Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Features and Releases Timeline?
maggard writes "Does anyome have any good timelines for MS Windows releases, their original feature-sets & what they eventually shipped with? MS has a long habit of promising lots of features in future operating systems, mapping out elaborate plans with dates & product codenames, etc. then, er, well it not quite happening. I'm looking to track some of these plans and match them up against what really shipped and when. I'm also looking to track all of the various Win-flavors out there now (something like a dozen or so) to point out that Unix isn't the only thing out there in danger of fragmenting."
As to MS being an easy target on /., yes, that's why I asked here. I considered asking on news://alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer but I doubted I'd get many replies or as much useful material.
-- Michael
ps - Just to correct your "OS-X (AKA Rhapsody)" comment - not accurate. Rhapsody did ship as MacOS Server 1.0, the client version was dropped in favor of the Darwin / MacOS X strategy. Check out this posting on /. of mine a week ago. Interestingly this is the post that got me interested in the MS timeline.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
However there will still be a number of variations (DataCenter, a possible-WebServer-specific flavor, other high-end implementations, etc.) as well as the various quasi-Win-OS's like Embedded Windows, X-Box, Palm Windows (neé WinCe) etc.
These days it looks like MS is rolling out new Windows as fast as old ones wither so I'm not sure what the final tally will be. That's why I'm trying to get a timeline / family tree put together.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
As to failed deliveries & fragmentation, they were two topics. I'm interested in both the Windows "family tree" & in the feature-sets/timelines as originially planned & what actually shipped when.
Regarding the Apple server-redirects, likely because most customers are interested in the desktop OS & not the server OS. As it stands right now MacOS Server 1.0 (actually 1.something, it's in the link I pointed out previously) is due to be replaced with MacOS X Server 10.0 soon. Apple claimed within a month of the MacOS X release & reports are that it's on track & looking stable.
In Apple's timeline MacOS 9 was what came after Rhapsody debuted & aborted so it seems a reasonable place to redirect folks. As MacOS Server 1.0 hasn't been availaible for purchase for months & clearly has no future then pushing it on the website wouldn't make much sense. Personally I'd expect those links to go to MacOS X Server 10.0 promo stuff but it's possible they set them awhile ago & are holding off on changing anything 'till MacOS X Server 10.0 ships. Or they just screwed up.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
As to trying to bait me with "Which company is better" or even "which OS is better" or "Look how bad (whatever) is" - sorry, won't work. You seem to have glommed on to MacOS as a counteragument for me but I simply corrected you since you were wrong: I don't have any emotionial committment to it. Indeed I don't have any particular emotionial committment to any of them. Go find your agument somewhere else.
I believe that MS uses it's roadmap as a tactical weapon when competing in the market. I believe there is a consistant & generally unremarked discrepancy between what MS projects to be in a product & when it will ship and what actually does & when. I believe that MS "Windows" is as 'fragmented' (broad, varied, whatever) as the *nix market is often portayed. I am interested in collecting & compiling information to discover if these beliefs are true or not.
Now, you may have some desire to see MS portayed in some way or not in another - fine. Go work for Werner-Edelstrom. If you feel my studies may be biased you're welcome to conduct your own. You can see the same links suggested as I do - go at it.
But please don't go try dragging me into some asinine OS or company war. Once I've got some material put together I can test my hypothosis & discover the validity of my premises. In the meantime it's just so much hot-air & frankly your style doesn't appeal to me anyhow.
I'll post a link with what I put together in a few weeks. Then you'll be welcome to go read it yourself.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Well... Windows is about to unfragment with the release of XP. After a time, of course, there will not be Win9x, it will just be XP Personal which is the same core as XP Pro without some additions. But finally developers will have one base to code against again and not the many that are out right now.
I know the developers at my last company hated doing USB code because of the different variations.
http://www.metrics.com/WinFAQ/winver.htm
It has some versions, some dates, some features...
Not exactly a timeline but interesting, anyhow:
http://pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/index.html
http://www.windrivers.com/TIMELINE/1.htm
...they're essentially the same, I believe, so someone must be copying/mirroring/whatever someone.
There is this nice Microsoft Timeline, covering 1975 till 2000, right over here. It is not exactly what you asked for, but its a M$ Timeline. Enjoy.
You're tired of Slashdot ads? Get junkbuster now!
If you are interested in broadening your timeline to include other operating systems' promise/delay/delivery-not-meeting-expectations, there are plenty of other examples out there, notably OS-X (AKA Rhapsody) which is 3 years late and lacks CD-R(W), DVDRW, DVD play support, along with missing printer and SCSI drivers (without running in 9.1 emulation mode). I'm still waiting for a major x86 Linux distro with good enough USB support, lacking for over a year, to use my Visor that I don't have to manually upgrade the kernel (I know, short work for some of you kernel hackers, but too much of a PITA for me), preferrably Red Hat, but their 'next several weeks' continues to drag on.
I doubt the 'promises/delays/letdowns' are exclusive to Windows, but fairly standard practice for the industry as a whole. That doesn't make it right, just typical.
Even more puzzling to me is how these apparently industry standard release cycles contribute to fragmentation, especially from a single proprietary vendor who can control all the different flavors! Sure, if they want it to fragment, they could make it happen, but it would require them to make it happen (or perhaps a federal judge ;).
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
I'm thinking of more concrete examples such as WinXP or VisualStudio.NET, neither of which much vapor was spread about until functional betas were in people's hands.
Remember that the Cairo talk started before either Windows 95 or NT 4.0 shipped. Perhaps "Hailstorm" fits this model, but I have a feeling that it doesn't.
Microsoft's operating system timetable made some very interesting changes from "Cairo" (originally slated to ship in 1996) to "Windows 2000". One thing I remember about this period is that this release was 9-12 months away for virtually the whole time.
Trying to find any information on the web about previous product plans is nearly impossible. My suggestion is to head down to the local library and see if they have old copies/microfitch of "PC Week" or "Infoworld". ZDNet pubs are especially good because they tended to be more sycophantic to Microsoft. The more consumer oriented mags like PC Magazine might have some good info too.
Of course, none of this information will be officially from Microsoft. But I think it's clear who is whispering into journalist's ears. In MS's defense, nowdays they don't quite blow the vapor like they used to.
Here is one time line. This one is written and not a visual time line. This is also interesting. The only problem is that their is is a gap from 1975-90. This is the my favorite site This site starts in 1980 but it is very indepth about DOS, widows, and Microft itself! This is a nice time line also. It covers 1975-2000.
Diplomacy is the art of letting people have your way