Exclusive: Microsoft Overcomes Final Vista Hurdles, Heads to RTM

A week and a half ago, online reports about an internal countdown clock at Microsoft verified my early 2006 report that the software giant was pushing for an October 25 Windows Vista release to manufacturing (RTM) date. But last week, Jim Allchin, co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, admitted that the company had run into a snag and that Microsoft wouldn't make its planned RTM date. As of today, however, Microsoft is back on track because it has a working Vista build in escrow.

In an interview with Mary Jo Foley at "ZDNet" last week, Allchin said that Microsoft wouldn't be able to release Vista to manufacturing by October 25. "We are in pretty good shape," Allchin told Foley. "And there are still months before (the January 2007) launch."

Allchin was alluding to an internal timetable that I previously reported on in WinInfo: He had told the Windows Division that Microsoft could afford to postpone Vista's RTM date to as late as November 8 and still meet its November and January launch dates. However, each delay comes with a price, Allchin said: For each day past October 25, Microsoft will ship one fewer localized, language-specific version of Vista in the January launch.

I've found out that the source of Allchin's concerns was an unexpectedly buggy pre-RTM build of Vista. The previous Friday, Microsoft pushed Vista build 5824 into escrow, hoping that the build could qualify as the final shipping version. But a catastrophic problem with the build destroyed any systems that upgraded from Windows XP, requiring complete reinstallations. After several frantic days of trying to find the bug, Microsoft finally fixed the problem last Friday and reset escrow. On Friday, Microsoft internally released build 5840, which didn't include the bug. Testing over the weekend produced positive feedback.

Vista build 5840 includes a surprising number of brand-new and final icons, and a new set of final wallpapers, including a default wallpaper that's a variation of the Aurora "swoosh" that Microsoft has been using as a Vista identifier since it announced the branding in July 2005. There aren't any major functional changes in this build.

Oh, and that internal countdown clock? Last week, it was reset to count down to November 8, not to October 25. It's not clear, however, whether Microsoft will release Vista to manufacturing before November 8, and which--if any--language-specific versions of Vista will be dropped.

End of Article

Don't forget there's going to be some pretty nice new sounds too.

GuidStephen October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

Same old story. How many times has Vista been "on track" for a release date only to miss it? And if they think I'm paying $400 apiece for separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions of an "Ultimate" version, they're wrong.

Preseton October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

I like Microsoft :)

will84 October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

@Preseton

Don't you already have a copy of XP that you are booting into on your Mac via Bootcamp?

You won't pay $400 if you use that to upgrade will you?

Oh silly me of course, you've probably been using a pirated version haven't you - no?

So you can't have it either way Preseton, either you can upgrade and not have to spend $400, or admit you've been using pirated software - which is it?

alanm999 October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

And Preseton, you've spent far in excess of $400 keeping your Mac OS X up to date through 4 "major" updates since its launch.

tom275 October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

It's funny how Vista's RCs were able to upgrade from XP fine, and then a post-RC, pre-RTM build would be unable to do so, having "catastrophic" problems.

How can such a catastrophic bug exist in a pre-RTM build when it wasn't there in the RCs that preceded it?

Shouldn't the code with possible catastrophic outcomes have already been written at this point?

Aren't they supposed to be working on fit & finish (i.e. write dialogs in plain english, get graphic artists working in final icons/pictures)?

Get ready for the train wreck. I can already see the mammoth set of patches on Launch Day.

vandil October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

vandil-"How can such a catastrophic bug exist in a pre-RTM build when it wasn't there in the RCs that preceded it? "

It's called software development. All it takes is one line of code and sometimes one character in the code to create a catastrophic failure. Developers will add something little and seeming harmless to the code and not test it. I've done it many times.

anonymous October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

vandil, you've already mentioned that you work for a newspaper so we can fogive your ignarance.

If you worked in the software industry, your paginatin' azz would know that it is entirely possible for something like what was mentioned above to happen at ANY time of the development process. Unfortunately, software development happens to follow Muphys Law: catastrophic bugs usually show their face a week before the release date.

sticknick October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

@alanm999:

"So you can't have it either way Preseton, either you can upgrade and not have to spend $400, or admit you've been using pirated software - which is it?"

Is this really all you have to offer? I also own two PCs in addition to my Macs, one of them legacy and one of them brand new (won it in a contest, in fact). I never buy upgrade versions because the time always comes when you can't find the installation discs for the previous copy of Windows, and there's no guarantee you'll always have a previous version already installed (for instance, when you're doing the routine bi-annual Windows reinstall).

"And Preseton, you've spent far in excess of $400 keeping your Mac OS X up to date through 4 "major" updates since its launch."

No, I haven't. I've only spent $120 since I upgraded to Macs in early 2005, and I didn't have to buy any antivirus or security software, which was nice! Frankly, I don't mind spending $120 every couple of years to keep my system up-to-date rather than being stagnant for over half a decade only to be charged whopping prices of $200 or more to get essential functionality in a dressed-up XP.

Using "major" in quotation marks is cute, implying the updates weren't major, but a simple readthrough of the Arstechnica reviews for each release written by John Siracusa would let you realize how much changes in each update. Tiger in particular had internal changes on the level of Vista, including an updated kernel.

I get the sense that you guys are bitter and defensive over the Longhorn debacle of the last six years. I don't blame you, and the only reason I ***** about Microsoft so much is that they ****** me off with each announcement and subsequent cancellation of features and release dates until we've got the crippled Vista of today with its inconsistent interface (wait until you find the Windows 3.1 dialogs, like when installing a font) and annoying UAC prompt.

Preseton October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

@vandil:

"Get ready for the train wreck. I can already see the mammoth set of patches on Launch Day."

Vista has already had security patches pushed out on Windows Update before its own release!

Anyone remember Windows XP and its initial 20+MB of Windows Update downloads back in the day? I'll never forget it--I was on dial-up at the time.

Preseton October 23, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

See More Comments 1 2 3 4

You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.