Vista to be delayed by 'a few weeks'

nands · 25 May 2006 at 17:18

csmager said:
It will be possible, but it's probably inadvisable. It is quite a shift, so a clean install would be a better idea.

Yeah, you are probably right, it will be best on a new hard disk I reckon.

stoofa · 25 May 2006 at 18:12

Energize said:
I dont have any problems with the operating system now but Id be a fanboy if I said xp was near flawless at release, it couldnt even support big hard drives and there was so many security holes.

Couldn't support Big Hard Drives?
What size are you talking about exactly?
There wasn't a Hard Drive on the market at the time WinXP was released that it couldn't support.
So many security holes?
It was widely accepted that at release WinXP was released with the fewest security issues ever (with regards OS launches).

Are you sure you aren't getting "Bugs" and "Security Holes" mixed up?
There was a typical Register/Enquirer story about WinXP having more "Bugs" at release.
What they failed to mention (Ooo, only giving half a story - they don't do that very often do they) is that everything wrong with the OS is given a seperate bug number and counted as a single bug.
So, when you click on "Help" and a help file fails to load - that is a bug.
When the word "the" is spelt "***" in a help file that is a bug.
So of the many "bugs" at release you can see just how serious the majority of them were.

As a company we were extremely happy with WinXP.
We were happy (off the strength of the beta versions) to roll the OS out on all new machines one month after the release of the OS.
No waiting for SP's etc
We only waited a month because one of the software vendors we use for some specialised software were dragging their feet on finishing their testing.
On the strength of the beta revisions we were happy to roll-out two weeks after launch.

Energize · 25 May 2006 at 18:37

stoofa said:
Couldn't support Big Hard Drives?
What size are you talking about exactly?
There wasn't a Hard Drive on the market at the time WinXP was released that it couldn't support.

Drives bigger than 137Gb, which would have course also mean raid 0 arrays using smaller hdds that added upto over 137Gb wouldnt be supported either.

I said it had bugs and security holes so whatever you classify them as it had plenty of them, hence hundreds of mb of patches. Windows update still dishes out "security fixes".

janesssssy · 25 May 2006 at 18:53

because the times are changing so will the security flaws as you call them.
Ask your self this one question. What OS do you use at the moment?

........ thought so.

Energize · 25 May 2006 at 19:35

janesssssy said:
because the times are changing so will the security flaws as you call them.
Ask your self this one question. What OS do you use at the moment?

........ thought so.

I said at release its buggy, its fine now, 5 years, 2 service packs and tons of patches later. Not that using the operating has anything to do with wether it has bugs or not. Probably something to do with the games and software not working on other operating systems....

NathanE · 25 May 2006 at 20:35

What are you comparing it too though? That's the key thing here. I really would love to know what operating system you believe has zero bugs and zero security flaws on its launch day or indeed over its lifetime.

Energize · 25 May 2006 at 21:24

NathanE said:
What are you comparing it too though? That's the key thing here. I really would love to know what operating system you believe has zero bugs and zero security flaws on its launch day or indeed over its lifetime.

I never said any did im not comparing it to anything, I just said microsofts operating systems have been bug ridden at release. Though judging by what other people have said osx seems to have less noticable bugs.

Caged · 25 May 2006 at 23:12

Try using it then, you'll find them. Personally I prefer OSX but to call it bug free is laughable. It was barely usable until 10.3 came along (not due to bugs, just because it was pure crap).

Nikumba · 25 May 2006 at 23:21

Every single OS ever released has some defects be it a bug, sec hole etc. It is a fact of life. There is no way you can bug test a OS for every environement that could exist in some guys basement.

Vista will launch and a team of people who have nothing better to do will pick at the code and find the bugs and go look i found a bug, OMG vista is bug ridden.

There is no other comapny like MS that produces one peice of software used in so many places over the world.

As a few people said about OSX it was a nightmare till 10.3 when it became stable, even a virgin copy of XP was more stable than OSX

Datamonkey · 26 May 2006 at 11:08

lol osx more stable,

here at work we have a publishing department.

The new osx updates have taken out 5 of the 60 mac g5's we have here.

Once the update was downloaded and installed it kernal panic these machines, thats not good.

The last update took out several mirror doors we have also.

5tephen · 26 May 2006 at 14:44

Caged said:
Personally I prefer OSX but to call it bug free is laughable. It was barely usable until 10.3 came along (not due to bugs, just because it was pure crap).

lmao!!

And I also hate people complaining about Windows being bug-ridden, like the other people here have said, go and use one that's completely flawless or make your own. And if you do make your own and it comes to over 40 million lines of code (like XP is), and it's still bug free, good on you.

bigmouse64 · 26 May 2006 at 15:21

marc2003 said:
why the rolleyes? after a 5 year gap from the release of xp, a few weeks/months is hardly going to make a difference is it....

i'd rather wait until they are happy with it rather than it being forced out the door.

I think he meant that they delay everything the release, heh. Which they do, lol.