Interesting theory, I suppose.
I wish to ponder whether Microsoft might have directly or indirectly encouraged three prominent bloggers to publicly and passionately implore the company to delay the release of its long-awaited Vista release of Windows.
No, I don’t have evidence that Robert McLaws, Robert Scoble, and Ed Bott were involved in a conspiracy to give Microsoft cover for a significant delay of the next major release of its franchise operating system.
Still, the context of this three-part remonstration is awfully convenient for the executives back in Redmond.
Thank goodness Jim Garrison isn’t around anymore.
Ha! We all understand Wall Street is salivating to get Vista out the door, but theirs is a kill-the-golden-goose strategy. Users, on the other hand (like me), can well affor to wait because XP is so solid for us. When 64-bit computers become commonplace is when you’ll see Vista adoption truly begin.
Best. Title. Ever.
Seriously.
There is no way Microsoft would leave Paul Thurrott out of any such conspiracy, so I don’t believe it.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument that this guy’s hypothesis is true. I still don’t see it as a bad thing. The release is delayed, and I get a less buggy release. I can live with that.
This is the development of an OS. It *SHOULD* take a hella long time to develop and release. I don’t believe that OSes should be released every two years or whatever. I think that’s an upgrade nightmare, esp for sys admins. 4-5 years is around the right time, and if it takes ‘em that long to get their ducks all lined up, then so be it.
Microsoft, along with a lot of the PC industry cannot afford to have Vista bomb because of a rushed release.
Arranging for three prominent bloggers to tell them that the emperor’s new clothes were missing would seem to be pretty thin cover after all the executive comments about “quality is job one.”
Nice work if you can get it Ed.