A Quick Peek at Longhorn

Kaypro writes: "The Register has an interesting article with some minor details regarding Microsoft's next OS. P2P, filesystem plugins and some thoughts from Hans Reiser, of ReiserFS fame make for an interesting read."

Comments

Pluging FS

[headhot]

95 included a plugin fs, but no one did anyting with it...

I submitted this story on Blackcomb in AUGUST:

[Artifice_Eternity]

For some reason, /. didn't consider a story on future MS operating systems important.

Read it yourself:

http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10 738,2802585,00.html

Re:This is an insult!

[CmdrSanity]

Incidentally, the code names are taken from a Canadian ski resort about 4-5 hours drive north of the MS campus. So if you ever go to Whistler mountain, look out for the blackcomb resort and longhorn saloon.

Version numbers...

[mech9t8]

Every version of Windows has a version number, and a build number (ie. Windows 2000 is NT Version 5.0 build 2195). Microsoft has just decided they're easier to market with all these other names. "Windows XP" is something new, "Windows 5.1" is just another minor upgrade.

Names like Longhorn are just internal codenames, just like, say, Debian Potato.

Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 4.0 = Windows 95
Windows 4.1 = Windows 98
Windows 4.9 = Windows Me

Windows 98 SE was version 4.1 with a higher build number than Windows 98

Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 5.0 = Windows 2000
Windows NT 5.1 = Windows XP

- There will probably be an XP Second Edition, which'll be version 5.1 with a higher build number
- Longhorn will probably be version 5.2. Who knows what'll actually be called - XP wasn't decided on till last spring.
- Blackcomb will probably be version 6.0

Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead)

[abde]

aaargh

read this:

http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html

The. Last. Word.

Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end.

[jmccay]

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure red Hat doesn't make the Database the Files System. On Windows, and most computers, the Database (SQL-Server, Oracle, et. al.) stores it data via the file system in some arrangement of files.
If I understood the article correctly Microsoft is going to flip that relationship. The file system would be Front end to the Database. This would mean if Oracle did, or could, produce a database it would have to do one of two things. First it could run on top of the File System which would make the file system a go-between between Oracle and the RDBMS (probalble a SQL-Server derivative). The other possiblity would be to Have Oracle interact directly with the RDBMS. Either way, what's the point of having a Database run on top of a database? I think that would be one the reasons Oracle file a lawsuit against Microsoft. It isn't that much different than what they did to Netscape and AOL (with the tie in of MSN).
The article referenced another article that went into more detail.

Winsupersite

[Metrollica]

I don't know if anyone put a link down the WinSuperSite so there it is. It has screenshots, some fake, some real, and a long description of the operating system. Worth a look.