On 9/13/06, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Next Windows After Vista Will Demand Radical Rethinking From Microsoft
<http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=L23HLZAEIVRZYQSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=192501131&queryText=Windows+After+Vista>
<http://tinyurl.com/j8vhs>
Somehow I ended up getting the print version of InformationWeek and I
read the cover article proclaiming that MS's future direction had to
be different than the monolith. I found the article really
disappointing, and suspect the editor who tacked the title on the
article only read the first couple of paragraphs. The conclusion of
the piece was that, no, Vista.Next ("Fiji") had to just be more of the
same, backward-compatilble, bug fixes, minor enhancements, etc., but
that Vista.Next.Next ("Vienna") -- "Windows after Vista is likely to
include a revamped desktop and the ability to wall off old code from
critical parts of the system and deliver features over the Web" --
Ooo! A revamped desktop! And we only have to wait TWO more veersions!
Just what users have been demanding! NOT.
Despite the impression that Microsoft needed to make radical changes,
the article seemed to conclude that things will pretty much stay the
same.
That just reinforces my decision to look elsewhere for innovation.
Small businesses that are not so "ebedded" with MS software and
technology that they can work outside the ever-more restrictive
envelope of Windows software and try out the vast assortment of
software out there that isn't dependent on a jarring every 3-to-5-year
transition, but instead incremental transitions at the discretion and
in the control of the business.
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
