MS Says Longhorn To Arrive 2005

Lawrence Person writes "According to this article in PC World, Microsoft 'publicly confirmed 2005 as the release year for Longhorn, the successor to Windows XP.' And of course, we all know tha Microsoft release dates never slip..."

Comments

Release date

[FooBarWidget]

I wouldn't mind if they delay their release. The longer they wait the more chance Linux has to succeed.
It's just like IE vs Netscape - Netscape took too long with Mozilla and now IE is everywhere.

Re:Release date

[NineNine]

Windows 2000 is a pretty damn good product. I know of a lot of companies that have settled on that until something better comes out. I think that for once, MS doesn't *have* to rush to push out a product, because the one they have right now is pretty damn good.

Re:Release date

[NineNine]

But the fact of the matter is (and the DOJ ruled on this) that Microsoft was using anti-competitive behavior to drive competition away from Netscape.


Well, gee whiz! If the DOJ says so, it must be true! I guess I SHOULD quit smoking pot and switch to good, healthy american tobacco and booze! And while I'm at it, I'd better cover up any naked statues I have!

Re:Release date

[jpetts]

MS doesn't *have* to rush to push out a product, because the one they have right now is pretty damn good

No, you're wrong. That's just exactly why they do have to push out a new product. Windows 2000 is good enought that people don't want to change from it once they have it working. This, of course, hits Microsoft's revenue, and they need to keep bringing in the shekels. Hence the push (with License 6 among other things) to get people into a model where they have to upgrade whenever Microsoft's business needs dictate, not when the user's business needs dictate.

Re:Release date

[Cutriss]

I think that for once, MS doesn't *have* to rush to push out a product, because the one they have right now is pretty damn good.

The fact that Windows 2000 is or is not a good product doesn't determine whether or not they *have* to rush to push out a product. The need to revitalize cash flow on sales of a new OS version to pacify shareholders, does.

Re:Release date

[afidel]

Some problems with that:
1)Linux is not preinstalled on 99% of desktop pc's
2)KDE is not the only desktop environment
3)The KDE team is not a monopoly illegally using that status to force their way into another market.

Re:Release date

[NanoGator]

"Some problems with that:
1)Linux is not preinstalled on 99% of desktop pc's
2)KDE is not the only desktop environment
3)The KDE team is not a monopoly illegally using that status to force their way into another market. "

Fair points. However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have? What should MS have done in order for that to not be an abusive action of a monopoly? The only answers I can come up with involve MS intentionally crippling their own product. I don't feel that's reasonable. I'm open to suggestions.

(BTW, I'm serious here. I want to know how MS could have handled that to avoid everybody's anger at them.)

Re:Release date

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

IE 4's rendering speed was a huge improvement

I understand that you're refering to things from 5 or more years ago, but...

Use Mozilla. It blows IE out of the water (for me). The only thing I use IE for is to hit windowsupdate and that's only because MS bans any other browser from using it...

Re:Release date

[jkabbe]

However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have?

Well, they could have written the browser as a puggable component and then published the interface. That way developers could still use a browser embedded in their app but if a user wanted to replace IE with another browser (that conformed to the spec), they could. So it's integrated into the operating system yet still replacable. This wouldn't satisfy all the concerns, but it does deal with the technical ones.

Of course, Microsoft would argue that it's not their job to help their competitors and, besides, it would ruin the consistent user interface (meaning, anything not from Microsoft is not consistent). But then Microsoft doesn't admit to being a monopoly either....

Fun to Snipe, but...

[weston]

And of course, we all know tha(t) Microsoft release dates never slip...

It's fun to snipe, of course, and it's nice to feel some kind of safety/security in the fact that they've been very late on many things and/or delivered with bugs.

But don't get too comfy. If you're a competitor or someone who'd like to see them go down in flames (or at least severely humbled), the important thing is beating them to the punch, and jeers from the sideline don't help win a race.

In my day...

[Neophytus]

Slashdot editors amended story titles and corrected blatent typos.

WinFS replaces the NTFS and FAT32 file systems used in current Windows versions.
Does anyone here know if FAT32 support will be maintained, as keeping write support from linux for many people will be important.

Cheap Shot

[Flamesplash]

And of course, we all know tha Microsoft release dates never slip...

Can anyone name a company as old as MS that hasn't ever slipped on a release date? A company that has released as many products as MS that hasn't ever slipped on a release date?

If you're gonna take a shot, make it a good one.

jeers from the sideline

[bani]

i dunno about that. jeers from the sideline have screwed up many a race when it distracted them :-)

Re:Hype?

[NanoGator]

"But seriously, isnt this just a tad bit too far in the future to look toward? Or is this just to get people to quit emailing/speculating about when its coming out. "

I think it's damage control. The screengrabs of the beta that leaked are misleading in a few ways. In some ways, it looks pretty far along (i.e. a buncha new buttons there) in other ways it looks rather buggy and incomplete. (MS's stereotypes alter people's perceptions towards the negative)

By announcing that MS is taking another 2 years to work on it, it makes the beta images not seem so bad. "Ah, we're talking REALLY early here. They have quite a bit of time to really clean that up. That's good, I guess I should buy XP today."

It's sad.

[Khomar]

It's really rather sad the way I have begun to look at Microsoft releases. I used to actually look forward to them because generally they were a great improvement over their predessors. Windows 98 was a great upgrade from 95. From a purely technological point of view, Windows XP had a lot to say for its stability. The licensing scheme, however, was disturbing.

As Microsoft tightens down more and more on their licensing, I begin to dread anything that comes out of Redmond. I would embrace the improvements and innovations if it weren't for that tightening sensation of the noose around my neck. I will likely not even touch Longhorn unless I absolutely must. The cost and licensing look to be far too prohibitive, and I fear to give too much control to Microsoft lest I find all of my creations suddenly removed from my control.

At current rate, Microsoft is quickly digging their own grave. My company, formerly a very Windows centric shop, is starting to talk more and more about moving to UNIX due to the cost of upgrades. Longhorn may actually prove to be the breaking point at which, due to overly restrictive licensing, the corporate world starts seeking a cheaper solution.

It is sad that we must fear technological innovation because of the abuses that seem to abound as a result, and Microsoft is doing very little to help in this regard.

Licensing 6.0 sure will work well

[WebMasterJoe]

All those poor people who bought the Licensing 6.0 crap sure will be disappointed. Anybody who paid for that 3 year license back in 2001 (up to July of 2002 actually) will be entitled to all upgrades until, um, 2004. Or July of 2005. Nice to see that MS won't be releasing their next desktop OS until after the 3-year license expires.

Congratulations! You just paid MS for three years of nothing! (Well, the servers are entitled to Windows Server 2003, but that still doesn't justify the cost of the licenses for all the desktops.)

Re:Activation??

[4of12]

What, $9.95?

Yes, almost.

$9.95/month

Meanwhile in the Real World ...

[bryanp]

Lots of companies (including my employer) don't set their upgrade watch by Microsoft. We (a PrettyBigCompany I won't name) stayed with Windows 3.1 until 1998 when we transitioned to NT4 on the desktop. We will most likely switch to XP sometime this fall. I can pretty much guarantee you that we won't be moving away from XP until 2008 or so.

Of course we're just now finishing switching from Token Ring to Ethernet and from Netware 4.11 on Pentium Pro 200's to Netware 5.1 on dual Xeon's across the company (over 300 facilities nationwide). Yeah, if you're a tech company staying up to date is a cool thing. When your company makes and sells Stuff then you don't upgrade just for the heck of it.

(oh, and if anyone knows someone at Cisco in charge of their 3500 series ethernet switches, do me a favor and smack them around - they fail regularly whereas my old token ring concentrators Just Worked)

Re:How about a little objectivity?

[ryanvm]

But what was the point of your post? If it really bothers you, why are you on the site?

Because I generally enjoy the site. Is there something wrong with trying to improve a community that you like?

I think Slashdot could be a lot more interesting if it wasn't for all the hackneyed anti-MS posturing that is mandatory. Do we ever see stories on interesting stuff that Microsoft has done (e.g. Longhorn's database driven filesystem)? No we don't, and why not? Because we hate Microsoft.

Can you imagine how stupid Microsoft would look if every document they produced had some half-ass, unfunny, dig at Linux?