Print - Microsoft Is Not Delaying Vista Again as Beta 2 Looms

A Gartner research note this week warns that Microsoft "may" delay Windows Vista another two months. But in addition to an official denial from Microsoft, my sources say that the Gartner warning is off base.

Here's what really happened. Earlier this year, Microsoft granted Gartner unprecedented access to its internal processes, apparently in an effort to prove that the software giant was, in fact, on track to ship Vista by the end of 2006 as promised. Gartner, however, concluded differently and said that Microsoft would likely delay Vista because it's too complex to meet the scheduled late-2006 completion date. Gartner says it believes Microsoft won't be able to ship Vista until sometime between April and June 2007. Although the software giant quickly disagreed with this conclusion, it has been widely reported as fact.

Aside from my internal Microsoft sources, my own experience covering Microsoft suggests that Gartner is incorrect. According to Gartner, the reason for the delay is that Microsoft will soon ship Vista Beta 2 and the company will need 9 to 12 months after Beta 2 to complete the product. Windows XP, Gartner notes, took 5 months between Beta 2 and its final release, but Vista is more complex than XP. Gartner says that from a complexity standpoint, Vista is more comparable to Windows 2000, which required 16 months to progress from Beta 2 to the final version.

But that comparison is ludicrous. When Microsoft shipped Win2K Beta 2 in 1998, Win2K was still called Windows NT 5.0 and the product was horribly off track. Within months, the company assigned Brian Valentine to take over Win2K development, and he helped guide the project to its completion a year later. Vista today is much further along than was NT 5.0/Win2K Beta 2. And it's much closer to the shipping version of the product than the Gartner report suggests.

Granted, predicting another Vista delay is a fairly safe bet. Microsoft has already delayed Vista several times, and delaying it again from January 2007 to April or June 2007 won't make a big difference from a sales perspective. And after all, Microsoft has said Vista was on track before and then delayed the product. But nothing at present suggests that Microsoft is ready to delay Vista yet again. While Gartner could very well have seen something at Microsoft that caused it to believe the company is ready to delay the product once more, the aforementioned comparison with Win2K is bogus.

In related news, Microsoft continues work on Vista build 5381, which will be finalized as Beta 2 on May 22. Attendees of the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) 2006 will receive Vista Beta 2 on DVD, and Microsoft plans to seed the build with testers, other partners, and millions of consumers via a widely distributed Community Preview Program (CPP) in the following days. If you've been waiting for a chance to get your hands on Vista, that day is finally coming.

"Microsoft has already delayed Vista several times" -Paul Thurrott "Vista has never been delayed. I mean, we had earlier conceptualizations, but the thing that is Vista is on its track." - Steve Ballmer http://tinyurl.com/qhwbc

Gartner is rather betting on a MS tradition of delays than actually doing any sort of logical thinking. They just want to look good by betting on something as certain as that the year will end on december 31st. But in the end Vista will sell like there is no end to it; generating billions for MS just as planned along withe office suite. Gartner should predict that as well.

The company needs something huge very soon. Their stock seems to be in a free-fall. The Vista delay rumors are not helping either. Forbes says MS may be considering buying a stake in yahoo!

I wouldn't be surprised to see another Vista delay, although whatever state Vista is in on May 22 will be deemed Beta 2 for WinHEC distribution. Who known when the CPP will be put the OS in consumers' hands. Guruguru is right. Vista will make alot of cash for Microsoft. But XP is generating revenue right now, too. And so is Office. As for shark47's comment, I hope Microsoft stays away from Yahoo! And I think the stock "free-fall" is indicative of the leadership quality of Gates and Ballmer.

"I think the stock "free-fall" is indicative of the leadership quality of Gates and Ballmer." Doesn't make sense. Without Gates (and Ballmer to some extent), there would have been no Microsoft. And there's no denying that Microsoft is still a hugely successful company.

Vista deserves to be successful. It may not be revolutionary (the way Windows 95 was), but it's definitely not "Window XP SR-3 EyeCandy Edition." After all those posts by NateB2, explaining the changes in Vista, I wonder why anyone would make such a stupid comment. Vista is a major upgrade to XP and for the consumer's sake, I hope it comes out on time. And I'm willing to go with Paul on this one. He will, in myopinion, know better than Gartner, when the final version will ship.

90% of PC users haven't even heard about Vista. They could delay another year and Windows XP will still have strong sales. It's only the tech saavy who are throwing their arms up.

"It's only the tech saavy who are throwing their arms up." Well, them and Wall Street. Better to get it right than rush it out the door. But if after all this time this thing isn't bulletproof, the reaction's going to be even worse. Here's hoping for the best...

"it may not be revolutionary (the way Windows 95 was), but it's definitely not "Window XP SR-3 EyeCandy Edition." After all those posts by NateB2, explaining the changes in Vista, I wonder why anyone would make such a stupid comment. Vista is a major upgrade to XP and for the consumer's sake, I hope it comes out on time." I tend to agree with you. But some very intelligent pundits are saying otherwise. To wit: 1) Well-known Tech Journalist Paul Thurrott wrote: "Promises were made. Excitement was generated. None of it, as it turns out, was worth a damn. From a technical standpoint, the version of Windows Vista we will receive is a sad shell of its former self, a shadow. ... Shame on you, Microsoft. Shame on you, but not just for not doing better ... Windows Vista is a disappointment. There is no way to sugarcoat that very real truth. 2) John Dvorak (who Microsofties seem to love whenever he rails against a certain "other" tech company): "Vista OS. It's now so delayed that its consumer version will miss the 2006 Christmas season. It's now supposed to arrive in early 2007. Even when it does, all of its promised cool features have been removed and it appears to be little more than a gussied-up version of Windows XP. It appears as if it is going to be a great disappointment. This should have been the company's number one priority." I'm not saying he's right, but love him or hate him, Dvorak is no dummy. And Paul's opinions are respected for a reason--he's earned the right to be opinionated (even when he's wrong). Perhaps you should ask these folks why they made such a "stupid comment". I'm sure the answers would be enlightening.

"Perhaps you should ask these folks why they made such a "stupid comment". I'm sure the answers would be enlightening." I think when you tell somebody they are going to have all of these cool features and then take out half of them, anybody would be dissappointed. From a consumer stand point, it may seem like more eye candy than anything. There is alot more going on underneath and you will see better 3rd party applications because of it. In the end, does the consumer really matter? It will be pre-installed on every new machine and will have better security than previous Windows versions. As long as they can accomplish what they were doing before it doesn't matter.

Lotsamystuff, I still think it's a stupid comment. I do agree that from a technical standpoint Vista is not a revolutionary release. Many of the features in Vista are already available through third-party downloads for XP. Some of the features, such as WinFS and Windows Power shell have been delayed. The Virtual Folders feature has been dropped. But do these features matter to an average Joe? Does he care about what file system is used or whether a new command line shell is present? I don't think so. What matters is that Vista is much better looking than XP, is arguably more secure, and apparently more stable and that makes it a major upgrade (not revolutionary - seems more like a windows version of OS X Tiger). But, Vista may not fly off the shelves initially, because Windows XP is not too bad.

A big problem for MS is to come up with a revolutionary product upgrade without confusing people. Office 2007 is revolutionary, if I may say so, but look at how much confusion it's creating. MS could afford to do that with Windows 95 but not with Vista. Keeping all that in mind, Vista, if it's released on time, will be a good upgrade to XP.

"I think when you tell somebody they are going to have all of these cool features and then take out half of them, anybody would be dissappointed." As you pointed out earlier, 90% of the people don't even know about Vista, let alone the features that were dropped from it. It'll be interesting to see how they react to it.

I don't see the Windows 2000 Beta 2 comparison as being ludacris, it's an analogy which isn't far from one another. Both betas were still far from finals, and both operating systems have been repetatively pushed back while Microsoft was making public statements that the operating systems were on track. We were supposed to have a full Beta 2 Christmas 05', look back at old articles here from last summer as well as Paul's WinSuperSite and you can find the support for that. Many of us that have been keeping track of Vista since it was named Vista remember Beta 1 last summer and Beta 2's announcement for the holiday season. Now Beta 2 is as far back as May 22, almost in time for Apple's first look at Leopard at WWDC the first week of June. That's a half a year later than predictions, and that's just for beta 2. I have seen more than enough proof in the past year of Vista beta developments to have no skeptacism of another push back for the final release. "As you pointed out earlier, 90% of the people don't even know about Vista, let alone the features that were dropped from it. It'll be interesting to see how they react to it." Excellent point yahoo. To the general public aside from techies like most of us won't even notice or care. Many potential buyers don't even understand the difference between a beta or final version, sadly. Nor will they care when it's released, whenever that is. Honestly Vista will still have a massive impact even if it is released one year from now. That is, from a sales perspective. Personally I don't see the os as anything outstanding or ahead of its time, but it will indeed not matter to the majority of buyers looking for a new computer next year. In fact most buyers will probably think the os is simply superior, not knowing that the features and technology has already existed for years on other platforms because they're uninformed.

"I think when you tell somebody they are going to have all of these cool features and then take out half of them, anybody would be dissappointed." Well, DUH!! But how can anybody be so blind as to not see that this has been Bill Gates' modus operandi all throughout Microsoft's history? Right from the very beginning, Gates has been blowing smoke. He did it to IBM when he sold them on DOS 1.0 for the original PC. He (and a willingly complicit media) did it again with Windows 95's "revolutionary" features in order to crush the OS/2 threat and beat back Apple. Now, without competition of any significance, it's Wall Street he's manipulating with his promisied vapourware. How's this for a scenario: buy a bunch of MS stock; make wild promises; stock soars; sell stock long at a profit and buy a bunch more short; release disappointing product; stock dives; sell short at a profit and buy more long; repeat as long as there are stupid, gullible media types who can be duped into "seeing" the emperor's dandy new threads....

"I have seen more than enough proof in the past year of Vista beta developments to have no skeptacism of another push back for the final release." I hope you're not right, but that's how things look right now. "How's this for a scenario..." Are you crazy? That doesn't even make sense. Why would the richest man in the world resort to such cheap tactics? If money was that important to him, he wouldn't be donating billions of dollars from his personal wealth to fight AIDS and malaria. Seriously, no one can make bad software all the time and fool so many people for so long. You're making an assumption here that people are largely stupid and gullible.

"Why would the richest man in the world resort to such cheap tactics?" Actually, I was thinking Microsoft as a corporation, rather than Gates personally. Yes, it is a stretch. But you can't deny that this isn't the first time (or even the third or fourth, for that matter) that MS has grossly inflated expectations with their hype, only to disappoint. Oh, they eventually deliver something. And ocassionally it's even a significant advancement. But how much further ahead would we actually be if MS made good on its promises from the get-go? I'm just tired companies (and MS is, IMHO, by far the grossest offender) that operate under false pretenses. It's a cynical way of doing business, and more and more often I find myself merely scoffing at their latest "announcement." As for believing people are largely stupid and gullible--I do, and rest the blame squarely on the media. They are supposed to report objectively, but more often than not pander to those from whose table a few scraps may fall. Anyone who would suggest that the media, as a whole, is unbiased and truthful is either a liar or a fool.

"Actually, I was thinking Microsoft as a corporation, rather than Gates personally." I'm sorry. I just thought it was weird if you thought Gates would do something of that sort to increase his wealth. "As for believing people are largely stupid and gullible--I do, and rest the blame squarely on the media. " I would blame the tech. analysts and Wall Street too. Even after countless delays they still take everything at face value. "Anyone who would suggest that the media, as a whole, is unbiased and truthful is either a liar or a fool." Yes, but just like there's a section of the media that has a bias towards MS, there's one that has a bias against MS, so, on the whole, it balances out.

Strange, you Paul Thurrott need to stop making a fool out of yourself, just after build 5365 was released, you said beta 2 would be finalized as build 5372. Stop it, you don't know anything so stop acting you are compiling Vista and Longhorn Server on your little funcky AMD 64 machine you purchased from HP last year. Whats with you and all these freaking wrong build numbers. You should apologize everytime you make these mistakes. I hear that you are known as a retard at Microsoft, I would be ashamed!

"stop acting you are compiling Vista" I'm not getting that impression from Paul. I think you're reading things into this that aren't here. "Whats with you and all these freaking wrong build numbers." Could be his sources. Try and assume good faith instead of attacking people :P. "I hear that you are known as a retard at Microsoft" If I looked hard enough, I bet I could find someone who thought IE6 was better than IE7. Then I would have "heard" IE6 > IE7 (If this is an attempt at humor on your part, it's a bit too dry for me). I'm not a Paul Thurrott apologist, I just don't feel your complaint is very good. BTW: What's wrong with AMD 64s (Do I smell a PPC or Intel Apple troll)?

"You're making an assumption here that people are largely stupid and gullible." But...they are! Witness the current U.S. Goverment administration for proof! :-) "I hear that you are known as a r***** at Microsoft" That statement is so offensive and beyond the pale that it makes me physically ill just to read it. The use of that word as a pejorative is disgusting. It says more about who you are as a person than it does about Mr. Thurrott. Say what you will about Paul and his opinions (and goodness knows, I've said enough), but he's very well-informed, he's not afraid to take a stand even when it's unpopular, and he probably knows more about computing than you could ever learn in a lifetime. Statements like that are not only detestable, they're totally off-base in the world of actual facts.

"But...they are! Witness the current U.S. Goverment administration for proof!"* Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are stupid and gullible. If you believe what you say about the US government, then that is your OPINION, and does not make those who think otherwise stupid and gullible. *If this statement was meant as a joke and is not meant to taken seriously, please disregard the rest of the comment.

lotsamystuff, thanks for calling him out on that comment. I was just laughing at the fact he was trying to call someone an imbecile and ended up double-posting in the process. I'm not too thrilled with your political comment though. ;)

"*If this statement was meant as a joke and is not meant to taken seriously, please disregard the rest of the comment." Did you see my emoticon? I quote Mark Twain: "Suppose I was a member of Congress. Now suppose I was an idiot. But I repeat myself."

Lotsa, why do you get offended when someone from UK makes a similar comment? Do you believe that they're not entitled to air their opinion about the American Government? Secondly, even if the "current U.S. Goverment administration" is "stupid and gullible," how does that prove the point that people in general are stupid and gullible? There are 6 bn. people in this world. There's more to this world than just the US, you know?

Sorry, but nobody believes Microsoft anymore. They've made promises on Vista and has kept on breaking them. I am fully expecting this trainwreck to finally appear way off in June next year.

"Sorry, but nobody believes Microsoft anymore. " No. No. The discussion is about why people (techies) still believe Microsoft (which they do). Are they "stupid and gullible" as some people here suggest? Microsoft's shares went up after Ballmer's announcement about AdCenter.

Lotsa- I wasn't sure if you were kidding or not; some people push their views and act like they're kidding to tone down the comment. Bonch- if Vista is such a trainwreck, why are people writing articles like this? http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1950686,00.asp Even if you discount the "bias" of a PC magazine, they clearly document the great advances of Windows Vista with cold, hard facts. BTW, the getamac ads are mostly half-truths that could easily be rebutted. Here is an interesting article on the ads: http://www.scripting.com/2006/05/03.html And for PC fans, here is a parody on the getamac ads. You can even post your own in the comment section below (Although I think the first comment goes a little to far! :-) http://journals.tuxreports.com/lch/archives/003566.html Why must Mac ads make PC users feel stupid?

"Why must Mac ads make PC users feel stupid?" "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."--Eleanor Roosevelt