3 ms·

Not available for TWO YEARS? Did I read that correctly? Right now to compete Microsoft should be on a 3 to 6 month release schedule.

nobody_nowhere 16y ago
I'm not an OS guy, but don't you think for something as (overly) complex as Windows the regression cycle alone would be 3 to 6 months?
baddox 16y ago
To compete with what? Apple's 20% market share that has little to do with a distinguished operating system and more to do with hardware and culture?
patrickaljord 16y ago
Many people have been saying for years that Microsoft should switch to an open source unix core to be more competitive and move faster like Apple (and because hackers tend to prefer unix). I've always thought MS had enough money to stick with Windows and still move fast... but now I wonder, or maybe they're slow because of bureaucracy, probably a bit of both.
- jbri 16y ago
  Microsoft is huge on backwards-compatibility. Unix guys don't mind breaking a few eggs when they release a new kernel because anything that breaks can be patched up to work again - but when you're running boatloads of proprietary software that has to keep working, break-and-fix isn't really a viable model any more.
  - patrickaljord 16y ago
    > Microsoft is huge on backwards-compatibility. Are you sure about that? If I want to run old versions of IE, MS solution is to run a VM, probably because it's cheaper for them. At what point will it become more profitable for them to just tell people to use VMs for 20 year old software? Knowing that only businesses would need those.
locopati 16y ago
Why would MS be on a 3-6mo release schedule when their big money comes from bigcos who are slow to require vetting of any new OS release and aren't going to invest the time/effort required to do that more than once every couple years? (works for company only now rolling-out Windows7 as a beta for a small group of developers)

nobody_nowhere 16y ago

I'm not an OS guy, but don't you think for something as (overly) complex as Windows the regression cycle alone would be 3 to 6 months?

baddox 16y ago

To compete with what? Apple's 20% market share that has little to do with a distinguished operating system and more to do with hardware and culture?

patrickaljord 16y ago

Many people have been saying for years that Microsoft should switch to an open source unix core to be more competitive and move faster like Apple (and because hackers tend to prefer unix). I've always thought MS had enough money to stick with Windows and still move fast... but now I wonder, or maybe they're slow because of bureaucracy, probably a bit of both.

jbri 16y ago
Microsoft is huge on backwards-compatibility. Unix guys don't mind breaking a few eggs when they release a new kernel because anything that breaks can be patched up to work again - but when you're running boatloads of proprietary software that has to keep working, break-and-fix isn't really a viable model any more.
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > Microsoft is huge on backwards-compatibility. Are you sure about that? If I want to run old versions of IE, MS solution is to run a VM, probably because it's cheaper for them. At what point will it become more profitable for them to just tell people to use VMs for 20 year old software? Knowing that only businesses would need those.

locopati 16y ago

Why would MS be on a 3-6mo release schedule when their big money comes from bigcos who are slow to require vetting of any new OS release and aren't going to invest the time/effort required to do that more than once every couple years? (works for company only now rolling-out Windows7 as a beta for a small group of developers)