What Microsoft faced was a number of problems that they didn’t count on, firstly, the code audit and pushing out of Service Pack 2 the move from baseing Windows Vista on Windows XP SP2 to Windows 2003 SP1, and finally, the feature creep that occured, and the idea that ‘oh, its ok, we’ve got tonnes of programmers and time, we’ll do it’, then I think the final nail in the coffin was also the need to modularise the development process and the code itself.Īll these things were not written in the script 5 years ago, let alone saw as being things to be concerned about 5 years ago the assumption was, development would carry on as usual, we’ll pump the thing full of features, boot it out the door, and make a speedy service pack 1 to fix up any random issues we couldn’t fix in time for RTM. With this push out to 2005/2006, the idea, in a nutshell, was to bring an operating system that was absolutely revolutionary, threw the shackles off of old paradigms, embrace new technologies, and bring new enhancements – the general consensus was that 5 years would be sufficient time frame to bring about such massive technology additions to Windows. THEN, there was a move by management to rather than pushing out a new version with minimal enhancements, I don’t know who made the decision, but lets just say ‘Microsoft management’ which covers all those at the top, decided to scrap that road map in favour of pushing Windows Longhorn out to 2005/2006. Windows XP -> Windows Longhorn -> Blackcomb

Windows Vista/Longhorn/some other name was NEVER meant to be delivered then so please netpython, stop bringing up the same lies over and over again – just because you repeat a lie several times, doesn’t spontaneously turn it into the truth, no matter how much you’d like it to be the case. Not quite.No OS is absolute secure while humans operate them.Vista should have been delivered in 2003 but that’s hardly a development fault more a marketing/management blooper.

Ms office 2007 enterprise torrent