Ok, I haven't read the whole thread but I read enough to want to add my thoughts to the discussion.
I am a CS Professor for Purdue University. I am also a beta tester for Microsoft (since Nashville - if any of you remember that?).
Windows Vista is not Microsoft at its best. Its slow, buggy, and NOT what the kids in Redmond promised in Longhorn. I personally was looking forward to WinFS as NTFS is a great FS but really showing its age. For the first time in my workings with Microsoft, I've seen them drop the ball. On all previous products, their dev cycle was top notch. Vista Development was an example of a company divided internally.
My humble opinion? I think the source code for Windows is a mess. I think that Bill knows it and Steve knows it. I also think that Bill is tired. I think he has done his bit for king and country and after realizing how bad the source code for Vista is, he wants to move on. He has brought the company this far and its time for somebody else to take over.
Also, Steve Ballmer is no Bill Gates. That might hurt Microsoft more than anything. Steve has some pretty big shoes to fill and I'm not sure that he can do it because 1) He is not a programmer, Gates was and that was a huge asset and 2) I don't think he is as business smart as Gates. That may sound harsh and I'm not trying to personally degrade him but Gates was a programmer AND a great business person. I think that Wallstreet will reflect this when Gates leaves for good.
Some questions about Vista we should be asking:
1. Let's not beat around the bush: What the hell were they doing for all those years? Why didn't they leverage the knowledge they gained from ME, XP, 2k, and 2k3 Srvr? This has been one of Microsoft's strengths in the past.
2. How did the insane copy bug get past Q/A? It was in the betas I saw. I reported it along with thousands of other folks.
3. From a CS Design perspective, UAC is horrible. I wrote in my bug reports that UAC will be a disaster for MS. You only get a few chances for a user to read what you're telling them. If you annoy them or bug them they will just start to click whatever button gets rid of your message. UAC is a mistake I expect from a first year CS student, not a multi-billion dollar company.
4. Where is the reason to upgrade to Vista? Windows 2000 was a business OS. Not many drivers for the consumer market and MS pushed 2k for the corporate world. XP was 2k with great driver support. Going from 98, 98SE, or godaweful ME was like night and day to XP. It was way more stable and offered many new features to the public was had not be exposed to NT. "What?? A task can crash and not take down the whole system??"
5. Windows 2003 Server's kernel is newer than XP's with some really great improvements. Its kernel has a number of new features including a rewritten job scheduler, thread manager, 4gb of memory support in *32bit* versions, and lots of bug fixes. In many ways, the Win2k3 kernel is faster compared to XP's. How did this turn into the Vista kernel?? (Also, why does Vista 32bit not support 4gb of memory?)
6. Lets talk drivers. Again, what was Microsoft thinking? Did anybody else find Nvida and ATi's response odd? First, why did it take both companies so long to get *good* drivers out the door for Vista? I mean it wasn't like they woke up one day and went "Oh, look at that! Microsoft has a new OS out! I guess we we should get to work writing drivers for it!"
Here are two companies that make good products with very mature drivers (fanboys need not flame me, sorry both are good companies). Yet it took both of them a very long time to get working drivers with good support? I mean, this is what they do, right? Make graphic cards and drivers? Microsoft had to be helping them with their drivers and products, yet it took both of them a long time to get working drivers? This is a huge red flag. If ATI or Nvidia had great driver support from day one and the other didn't, you could blame the the other graphic card manufacturer, but you didn't. You saw both companies struggle with their drivers. Well, that points to a driver/kernel/coding issue that must be much worse then we think.
Now add all the other driver issues from other companies and I think you start to get a better picture behind closed doors...something just isn't right.
7. No matter how you look at it, Vista is much slower compared to XP. I don't mean a little, I mean a lot. I would say anywhere between 15% to 20% depending on what you are doing. Copying large files for example is really, really slow. I would like to see some data regarding Vista's Anti-Piracy code. I have heard everything from 100 to a gazillion times a second Vista runs its anti-theft code. Well, how much CPU time is that eating?
Is it the kernel? Why is it so much slower compared to Win2k3 for example? Is it the new GUI? Well, I've seen the new GUI for Linux do some amazing graphics on less hardware.
Do I think Leopard is perfect? Nope. Do I think its faster compared to Tiger on my MBP. Yep. Do I think the features VS the price is a good deal? Yes, I do. Can I say the same for Vista Ultimate (which I own)? Nope. That is a lot of money for very little return.
Does Microsoft deserve to make the money they will off of Vista? No, they don't. They are going to force the market into buying it and they will not suffer the same wrath of the public another company would have to endure.
Will we 'grow' into Vista? Sure. My next Quad Core Notebook, et al will probably run Vista fine. Not that its still worth the Ultimate price mind you.
I will make one prediction: Windows 7 will be subscription based. Microsoft has always admired the Cable TV Industry. Getting people to pay per month for something is a great deal (for the company).
Office 2003 was going to offer a subscription based mode. It almost made it in to the RC versions when they canned the idea. You could rent Word, Excel, etc... or the whole thing for a month if you wanted. I put in my reports that people will not do that. They will go with an Open Source Office or just pirate Office 2k3.
Just my thoughts,
-P