News is buzzing that Windows Fiji really isn’t a codename for Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1). Instead, it is the codename for what will become a version of Windows that to be released between Vista and Windows Seven (currently slated for release in 2009).
Mary Jo Foley dug this news up on a Microsoft employee’s site, who had said:
Diamond is the version of Windows Media Center which ships with Windows Vista, and is the only version of Windows Media Center (to date) which was synced with a major version of Windows. All prior releases were ‘Windows Out Of Band Release’ projects — meaning they weren’t necessarily tied to a particular shipping date of Windows (or a Windows service pack). Our next version is yet another out of band release and (generally speaking) the team is pretty happy about that because it allows us to get back on our (approximate) yearly schedule of delivering goodness to customers (it was a major feat of engineering load balancing for us to be simultaneously working on ‘Emerald’ and ‘Diamond’ at the same time…
The Microsoft employee, Charlie Owens, has since removed the post from his site and commented saying that it shouldn’t have been posted. The excerpt taken from the removed post does not specifically reference Fiji, but Mary Jo said that Fiji was what it was tagged.
Emerald was the codename for Windows Media Center 2005 and was released prior to Windows Vista. Similarly, Windows Fiji will be the codename for the next Media Center release which is expected to be released sometime after Vista SP1 and before Windows Seven (so late 2007 or sometime in 2008).
If this does end up being a completely separate release I hope Microsoft plays their cards wisely. People who splurged $400 on the Windows Vista Ultimate Edition may not be too happy if they find out that the version of Media Center included will be out-of-date within a year.
In my opinion Microsoft should not be working on separate releases of Media Center now that they have it integrated with both Vista Ultimate and Home Premium. Any interim updates should be made available to consumers free of charge, and maybe just part of a service pack. I have a strong feeling that Microsoft will follow this route of offering the update at no cost, but they will probably use the “updated version” as a marketing scheme so that they can say that it is newly improved.
Now it is time for Microsoft to step up and let us know what’s going on with Windows Fiji. This is even more of a reason for people to hold off on purchasing Vista who have not already done so and most consumers, like myself, prefer to make informed decisions before purchasing high-cost items like Windows.
I think MS should make more frequent updates to Windows.
I’m not talking about service packs either. In my opinion, there should be a new release on Windows every year. The new release wouldn’t need to be a major upgrade, just some new features and updates to existing applications. Yes, bug fixes could be apart of these releases but they shouldn’t be called “service packs”. Think of it as Windows 6.0, then 6.1, 6.2, etc. This would allow MS to casually add new features with out the pressure to deliver a huge new system every few years (think Longhorn which had to be stripped down to a shell of it’s planned release).
It’s my belief that customers never pay for minor upgrades, only major ones (ex: Windows 7.0).
Apple rubs me the wrong way because with each new version of Mac OS X, customers have to fork over money to upgrade when there isn’t much that changes.
There’s no compelling reasons to upgrade to any new versions of Windows higher than XP.
I like CoryC’s idea, if we are on the same page, that is. Every year, MS would release an update to the OS, one which would add new features and improvements to the existing ones (such as the sidebar), at no cost to the user. Then, after a few years (3-5), they would release a major upgrade, one that would have new major features (like DX10).
This would accomplish three things. The first is that the OS would not stagnate, held back by the principle that only major updates can have new features. The second is that MS would be able to space these minor upgrades over a period of time, giving them more time and flexibility with developing the major features. Third, it would allow them to delay if necessary without having to worry that the current OS is getting too old. Also, as a bonus, these free updates could be about equivalent to Apple’s paid ones, giving MS an edge.
@CoryC: That is a great idea…even the service packs for Windows are never really exciting and typically focus on bug fixes more than anything. I would like to see them working on more features to release for the most current version of Windows, which is Vista right now. That way it would also give consumers more satisfaction when buying the product knowing that they will continue to get bug fixes and features later on.
Apple also disappoints me with how they charge for what they label as a more minor update, but everyone I talk to say that they can easily get it illegally. Mac, unlike Vista, does not have any sort of activation so all you need is a serial number and your good as gold. Of course I’m not condoning piracy, but the fact is many Apple users hate having to pay for these upgrades as well…and they’re looking for another solution.
@Slasher: I’ve had a lot of hands-on experience with both Vista and XP (been a Windows user all my life and jumped on the Vista Beta bandwagon almost a year ago) and I can see where you’re coming from. One of the biggest concerns for me with Vista was how long it would take developers to come up with compatible applications. As of right now I would say that application compatibility is very high and I’m surprised at how many updates have been released to make programs work with Vista. The only program that I use which isn’t officially labeled as Vista compatible is…iTunes.
Some people (like family) that I have had play with Vista, who have used XP just a little bit, say that Vista has things a little more intuitively laid out…especially the Control Panel. They can just start to type a setting that they are looking for and it will pull it right up, so now users don’t feel so intimidated when wanting to change something. This was a great move by Microsoft.
@MetaMan: I didn’t really think about that giving an edge to Microsoft, but you’re definitely right. Since Vista is priced higher than what Mac OS normally costs it would give it more value if people knew that they would get updates similar to what Mac users have to pay for. I think this is something Microsoft might take more advantage of with the “Ultimate Extras” for Vista Ultimate, but as of right now those extras are a little disappointing.
Exactly!
Speaking of “Ultimate Edition”, good grief could Microsoft have made it anymore difficult for the typical user to decide which version to upgrade too?
That’s another thing they should change; revert to only two editions – Business and Home. Notice, I said “Business” and not “Pro”. Even “XP Pro” and XP Home Edition” confused people. When it comes to technology one on the most difficult aspects is making a decision. Even in this age of information, people don’t want to spend hours educating themselves as to which of five (5) versions of a product to purchase. K.I.S.S (keep It Simple, Stupid!) and the people will pucker up (with their wallets that is).
Two versions of Windows would indeed be great, but Microsoft wanted to create the Ultimate edition so that they could throw in a few extras and make a lot more money. If they didn’t offer the lower-cost editions for more reasonable prices (around $200) then a lot less people probably would have bought into the new operating system.
I have an idea. They could make three editions: Home, Business, and something non-confusing like Enthusiast (which everyone would avoid unless they new what it was, in which case they’d probably be an enthusiast). Then, they could charge less for the OS if they were concerned about consumers thinking it was overpriced.
Three versions is more reasonable than two, but I think it is only going to keep getting worse. In the early days of Windows there was really only one version for each release. Then XP came and there were a few different ones (Home, Pro, Media Center, Tablet) and now Vista has even more. It is just too confusing for most people.
Well, they combined Tablet and Media Center into Home Premium, so they should be able to do it again. It’s simple. All they would have to do is get rid of Business and Home Basic. Really, they should only have one version, but there’s next to no chance of that ever happening.