Printable View
Microsoft considering update dubbed 'XP Reloaded'
-> http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5165...?tag=nefd_ledeQuote:
Microsoft is considering updating Windows XP before it releases Longhorn, the code name for a major overhaul of the industry's dominant operating system that is not expected for about two years.
On a note, Microsoft had said but two days ago they would not be doing this. Curious as to what changed their mind. [source: http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/002397.html ]
On a personal note, I feel this is a horrible move. Rushing a product halfway to meet the demands of customers always seems to flop. Let us not forget the release of Windows ME, to which even I cringe at. I feel that even if the wait is two years, they should hold off any plans to place a mediant release. By releasing something like this, it will of course be buggy, not fully tested, and of course delay the release of Longhorn.
If they do anything, they should add a little more security and options to the user portion of the Home Edition to make it a little more like the Professional version. The worse thing they can do is repeat the Me disaster.
I would like to see just as much security microsoft plans on putting in the professional version of long horn in the home version. I believe it will be worth the wait for it to be released. If the new service pack for windows Xp will make windows xp more secure and not create other problems such as slowing down the system Etc, Then I say why not it will give the users who like to tweak anything they can get their hands on something to toy around with.
I'd have to agree with Pooh on this topic.
Rushing out a release can only harm MS in the long run. As Pooh pointed out, look at ME as an example. I'd also posit for readers of this posting to consider the gaming industry, both console and PC-based.
Those of us who enjoy video games have felt the pain many times of a much-touted title being released to early. The product inevitably arrives chock-full of bugs which detract so heavily from gameplay as to render the game completely unplayable. I'm open to discussion, but I believe this effect is directly caused by PR/Marketing people who indirectly run the technology section(s).
As a society, we're so focused on the quick fix (and I'm not talking about broken-fix, I'm talking about addiction-fix here). As many astute people have pointed out in the recent past, these cycles of product-R/D for 3 or 6 months - new product...rinse/repeat... are part and parcel to living in a "McDonalds" society. We want what we want now, even if we don't know what the hell we want. But we reserve the right to complain in all matters!
lol...
I say, what is the hurry? There isn't anything substantially wrong with XP that sp2 isn't going to enhance/correct/etc. Hold the flames- I'm not stating that XP isn't vulnerable or that it won't be post-sp2. Rather, i just don't see the need to produce an intermediary OS release that really adds zero value to the consumer base.
Really, the only thing this provides is more slop in the feeding trough. Ergo, more $$$ to the MS bottom line. Redmond does themselves a disservice by allowing Marketing to interfere w/ technology.
Anyway, that's strictly my humble opinion...nothing fact-based at all.
Cheers,
<0