Stumbled across this article over at digg.com, discussing the departure of Windows chief Jim Allchin, and breathless praise concerning the latest version of Windows to hit store shelves, Vista.
My response? Goodbye Jim Allchin.
The rest of the article is a puff piece designed to spin the Vista delay in the correct direction, rather than discussing the real reasons for same. Reasons like the failure of Vista's predecessor, Longhorn; failed because nobody wanted the invasive security measures that were touted as one of Longhorn's strengths (the chipset it was to utilize was shelved, if I remember correctly, over the same issues) It's taken nearly five years to design and build a version of Windows that Microsoft thought people would go for, that also included enough of the DRM and anti-piracy measures (that corporate America is inexplicably in love with) to satisfy Microsoft's business partners and it's legal department.
Good luck with it. It'll never see the inside of any of my systems, at least not in it's unadulterated form. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Apparently the opinion is pretty widespread, and not exactly earth shattering.
Of what use is an operating system that disables programs and media that it can't verify are legally purchased (can't verify as opposed to aren't legally purchased, an important distinction) one that is hostile to other DRM schemes, schemes that are just as valid as it's own (the issue with i-Tunes has been well documented, albeit patched) An operating system that requires every user to create a Windows Live account in order to validate the installation; a completely pointless requirement, except that MicroShaft is deluding itself into believing that it can compete with Yahoo and Google, and so think that forcing new users to register in the system will lead them to actually use the system.
Time to get serious about Linux.