Slashdot Mirror
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..."
Will we have to activate the box before we open it this time around?
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.
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
Windows 2006
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
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.
Tweet, tweet.
Yes, just like we know that Slashdot submissions never have typos.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
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.
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.
"You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
Actually, the code is complete. It'll take the lawyers until 2005 to write the EULA that you have to agree to before installation.
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.
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?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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...
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.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
That places the release just after software assurance expiration.
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!
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.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
"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.
"Derp de derp."
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.
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
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.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
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.)
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
How's the HURD doing again?
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
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)
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
"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.)
"Derp de derp."
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...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
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.
TANSTAAFL