irascian wrote:
Andre Da Costa wrote: I think that review is unfair, and Paul is thinking too much with the end user mind set. Microsoft made it specifically clear this is for developing device drivers not for looking at and critiquing.

Shame on Paul, I expected better.


I keep reading this "defence" from Microsoft about how this build was aimed at hardware developers etc etc.

I haven't looked at Longhorn since a brief look at the PDC release WHICH WAS 18 MONTHS AGO!

In that 18 months timeframe Apple wrote and delivered Tiger while Microsoft seem to have done very little other than descope functionality. The much-hyped Longhorn blogs were set up but have been VERY quiet and one hoped it was because for the last 18 months people have been knuckling down to write something that's a big advance over XP. 

Given the long gap and the lack of any real news over the last 18 months it's hardly surprising that the lastest CTP release is getting so many negative reviews.

By all means disagree about how long it takes to write a good operating system, but simply repeating the Microsoft mantra "It was never meant to be a release you looked at" sounds kind of lame. Maybe I'm wrong but have there been any rave reviews from those hardware folks the release WAS supposedly targeted at?


But the point remains, its for hardware developers, beta 1 is for the persons who want to start critquing the interface. I wouldn't even put too much faith in beta 1, since beta 2 will be release that defines what Longhorn will look like by RTM.

Apple does not have a plethora of OEMs using different hardware configurations. Remember Apple only has 1% of the market and 2 hardware configurations, so they can deliver much quicker. So there are many factors that affects the long development time for Windows Longhorn. You just have to be patient and let them make a great release.