I am struck by the parallels

There are problems at Microsoft. Leadership problems, if some of these blog comments are accurate. The ship date of Vista has been delayed until January 2007, and the rank and file have been saddled with the blame (apparently). They feel the guilt, regardless.

Of course, we all know it's a failure of leadership--of management--starting at the top. Management is steering the ship, so if the objective is not met, it can't be because the engine room guys couldn't get that last 120% out of the engines. Needing that 120% in the first place is the problem, and only the guys on the bridge (to continue my nautical analogy) know where we're going. Don't they know anything about how projects are managed?

I also gleaned a comment or two hinting at something I've been "predicting" since Windows 2K came out: that eventually Windows would collapse under its own weight. That is, it would become so bloated and fragile that it no longer worked. If I were at Microsoft I would be crapping in my pants and looking for other opportunities elsewhere (as some appear to be doing).

I thought XP was a large step away from the "collapse under its own weight" apocalypse, but with so many Microsofties worried, have management spent all that money just to provide cooler graphics and image-damaging DRM to consumers? Yep, if not even Microsoft can come up with a good reason to upgrade, what's left to motivate the rest of us? There may be dark days ahead, though I think predicting the demise of Microsoft is a bit melodramatic. Painful, harmful to shareholder value, certainly, but His Billness will guide them through successfully.

Personally, I've been intent on upgrading when the new OS is available. It's also true that I have an MSDN subscription and don't expect to pay money for the upgrade--just my time and anguish. I have no interest in the beta versions, because I can't afford to have my home system not work, but I'm not terribly fearful that when it's released it won't work. It will work. That's why they're delaying the release, because they know it has to be right. Or else.

But you can argue that 2 months isn't enough time to fix a huge pile of defects. It's not. But if there are specific problems in a couple of key areas, 2 months might be enough time to make sure things are working. It's still a monumental failure of management, and heads (not programmer heads--management heads) really should roll for farking this up. Someone has to pay, because the costs of missing the 2006 Christmas buying frenzy are enormous.

Let's wait and see. I have used Microsoft as an example to others. So far I've used them as a good example, particularly in their dedication to getting it right before they ship. Being late is bad, as we are seeing already, but not doing it right is much, much worse. So, they delay and get it right. Now let's see if they do that other thing right: do they fire a bunch of failed management?

In one other case I know of, that didn't happen. In typical corporate fashion the developers were blamed, and management wasn't held accountable. If Microsoft handles this situation properly, then I can still believe there's hope. Otherwise, I think we all may be doomed.