MS employees call to remove CEO
updated 01:35 pm EST, Mon March 27, 2006
Vista delay causes MS feud
Microsoft's recent decision to push back the release of Windows Vista has caused an uproar within the company's own ranks, spurring some employees to call for the removal of upper management and even requests to remove Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft. "We're missing the holiday sales market. Not only did we miss last year's opportunity, we're missing this year's opportunity, too," wrote an anonymous employee. "People need to be fired and moved out of Microsoft today. Where's the freakin' accountability?" With both sides quarrelling over who is to blame for the launch delay, those closest to the project say the release was a positive move. "If you had spent the last 5 years of your life grinding away to get this thing out the door, you would have realized the only thing worse than slipping the [launch] date, would have been to lay a turd in August. Those of us in the trenches see exactly what bugs are between us and shipping." A report from PC Pro notes that while bolstering security of the product has been cited as the reason for the delay, major problems are said to exist in other parts of the code. The Media Center (MCE) in particular is said to be "seriously flawed."
I don't get it.
03/27, 01:50pm reply
While I couldn't care less if M$ ever releases a new version of Window$, I don't understand how they can't make their target date. They've been working on this thing for several years already whereas Apple churns out a major update every year to year and a half and each release is an out of the ballpark homerun (except for maybe Mac OS X 10.0).
appleisgreat
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Feb 2006
hahaha
03/27, 02:01pm reply
Well, it just goes to show that the company that grows so large fails under it's own weight. Just the Exchange issue we have at work -- crossplatform mail servers my assets -- they're losing support of amins everywhere. No admin really wants to work, and now Windows is making them work. No more $90k/yr to sit in a room and read blogs thanks to the spyware and virii.... now they like Macs and Linux, go figure!
ibugv4
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jun 2003
Not Surprised
03/27, 02:02pm reply
I don't care for Windows at all, but I use it enough to want Micrsoft to not make a bad thing worse. The problem, In my opinion, is that Micrsoft had WAY to much to support, they're trapped into supporting every app going back to Windows 95 or their big ticket buyers (businesses like my Father's office, which still uses Medical software from 1997, along side newer software) will complain about having to upgrade twice (once for the OS, again for supported software).
Micrsoft is trapped intp providing support for obsolete software, and it's bound to cause delays by the shear scope of that reality. The only solution would be what Apple did with OS X - switch to a new architecture - but then everyone would be up in arms - consumers included.
This could be MS's demise, since they have toi support all of these old apps, old security issues can come back to haunt them, and they have to add a huge and complex feature set (all of the new Vista additions) overtop an OS that, at it's core, is still a Win95/WinNT hybrid.
I almost feel sorry for them. Almost. =)
Timetheus
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Not Surprised
03/27, 02:04pm reply
I don't care for Windows at all, but I use it enough to want Micrsoft to not make a bad thing worse. The problem, In my opinion, is that Micrsoft had WAY to much to support, they're trapped into supporting every app going back to Windows 95 or their big ticket buyers (businesses like my Father's office, which still uses Medical software from 1997, along side newer software) will complain about having to upgrade twice (once for the OS, again for supported software).
Micrsoft is trapped intp providing support for obsolete software, and it's bound to cause delays by the shear scope of that reality. The only solution would be what Apple did with OS X - switch to a new architecture - but then everyone would be up in arms - consumers included.
This could be MS's demise, since they have toi support all of these old apps, old security issues can come back to haunt them, and they have to add a huge and complex feature set (all of the new Vista additions) overtop an OS that, at it's core, is still a Win95/WinNT hybrid.
I almost feel sorry for them. Almost. =)
Timetheus
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
cool
03/27, 02:18pm reply
Nice to see that there good people there too! :-)
Although they better admit the theft of all the nice features.
Redmond stop your copying machines!!!!
Ikon
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: May 2005
Why it takes so long
03/27, 02:41pm reply
Apple had their problems back in the 90s with delivery, and even what was eventually delivered as OS/X was drastically cut-down from what was intended.
They're now working with a far more productive environment and progressively less legacy (finally abandoned Classic with the migration to Intel, and in retrospect doesn't that all look like a plan??).
I would have though that given the speed of hardware improvement / age of the OS, the best thing MS could do would be ship a wholly new OS with something like Virtual PC embedded for running XP applications.
The only thing then would be delivering compelling applications to make people want to upgrade. That is where Apple has an advantage - iLife is compelling to home users, and Apple don't really care about the enterprise. MS on the other hand - well I don't see business desktops upgrading any time soon, but they are putting a LOT of work into targetting server-side developers.
JulesLt
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2005
Let's look more closely
03/27, 02:47pm reply
Remember Copland? Remember the Windows compatibility layer? Apple's been there. Oh, and just because Apple got 10.1, 10.2, etc ... remember that those are essentially just service packs! 10.0 was a beta version. h***, 10.2 was a beta version as far as I'm concerned. OS X didn't really start being serious until 10.3 (Service Pack 3). And yes, I've been using Macs since System 3, so I'm no Windows-usin' Mac-basher; I don't think you can compare OS 10.4 (from 10.3) to Vista from XP any more than you can look at XP-from-Win2K and say, "hey, that's no more than going from X 10.1 to 10.2.
dave a
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2002
backwards compatibility
03/27, 02:53pm reply
An aspect of the MS backwards support nightmare that bears mentioning is that Windows has a much lower adoption rate of newer versions that all other operating systems. Think of it as a train with each car a successively older version of Windows. To not keep the backward compatibility would be like cutting all the cars loose past the coal car. That means many if not most users won't be upgrading hardware because it won't run the old stuff. MS can shoot themselves in one foot and cut everybody loose or shoot themselves in the other and loose respect as a serious operating system contender. Either way, they are the ones who painted the bullseye on their forehead with this.
smitch
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 2005
Some new blood
03/27, 02:59pm reply
is needed at the top. Microsoft should take a cue from Apple and become a more focused company. I'm no industry expert, but it seem to me that MS is always trying to be everywhere. They try to leverage Windows and dominate in other markets. Perhaps they should leverage Windows and focus on making Windows better.
[Apple of the 80's and 90's was the same way. These days, I don't think they spend a dime if they don't see surefire return on that investment, which explains why there is no Apple PDA or Apple phone (yet).]
kw99
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 2001
VPC Idea
03/27, 03:07pm reply
juleslt, that VPC idea is brilliant. I do wonder if the problems are legacy support or bigger than that, though. They did say that the Medica Center edition was seriously flawed. That sounds like basic operation of the MPC version, rather than legacy support.
Still, really good idea.
bfalchuk
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2003