All over the net for the last 24 hours has been this report from the Gardner Group about how Vista will be delayed because Microsoft has a long history of delays. While on face value I agree, Longhorn coming fall of 2003, I don't see where the report is getting the wisdom to make the call this time around.
In the report Gardner and co. state that Vista is more akin to the Windows 2000 launch than the Windows XP launch. And, if you remember, the Win2K launch was delayed after it's beta cycle. While compairing FAT to NTFS to WINFS kind of works I don't think it's no where as bad as they make it out to be.
Vista was delayed for a number of reasons. And what we will get is a distant cousin from what was originally promised. Service Packs will probably end up meeting the middle on all of that. But what is already done is almost ready to go. And Microsoft has a lot more resources in 2006 than what was on hand in 1999. For one thing internet distribution and more advanced error reporting makes things a whole lot easier than the days of shipping out thousands of CDs.
Even more so the real big diference is that several other key components are almost complete. Direct X 10 is set, Office 2007 was ready to ship in August and IE7 moved their release back only because it made since to launch it closer to Vista and the other new MS products.
Something is fishy in Microsoft, however, I don't see another delay on the horizon. And it took awhile to find someone else who agrees with me on the validity of the report... but I did and here he is..