Slashdot Mirror
Longhorn Server Scrapped
punkass writes "Microsoft announced Tuesday that plans for .Net Server, aka "Longhorn" have been scrapped and they will instead focus on the the release after that, code-named Blackcomb. NT4 came out in 96, 2k in 2000, and Longhorn was due out in 2005-06...Blackcomb seems to be a long time between releases."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Longhorn is the codename for the next general Windows release, ie meant for the desktop, it's not .NET Server which is something entirely different and without any of the SQL based filing system stuff
Longhorn is the "codename" for the release *after* Windows .NET Server.
.NET Server is already at the Release Candidate stages, I highly doubt they're scrapping it...heck, I already received my free Leatherman Pulse tool engraved with the OS' name for trying out the software. :)
Windows
<ob_editor_bitching>How about a little fact checking, eh?</ob_editor_bitching>
Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
Longhorn refers to the next version of the Windows Server OS. I sometimes wonder whether the editors do any fact checking or even read the articles...
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
If you read the article, it is the version AFTER .Net Server that has been scrapped--code name Longhorn. .Net server has already shipped Release Candidate 1 and RC2 should be out shortly. The final .Net Server should be out next year. Longhorn server and desktop versions were due out in 2004. Since it take corporate environments a couple of years to roll out a server upgrade, MS figured .Net Server would never get implemented by most IT departments(i.e. they wouldn't sell many copies of .Net Server).
Now, MS is just going to skip the Longhorn release in 2004 and instead go to the Blackcomb release.
There is a similar article here [pcmag.com].
.NET server release back farther into 2003.
It seems that Microsoft may be seeing that making a sound, secure server take more than just slapping a fresh GUI on top of a very tired, 8 year old foundation.
Since RC2 has not even shipped yet, they are even talking about pushing the
Microsoft (and lots of other companies, too) use codenames - often the final name isn't known yet (what if Windows 95 had come out in '97, for example).
Here's a list of MS's codenames
Actually, Windows NT 3.1 (the first release) was a multi-cpu architecture operating system that ran on Intel, Mips, Alpha and eventually the PPC platform. It was Posix compatible and compatible with most well behaved Windows 3.1 apps. It had a version of Office for it and even a TCP/IP stack before the Internet was popular.
.net server is Windows NT 5.11, expect to see it in about 6 weeks.)
I'm not sure what OS you're talking about, but it wasn't Windows NT.
I won't even begin to get into the fact that longhorn was supposed to be a point release and not a new revision. (This would be Windows NT 5.2 if MS marketing didn't ruin a perfectly good version numbering scheme) (BTW,
Blackcomb is a mountain range that passes through Whistler in British Columbia (at least, that's what I can make out from a quick Google search). I guess that's their way of saying that it is a successor to Whistler.
It is a a good ski resort in British Columbia (right next to Whistler, another ski resort)
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Now Microsoft has to give me permission to put a different OS on my box?
No, when you purchase a computer with OEM Windows XP Pro, you are automatically granted a license for Windows 2000 Pro.
This is good for businesses as we can order our computers with Windows XP Pro and install Windows 2000 Pro on them. In the future if we ever decide to upgrade to XP Pro on the desktop, it is a "free" upgrade instead of having to purchase an upgrade license.
I just migrated all of our NT4 servers to windows 2000 advanced server in February, a good TWO years after the introduction of the Windows 2000 server products.
.Net server was released tomorrow, I wouldn't touch it for about 5 years.
Since then i've had to apply countless service-packs, security patches, fixes....some of which made some servers unbootable. Lots of organizations still run Windows NT 4 server....why?
Two reasons:
1. It suits their needs just fine.
2. They want to wait until service packs and security fixes slow to a trickle before committing lots of time and resources to the upgrade.
Does Microsoft think that adding a new product to the mix will make IT managers less gun-shy about a newly released server OS? Gimme a break.
I won't be moving from windows 2000 server for AT LEAST 3 more years. Even if
-ted
Blackcomb and Whistler are both ski resorts in BC (Longhorn is a Saloon on the Whistler side). The reason these were chosen is because a lot of the Windows Design team go there from Seattle for ski trips.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
IT departments HATE non-stop tiny changes, each of which requires new testing, and likely breaks several of their applications. This can be seen in the reality that many shops still use NT 4.0 even with its successor 2000, and its successor XP, available. Hell, most IT departments shun at even installing service packs.
Yeah. In my shop we are running a Windows NT 3.51 as a file/printer/authentication server. Works great, no need to upgrade (or change to Linux...).
Obviously not what you've been smoking.
Let me let you in on a little secret: Microsoft is not interested in maintaining or incrementally improving the status quo. Microsoft is trying to change the game. And .NET is the lever they will try to use.
Delaying the next release of a server OS could be a good move for them. It will give customers time to roll out .NET before MS releases a fully .NET OS. Some major players (Like Robert Half) are already rolling out .NET.
I have never seen a work environment where the in house software was not going through constant changes. What will MS customers be looking at when it's time to upgrade? .NET, anyone?
They are going to look at .NET components, with their prepackaged remoting and serialization interfaces, language neutrality, etc as replacements for COM components.
They are going to look at ASP.NET, with its automatic browser detection and code generation, tightly integrated XML binding, cleaner setup, and performance enhancements.
They are going to look at ADO.NET, with its native XML handling, simplified programming model, true UDA, and its own performance enhancements - not to mention its custom drivers for MS SQL.NET.
Make no mistake. MS has bet everything on .NET. If is successful, all MS has to do is make sure that Windows runs .NET better than any other OS.
How hard will that be?