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

Activation??

[brandona788]

Will we have to activate the box before we open it this time around?

Re:Activation??

[PFactor]

Microsoft is moving to "ProActiv-ation", where they KNOW you will install it on 69 different PC's, so the upfront retail cost will be roughly the GNP of Madagascar.

Re:Activation??

[Brown]

What, $9.95?

- With apologies to the good people of Madagascar..

Re:Activation??

[4of12]

What, $9.95?

Yes, almost.

$9.95/month

Re:Activation??

[craigwilkie]

The RFID tag in the bog...

I don't know about your country, but toilets here in the UK aren't that technologically advanced yet.

Re:Activation??

[Thud457]

Is there good money in that?

What advice would you give to a young man interested in pursing a career in puppy-kicking?

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

[unborracho]

Windows 98 integrated IE into its operating system (and still is to date) to eliminate competition from Netscape. That is the reason IE is everywhere, not because Netscape was slacking on Mozilla as you suggested. If Mozilla was better than IE in terms of ease of use (for the people using windows, IE was just there, and was convenient to use), Mozilla would have come up ahead of IE. 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.

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

[haystor]

The reason why Netscape left my computer was that DNS queries would lock all of netscape functions. I just hated going to a site and waiting for a DNS timeout before I could regain control of the browser.

IE 4's rendering speed was a huge improvement as long as you didn't touch the active desktop stuff.

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

[NanoGator]

"Windows 98 integrated IE into its operating system (and still is to date) to eliminate competition from Netscape."

One could make the argument that KDE is doing the same thing with Konqueror. The reason that nobody's crying foul on that, though, is because there are better browsers out there and people will go find them. In MS's case, they had the better browser. Why go download a browser when IE's doin the job? If MS had a shoddy browser like Konqueror (well Konq's not that bad, but bear with me) people'd flock to Netscape and there'd be none of this nonsense over MS trying to secure a monopoly via the browser.

Yeah yeah, convicted monopoiist, whatever. There's still strong reason to have IE and Explorer use the same interface. Why make browsing the web (the killer app for Windows 95 and even 98) such a different experience from browsing around on your commputer? KDE does this. They seem to think it works too. Plus, HTML can be used to customize the interface. All kinds of benefits here.

So yeah, MS may have been shitty about putting IE on there and making the competition's battle harder to fight, but the reason to make IE what it was in relation to Windows was a predictable evolution of the OS. IE's rendering engine is very versitile. You can throw HTML, Text, JPEGS, Flash, and a bunch of other objects at it that the web has caused to become standard, and it'll view it. (Not to mention the plugin support...) Why rewrite all that when you can modularize it and have a bunch of apps call the same thing?

Long story short, IE's bundling with Win98 may have dealt a death blow to Netscape, but there's enough reason to believe that wasn't MS's sole reason to include IE.

Re:Release date

[DrSbaitso]

The actual precedent is somewhat less clear than you indicate. First of all, the "DOJ" did not rule on anything. They were the prosecutor for the US government; the District and Circuit Courts of DC "ruled" in the personages of Robert Penfield Jackson, Colleen Kotter-Kelly, etc. Also, Microsoft's argument was that by developing an integrated product, the result was superior to standalone products. A consent decree in Microsoft II ruled that this is okay as long as the integration provided "some" additional functionality.

Personally, I believe that Microsoft illegally tied the two products, because the way they programmed the integration seemed to exist solely to preclude disabling IE, but that's just me. As an interesting side note, one of the most important things about the service pack to Windows XP is its consent decree compliance. Now, you can turn off IE, Outlook Express, and (most importantly, at least now) Microsoft Virtual Machine.

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....

Re:Release date

[NanoGator]

"Well, they could have written the browser as a puggable component and then published the interface."

Didn't they do that? I can write a VB app right now that calls the IE renderer and then write my own interface to it. I can rewrite IE in VB if I wanted to because of that component.

Can I replace that component? No idea. I'd be afraid to because, like you hinted at, MS likes to hide features.

"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.... "

Well, that's a fuzzy debate to have. How does one deal with a market-created monopoly? On one hand, MS cannot be allowed to have too much powere. On the other, the gov't shouldn't bend MS over and pull their pants down.

I don't have an answer to that. All I can say is that it's nowhere near as clear-cut as the anti-MS zealots out here pretend it is.

Re:Release date

[jkabbe]

Didn't they do that? I can write a VB app right now that calls the IE renderer and then write my own interface to it. I can rewrite IE in VB if I wanted to because of that component.

Can I replace that component? No idea. I'd be afraid to because, like you hinted at, MS likes to hide features.

No they didn't do that. They published an interface to call IE and then linked IE to essential files so it is darn near impossible to remove. They did not write IE as a pluggable component (one that can be removed and replaced with another same-shaped plug).

Re:Release date

[mkoenecke]

Sorry: it was *not* a DOJ ruling, but rather a finding of fact by a Federal court, which finding was upheld on appeal (the only thing reversed was the penalty). In terms of law, Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its monopoly and violating antitrust laws. That case is closed and of public record.

Re:Release date

[Uber Banker]

Yes, my entire company is based on WinNT! I was amazed when I joined, but what the hell, it runs office, some Excel macros, Stata, email and web. These days we're moving to document management and content management systems, but they all integrate fine. Bloomberg is on seperate consols.

Fact is, most corporates need little more than an office suite with some bells and whistles. NT is perfect for that, any change would have to be a long lasting one M$ trying to impose their licencing as outined earlier.

Re:Release date

[Anonymous Coward]

What they did do is make everything about the shell rely on the same code. How is that bad? Isn't that what people are preaching? "Code reuse"? I've also seen a lot of other shells out there that people are working on. Some require purchase, some are free, but they all replace explorer.exe as the shell and you can replace IE as your web browser. Other software relies on IE being there for rending but that includes internal MS and third-party apps alike. Again, it's there, so people find it easier not to re-write their own rendering engine.

Take this argument to another level. A lot of the site development people out there are BEGGING for people to use one or the other and it seems mostly for people to use IE, so they can code their sites for one renderer. At this point, it's arguable which rendering engine is better, as there are now multiple engines out there that handle CSS and other modern "standards" pretty well. 2 years ago, IE just made pages look better, handled more of the CSS spec than any other browser and was faster than any other browser (that actually did handle more than just basic HTML).

I just don't see why people should NOT be given a web browser with their system. You can easily download and use another browser that will replace all functionality of IE AS A BROWSER. There's nothing preventing you from doing it. You can easily download another shell for windows. Try DesktopX, Lightstep, Talisman, etc. etc. etc. There are tons of them. I think most people would prefer using the default windows shell just because for the most part, it works in an expected fashion. Lots of people have years of experience with it.

Actually, to go back to the original post I was responding to, before I drop this...

The "comes installed on 99% of all PCs" argument has no merit. If KDE were installed by default on 99% of all PCs, would you expect the KDE people to go back through their code and rehook everything so that all desktop interactions either worked by setting callbacks, hooks or a swappable library? If you're going to say that "it's open source and you can change it if you want", that's another pile of crap... you'd be basically saying that in order for MS to be legal, they'd have to open source their OS, which isn't the way most commercial software works. Point is, it's their right to leave it "as is" regardless of how many computers it comes pre-installed on. Also, people can buy very high quality "linux" PCs for very reasonable prices, they're not stuck with Windows on their desktop. Again, think Market Created Monopoly. Is it their responsibility to give everybody access to their code just because they have the popular OS?

I don't see why people find it so important that IE should be "removable" from the OS. It's available to use by other applications and has a standard API for usage, so that other apps will know that when they write something using the integrated IE rendering engine, it'll work for a long time to come. Other non-MS applications use the internal browser, so why should MS be forced to make it removable. Then people taht removed it would be breaking other commercial applications that use it just as another tool, like the file access APIs. You want those to be swappable too? Could you imagine if every application had to either provide their own disk access library or use "whatever the user happens to have installed" which may or many not be compatible with the original. MS owns the operating system, they have the right to make provide non-replacable APIs. There's no simpler way to state it.......

btw, as I write this, I'm using Mozilla. :D

(too bad I can't remember my login for this site and I'm too lazy to get my password again)

Re:Release date

[shotfeel]

In MS's case, they had the better browser.

IMO they didn't hit parity with Netscape until version 3. Had any other company tried this, they would have been out of business by that time. No other company could have gotten their sub-standard browser on so many machines for that long, plus weathered the cash drain.

So, yes MS eventually had a better browser, but they did it by using anti-competitive practices to dry-up cash flow and use (thereby slowing development) of what was a better browser. Again, all MO.

Re:Release date

[Salsaman]

Hmmm well, let's see what the District of Columbia had to say then, shall we:

91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft, its executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting, to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did not release the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.

You can read the rest here - USDC Findings of Fact http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html

Re:Release date

[rsborg]

Use Phoenix/Firebird

Re:Release date

[Lord Ender]

And if you leave Mozilla loaded in the background (the quickstart option) IE pales in comparison when it comes to speed. Ever notice how the entire IE interface freezes while a page is loading? That's bad design. The only other complete web browser that is faster than Mozilla is Opera, which keeps a rendered copy of web pages in your history, so going back is instant (IE and Moz re-render and read from disk when you press the back button).

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

That's a relief, now I don't have to buy Windows Server 2003.

Hype?

[saitoh]

Part of me looks at this and goes "so?" and part of me thinks about the opposite extreme with where Apple doesnt say anything (or much) is coming soon and just releases it and lets people find it themselves...

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.

Re:Hype?

[plcurechax]

Not unlike the time they were warned by the courts against marketing of vapourware. From the Pre-slashdot era.

Competitors found MSFT spending nearly as much on advertising not yet ready products as when they were released (pre Win95 actual release hype).

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."

Longhorn renamed:

[PFactor]

Windows 2006

Re:Longhorn renamed:

[pair-a-noyd]

Wrong. The real name will be "Windows Beelzebub"
Version 6.66

This is message!

[Anonymous Coward]

To the all Gnome, KDE, X, OpenOffice, Linux, glibc, and all other developers. You now know you have TWO years to make Open Source better. KDE 3.2 prealphas looks promising, but X's rendering system needs a huge lift and OpenOffice needs to get a lot faster and stabler.

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.

Re:Fun to Snipe, but...

[sql*kitten]

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.

It's easy to mock, but at least Microsoft have ship dates and feature lists. That means decision makers - like CIOs and CTOs - can make at least tentative plans. The Open Source style, it'll ship when I feel it's more-or-less ready, and it might have feature X unless I get bored coding it, drives potential users away.

Re:Fun to Snipe, but...

[JimDabell]

It's easy to mock, but at least Microsoft have ship dates and feature lists. That means decision makers - like CIOs and CTOs - can make at least tentative plans.

A.K.A. vapourware. Announce nifty new features that you will be providing a year from now, and even though a competitor is offering the same feature now, they'll hang on just a bit longer so they don't have to switch platforms. And then realise how stupid they were when you release the product without the new features, and say they've slipped back to the next release. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.

Remember when Win95 was supposed to eliminate crashes forever because of its 32-bit memory protection (or something like that)? Remember when Win98 was released, and it was supposed to be far more stable than Win95? Remember when WinME was released...

Yeah, we know..

[M.C. Hampster]

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

Yes, just like we know that Slashdot submissions never have typos.

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.

Re:In my day...

[The Bungi]

blatent typos

Well that's ironic.

strange

[minus_273]

Given XP came out in 2002,
this is probably the biggest gap between releases of windows since win 3.1.1 and win 95 ..
It will be interesting to see if this is infact as big a jump from win xp as win 95 was.

Re:strange

[Quill_28]

I would disagree look at the years between NT 4.0 and NT 5.0.

On that note back when I was working on NT 4.0 servers, I was reading some MS documentation circa 1997 that said NT 5.0 should be out early next year.

Longhorn Code Complete!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the code is complete. It'll take the lawyers until 2005 to write the EULA that you have to agree to before installation.

Re:Longhorn Code Complete!

[JWhitlock]

Actually, the code is complete. It'll take the lawyers until 2005 to write the EULA that you have to agree to before installation.

Isn't it strange how much legalese it takes to say "Turn around, drop your pants, and bend over"?

Re:Longhorn Code Complete!

[Jord]

Not to mention that they have to wait for the terabyte disks that will be required for a full install...

... of the EULA

Competition

[Phroggy]

What kinds of features can we expect in Longhorn that Apple won't already have had for awhile by the time it ships?

Apple should be shipping Mac OS X 10.3 (or whatever they call it - codename Panther) running on 64-bit PowerMac G5 systems in September 2003. Two years after that, they'll have had another major release of OSX, and even the iBook should be G5-based.

How does Longhorn compare to XP and OSX for home users?

Where's the beef?

[sssmashy]

Does anyone know why MS chose the name Longhorn for the Windows XP successor? In Texas and Alberta, "Longhorn" is instantly recognizable as a well-known breed of cattle.

I predict that "Where's the Beef?" jokes (currently in hibernation since the 80's) will reappear on the cultural landscape in 2005, as the Longhorn release date is inevitably delayed by Microsoft...

Re:Where's the beef?

[pair-a-noyd]

Uh, maybe it means that you're going to get gored in the arse, just like when you mess with a bull.

Re:Where's the beef?

[leifm]

I read somewhere that it's a bar near Whistler or Blackcomb, and fit in with the mountain code names they have been using for a while.

Re:Where's the beef?

[atlasheavy]

That's almost correct.

It's actually a bar halfway between the Whistler and Blackcomb mountains in British Columbia. You may recall that Windows XP's codename was Whistler. The version of Windows after XP was supposed to be Blackcomb, but it grew far too large, so MS slapped an interim release (Longhorn) in there. In other words, Longhorn is right between Whistler (XP) and Blackcomb (Probably Windows 2009).

Fun fact: the Windows group spent a while in the 90s naming everything after cities in Illinois. Chicago, Cairo, etc.

Fun fact 2: Last summer, you could see guys wandering around Redmond wearing Don't Mess With Texas t-shirts given out by their product group.

Re:Where's the beef?

[misterhaan]

okay not as lazy as i said:

Longhorn
The code name Longhorn is a reference to a rowdy bar at the Whistler ski area in British Columbia. The bar lies between two peaks, Whistler and Blackcomb. Whistler was the code name for Windows XP, the operating system launched in 2001, and Blackcomb is the code name for the operating system that will come after Longhorn.

source

Re:Where's the beef?

[mrbrown1602]

I believe its a bar a lot of MS employees goto. Whistler (codename for XP) is a mountain, and Blackcomb (another codename, i'm unsure of the product) is another mountain. When MS employees go skiing, they usually meet up at the Longhorn lodge, or something like that.

Re:Where's the beef?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Whistler (Windows XP) is a ski resort in British Columbia (just north of Redmond). Longhorn is a bar/pub at the base of Whistler mountain.

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.

Re:Cheap Shot

[Enry]

MSFT was using release dates and pre-announcements like this for a while to harm their competitors.

Company A would come up with some new feature and announce it. MFST announces that the will also include the new feature in 6 months. Company A's sales go down the toilet as users wait for MSFT to release their product. Company A goes out of business. MSFT finally implements it 2 years later. Poorly.

Besides, MSFT has almost never been on time with their releases.

jeers from the sideline

[bani]

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

Nice marketing ploy

[Emonair]

That places the release just after software assurance expiration.

From the desk of the Microsoft Information Officer

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

Text of the article:

Microsoft today confirmed that it's follow up version to windows XP, codename Longhorn, will be released in 2005.

Information Minister Mohommed Saeed al-Sahaf said "Today is a great day for the nation of Microsoft. Our enemies call us the Beast of Redmond. Laugh now supplicants! Soon the Beast will impale you His Longhorn! The Sons of Bill rejoice, knowing the Penguin is too far from reality, with thier stomachs roasting and their processes committing suicide at the Gates of Redmond. Never will our dates slip, in fact, it will be ready by 2004. Even now it is ready, but we hold it back at our will!"

Richard Stallman responded for the OSS community by replying "WTF? Where did they get this guy? Oh, patent on overlordish rhetoric? Sheeeeesh."

Remember staggered releases of windows

[Ikeya]

Remember that between Win 3.11 and Win 95, was NT 3.5 and so on, so it went.
Win 3.11
NT 3.5
Win 95 - Aug 1995
NT 4.0 - July 1996
98 - June 1998
98SE - June 1999
2000 - March 2000
ME - December 2000
XP - December 2001
2003 - April 2003

2005 isn't all that far off. And that doesn't mean that they may not release another home version in there too.

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.

Re:It's sad.

[archen]

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.

If I were you guys I'd start looking at Linux/BSD right now. (no I'm not trolling, hear me out). If you guys are already starting to get interested in Linux, there's a lot to offer on the server side. I'm not saying migrate right now, but you'll probably find spots that Linux excels in right now compaired to MS. Web servers, simple mail servers, SQL, DHCP, DNS, etc. You might also learn quite a bit. I can say that I learned a hell of a lot more setting up Samba then I ever learned from MS about how (the MS mutation of) SMB networking works.

Re:Flashbacks

[peaworth]

Well, it'll be in the top 20, anyway.

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.)

Yeeeah.

[Faust7]

That's a relief, now I don't have to buy Windows Server 2003.

Mmhmm. Longhorn is a client OS. It is the successor to XP, not 2003.

I hope that you're not planning to use Longhorn for all your datacenter needs, or Server 2003 for all your desktop needs. :)

So tell me...

[Iamthefallen]

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

How's the HURD doing again?

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:Say goodbye to Microsoft, RIP.

[Jack Comics]

"Have you all seen Longhorn? It doesnt seem to have any improvements."

Typical FUD from an anti-MS zealot. Of course you haven't seen many improvements in Longhorn. (there are some already, depending on your point of view). It's a freaking beta, with two years left before becoming gold. There will be plenty changed before its 2005 ship date arrives. I would sincerely doubt the Longhorn betas now and whatever it is called in 2005 (we'll call it Windows 2005 for the sake of simplicity), will resemble each other except perhaps in minor ways.

Tell me, did the Linux 2.5.1 kernel closely resemble what is the latest 2.5.x kernel today?

Re:Stop the Madness

[Chokolad]

>>Next thing you know they'll use JCL.... Is anybody else disturbed by this? One of their shittiest technologies (SQL Server -- I think my Rolodex benchmarks better and a bank vault in Baghdad is more secure) as the basis for a filesystem. Hoo boy.

When was the last time you checked benchmark results of SQL Server? For example in tpc-c it owns every damn category 1P servers, 2P servers,
8P, 16, 32,64 and clustered results.
Check for yourself http://www.tpc.org
Same for TPC-W.

Cow metaphor?

[zCyl]

"Longhorn" is instantly recognizable as a well-known breed of cattle.

To understand the choice of "Longhorn" as the product for the next version of Windows, let's consider a few well-known properties of cattle:

1. Cattle are unintelligent.
2. Cattle move slowly, and just look at you blankly when you tell them to move.
3. Cattle are huge, consisting mostly of fat.
4. From the perspective of cattle, the grass is always greener on the other side, so it's always worth upgrading to the next field. Although after you jump through the electric fence, you realize you didn't actually get anywhere better.

when its done

[t0ny]

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

And the next linux kernel is due out when?

release dates

[nuintari]

I know this is slashdot, and this will get me modded down for defending the uglies over in Redmond, but....

A lot of companies other than microsoft let their release dates slip on a frequent basis, because, quite frankly, software development, even lousy stuff with a poor security record, takes a long time. You can project a release date, but that is mostly an optimistic guess to appease the investors. You can threaten your techies all ya want, they will not code much faster, and if they do, they will make more mistakes, shit, even microsoft knows that.... least I hope they do.

Re:Say goodbye to Microsoft, RIP.

[Omestes]

THIS IS NOT FLAMEBAIT...

That out of the way: YOU MUST BE DREAMING! In two years Linux will probably still be a niche OS, in four, it might be a slightly better alternative OS (as in Netscape is the alternate to IE, meaning IE has 90%, and netscape 5%).

Linux has some serious flaws, which, unfortunatly, are beginning to seem inate. The thing that linux is missing is DIRECTION, there is no mass-marketing plan (marketing as in mind-share, not profit), there is no drive to get the average luser using it.

Give me ONE good reason, besides price, that the average windows person (me included) would want to use linux? What advantage is there? What advantage will there be in 2 years? The only way to make linux successful would be to make it STRUCTURED, and to make it FREINDLY. Both of which it is the antithesis of right now, and promises to be the same in the future.

My suggestions are, make some form of body to control development, and make it so market-share reflects on their possition[sic]. Meaning an EXECUTIVE. Now don't take that as meaning make Linux closed, or for-profit. To make it viable to the masses, something must be at stake, otherwise it will not move out of the developer-masterbation stage.

Also, LOOSE THE *NIX ROOTS! I don't WANT a command line. (Well *I* do, but a DOS prompt, not an archane unix interface) I want something nice, easy, and intuitive. Something I can do buisness on, without worrying overly about innards. I want ease of use, AND power. Sacraifcing ease of use for power is bad, as is visa versa. You need balance.

In otherwords, to make Linux a contender in 2 years, would require linux not to be linux anymore.

Please refute me if I'm wrong. And mind, I don't really mind linux, if someone made it nice/usable/gameable, AND powerful for my purposes, I'd use it in a heartbeat over Microsoft. But right now, MS has the superior product.

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?

Re:Say goodbye to Microsoft, RIP.

[debest]

by 2005 Linux will have become a mainstream OS if it continues at this pace.

I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. Just because Linux is already the equal to (or better than) Windows in OS capability on the desktop doesn't mean that it will be anything close to mainstream in just two years. Microsoft has a lot of things that will keep themselves dominant for the foresalble future, including existing user momentum, locked-in vendors (both hardware and software), and a very loyal following. All of these advantages are only magnified when they can spend millions at the drop of a hat to reinforce them.

We've learned over and over again the the best product doesn't always win.

Now it's not all doom and gloom. I think that Windows will continue to own the home market for at least the next five years (probably longer). But the enterprise is where Linux has a much better chance. Here is where Linux's advantages of security, open code, and TCO are far more important than in the home market (who are mostly interested in games, touchy-feely simplicity, and an abundance of high-qualtiy apps that can be pirated for their personal use).

Microsoft's only chance with longhorn is to pre-install it on every machine, if they lose their monopoly there Linux and even Apple will kick their ass.

You've got it exactly correct: it WILL be pre-installed on every machine, just like today. It's obvious that the judicial system isn't going to punish Microsoft for strong-arming box makers ("Put Windows on all machines, or we won't allow you to put Windows on *any* machines"), so they will happily continue.

This is my opinion, but currently Linux is becoming easy to use. 2 years from now it may be a complete success on the desktop or a complete failure, but considering every piece is in place I dont think Microsoft can afford 2 years.

As I kind of stated above, yes they *can* wait. They have billions in reserve, and according to their numbers they continue to pull in millions in revenue every day. They have reserves to be able to stick out this fight for a *long* time, even if they make a critical mistake (a dubious assumption: we may hate MS, but they ain't stupid).

Yes, Linux is easy to use, *for what it does*. But one of the things it *doesn't* do well is replicate Windows. And, for better or for worse, "Windows" is what most people seem to want, not "an OS that is easy to use".

Re:Are you a Microsoft zealot?

[JKR]

5 years ago Linux was still commandline, KDE came around, now we have KDE 3.2 coming out. Look at the difference, you can look down the list and see hundreds maybe thousands of new features.

Bullshit. 7 years ago, I was running a multiuser linux system (Debian 0.96 on a 486DX4-100) and X ran quite nicely on my S3-968 video card with 2MB VRAM, thank you very much. These days, things don't seem to have moved on, or run that much faster on my P3-1GHz and P4-2GHz.

People like you said the same stuff about WindowsXP, WindowsXP turned out to be Windows2000 with a new skin/theme.

Yeah, and: uPNP, IEEE1394, USB2, fast user switching, RDP, soft firewall, P4 optimisations... a lot of these were incremental, but just because MS aren't rewriting their VM or IDE subsystems every 6 months doesn't mean that nothing ever changes. Linux is very much still in the experimental "fast-growth" stages, particularly on non-X86 architectures.

Jon.

Re:IE, Netscape and logic

[ChadN]

You left out the part where Microsoft goes to Netscape, Inc. and tells them they are willing to "carve out" the browser market share, and when Netscape says "No", Microsoft uses its OEM deals to punish Netscape and restrict it from being bundled with new systems.

The "integration" of IE was just a ploy to try and legitimize the illegal act that Microsoft attempted which was collusion to control the market, then leveraging of monopoly power to restrict fair competition. The technical quality of IE and Netscape's browser had NOTHING to do with the legal issues.

But, yes, Netscape made mistakes. If anything, Microsoft may have saved itself a LOT of aggravation by simply competing fairly and legally.

Re:[OT]Re:Release date

[cpt kangarooski]

Because browsing HTML and and finding files on a hard drive aren't analogous?

I agree. However, I do think that integrating a browser is a good idea, because it permits for the display of local files qua icons, with potentially useful arrangement and formatting yet while easily editable by users.

For example, a CD with an installer program could, when browsed to, display a file browser window containing relevant icons in a spacial arrangement best suited to help users, with instructions printed alongside them directly in the window. (on the Mac this has sometimes been approximated by creating files or folders with 'invisible' icons but visible and descriptive names -- sometimes the icons are arranged like mosaic tiles to form a picture; see the MS Office 98 and Marathon 2 installer CDs for examples)

However, MS was motivated by evil, not a desire to help users. And they've ignored the UI potentials that this could provide.

But I do think that if it were UTILIZED it could be pretty helpful. The trick is doing it right; merely browsing through folders as though they were web pages (e.g. back/forward, etc.) is crap.

Regarding release date slips

[Jugalator]

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

1. It has already slipped from late 2004 which was a previous ETA.

2. If it slips, it slips. That's better than thinking the release date matters more than the quality.

PreActivation

[DoraLives]

Will we have to activate the box before we open it this time around?

You will submit the proper documentations and proofs of identity (yourself, your family, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers, and others to be determined by Microsoft as befits each individual activation of your New Microsoft Product)to activate your New Microsoft Product at least one year BEFORE you purchase it. Any Fraud, Attempted Fraud, Suspected Fraud or Contacts Leading To Suspicion Of Fraud discovered during Microsoft's routine vetting proceedures shall be forwarded to the Cognizant Authorities (Local, State, Federal, Trilateral Commission, Other) who shall exercise such measures as are deemed necessary to properly reeducate you and see to it that you activate your New Microsoft Product properly the next time.

Re:Say goodbye to Microsoft, RIP.

[molarmass192]

I wouldn't say you're 100% wrong but you're not 100% right either. Point-by-point:

market share: irrelevant, it's the available software that counts

marketing: that's the job of co's like RedHat and IBM

average luser: hard to OEM Lin due to exclusivity arrangements on Win made by MS

advantages of Lin: performance, stability, security, virtually virus free

disadvantages of Lin: not much familiar commercial Win software, few native games

*NIX roots: for a *nix user, DOS is arcane. There are several "dos-like" shell setups available for Linux

ease of use: use a desktop focused distro, Mandrake or SuSE, and KDE

The only good argument that can be made for not using Linux is the lack of commercial ports of familiar Windows software and games. Some of the major Win apps do work under Crossover and several games run under WineX. However, for a boxed distro, Crossover, and WineX you're looking at about $100, not the proverbial free.

That said, you can't deny that most people use MS simply because it's what came with the PC when they purchased it. This is the same reason IE tookover, most people either didn't know how or couldn't be bothered to install NS. If a law were passed tomorrow banning the bundling of PCs with software, you'd see rapid growth in the number of Linux users. Let's be honest, without any prior knowledge, no sales-dude interference, and given the choice, would you pay $20 for a boxed Mandrake Linux (or even better, borrow it from a friend) or $200 for XP? Heck, I see people tripping all over themselves at BestBuy to save $200 through those MSN lock-in scams.