Microsoft delays Forefront business security client six months
Microsoft’s Forefront team is again delaying a piece of its next-generation “Stirling” suite of products.
Ballmer: Testers didn't ring Vista warning bells; Could the same happen with Windows 7
[...]
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has done his best over the past year-plus to try to dampen expectations around Windows 7. He’s doing it again this week during his pre-launch European tour, telling press, analysts and others there that he doesn’t expect Windows 7 to provide a sudden and miraculous boost to the PC market.
But I’m more intrigued by a related comment Ballmer made, as I’ve thought about this very scenario myself in recent months. Ballmer pointed to Vista as an example that tester feedback may not always be the best measure of the success of a new operating system release. From an October 7 Bloomberg story:“’The test feedback (on Windows 7) has been good, but the test feedback on Vista was good,’ Ballmer, 53, said in an interview last week. ‘I am optimistic, but the proof will be in the pudding.’”It feels like a long time ago when testers were assessing the many Longhorn/Vista builds that Microsoft issued both before and after the “reset” in 2004. Before the reset, Microsoft officials heard from testers that there were some deep-seated problems with its next planned version of Windows. As a result, the Windows team went back to the drawing board and rejiggered it. Then there were lots more builds. And finally, in the fall of 2006, Microsoft released Vista to manufacturing.
Comments
David Gerard
2009-10-09 18:08:27
And really, for Windows, it's not bad on modern hardware. Be sure to have at least 1 GB memory and preferably 2 GB.
While they did pump up the hype machine, I will say, as no friend of Microsoft, that Windows 7 is not horrible, not the way Vista was.
David Gerard
2009-10-09 18:09:51
(This is of course not obligatory, for those who get the horrors at the very idea of touching Windows ever again ;-) )
Roy Schestowitz
2009-10-09 20:26:41
faltu
2009-10-09 17:29:42
LOL.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-10-09 17:39:59
Chips B. Malroy
2009-10-10 00:04:26
The acid test, is Seven better than XP. Or to ask it another way, what does Seven give of value that XP cannot with 3rd party software? This question has been asked before by many people and I have not seen one good answer yet. UAC might be the closest thing to it, except if you set up XP as a limited user account, then you are better off than Vista/Seven with UAC as Administrator, the default setup. Strike one for Seven.
So will the masses be running out to upgrade XP to Seven? Well, mostly Seven is just like Vista, and dosen't support a lot of that old hardware that XP does, so I think not. Strike two for Seven.
So really, the only way to get Vista, whoops, I mean Seven, is to buy it already pre-installed (MS TAX) on a new computer. But wait, the USA is in a depression, even some people living in tents more and more. How many are going run out and buy a new computer with Seven on it, no matter if it was the best thing since sliced bread (and its NOT). Strike three for Seven, and they are out.
Also, lets discuss STRIKE FOUR for Seven, the fact that so many have pirated XP, and simply will not ever pay for any Operating System period. Its not about if its right or wrong for them to do so, only that is the way it is, and its going affect the bottom line now since MS has let users do this so long. Now some users expect never to pay MS. 22% in the USA, is the appox number, higher everywhere else.
Strike Five for Seven, nothing really improved on the malware issue for users. No Value.
Strike Six for Seven, did I mention that Linux is Free and compared to Windows is practically malware free, if not free.
Strike Seven for Seven, hey ARM Netbooks are coming, and they don't do Windows.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-10-10 00:09:42
Chips B. Malroy
2009-10-10 00:23:31
Sorry if I yelled (caps) there, but I wanted to really make the point. A company with supposedly vast riches and expertise, cannot fix a simple little malware problem in windows since the days of Dos before Windows 95 even.
Now a lot of Linux users will say its because MS is afraid of breaking legacy apps and games, there just is no way. I don't for a minute believe that, a company with their resources could have fixed the problem long ago IMO. So lets search for the answer. Here is my theory.
Microsoft actually gains some from malware, its like planned obsolescence. The malware kills the windows computer at some point, and the average user buys a new one. Also, MS is toying with security suits these days, free for now, but somehow, I would expect them to charge for it if they can run (and cause problems for other software) others out of the market. In fact, MS former OneCare was a paid antivirus. Nothing like a company that creates the problem with badly engineered software, to try to make a profit off its users, with the problem they created in the first place.