From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

"Geo"  wrote in message
news:44cb69e9$4{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Yes, that too. There's a lot of good stuff been done during that 6 years,
>> too, that I'd hate to see thrown away.
>
>> That's not true, that's just some stupid rumor going around. They may
>> have
>> ditched some parts of the system, like the UI handling, but not the whole
>> thing.
>
> Antti,
>
> I look at the jump from NT 3.5 in 1995 to Windows 2000 in 2000, 6 years.
> Now look at Windows 2000 to Vista (6 years) and tell me that's 6 years of
> work with 4 times the number of people working on it.

I don't know the actual numbers, but I think it's reasonable to assume that
Vista is more complex than NT4 or W2k. The amount of hardware available
today alone is probably 1000 times the number it was in 2000. Plus,
software development (like anything very large) is not linear; double the
people working on it will not get double the results because of all
overhead involved.

Damnit, you're making me sound like I'm pro-MS, stop it already! 


> If it is, they need to start over from scratch cause the next version
> is going to be way too much work.

No, that's silly. They need to define the next version more carefully
maybe, and see if some parts could be left out of the OS and converted into
separate apps, and get MS to look more like an interesting place to work so
that they can hire smart people instead of drones, things like that. But
not start over, that will never work (been tried with smaller systems, like
Netscape for example - the famous 6.x versions that a) took several years
to complete by which time MS had sailed too far ahead to catch, and b) were
buggy as hell because there was only new code, nothing "mature"
that would have had even the most basic issues ironed out).


Antti Kurenniemi

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5