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."

Comments

This is good.

[Penguinoflight]

The longer Microsoft has between releases, the longer Linux has to come up with great releases. Just think how many security patches there will be between 2000 and blackcomb... that's not fun and sysadmins know it.

Re:This is good.

[4of12]

They seem to be desperately out of tune with their users in the server market

It's because they don't compete in a normal market anymore.

When you essentially own a marketplace, such as they do with desktop PC operating systems, then you can make a lot more decisions that your customers don't like but have to accept because the alternatives have disappeared or are considered too drastic (MacOS, Linux, etc.).

Actually, the competition they seem to be desperately out of tune with their users in the server markethey've endured trying to enter the server market has been good for them and their customers: each revision of NT was compared with UNIX. Early revs were laughable, but MS had a target to aim towards in terms of reliability and scalability. Finally, with Win2K they have something where they don't get laughed out of the room anymore. I doubt whether it would have been as a good product as it is without the competition.

They face a more serious threat in the future with their server operating systems. If they strongly leverage their desktop dominance in Windows and Office, then they can insure their servers are the only brand that works in a networked environment.

But if services are standardized and commoditized, which is what customers really like for their effects on price and quality (as in the PC hardware market), then open source flavors of UNIX will have already eaten their server marketplace for breakfast when they finally trot out some shiny chrome-plated Blackcomb .NET product that "does everything and more".

Re:This is good.

[ergo98]

Security patches are to be reckoned with. However, the long interval between new Windows server releases means that there will be large differences inbetween versions. If there's something that the IT departments don't like, it's large differences...So - I really have to wonder what crack Microsoft is smoking.

Obviously not as potent as the stuff you're smoking. Here are the facts as I see them. Please feel free to disagree.

• 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.
• Microsoft has oft been berated for doing what Apple now is the champion of, which is pushing minor changes as new versions (see 95, 98, 98SE, Me) and getting people to pay up. People don't like being "behind" when applications start using some esoteric feature of XP that adds little value, but suddenly renders obsolete their 2000 base.
• Because Microsoft has moved at such a rapid rate, many organizations have simple ceased moving with them: By the time they get a plan together and start to act, they're behind again. There are still a large number of organizations that aren't using Active Directory. There literally is such a thing as being too-rapid in your development (at least in areas where users and IT have to move with you) because the early-adopters will give up, and the late adopters will always feel that something better is just around the corner.

Re:This is good.

[peaworth]

Another aspect of this that is not necessarily releated to the annoyance / lack of annoyance in the technical side of the the IT department is the cost. Licensing 6.0 from MS went to annual subscription payments that are based on a 3 year break even rate. All those companies that signed up for licensing 6.0 this year on their server OS's will pay for the price of a new OS over the next 3 years but there will be no new product released in that time even if they wanted to "upgrade". They just got screwed. That ought to foster some more good will.

Re:This is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunaly, unlucky people like me have 100% of their customer base being small buisnesses with 1 Windows server each. All with just slightly different hardware and myriad of configurations( RAID, software mirroring, LAN boots, Terminal Servers etc etc). And each and every one of them needs constant attention, their NTs and Win2Ks are like fragile plants that would wither were it not for constant watering and trimming and making sure there is juuust enough sunlight. Same customers have also Linux doing firewalls and fax servers and mail servers, etc etc. The amount of time I spend on Linux (server numbers are about 1 Linux to 1 NT/2K at each site) is 1:10 (being charitable to Microsoft here). Get a grip, for amount of work Microsoft software actually does the amount of maintenance is at least 10-fold.

Not surprising, in the context of MS's new licensi

[Marx_Mrvelous]

So, let's look at some interesting facts:
1. MS Puts back the release of its latest Server OS.
2. MS is pushing a new licensing model where companies pay annual fees regardless of upgrades, but then get "discounts" on future upgrades.

So, does the new licensing plan allow them to basically, delay new technologies? It seems that, with their latest scheme, it reduces their motivation to release newer/better products.

The beginning of the end?

[n1ywb]

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Is it possible that MS is starting to lose control of it's own software? Maybe we are seeing the boundaries of what can be accomplished in a restrictive, closed source development environment.

Means essentially: nobody would buy one, anyway.

[thasmudyan]

One of the key paragraphs says:

Analysts expect the company's upcoming server software, .Net Server, to take off slowly because many businesses have either recently moved to Windows 2000 or are in the process of doing so. A majority of customers, then, would begin introducing .Net Server in late 2004--around the same time as the planned release of the Longhorn desktop and server software versions.

And that about covers my experience, too. Server overhauls take much longer intervals then changes in the desktop segment, where they install a new Windows every 3 years or so (doesn't matter, they are largely compatible versions, anyway... no admins, don't kill me, aaarrrghh).

So it actually makes sense to come out with a new server only if the changes are really signifcant and if the interval since the last major roll-out was more than, say, 5-6 years ago. Besides, nobody has money to throw at a new unproven technology right now (and in 2 years all the same), anyway.

Release intervals and licensing plans

[jayayeem]

Now that Microsoft is selling its 'Software Subscription' model to businesses, every year that goes by without a new software release is money in microsoft's pocket.

Let's skip them, and do it ourselves.

[ka9dgx]

The goal of the next version (as I understand it) is to allow virtual folders, so that you can search everything with a common set of tools.

Let's build a virtual folder driver for Windows 98 and upward, to allow APPLICATIONS to virtualize the information they manage. It would be nice to have an email manager than presents emails as a list of files, or folders. Sending could be as easy as copying files to a folder, and then specifying an address. (To.txt?)

A virtualized database would present a list of folders in place of a table, with the fields being individual files, some read only (sequence numbers, keys, etc). To update the data, you just write to the file containing the appopriate field. If you wanted to add a field, you just copy a new file into the folder.

There is great power in letting an APPLICATION control the virutalization of the OS, this is why the idea of GNU/HURD is important for the future.

If APPLICATIONS can virtualize, then you get a freedom to innovate that would give Bill nightmares.

Virtualizing the address space for existing millions of users and applications could do more to help freedom to innovate than pretty much anything it's going to take Microsoft years to come up with.

Who's with me?

--Mike--

They Don't Get It.....

[Tsali]

Virtual directories, while cool, doesn't make me want to migrate. .Net interoperability with all new gizmos doesn't make me want to migrate.

Have business needs changed remarkably in the past four years to necessitate changing something as fundamental as your server/desktop OS? No. If anything, my business needs for cheaper, more open software are greater because of the cash crunch brought on by the tech sector. Why do I want to feed them any more cash?

I just don't get it.

Somewhat unrelated... my needs for at home are simple...

- Home budgeting/accounts - Kapital/GnuCash...
- CD Burning software - K has this.
- Browsing capability - Mozilla/Opera/Konqueror..
- Program development - Python + Qt (or any number of desktop managers and languages).
- Gaming - The big ones are available in Linux - Wine works for some other ones.

Put another way....

When I was in college in '91, I was eying buying a computer and SimCity 2000 was out. I still play that game. Anyhow, I had no money for it. I bought the game. I even bought a mouse pad. The girlfriend at the time knew it was a matter of time before I'd buy the box to run it. She was right, naturally. I put the buggy in front of the horse to buy what I eventually wanted.

I refuse to do that if my needs (business or consumer) are already satisfied with a more affordable, customizable, nonlicensed alternative. If I want to purchase a quality product for Linux, I am more than willing to...
I purchased Kapital, Komodo, and still buy open source books for programming even though they are available to help the cause.

MS cannot create demand that does not exist in perpetuity. They also can't screw people over forever. I have VB5/6 standard at home and a paid version of Office on my own which runs on Windows 98. My setup has done me well for years and my needs have not changed. Why should I be forced to upgrade if what I'm using my PC for does not change.

I shouldn't. Businesses realize this and if users didn't go around chasing butterflies all day, they'd see through the haze and either not buy (which I suspect might happen if OEM's exercise their options in the settlement) or abandon.

I'm off the soap box now.

I'll give you one reason why they did it

[Headius]

OS X.

The two big features touted for Longhorn (Microsoft's new DESKTOP OS, != .NET Server) were that it would have a fully DirectX rendered desktop for hardware acceleration of fancy graphical features (OS X already has this in 10.2 using OpenGL, and it's really hot), and a database-like filesystem based on SQL Server allowing arbitrary attributes and indexes on files (OS X will be incorporating a BeFS-like FS in a release in the near future).

Long story short, all the hype Microsoft had left for Longhorn has been done already by Apple. What's the use of developing to a feature set that will be 3-4 years behind the nearest competitor?

Microsoft feels Apple's breath on the back of their necks.

Upgrading is No Fun (tm)

[blunte]

I don't like Win2k Server, but people (MCSEs and me) are just now starting to get a good hang of the quirks and "features" of Win2k Server.

Many companies, mine included, have no interest to go release hopping. Once something works, lord help us, leave it alone.

And for those who got suckered into buying a Win2k Server license with 2 years of free upgrades... chuckle, what were you thinking? We won't be upgrading (to a new MS OS) until we have to. My unrealistic hope is that in a couple of years I'll be able to replace Win2k, one server at a time, with Linux or BSD. In any case, who wants to be the first to put a new MS server OS into production?

Re:Analyst kisses up to MSFT, Film at 11

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

Fast-User Switching does use the Terminal Services core.
I've wasted many hours trying to turn XP Pro into a terminal server using a registry hack. No luck here.
You need to patch a file...and that file is probably winlogon.exe, but I don't know.

Has everyone missed this?

[drew_kime]

The remedy in the DoJ case mentioned Longhorn by name. Did anyone think Microsoft wouldn't just invent some reason to say of their next product, "This is not the Longhorn you are looking for"?

Longhorn facts

[Anonymous Coward]

This is no surprise really. Longhorn was due to be the first OS that was released as a server and workstation version at the same time. Unfortunately, this put a huge load on the M$ resources, so they have decided to go with only the Longhorn workstation version at this stage, and delay the server version until Blackcomb (ie. roll up all of the new features into that).

This means that we still won't see a server and workstation version being released at the same time, but we WILL see Longhorn on the desktop.
I've been playing with a very early alpha of this, and it's even pretty impressive now. Match that with Titanium (Exchange) and the new office (10?) and you've got a pretty cool system.

SO, to confirm. Windows .NET server is due for release Q1 2003. Longhorn on the workstation is due late 2003/2004. Titanium (new exchange) late 2003/2004. Office 10 - 2003 sometime.