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."
Plans have been scraped?? Ow! That must hurt!
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.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
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
Microsoft announced Tuesday that plans for .Net Server, aka "Longhorn" have been scraped and they will instead focus on the the release after that, code-named "Foghorn".
My studio - www.graylands.ca
Microsoft usually has extremely ambitious plans for its "next" release. These always seem to get watered down as time goes on. In fact, they only time they manage to get a release on schedule is when it is little more than a service pack, eg win98se et al.
Of course, now with the new licensing plan, I suppose we (or rather, you) should be lucky you're getting a new release at all.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Longhorn = Windows.NET Server? The one thats currently into Release Candidate stage? And they are scrapping despite it being so near to release?
That cannot be right, surely.. unless Longhorn is the one AFTER the first Windows.NET server releases..
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Good! They should call it "Aggie" cuz it's
evil.
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
... even Debian releases faster. HeHe
Life sucks.
<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...
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.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Now what am I gonna do with my Beta copy?
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
I'm not one to celebrate at others' misfortune, but this is great. "Longhorn" (anyone find that name a little, uh, suggestive? Yikes, Bill, stay away from my longhorn!) was to be the Microsoft OS that finally integrated Palladium, dot.net, Passport and other DRM technologies. The fact that MS has abandoned this OS may mean that they've realized how evil DRM is. Kazza users, rejoice!
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
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.
After all, we have auto-updating now, and since Microsoft is completely dedicated to battling Linux, et. al, with the lower Windows TCO, no one will need to pay for an upgrade cycle for years! In fact, all of the Windows administrators who've installed SP3 can now rest easy knowing that the boys and girls in Redmond are diligently uploading security patches, bug fixes and feature enhancements to your machine when-ever and where-ever it needs it.
...
Isn't life great, MCSEs? No more staying up all night reconstructing servers, praying that the tape backups were current, etc.
I wouldn't know, though. I changed my systems over to Red Hat, and keep up with the errata, and amuse myself by opening a sessions and typing in "uptime"
The release of new Microsoft operating system is about as exciting as watching CSPAN on a Fridy night. Should the course hold, and with a little luck, by 2005-2006 Microsoft will have been forced into about 3 other directions due to some real restrictions, Linux, and companies like IBM. News slated for 4 years into the future in the computer world means nothing.
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.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
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.
Didn't all those people who signed up for the subscription did so on the premise of a new upgrade every 2 years or so? So now MS gets to take their money and no product to show for it.
Maybe not enough people signed up?
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.
You think that removing MS's "release it now" catch is a BAD thing?
Whatever happened to "it's done when it's done"?
One of the key paragraphs says:
.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.
Analysts expect the company's upcoming server software,
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.
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.
I metamoderate, therefore I am
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
I might agree with you, but remember the biggest complaint in the previous scheme was unecessary upgrades? MS can't seem to win, first they catch fire for too many upgrades with little value, now they are critized for not upgrading.
I bet there are a lot of sysadmins out there who would prefer to pay MS not to release "upgrades."
The delay "is a response to what our customers are asking for."
I want to have customers like that..
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
We still have a number of NT4 servers. Whine as might about Windows security and stability, our servers run fine. Microsoft needs to push this off so they can actually come up with a compelling reason for anyone to want to upgrade. When their licensing is set up so you pay thousands of dollars for the software and thousands more for the seats, coming up with a reason to buy should be somewhere on their priority list. If what I read is true, they're planning on building a database filesystem off of the SQL engine. That's something that might be useful, as opposed to .WHOTHEHELLCARES
XeoMage
Guess this means the script kiddies will never get the chance to jump up, kick back, and chow down on Longhorn.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
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--
On the other hand, it works great for baked goods companies.
They've done this naming scheme for a long long time. Internally, it always has a code name. XP was whistlet, NT4 was Chicago (I think), etc...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"Whatever happened to "it's done when it's done"?"
It got overcooked.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
People bitch that they release new operating systems too often, just to squeeze more money out of consumers.
.NET server is going to be 4 years away instead of 2. Now people bitch because they're not releasing them fast enough. Huh?
Then they announce the next server release after this year's
Microsoft just can't win!
What's that you say, they dominate the desktop OS market and have a large portion of the server market as well?
OK, maybe they can win. Nevermind.
"And like that
I don't think it reduces their motivation. Actually, I think it might increase it now.
Think about it, with a guaranteed upgrade revenue stream, the pressure is off of them to release a new version every other year to keep profits up. It might actually allow them to focus on quality (yeah right) and actually put features in the OS people really want.
Of course, pigs could fly too.
--WooooHoooo--
Personally, I don't know why Microsoft would have released .NET server next year, and then followed a year later with Longhorn. It doesn't make any sense. Every shop I've ever worked in or worked with as a consultant had a general rule of never upgrading Microsoft's server platform until it had been out for at least 6 months, if not a year. By the time these guys finished doing a deployment of .NET, Longhorn would be hitting the streets. At least by pushing the schedule back to Blackcomb, they are getting to a more reasonable timeline.
Personally, I think Microsoft should maintain a 4 year release cycle on their server OS, and a 2 year cycle on the desktop OS/productivity suite. Anything shorter and you are going to outrun your customers. I mean, if you are running a big, multisite network with 2000+ users, do you really want to deploy an OS upgrade every year or two? Hell, I know of at least one large, multinational company that is still standardized on NT 4.0 Server and Windows 95 (and as far as I know, they are going to milk it as long as they can). Besides, a 4/2 cycle is pretty close to your average lease times on hardware, which simplifies deployment since you can time your OS upgrades with your hardware upgrades (at least, on the desktop).
The only thing Microsoft gets by releasing a new OS every year is a lot of people skipping versions. Maybe they finally clued in to that fact?
I think what they caught flak for was too many upgrades which either broke compatibility, or added uneccessary features. It was the nature of the upgrades, the interface was different but you had to use it to open the latest document, that pissed people off.
Spencer Ogden
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Actually, having a monopoly reduces their motivation to release new/better products even more. This is just a symptom.
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,
It does, but I'm not sure that is what's happening here. I'm certainly no big Microsoft fan, but I suspect it's more likely that there are other forces at work here.
- There are some serious changes promised in Longhorn. They may be taking longer to work some of the kinks out.
- Court approval of the settlement with DOJ may give them incentive to retool their business plan to find ways around the contraints, or achieve their goals while working within those constraints.
- EU pressure may be giving them pause to consider just what they will be releases in the next version. If I recall, the EU investigation was more concerned with the server side of things.
- Security and stability -- maybe after getting slapped around so much lately about security and stability, they are taking the time to nail down some of the problems. I think given the current security-frenzy that the United States is going through that security holes will matter much more in the next release than it has in the past.
- Linux -- it's entirely possible that Microsoft is taking the time to make roll out something that has a better chance of removing this thorn in their side.
Or, I could just be grasping at straws.GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Yeah, the problem is that they don't get rid of the codename very well. A lot of driver .inf files had (have?) lines that read:
Blahblahblah="$CHICAGO"
Or something like that. Well, it's not a real *problem*, but it's a little odd when you're trying to force drivers that worked with 2k and NT into XP, which is what I think I was trying to do at the time.
The complaint is twofold:
There are people who want a new OS every two years or so. By skipping this release, they're screwing those people who paid for a subscription, as they don't get anything out of it
There are people who want to keep using an OS as long as it suits their needs. But since the new Office won't run on legacy systems, and the old Office won't read the new Office's documents, these people have no choice but to upgrade.
The right thing to do is to release a new OS every two years or so, but continue supporting legacy systems.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
It's not as if MS has made it easy to figure out what their goddamn products are named. Actually, their convoluted naming strategies reflect their whole approach. I'm sure if you asked Ballmer to explain it, he'd go on for forty minutes trying to convince you that it made sense.
"Internet Explorer." Ok. Explains what it does. "NT". Ok, it's an acronym of sorts. People like those. "XP," same thing except it uses the letter "x" which people just adore in acronyms. "Intellimouse." Sounds nice and maybe people will think they become brighter when they use it, good call.
"Blackcomb"?
Marketroid #1: "Ooo! Bob! I have it! We'll combine the word 'black' -- dark and insidious -- with the word 'comb,' which is something that most of the people using our services pine longingly for the use of!"
Marketroid #2: "Jesus, Tim, you're a !@#$ing genius! I love you!"
My
Limekiller
Longhorn was the first Microsoft product ever (at least that I've heard of) that was rumored to include a useful innovation. The innovation in question wasn't invented by Microsoft, of course, but Microsoft would have "mainstreamed" it, so that other parties (ahem) who play the penis-size-comparison game with them, would have had to jump on the bandwagon.
Now that Longhorn's delayed, it will be that much longer before Linux gets a modern Beos-like approach to filesystems. Oh well.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So, let's look at some interesting facts:
1. MS Puts back the release of its latest Server OS.
If you want to look at facts, then post facts. MS is pushing back the successor to their latest Server OS. Their latest server OS is in RC1 and should be out by Q1 of next year.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Can we please get a correction for this article?
This is utterly bizarre - only MSFT can get away with cancelling a major release and not undergoing a hailstorm of criticism in the trade press.
.NET Server (to suceed Win2K Server) will probably be out early 2003. If MS did release Longhorn in 2004, you'd be posting yet another MS bashing +5 "insightful" rant about how MS is ripping us off by coming out with a new OS every year.
It's only bizarre if you lack objectivity. A 2004 release of Longhorn Server is a bad thing, and MS realized that a late 2005 or early 2006 release would be much better. Windows
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
That is because Microsoft trademarked the word "Hailstorm".
Look for these other upcoming releases:
"Insecure (tm)"
"Monkey-manageable (tm)"
"Vulnerable(tm)"
"Bloated(tm)"
"Unstable(tm)
"Internet(tm)"
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
This space for rent.
Microsoft puts Longhorn on the desktop, Blackcomb on the server
.NET Server 2003, we have determined that another major release of Windows Server in the Longhorn client timeframe does not meet the needs of most of our customers.
.NET Server 2003; it is code named Blackcomb. We do not have a firm release date at this time, [but] Microsoft will determine a release timeframe based on what customers tell us they require."
By Paul Thurrott, Windows for Professionals
Wednesday, 13 November 2002
Microsoft has confirmed rumours that its next Windows release, code-named Longhorn, will be a desktop OS only, and not a synchronized release including both desktop and server versions as originally planned.
advertisement
Likewise, the Windows release following Longhorn, code-named Blackcomb, will be server-only. While the company has not announced an official release date for Longhorn, the time table for its release hasn't changed, Microsoft said. This means Longhorn will arrive in 2004 or 2005, depending on which Microsoft official you believe.
"Customer requirements dictate our release strategies and timing for Windows products," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
"Customers have asked that we map our server releases more closely to how they can consume and implement advances and innovations we deliver. Given the deployment cycles and budgeting that customers work through, and given the significant customer interest in our upcoming release of Windows
âoeAnother major release of Windows Server will follow Windows
Though details are still unclear, Longhorn will include a new 3D-based user interface with interactive video, a SQL Server-based file system called Windows Future Storage (WinFS), and a MSN 8-like Start Menu addition called the Sidebar.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Actually, I'd have said half-baked.
Note, by the way, that Microsoft officially pulls the plug on DOS, Windows 3.x, NT 3.x, and Windows 95 at the end of this year. Support for those ended last year, and "final end of life" is at the end of 2002.
Also note that support for NT 4.x, which is still widely used, ends in the middle of next year, so corporate sites need to upgrade to Windows 2000 or Linux.
Sounded like a fairly neutral sound bite to me. Any angular momentum imparted on it was your own.
What major release? Longhorn Server was vaporware with a code name. It was the successor to .Net Server, which is still in the Release Candidate stage. They could have slapped the Longhorn name on Blackcomb Server, and I doubt anybody would notice or care.
<snl accent="scottish">Welcome to All Things Linux. If it's not Linux, it's crrrrap!</snl> Get your facts straight. NT 3.1 was Posix compliant, and supported SMP on four different CPU architectures. Just another zealot. Move along. Nothing to see here.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Longhorn is the successor to .NET Server [microsoft.com]. .NET Server is currently at release candidate 1
.NET Server.
Longhorn is the successor to Windows XP.
Blackhorn is the successor to Windows
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Sucks be to everyone who bought a MS License subscription and was hoping to get an upgrade for the extra money they paid.
Either way, it's got way too much crust.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
The idea is for example, viewing a picture would use the same user interface as listening to a music source.
That way, when I need to figure out how to zoom in on the picture I'm viewing, I'll remember the UI from zooming in on the music... er, no...
Well, anyway, when I need to know how to pause the music I'm listening to, it will be the same as pausing the picture... no, that can't be right either...
Well, at least it will simplify the needlessly complex interface of current music players and picture viewers, which make it very hard for new users to... er...
Why was this a good idea again?
Admittedly going to senior exec bozos and making them excited about bland-word products is easier then convincing them that "Our corporation should trust a product called Slackware running the Gnome so our designers can invoke The Gimp, and if we need support they can fire up BitchX".
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
OS X.
.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).
The two big features touted for Longhorn (Microsoft's new DESKTOP OS, !=
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.
The story seems to indivate that .Net is still going to come out...however the release after .Net has been cancelled in favor of concentration on the release orginally planned to follow....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
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
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?
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Microsoft is actually trying quite hard to make more secure products.
This sounds funny, but it's the real 'bet the business' project going on at MSFT.
It means going through all the code looking for buffer vulnerabilities, etc.
Microsoft want to be more secure than OpenBSD.
Besides, which, today's market is kinda tired of new gadgets.
I'm just wondering what this will do to MSFT's business model. Where will their new sales come from?
Or are they going to live off their cash pile for a while?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
www.christopherlewis.com
The following phrase: "Monkey-manageable (tm)"
had me laughing for a good 10 minutes. I had this image of a monkey getting really angry with the PC and throwing his shit at it.
Hey, maybe this is something we should all do with Microsoft Products. It'd be damn messy, but we might all feel better afterwards. Then again, maybe we should fling poo at Microsoft and scream like angry chimpanzees when we get frustrated with Windows.
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
If you plan and design right (and then release a metric shitload of service packs and miscellaneous patches) you don't need to buy a new operating system every 18 months.
Funny, I thought MSFT was the leader in the forced upgrade path market.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
--my best knee jerk reaction guess is, they are waiting for the mandated hardware "security" applications to be codified into law, and for millions of these cpu's and devices to be shipped first. And seeing as how they have the leg up in advance on what these do to software(they are dictating the specifics now I bet), and what the requirements will be, they'll have the only "authorised and stamped officially 'secure' server" then.
The fix has been in for a long time, that's why they got the wrist slapping seemingly almost toothless "judgement". It won't be microsoft violating any terms of their "punishment", nope, they'll be cooperating with it and following "the law".
terminal velocity. escape velocity implies an upward component.
I'm a little foggy going back that far but I'm pretty sure NT didn't add TCP/IP support until 3.5. It was a much better product than Windows for Workgroups, if you had a 12 - 16MB 486 machine to run it on.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
Your argument sound like:
Company: Hey Microsoft, stop the upgrade cycle
Microsoft: Ok, we'll stop updating, but you must pay us a regular fee not to
unfinished: (adj.)
Bill Gates didn't know about the McMainerberry whupin'.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
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"?
Nope, no sig
A folder (fake) view of email is passe, and keeps the data locked in the email program.
I want to be able to run notepad, Word, VI, Emacs, Teco, Pascal, or any other damned thing against a file sitting in my inbox. I want to do it directly, without programming, doing API's, routines that fake it by doing copies to temporary folders, etc.
Once I have that in place, it's trivial to write some program to scan for the word "viagara" and delete the file, move it elsewhere, etc. Right now, to do that, first I have to interface to Microsoft Exchange 5.5 (undocumented), or Outlook 97 (almost as bad), and then do the work... which is just plain stupid. I want to have transparent access to my email, from the old dos command line, or any other application.
If I can get an IFS that can map URLS to folders, a lot of things become easy. (Especially if it supports WebDAV, and is bidirectional)
I know that I could load the libraries, and do it in code, but that costs too much in terms of time, energy, and lost abstraction.
We can build a better way, it's a pain in the ass to get there, bit I'm sure it will be worth it.
--Mike--
who would pay MS *not* to get it wrong in the first place!
One might think that the very fact that you pay for the software product implies that you are paying them to get it right.
Wrong; read an MS EULA sometime; they absolve themselves of all negligence and incompetence.
(not that other software manufacturers don't similarly refuse to stand by their products)
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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?
I'm not a Windows person, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but how does thew MS plan to license Windows play into this?
Traditionally quick releases were common when you paid for each new release. The more new releases, the more money in your pocket. The last thing you want to do is delay a new release by years. Of course the new releases also introduced more bugs. which can really hurt your image.
If you go too quick customers may want skip releases. That is really bad from a revenue point. If you market two products but only sell one, you're really cut into your profits.
If you go by a subscription model, you can delay releases. You still get a revenue stream because the license fees keep comming. You can also focus your devopers on fixing the existing bugs and making sure the new release is stable which helps with customer satisfaction.
This can be good for your customers because their software may be more stable, but it may also cause them pain if they need to wait 2-5 years between releases to get a badly needed feature.
The catch is that your competition may not be as slow and may slowly chip away at your market if you remain stagnant too long.
My question is: Can MS do this because of their license strategy, or because the current US economy is slow and IS spending is slow in many companies?
Microsoft turns good ideas into profitable ones. Profitable for Microsoft, that is... maybe not so profitable for you if you dreamed up the idea (unless you now work for Microsoft). To paraphrase Auron, "That's what Microsoft does."
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Yup, "escape" velocity is the velocity necessary for a body to leave orbit. "terminal" velocity is the speed at which the frictional forces acting on a falling body equal the gravitational force, which is probably what he meant to say.
last time it was whistler, longhorn has been scrapped, now blackcomb...wait, isn't there a mountain (www.whistler-blackcomb.com) in british columbia? either these ppl are great fans of skiing, or they are just stealing names out of the blue!!
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
However for customers that are purchasing Software Assurance (SA) from Microsoft, this delay between server versions will pose monetary drawbacks because the delay will heighten the total cost of ownership of the server software. The longer you have to wait between releases, the less software you are getting for your constant payment into SA.
It's understandable that customers are overwhelmed by the short timeframes between server releases, and this concern is what Microsoft is refrencing in the aforementioned quote. Money should not be a factor because most customers are already paying for future software releases, no matter when they are released.
One final thought: Do you think Linux has taken enough server market share that it might have actually contributed towards slowing down Microsoft's server timeline? If so then the virtues of competition are evident.