely that they could have kept pushing anyways, finally releasing a Longhorn OS, but it would have been at the cost of future Windows development. How could they take such a break? Simple--XP is a great OS, particularly with SP2.
Thus, I think they are drawing false conclusions on the relative merits of the open source process vs. Microsoft's approach, because it takes too simplistic of a notion of the delay. It's not 5 or 6 years. It might be much more accurate to measure from the release of SP2. But even then, it doesn't take into account the steps they needed to take to ensure the ongoing development of Windows. And, to be fair, they should consider other aspects of the development efforts--the open source process (thinking Linux here) lacks the broad oversight a company like Microsoft provides. Developers can sometimes be a contentious, rebellious, and even petty group of folks to deal with, and I think there is a definite need for managers that can reign in that wild herd. Pointing to open source as the solution to the complexity discussed here confuses the issue. Microsoft has been pretty open about the desire to modularize their OS and reduce dependencies. That has been a problem for Windows development--but the issue isn't one of open source or alternative approaches. Open source as a process would likely be an even slower development model for something with those types of dependencies. |
| #4 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/11/2006 3:41:04 PM |
|
#2 Misdirection? It appears to me the Andrew Morton comments on Linux 2.6 being too buggy is an indication that the Linux development process being out of control.
Microsoft took a security hiatus. Xp SP2 and 2003 Server SP1 are the result. Vista's codebase was reset to start from the code that came out of the security hiatus. Microsoft took the right path and are being unfairly condemned for it. Linux took the easier path and will now pay the price (but not in the press). This post was edited by NotParker on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 15:41. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/11/2006 4:07:35 PM |
| Parker, in all fairness, comparing Windows to the Linux kernel is kind of silly. If Dave Cutler came out and said the same thing about the Windows kernel, that would be relevant (and maybe a sign of the apocalypse--Cutler never says anything!). Morton's comments are insightful on the state of Linux kernel development, but the scope of that issue is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of Vista. |
| #6 By 45441 (82.208.205.140) at 5/11/2006 4:28:21 PM |
|
First of all, I think that it's really going to be on schedule. Why? Microsoft is openly and aggresivly denying any further delays. Everyone is talking about Vista being to complex and having dozens of lines of code and that it can't finish on time, bla bla bla...I think the oposite. Microsoft rolls out a new build of vista every month! The Vista team must be working hard. And if they really work hard enough they're going to finish right on time. And I like an operating sistem to be stable and secure. Remember the Mirosoft Windows Vista marketing pilliars? Clear-nice UI, confident-great stability and connected-Windows Live and other stuff .
Microsoft id definetely going to finish on time:it's putting a lot of preasure on the Vista Developer Team to finish on time. And not only is it rolling out Windows Vista, but it's bringing with it Office 2007, Windows Live (the whole platform-Messenger, Search, Live ID, One Care...), Office Live and much more all in the same time! How about Apple doing that or any toher company?! They can't! This post was edited by milan221 on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 16:46. |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/11/2006 5:51:22 PM |
|
#5 "but the scope of that issue is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of Vista"
Possibly. But Wikipedia puts the Linux kernel at 6,000,000 lines of code. And Debian 3.1 at 213,000,000 lines of code. (Not that I believe everything I read on Wikipedia). Windows 2000 was at 29,000,000 LOC. XP is estimated at 40,000,000. Maybe Vista is at 60,000,000? Maybe one order of magnitude. But not several. |
| #8 By 17996 (66.235.19.95) at 5/12/2006 1:09:32 AM |
|
Lines of code is a terrible measure. Do you count comments? Blank lines? Lines that are just opening or closing braces? What about a function signature or function calling, where you list each parameter on a different line? Every programmer, team, and company in the world uses vastly different coding styles. Counting LOC is pointless.
That said, it can be useful for trending--chances are, Windows' code has not changed much in terms of style over the years, so if you were to count LOC, you would be able to gauge how much new stuff has been added. I will agree with bluvg, that comparing Vista to the Linux kernel is silly; you would need to compare the NT kernel with the Linux kernel. The NT kernel has been quite rock-solid for quite some time, and it is certainly not the source of any of Vista's delays or headaches. The kernel has essentially been ready to go for a while--for example, it was over a year ago when Microsoft said to driver developers that the driver platform was finalized and they should get working hard on their drivers. I'd imagine that the NT kernel team is quite frustrated with the rest of the Windows organization. I think it's interesting that the article title specifically mentions Bill Gates. Personally, I think that if anyone is responsible for Vista's delays (and the necessity of the reset) it's Gates. Not because he "is" Microsoft--but because of his role as chief software architect. Remember when he retired from CEO in 2000 so that he could go and work on "next-generation" Windows hands-on? What has happened since then? Well, XP and .NET were launched, having been in the pipeline already, but then things stalled. Gates led Microsoft down a path of idealistic, unrealistic dreams with the original Longhorn design. It was going to be a huge release--new file system, new graphics system, and everything was going to be architected on top of those new systems. It was great, in theory, but it had too huge a scope. The things that the original Longhorn was going to do, you don't do in one OS release (as MS should have learned from Cairo), you spread it over multiple releases. I guess my point is, that it was probably Gates personally who was pushing for all of this work in one release, and he is the one to blame for its delays and headaches. Lots of people wrongly blame Jim Allchin--I think he finally had had enough and had to push back against Gates personally in order to get Longhorn trimmed down and reset. Just my opinion on how I think things got to be the way they are. |
| #9 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 5/12/2006 8:41:54 AM |
|
Only Parker could turn this into a Linux/Firefox debate. Sheesh :)
TL |
| #10 By 8556 (12.217.111.92) at 5/12/2006 9:03:13 AM |
|
Patriot: Your comments are well thought out. Gates is not a great programmer. His genius is in his business acumen. Only his ego is holding Vista back with the early pie in the sky promises Gates made and tried to build on existing code base that became evedent as a security sieve. Remember when Gates in 1998 (or 99?) said that the next consumer Windows would be pure 32 bit? He didn't believe his own people that the time frame was wrong until it became apparent that the eventual Windows 2000 would not be a suitable game platform for quite a while. Hence the crappy ME was cobbled together with DOS still present but hidden from the typical user.
Gates sets his goals admirably high. Reaching them in his preferred time frame is quite difficult and he has yet to come to grips with that fact. Vista will be on time (if you consider ~3 years after Gates initial target release date on time), maybe a bit buggy at first, but on time and superior to XP. |
| #11 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/12/2006 10:27:11 AM |
|
#9 Only a moron who didn't read the article would make such a comment.
Half the article is about how the Linux development model is better. I disagree. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/12/2006 1:12:56 PM |
| #11: Of course you disagree, Parkkkker. Everything is crap unless MS does it. Then it's genius. |
| #13 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/12/2006 1:35:50 PM |
| #12 Not everybody thinks like you Latch. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:21:30 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
