Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Longhorn Delayed

skreuzer writes "Microsoft has once again shifted the schedule for the release of "Longhorn," the company's next major version of Windows. The product was originally expected to ship next year. Then in May of this year, officials pushed back the release date to 2005. But now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship."

736 comments

  1. Methinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    cough*vaporware*cough

    1. Re:Methinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nowhere in this article does it say that Longhorn has been pushed back. Not saying when it's going to be released doesn't mean it's being pushed back any more than it means it will be out earlier.

      Come on guys...

    2. Re:Methinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful


      What did you expect from
      A: Slashdot
      B: Timmy

  2. Good! by seinman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unless the release date is "never," then whatever they tell us is much too soon.

    1. Re:Good! by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

      Even if it may be fun with Microsoft bashing, you forget something more serious and really, really scary - this may delay the lastet and greatest ATi and nVidia hardware. So, quit whining and try to help those poor buggers instead.

    2. Re:Good! by hplasm · · Score: 1

      My heart bleedeth.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  3. No big deal by rudy_wayne · · Score: 0, Interesting

    They'll release a couple of interim versions of Windows XP. There will be Service Pack 2 and then maybe Windows XP Special Edition.

    1. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Then:
      Windows XP: Digital Widescreen with Dolby Sound;
      Windows XP: Attack of the Drones;
      windows XP: A New Bug; (Remastered edition)
      windows XP: The Corperation strikes back;
      windows XP: Return of the BSOD!

    2. Re:No big deal by bsharitt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now Longhorn is the one that's supposed to be as good as Mac OS X Panther that comes out this fall, right?

    3. Re:No big deal by Barbarian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Longhorn is the one that's supposed to add support for hardware based denial to your files when a media company says so.

    4. Re:No big deal by KillerHamster · · Score: 1
    5. Re:No big deal by Monkelectric · · Score: 2, Funny

      hopefully they'll do a good job this time so we won't need as many service packs.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    6. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will _NOT_ be an SE. This has been emphatically stated already.

      Note to the adventurous witty followup(yes you, the 'in soviet russia/beowulf clusterfuck type): Make it worth it.

    7. Re:No big deal by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, perhaps they should re-codename it to "LongWait"....

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    8. Re:No big deal by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      ehhh. Ya but this means Windows users won't really get any major new features for the next 1.5 to 2 years.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    9. Re:No big deal by TheDredd · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the reason why it is delayed is that because of a bug in Longhorn they were denied access to the Longhorn source.

    10. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about delaying Longhorn to integrate more seamless, invisible and unremovable DRM

    11. Re:No big deal by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that Intel, everyone's darling AMD, and all the hard drive manufacturers are also in on this one. All of those companies came together to do this, and they are all at blame if it comes to pass. The implications of mandatory hardware-based DRM are pretty fuckin' scary.

  4. Hmmm... by Durin_Deathless · · Score: 4, Funny

    And people say BSD is dying?

    It <b>should</b> be:
    Windows is dying.

    --
    You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
    1. Re:Hmmm... by Rellik66 · · Score: 2, Funny

      my longhorn was delayed...

      ..Until I took Viagra

      --

      Too many zeros, not enough ones

    2. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In SOVIET RUSSIA, Software delays Microsoft!

    3. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah their dying....yeah that's it!

    4. Re:Hmmm... by zonker · · Score: 0

      whoever in the room finds this announcement a surprise please stand up. //*crickets*//

      thought so.

  5. Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're up to something.

    Microsoft aren't regular 'deadline'-missers - opting to release sub-par software instead just to reach the deadline.

    I'm guessing hardware and licensing deals myself.

    1. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe they're just waiting for the economy to get a little bit better. A lot of companies aren't doing so hot right now and probably aren't excited about the prospect of shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to get a new OS for each of their computers.

      GMD

    2. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by jtroutman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Consider the delays in 2003 though. It was delayed repeatedly because, they said, they were getting as many bugs out as possible. I think they were stung pretty bad after the release of XP which was worse than previous Microsoft OS's beta versions. Maybe, for once, they are just trying to do it right. It's not like a Linux disro where they can release version .0001b7 and then update it every month as they get the code finished.

      --
      I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    3. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Microsoft aren't regular 'deadline'-missers - opting to release sub-par software instead just to reach the deadline."

      The Blaster worm probably lit a fire under Microsoft to rethink their security practices. At least I hope that's the case.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by narrowhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually Microsoft is the only company I have ever seen that can delay a product 5 or 6 times and THEN rush it out the door ready or not. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying your theory about hardware and licensing are wrong, I'm just saying this delay is classic Microsoft.

      --


      Insert pithy comment here.
    5. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Drishmung · · Score: 5, Informative
      Depends what you mean. The product that became "Windows 95" slipped so many times that it was renamed "Windows 95" in order to force it to ship in 1995.

      Windows and Windows NT were supposed to converge after 98/NT 4. They didn't. Finally we have Windows XP, how many years later?

      Agreed, latterly they have shipped something on time, rather than delay, but the something more often than not has been another interim release, rather than the product actually PowerPointed several years earlier.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    6. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      I think they were stung pretty bad after the release of XP which was worse than previous Microsoft OS's beta versions.

      I know this is purely anecdotal but I never had any problems with xp. Why would I ?, xp is just 2000 with a colourful interface and few updates for the latest hardware. If you could come up with a source for your comment I would appreciate it.

    7. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're waiting for their new offshore workers to either learn English, or reach puberty.

    8. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1, Informative
      "Microsoft aren't regular 'deadline'-missers - opting to release sub-par software instead just to reach the deadline."

      This 'delay' is no surprise for me. Every major version of windows has come out in 5 year intervals:

      1985: Windows 1.0 (the first windows)
      1990: Windows 3.1 (the first windows that had enough flare to get widespread useage)
      1995: Win95 (the first windows for the desktop with 32 bit code and memory protection)
      2000: Windows 2000 (the first 32 bit windows for the desktop)
      2005: Longhorn

    9. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xp is just 2000 with a colourful interface and few updates for the latest hardware. If you could come up with a source for your comment I would appreciate it.

      You first.

    10. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      I guess I'll get on the speculation bandwagon (tongue in cheek):

      They are waiting for the SCO case, which they bankrolled, to clear the courts so they can determine the legality of releasing 'Longhorn' - internal code for 'Linux-we-ripped-because-it-R0X0RZ-0UR-S0X0RZ' - based on the liscenses they bought from SCO.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    11. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      >Microsoft aren't regular 'deadline'-missers - opting to release sub-par software instead just to reach the deadline.

      Oh yeah? Just how long was WinNT the only MS server platform? What eventually became W2K was delayed for a *very* long time.

    12. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think they were stung pretty bad after the release of XP which was worse than previous Microsoft OS's beta versions. Maybe, for once, they are just trying to do it right.

      We were in the XP and 2003 beta, and you are off base. XP was more solid of a release than 2000 even, there were several updates in the first few months but they were based on 'application compatibility' more than anything. (Because of the errors generated when a poorly written app crashed and sent a 'bug report' to Microsoft)

      So with these fixes, Microsoft made XP aware of the bugs in the programs instead of forcing the third party manufacturers to rewrite or rerelease fixes to their broken software.

      That is why the error reporting tool in XP works so well, is that the OS can be made stronger by fixing and working around bugs in poorly written third party applications.

      Windows Server 2003 took longer to release because of the re-written IIS and .NET layers. Security was also a main concern, but not because XP or 2000 were insecure.

    13. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you forgot 98, 98Se, ME and XP.

    14. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by eidechse · · Score: 5, Interesting
      xp is just 2000 with a colourful interface and few updates for the latest hardware

      No it isn't. Win2k is version 5.0 (as in NT), XP is 5.1. That dot rev means more than a new gui, and 3rd party hardware drivers don't enter into it...it means changes to the kernel. Some of which include:
      • larger memory mapped file size
      • larger driver and system space
      • ability to detach from processes being debugged
      • callbacks for file system filter drivers
      And a bunch of other stuff listed here:

      http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/xpk ernel/default.aspx
    15. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm guessing they need time to come up with more "features" needed to turn it into Microsoft GestapoOS 2007.

    16. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Unregistered · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea, they never miss deadlines. Windows 94 was right on schedule as was win97. Also, they did a good job of merging the home and corp versions in late 99.

      Seriously, the only deadline ms has ever made was the important one. Dos 1.0.

    17. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Funny
      Windows Server 2003 took longer to release because of the re-written IIS and .NET layers. Security was also a main concern, but not because XP or 2000 were insecure.

      Holy crap my bullshit meter just went off the scale. XPee and 2000 are secure? HAHAHAHAHA!

      Two shows a night, he's here 'till Thursday....

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    18. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by mschoolbus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe they're just waiting for the economy to get a little bit better.

      No, I just think they need to settle things with Playskool first before they release anything anymore...

    19. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by LoztInSpace · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I was running NT4 for around 7 years at 3 different companies with virtually zero problems. My recent XP upgrade has caused things to stop working that previously worked fine. It's a pretty old PC (I've had it for 3 years and it's probably a little older than that) It could be that, but I'd be surprised. Most people, as you did, seem to find it a lot better though. God knows I've sent enough bug reports off, mostly from MS Word.

    20. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      And by using the name Gestapo...

      1) They will try to convience the German government to go back to Microsoft instead of SuSE
      2) They will not have to abide by the penalties of the antitrust suit refering to "Windows"

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    21. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Actually 2000 was supposed to be the convergence. 2000 professional was supposed to be the home and office user OS. People generally used neither it nor ME, this time around MS decided not to even give the compatibility option.

    22. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Uncle+Pow · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why I prefer Win2k over XP!

      --
      org 0x100 mov dx, SIG mov ah, 9 int 0x21 int 0x20 SIG: db "Uncle Pow$"
    23. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by corkhead0 · · Score: 0
      NT 5 anyone?
      I'm reading this from my copy of the January 1998 edition of Windows Magazine (flame me if you must :P):
      Look for a second - and greatly approved - beta early this year. And if Microsoft can stay on its development course, the shipping version of NT 5.0 should be on the shelves around midyear.
      Didn't that eventually turn into Windows 2000 (2 years later)? Microsoft are deadline missers.

      Not that I'm mad or anything, I'd much rather see a relatively bug-free product and have it late.

      On an interesting side-note, they gave Windows 98 a thumbs down, and reviewed PCs with whopping dual 300 MHz Pentium 2s! w00t!
    24. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by terrox · · Score: 1

      linux also differs in the fact that it is free and people want access to the non-finished versions source code.

    25. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't history just repeating itself? Wasn't there another set of worms that did the same thing? Code Red?

      So you're saying they're seriously getting serious about security this time?

    26. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I was running NT4 for around 7 years at 3 different companies with virtually zero problems. My recent XP upgrade has caused things to stop working that previously worked fine.

      Our test labs include systems from 200mhz Pentiums with 80mb of RAM to the latest technology. XP was beta tested on all of our platforms.

      Even on the 200mhz machines (including a couple of 200mhz laptops) XP was not only 100% stable, but benchmarked and ran applications faster than Win98, Redhat, and NT4.

      Sorry your experience was not better. I do understand that our techs have a better understanding of the NT technology and XP than the average user though.

    27. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Case in point: Windows 95. Wasn't it originally supposed to come out in 1993? Delayed all that time, and it still sucked.

      Maybe what takes them so long is finding places to add bugs.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    28. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Myuu · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, they are waiting for more features to copy from OS X.

      Expose is god.

      --

      forget it.
    29. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Microsoft aren't regular 'deadline'-missers - opting to release sub-par software instead just to reach the deadline.

      I'm guessing hardware and licensing deals myself.


      Maybe, but I don't think Microsoft has too many troubles in the area of getting others in the hardware/software biz to cooperate with it. Money talks.

      My guess is their delay is more the result of the social climate. Maybe people just aren't "ready" for Microsoft's next generation Windows platform. Maybe it asks users to give up too many of their rights, and people aren't used to that yet. See How to Boil a Frog.

    30. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by militantbob · · Score: 1

      ANY delay in the release of an MS product is Good News. Regardless of their specific reason for the delay, it gives the developers more time to tweak and polish. Unfortunately, this may also mean they have more time to bloat and obfuscate.

      --
      "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
    31. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by jtroutman · · Score: 1
      I never had any problems with xp

      Lucky you..when I installed SP1 on a Dell server it wouldn't bring the OS back up. This is after having had NT4 SP6 boxes running for more than a year with no problems. And by stung I meant all the press coverage, including here on Slashdot, over Microsoft admitting to some 60K bugs in the release.

      --
      I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    32. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win95 didn't suck, given it's goals. It ran all 16-bit software (INCLUDING HARDWARE DRIVERS), provided autoconfiguration for most non-Plug'n'Play hardware, and was an order of magnitude more stable than Windows 3.1. And it ran on a 386 with 8MB of RAM.

      Meahwhile the various "real" OSes like NT, OS/2, and Unix all had much higher hardware requirements and poorer app and hardware compatibilty. Which is why they all failed and 95 succeeded.

    33. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Errandboy · · Score: 1

      They are not up to but scared of something. Changing all the traditional file systems formats, and computing system, and putting the rest of the world imcompatiple with their os, may become a too risky step for them. Since Linux and MS enmity is rising, such a step could lead a bigger anger and reaction from the users and might push crowds step away from MS solutions very fastly. They might be evaluating, "Do i feel lucky?" at the moment.

    34. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by jtroutman · · Score: 1

      sorry, I should have added "IMO" to that comment. I played with 2000 beta and the RC's. I had some problems, but it never broke anything. I installed XP on a server and it ran fine, right up until I installed SP1 at which point it tanked...2003 beta worked great though.

      --
      I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    35. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Svante.1 · · Score: 0

      Micro$oft didn't realy made the converge in XP.

      It's known that XP home is build on Win98 and XP pro on Win2000.

      --
      .....:::[Svante]:::.....
    36. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

    37. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Magrathea
      Magrathea is a planet whose inhabitants built customized planets for tremendous amounts of money, making Magrathea one of the wealthiest planets in the galaxy. But when the great galactic stock market crash occurred, the Magratheans went into hibernation awaiting the recovery of the economy to the point where their services could once again be afforded. They were later awoken by pan-dimensional beings who had a special order for them; they commissioned the construction of a planet-sized computer named Earth to determine the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

      http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magrathea

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    38. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Seeker5528 · · Score: 1

      "Microsoft aren't regular 'deadline'-missers - opting to release sub-par software instead just to reach the deadline."

      But sometimes the release date was pushed back many times before it became a deadline. ;)

      Later, Seeker

    39. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell were you doing installing XP on a server!? XP is a desktop OS, not a server OS - chances are that it fell over horribly because there's a lot of hardware in a server that is server-specific (especally in Dells, especially drive interfaces, NICs etc. etc.) and it didn't have a clue what it was.

    40. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longhorn was never going to be released next year - I have heard from insiders working on it that gonna be 2005, maybe later... and I knew this around a year ago already...

      But it will revolutionary and a lot better than previous versions of windows - I think I best leave it at that :)

    41. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "The Blaster worm probably lit a fire under Microsoft to rethink their security practices. At least I hope that's the case."

      Just like CodeRed did?

    42. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      define secure. for a desktop os made for mom and dad, xp and 2000 are plenty secure (and since this article is about longhorn, we're not looking at the server side of things). ask any point-and-click user to use linux and login everytime they want to use the computer, they will quickly get upset and just ask for windows (yes, there are people who are tolerant of these things, but not everyone). ask any point-click user to become 'super user' if they want to install applications, they will complain again. windows is secure and still easy to use. the first big vulernability since winnuke for windows is the dcom rpc hole. big deal. if linux was the mainstream desktop and there was a gaping hole which were to be exploited (its a matter of time, trust me), you'd expect the same reaction to linux. i can leave my mom with windows xp and not worry because there is enough security for her.

      and don't bring up windows 2003 or win2k server security because this article is about longhorn, the next desktop release.

    43. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by micromoog · · Score: 1
      2000 professional was supposed to be the home and office user OS. People generally used neither it nor ME...

      Virtually every office PC I've seen since 2000 has run 2000 Professional.

    44. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he said win2003 you dipshit and it is secure

    45. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by plilja · · Score: 1

      Actually, because of the need to keep corporate customers who are on on the software assurance plan happy (short and sweet definition: they pay for three years worth of upgrades at a pop), Microsoft absolutly does not want to push back the upgrade cycle too far.

      If the cycle goes beyond three years, then it becomes cheaper for corporate customers to buy the full version of a product and Microsoft loses out on a near-perpetual revenue stream.

      For this reason, it is likely that Microsoft will release an interem "Windows XP Plus" (probably not very compelling) prior to Longhorn, so that the corporate customers feel like they got thier money worth...

    46. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better business plan they had, but don't insult Slartibartfast by pretending that anything Bill does could ever compare to fjords...(^O^)

    47. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      Read, dumbass. The parent didn't say XP/2k were secure (of course, he also didn't say they aren't secure.) It merely said that that isn't why Win2k3 took so long to release.

      People like you deserve to be court-banned to nothing but VMS.

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    48. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      XP is made as an all around OS. People that use it as an upgrade to NT, or even 2k -- without a specific reason, are just on crack.

      As linux's pretty much proved, regardless of how many fools continue to try, you can't have a great, stable all around OS. Linux will never go to the Desktop because of people like me who truly do not want it to go to the average user's desktop. Linux is good because if you know how to use it, it works. If you don't, it still doesn't. Regardless of how many programs you stick in there to help people configure samba and their printers. Linux is good for servers/power users. Windows home bases, including XP are for your parents to check their email on, and for application compatibility. NT is for servers as well, and the difference between choosing Win/linux is simply what is needed out of it.

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    49. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word has it that they are having trouble changing the .BMP on the Start button.

    50. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent poster is insane...

    51. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1
      I dunno about regularly missing deadlines, but they certainly have missed them in the past. The biggest fiasco I recall off the top of my head was Chicago-- grossly late, and far less than promised.

      "Hardware and licensing", hmmm? They're going to delay for up to a year, then drop to "we have no idea" because of hardware and licensing? I bet the Lutheran churches are all going to rejoin the Catholic churches, too!

      Oh, wait. MS must be afraid of SCO! Yeah, that's it...

    52. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by spotteddog · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? MS not "regular deadline missers!"
      I seem to remember a time in the 80's and 90's when MS missed about every public deadline they announced They "revised" the release schedule for *everything* .

      --
      . there used to be a sig here.....
    53. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by calethix · · Score: 1

      " Actually Microsoft is the only company I have ever seen that can delay a product 5 or 6 times and THEN rush it out the door ready or not."
      I guess you never played Ultima Ascension :)

    54. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I know this is purely anecdotal but I never had any problems with xp.

      The parent probably was refering to security problems. A default XP Home/Pro install had at least one remote exploit before the release even hit store shelves.

      But you're right, 2000 and XP didn't really have any glaring usability problems.

    55. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by jtroutman · · Score: 1

      It was a box I had around for just that purpose, playing with...and XP ran fine on it, as long as I didn't install the SP. As for drivers, no, the NICs and drive interfaces in this Dell are the same as in workstations (3Com and Adaptec in this case)

      --
      I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    56. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Seriously, the only deadline ms has ever made was the important one. Dos 1.0.

      And that was with them taking someone else's code, tweaking it, and still coding on the plane on the way over to IBM.

    57. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by LoztInSpace · · Score: 1

      I don't know what anyone with a better understanding would make of using "send to" causing a protection fault, periodic mouseless periods of up to 10 seconds to name but two. I was disappointed I must say, especially as I hadn't done anything particulary nasty to it. Maybe it is the residue of a million COM experiments or the introduction of a Java development system, but I'd have expected better not worse. Still - the next machine will no doubt have less problems, assuming it's all pre-installed.

    58. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by pmz · · Score: 1

      the OS can be made stronger by fixing and working around bugs in poorly written third party applications.

      One thing about this "fire fighting" mode of software development is that for each fire fought 100 could have been prevented.

    59. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by pmz · · Score: 1

      The Blaster worm probably lit a fire under Microsoft to rethink their security practices.

      However, during that time, Microsoft will be reduced to steaming coals, and, finally, dark ashes.

      This fire is also warming up businesses to the notion that buying everything under the sun from one company is not a good idea.

    60. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by pmz · · Score: 1

      Actually Microsoft is the only company I have ever seen that can delay a product 5 or 6 times and THEN rush it out the door ready or not.

      You know, this is no different than teasing a hungry dog with a fresh juicy steak and, then, giving the dog some dried out leather boot.

      Towards animals, Microsoft's behavior would be considered cruel. What makes Microsoft's customers not even worthy of a dog's status in life?

    61. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      I don't know what anyone with a better understanding would make of using "send to" causing a protection fault, periodic mouseless periods of up to 10 seconds to name but two. I was disappointed I must say, especially as I hadn't done anything particulary nasty to it. Maybe it is the residue of a million COM experiments or the introduction of a Java development system, but I'd have expected better not worse. Still - the next machine will no doubt have less problems, assuming it's all pre-installed.

      As our techs often say, people need to be given a top 10 list of things users do wrong that could cause an OS to be unstable.

      This applies to all OSes, and often are simple mistakes people make when upgrading or moving to a different version or different OS.

      No offense was meant.

    62. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      One thing about this "fire fighting" mode of software development is that for each fire fought 100 could have been prevented.

      Yeah, Microsoft tells all third parties how to write their software poorly, it is all Microsoft's fault... Geesh...

      Other OSes would do good to learn from this OS model, as it protects itself and end users from crap software. Period.

      WindowsXP (and 2k to some extent) can catch bad calls by junk software, fix the call and let the application continue to run for the nerd that insists on using it.

    63. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by pmz · · Score: 1

      WindowsXP (and 2k to some extent) can catch bad calls by junk software, fix the call and let the application continue to run for the nerd that insists on using it.

      So, a developer working with Windows XP might not know of a real bug, because the OS is doing smoke and mirrors behind his back? That's a high crime of software engineering and makes crappy developers look better than they are.

    64. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      So, a developer working with Windows XP might not know of a real bug, because the OS is doing smoke and mirrors behind his back? That's a high crime of software engineering and makes crappy developers look better than they are.

      Um, no... This is why they have something called 'debugging tools' - stay with me here people.

      Are you a total moron, or never developed software and just commneting on something you know nothing about?

      If you hate Microsoft and want to make this an anti-Microsoft spin, just say so, don't make yourself look stupid.

    65. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no... This is why they have something called 'debugging tools' - stay with me here people. Are you a total moron, or never developed software and just commneting on something you know nothing about?

      You are a bigger moron than you claim the other guy is, if you think that debugging tools are are used to magically make bugs appear that don't show up under normal use. Quite the opposite.

      Most developers (that I know anyway) don't just sit there with their debuggers hunting for bugs that they don't know about yet.

      Crappy software is crappy software. On any OS. But if an app is going to crash, let it crash - as long as it doesn't have an adverse affect on the the rest of the processes or usability.
      Applications should be written around the OS, not the other way around, IMO.

    66. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Crappy software is crappy software. On any OS. But if an app is going to crash, let it crash - as long as it doesn't have an adverse affect on the the rest of the processes or usability.
      Applications should be written around the OS, not the other way around, IMO


      In Theory, yes, but in reality, NO... Where have you found this perfect world where every programmer always follows the rules and doesn't write crap software?

      (And this applies to the *nix world as much as to this Windows example. How many times have we all come across a piece of *nix code that was coded by a moron so that it crashed on certain distribuitions and not others?)

      Additionally, when you are building NEWER versions of OSes that need to maintain vast backwards capatibility with crappy software that somewhat ran on the older OSes, even though it created stability problems, it is much easier to have the NEW OS just look out for the application or the 'application's poor type of coding' and fix the application execution in realtime.

      In the END RUN, what does it matter if the Software was properly written and runs perfectly, or the software was half-ass written, but STILL RUNS perfectly because the OS is smart enough to fix it.

      The END USER WINS in EACH senerio. This is not about 'punishing users' by making their app fully crash all the time just because the person that wrote it was a moron.

      Talk about creating User Friendly OSes, I sure hope you don't develop UI professionally on any OS.

      Geesh...

      As for your debugging senario, you are talking out your ass. If you are not debugging and trapping errors, then how in hell do you expect your software to be virtually error free? Whether or not you are developing it on Win9X where it will crash or WindowsXP where it won't? (Or on a *nix where it would.)

      This whole realtime crash protection in WindowsXP is just an extension of a concept of 'protecting application memory', like MOST modern OSes do already.

      If we were to apply your logic, then no one should make OSes protect application memory either, because all third party developers should just know what they are doing and rely on them to keep the programs from crashing or crashing each other.

      What a fool...

  6. don't forget the real consequences for the web by gokubi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What will it mean to have no new IE till 2008?

    --
    I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
    1. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing but good things!

    2. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Oliekirk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well it must be a god send for the other browsers. I bet ie 7 will will have somerevolutianry new feature, snapback and tabs!

    3. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually it looks as thought they haven't released IE7 because they're integrating it into Longhorn so much so that releasing a new version of the stand alone browser is irrevlevant.

      That's why they're still releasing patches for IE6.01 but won't go the full nine and integrate tabbed browsing or gestures or any other cool feature because they're holding their breath for Longhorn.

      Though, with this timeline they may actually just release IE7, but considering that there are existing IE alternatives, I don't expect any new IE stuff until 2005.

    4. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by bmantz65 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Avant isn't a real alternative in the sense it still uses IE6's engine and such.

    5. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1

      But it does include some of the features I mentioned that might be in IE7, that's all.

    6. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Mozilla is updated every few months ;)

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    7. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by barzok · · Score: 1

      Does that include adhering to any relevant W3C standards? IE6 doesn't even get CSS1 right (or complete). CSS2 and plenty of other stuff just isn't even close, forcing me to use JavaScript or to skip things altogether.

    8. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by ttys00 · · Score: 1

      It means banks and other online transaction companies won't have to alter their SSL software (to support a newer version of IE) for a little while.

      Keeping the latest browser specification stable, so to speak, might have been requested by a big bank or two. It would certainly make it easier to develop online transaction based software and businesses.

    9. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All I know about Bush is I had a job when Clinton was president.

      Monica, are you posting on slashdot again? ;)

    10. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      tabbed browsing.... how hard can that be, knock up a beta in 24hrs, tweak it for 7 days, finalize in 14.

      Add a manager to oversee it and its 700 days.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    11. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Bilange · · Score: 1

      What will it mean to have no new IE till 2008?

      Thats good news for Mozilla (and other browsers). Its time to take back the market from Microschnoft. >:)

      --
      "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
    12. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I bet ie 7 will will have somerevolutianry new feature, snapback and tabs!

      You're right, it will: IE 7 will include/be included by Windows 'Longhorn'.

      From MS's point of view, that's the best *possible* feature IE7 could have.

    13. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      Why not just release the beta and then patch it for the next two weeks? Who do you think you are trying to debug software before distrobution?!

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    14. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by demachina · · Score: 1

      There is a pretty good chance they will have to ship a new version of IE to come in to compliance with a court injunction over the Eolas patent. Its rather hard to predict what that might be since no one seems to understand exactly what the Eolas patent really covers but I'm wagering they will integrate WMD...errr..WMP and .NET and do away with ActiveX plugins. It just happens it would be a convenient way to remove Real, Quicktime and Java support from IE. Presumably they might also integrate Flash, some PDF reader and a few other essentials.

      --
      @de_machina
    15. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [sarcasm] funny those have been around for a while in other browsers [/sarcasm]

    16. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [sarcasm] funny those have been around for a while in other browsers [/sarcasm]

      Thanks for the repeat, Captain Obvious.

    17. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's stupid. Banks (or anybody else) shouldn't have to modify. IE should just WORK RIGHT. Adhere to these things we call 'standards'. Microsoft does not rule the world yet.

    18. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by xYoni69x · · Score: 1

      That's not a problem. I like IE6's engine, but don't like the GUI's annoyances and lack of certain features, which Avant fixes:

      • Tabbed windows!!!
      • Saves URLs of currently open windows when Avant is closed/forcefully terminated
      • Protects against IE engine crashes (I don't know any that weren't fixed in the recent August cumulative patch though)
      • Excellent pop-up blocking (before Avant, I had to use a separate pop-up blocker)
      • An option to block flash(!)
      • An option to block sounds! I haven't unblocked sounds ever since installing Avant.
      • An option to block scripts
      • An option to block ActiveX
      • An option to block pictures - useful when you're unsure whether the link you're clicking on will redirect you to goatse/tubgirl/similar, or if your Internet connection uses technology from the previous millenium.
      It's great!
      --
      void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
    19. Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web by pmz · · Score: 1

      ...they're integrating it into Longhorn so much so that releasing a new version of the stand alone browser is irrevlevant.

      And, as a result, IE 6 will live on until 2012 (at least). How many people are still using Windows 2000, ME, 98, and 95? How many people just won't upgrade until they are forced to when they buy a new computer? How many people, given the option of a whole new MS platform, will end up with Apple, Sun, or a Linux distribution?

      I think Microsoft is becoming a niche company that happens to have a huge legacy installed base.

  7. Ship date by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny
    Microsoft has once again shifted the schedule for the release of "Longhorn"...now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship.

    When the cows come home, obviously.

    1. Re:Ship date by crayz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or the dogcows ;)

      moof

  8. Theory #1 by Kappelmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    They decided to bundle Duke Nukem Forever.

    1. Re:Theory #1 by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Funny
      Maybe we should observe what has happened in the past.

      Windows gets delayed, and delayed. Finally, someone from on high decrees that the next version will be named something like...
      • Windows 95
      • Windows 98
      • Windows 00
      • Windows Millenium Edition
      thus sending a signal as to a timeframe when this release is expected to ship, lest heads roll.

      Here's looking forward to the release of Windows 21st Century Edition.
      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Theory #1 by mog007 · · Score: 0

      Does that mean that Longhorn is coming out for the Atari 2600 also?

    3. Re:Theory #1 by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Damn, you beat me at doing the necessary DNF joke. :)

    4. Re:Theory #1 by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      He beat me too, because I made the /. gaff of actually reading over my post for mistakes before I posted. :(

    5. Re:Theory #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acutally, not only did I proofread the post, but I took an extra 15 seconds to reload the static page to see if someone beat me to it! Somehow I still beat you by a nose...

      -K

    6. Re:Theory #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst part was, my post happened on the next minute, so somebody who wasn't thinking might have modded me down to oblivion for the obvious dupe; luckily, there was only one such idiot (so far). I say mutual props for the joke! The caffeine's on me!

    7. Re:Theory #1 by Wateshay · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but remember that they've occasionally had to change the name of a product because they missed their deadling. :-)

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    8. Re:Theory #1 by taernim · · Score: 1

      Um. I assume you meant Windows 22nd Century Edition...
      Millenium in this case is the same as 21st Century...

      So it should have already skipped.
      This is /., after all... so forgive me for being a tad anal! ;)

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    9. Re:Theory #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha. Mutual props it is. :-)

    10. Re:Theory #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude you should have gotten a +6!
      funniest comment ever!

    11. Re:Theory #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, thanks :-)

    12. Re:Theory #1 by mojoNYC · · Score: 1
      They're having trouble porting Bob the Talking Paperclip to .NET...

    13. Re:Theory #1 by pmz · · Score: 1

      They decided to bundle Duke Nukem Forever.

      Actually, Longhorn is Duke Nukem Forever. It's just that Microsoft's customers no longer see the distinction between getting real work done and fighting with the operating system.

  9. They have learned many lessons... by bersl2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unfortunately, they were from Duke Nukem Forever.

    1. Re:They have learned many lessons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big-time dupe! It was a accident, I swear!

  10. It's no big deal really... by Luxviaest · · Score: 5, Funny

    They just want to make sure they can steal every new feature Apple is putting into Mac OS X.3

    1. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats funny. I've played with the developer beta of 10.3. All the big 'changes' and new 'innovative features' in panther have been in XP since Day 1.

    2. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP as it stands now already contains ever new feature of panther. The only thing it DOESN'T have is the unix honey to attract the linux fanboy bees, and I doubt MS is capable of adding anything complete enough to satisfy there.

      MS is big enough and dominant enough that they don't need to steal every single tiny feature of a small competitor's OS, they just have to have enough to look like it does about the same. That's all 95% of the population need.

    3. Re:It's no big deal really... by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

      "They just want to make sure they can steal every new feature Apple is putting into Mac OS X.3 "

      And in 2008, KDE will finally do what Longhorn does.

      Uh oh, I better put on my pitchfork-proof-vest.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:It's no big deal really... by macgyvr64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But these ones will work... without holes. So it's different, you see.

    5. Re:It's no big deal really... by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      Oh, I thought the "80% userbase doesn't need 20% of the features" argument was voted moot when *NIX apps couldn't keep up with the cornucopia Office offered? Now that the heat's up some voices start to dig it up again; how weird. Granted, your % are much more stringent: 5% against 20%. Wow, you must win. Sorry Astroturfer... next time.

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    6. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to take a course in comprehension and writing. Just what the fuck are you on about?

    7. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What gave him away, the "MS is so dominant (read: monopoly) that they don't need to be as good" argument? Assclown.

    8. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, dude, replying to your own posts is just like talking to yourself you know. gives people the idea you're a bit crazy.

    9. Re:It's no big deal really... by kismar · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't you mean 10.3 AND 10.4? If Apple keeps to their schedule, 10.4 will be out late next year, giving MS ample time to steal those features too.

    10. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I suppose. I never seem to win those arguments anyway.

    11. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why is it that when someone else does something that MS has already done they're providing an alternative, but when MS does something that someone else has already done it's stealing?

    12. Re:It's no big deal really... by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1

      "Uh oh, I better put on my pitchfork-proof-vest."

      I think you mean Asbestos vest, you are bashing KDE with its cute little fire-breathing dagon, not *BSD and its cute little pitchfork handling demon here.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    13. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hummmm.....
      thats odd. I was not aware that Xp used a nice distributed hylafax. Or that it includes loads of nice tools for X11. Or that it is actually useable out of the box (I always thought that to do anything with MS, you had to add extra applications that were worth a hoot).
      Now as to the innovative features of XP such as multi logins, we had those in X back in the late 80's, early 90's. As to other innovative features, what are they?

    14. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They just want to make sure they can steal every new feature Apple is putting into Mac OS X.3 "

      And in 2008, KDE will finally do what Longhorn does.


      Would that be Longhorn '08, or Longhorn ME (released in 2010)?

    15. Re:It's no big deal really... by FattMattP · · Score: 1
      Mac OS X.3
      Wouldn't that be Mac OS X.III?
      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    16. Re:It's no big deal really... by FireBreathingDog · · Score: 1
    17. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And in 2008, KDE will finally do what Longhorn does"

      What...suck?

    18. Re:It's no big deal really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KDE does that already AFAIK...

    19. Re:It's no big deal really... by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      And in 2008, KDE will finally do what Longhorn does.

      But I switched to Linux to avoid the BSOD, DRM, the MS EULA, XP, and every other acronym Microsoft has ever used. (Well, besides things like GUI, DOS...)

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    20. Re:It's no big deal really... by mobets · · Score: 1

      nice, but isn't she a little young...

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    21. Re:It's no big deal really... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      hummmm.....
      thats odd. I was not aware that Xp used a nice distributed hylafax. Or that it includes loads of nice tools for X11. Or that it is actually useable out of the box (I always thought that to do anything with MS, you had to add extra applications that were worth a hoot).
      Now as to the innovative features of XP such as multi logins, we had those in X back in the late 80's, early 90's. As to other innovative features, what are they?


      You really don't know much about XP or NT do you?

      XP multi Logins? That has been in NT since 1992. (1993 release)

      Maybe you meant concurrent Multi User Logins?

      If so, the plumbing, again, was in NT 3.1 for this, and there were several third party add-ons that allowed NT3.1 to do this. With NT4 Multi-User sessions was turned into Terminal Services which was bundled into Win2k.

      Support for X11 has also been available from third parties and Microsoft, but not widely promoted. Additionally, X11 is a fairly OLD technology (having worked with the development of it myself years and years ago). It was a great Networking GUI protocol, but for a desktop window manager suffers quite a bit in its incarnation. It was designed to offer GUI support from a Server in place of Text based Terminals from Mini and Supercomputers.

      It was NOT designed as a desktop window environment and not something that should be touted as the 'must have' feature.

      Even Apple knows this, or X11 would be the basis of its desktop environment, and it simply is NOT.

      And to this date, Apple itself does not have concurrent multi-user remote desktop technology, with the exception of what its Unix underpinnings support with an XServer.

      So back to your point? Was there one?

    22. Re:It's no big deal really... by glwtta · · Score: 1
      And in 2008, KDE will finally do what Longhorn does.

      Well give them some time, it's not easy to copy features like dockable panels and virtual desktops.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    23. Re:It's no big deal really... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      No. Apple wants (eventually) to be seen as a serious UNIX systems provider. Thus its conscious mimicry of "System V, Release 4.3" style names.

    24. Re:It's no big deal really... by pmz · · Score: 1

      And in 2008, KDE will finally do what Longhorn does.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. This is one benefit of Open Source, where things that should be a commodity will be a commodity. Now, Microsoft has only a brief hold on new features before everyone else gets them, forcing Microsoft to actually do some innovating (no matter how small).

      This will force Microsoft to peak sooner than later as a corporation. Either they will dominate the free world ending civilization as we know it, they will simply plateau and maintain their installed base, or they will decline into irrelevance. Regardless, any monopoly they have is definitely temporary.

  11. tell me about it by Barbarian · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recently reinstalled Windows XP. There were 47 "critical" updates. Installed service pack 1. Then there were 29 critical updates left. About time for Service pack 2.

    1. Re:tell me about it by domninus.DDR · · Score: 5, Funny

      /* begin whine */
      but sp2 will break my copy of xp!!!

    2. Re:tell me about it by mentin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are 44 security fixes for RedHat 9 (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh9-errata-security .html), still it does not look like they are planning any service pack.

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    3. Re:tell me about it by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to Slashdot Double Standard #38,498. Drive through, and please come again.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of those are not for RedHat9 but for other commonly used software: sendmail, PHP, MySQL, KDE, GNOME and Evolution. They are there to save you the trouble of having to search dozens of places for the latest patches for every app you use. There are only 4 patches for the core RedHat9 components.

    5. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RedHat is a Linux distribution, not strictly an OS.

      Many of the security fixes listed on that page are for software that is bundled with the distribution (MySQL, Xpdf, squirrelmail, ghostscript, etc). Hence, your comparison isn't completely valid.

      I get what you're saying, but let's compare oranges with oranges.

    6. Re:tell me about it by curious.corn · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh, but there's no service pack my dear friend! As long as you mirror (just to spare some bandwidth) internally a public update mirror (ftp:// you know... that old, passe technology... nothing advanced like MS Corporate Deployment Strategic Architectural Infrastructure etc...) it's completely hassle free to upgrade the packages installed on yor workstations. Granted, I don't use RH but MDK, nor does my installed base require central "hoarded" upgrades (I just skimread the man for urpmi) but it's just that easy you know. If you really trust the guys you can just trust the suckers and cron an rpm -Uvh ftp://path/*.rpm Sorry Astroturfer... we don't have Service Packs because we don't NEED Service Packs.
      Enjoy!

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    7. Re:tell me about it by mentin · · Score: 1
      Yeah, most of the XP updates are not for core XP components either (only one updates NTDLL AFAIK). Others are for "commonly used software": IE, IIS, Outlook Express

      :)

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    8. Re:tell me about it by oni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hear this one a lot. There are X patches for such and such distribution. Let's take a look at a few of those patches shall we:

      1. New up2date available with updated SSL certificate authority file

      I have never used SSL. I've used Apache but I've never needed SSL. This patch does not apply to me.

      2. Updated Sendmail packages fix vulnerability.

      I've never set up a mail server. This patch does not apply to me.

      3. Updated pam_smb packages fix remote buffer overflow.

      I do use samba, so I guess I'll download this one.

      4. GDM allows local user to read any file.

      I've used XDM but generally I prefer to boot to a console. This patch does not apply to me.

      5. Updated unzip packages fix trojan vulnerability

      I guess I could download this one because I probably do have unzip installed, but I can't remember ever using it. Wake me when there's a vulnerability in gzip.

      6. Updated Evolution packages fix multiple vulnerabilities

      Call me crazy, but I use Mozilla's email client.

      What's the point to all of this? Redhat doesn't need a "service pack" because most of the security vulnerabilities do not affect the majority of their users. You can't compare Redhat's patch list to XPs. If you want to make it fair, compare Redhat to the sum of XP, Office, IIS, SQL Server, and whatever else. I think you'll find that XP has a lot more critical issues all by itself and when you add the application software you'll see why the idea of a service pack makes sense in the MS world but not in the Linux world.

    9. Re:tell me about it by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't need to make a service pack, because the up2date program works very nicely. It keeps a list of what programs you have installed. It auto-checks for updates. And it downloads the patches that are needed. No user input is really needed except to click next and to click which programs you want and don't want updated.

    10. Re:tell me about it by Aliencow · · Score: 1

      Well, if you install them through Windows Update, it's not that much of a pain. I would just love a checkbox called "Reboot the fucking thing if it needs to, then install the rest, then reboot again" instead of having it telling me
      "Internet explorer has to be installed separately..."
      "Service Pack 1 needs to be installed separately.."
      Drives me crazy everytime

    11. Re:tell me about it by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. New up2date available with updated SSL certificate authority file

      I have never used SSL. I've used Apache but I've never needed SSL. This patch does not apply to me.


      FYI, if you don't get the above update, up2date will not run anymore :)

    12. Re:tell me about it by JediTrainer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. New up2date available with updated SSL certificate authority file

      I have never used SSL. I've used Apache but I've never needed SSL. This patch does not apply to me.


      Wrong. You DO need this patch. It's used to connect to the up2date server (your SSL connection between you and RedHat). 2. Updated Sendmail packages fix vulnerability.

      I've never set up a mail server. This patch does not apply to me.


      True, but some distros have sendmail enabled (whether you set it up or not). Make sure it's turned off or you could run into trouble.

      Wake me when there's a vulnerability in gzip.

      There was a zlib vulnerability about a year ago.

      I will agree with you that a service pack is unnecessary. RedHat will release version 9.1 (or 10) in due time, in less time than it takes for MS to release a service pack.

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    13. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is the SSL certificate that Up2date uses to get its package. Redhat pushed out a wrongly dated certificate. You have to manually reinstall up2date on every machine that received it.

    14. Re:tell me about it by danheskett · · Score: 1

      That's absurd. Instead of releasing Service Packs Linux distros just release a new version of the distro - hence why RH, MDK, and whatnot release two or three new point versions of their distro for every one version of Windows.

      Service Packs for Linux woudl be a nice way to ensure things are at a "standard version" without requiring you to run a cron job for regular updates.

    15. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and note that they released the new certificate AFTER the certificate expired. therefore killing up2date without a manual upgrade.

    16. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they expect Linux on the desktop!?!?

      Seriously, 99% of Windows users wouldn't have a clue as to what patches they'd need on a Linux box, so would they install all of them?

      Nope, they'd install none whatsoever.

      It does make sense to have a service pack if you are dealing with an 'average man on the street' audience. Technical people using both Windows and Linux can pick and choose what they need and know why. Most people don't have the knowledge to do this and usually opt for the easiest option - none.

      So in response, Redhat would benefit greatly from service packs if it wishes to reach Joe Average who doesn't know what the hell Sendmail is and wonders why there's something called Apache on there that sound more like a virus than the thing he knew called IIS.

      KISS - keep it simple, stupid.

    17. Re:tell me about it by gfilion · · Score: 4, Funny

      /* begin whine */
      but sp2 will break my copy of xp!!!

      Ho my God! You forgot to close the whine tag! All the rest of slashdot will be whining! (Like we're not used to it.) See, it's allready started!

    18. Re:tell me about it by shird · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't use something doesn't mean you dont have to patch it. If its on your machine, someone may be able to abuse it, especially the 'local user can do such and such' bugs (if you let other users use your machine). ie. I dont use MS windows' RPC mechanism... so I guess I dont have to patch for that either..

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    19. Re:tell me about it by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 2

      "Linux distros ... release two or three new point versions of their distro for every one version of Windows."

      So in the time MS has done
      3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WG, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, ME, NT3.1, NT3.5, NT3.51, NT4.0, XP,
      and probably some others I can't recall, Debian's got all the way up to 3.0. Shouldn't it be up to somewhere between 28.0 and 42.0 by now, going by your reckoning?

      Or is Debian not a linux distribution, or something weird like that?

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    20. Re:tell me about it by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Yea, RH really screwed the pooch on that one. Although they did send me an email telling me about the issue, so I guess all is not lost.

    21. Re:tell me about it by sniggly · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You realize of course that the only core component in linux is the kernel. It's perfectly possible to run just linux as a router and only use the kernel. It would be interesting to see how minimal you can make an MS win2k/xp/2k3 install and then check how many patches were made for that minimal install. RPC is installed by default and was updated, there are MANY others updates in the default install. Can you remove MSIE? No, so it's a core component from the security perspective. A perspective that is sorely lacking from MS.

      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install

      That's because MSDOS doesnt have any native networking in the default install. Troll.

      --
      Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
    22. Re:tell me about it by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      Gee. I've never had to reboot my machine after updating with Debian.

      I guess when I get around to upgrading my Linux kernel I'll have to do a reboot. I don't think they've figured out how to replace a running kernel -- yet.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    23. Re:tell me about it by los+furtive · · Score: 4, Funny

      Uh, that was a comment, not a tag.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    24. Re:tell me about it by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

      At least with Debian, there's no reason for the user to worry about whether to patch or not -- unless they don't want all the newest and greatest versions of all their apps. You just do an update and get updates for everything you've got installed. (The kernel would be different. When was the last time there was a security patch for a kernel?)

      I don't know about updating with other Linux distros.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    25. Re:tell me about it by drunk_as_in_beer · · Score: 1

      I recently reinstalled Windows XP. There were 47 "critical" updates. Installed service pack 1. Then there were 29 critical updates left. About time for Service pack 2.

      Don't expect SP2 anytime soon, Microsoft pushed back their release of WinXP SP2 until 3rd quarter of next year.

      --
      --Drunk as in Beer
    26. Re:tell me about it by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      The Distro they were refering to is Redhat. They never said anything about Debian.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    27. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /* end whine */
      there we go.

    28. Re:tell me about it by adrianbaugh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those 44+ fixes for Redhat were generally released promptly, openly and efficiently. With linux, when word gets out of problems, especially security related ones, they tend to get fixed quite quickly by the relevant maintainer or by one of the distros. People are on the look-out for this kind of thing (remember the huge security audit on RedHat done by Chris Evans a few years back?) Whereas with Windows it seems bugs are left hidden under the carpet for six months while all the script kiddies exploit them, then some patch is pushed into a service pack that half the time creates more problems than it fixes. There is no security in obscurity.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    29. Re:tell me about it by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Yeah, most of the XP updates are not for core XP components either (only one updates NTDLL AFAIK). Others are for "commonly used software": IE, IIS, Outlook Express

      When Microsoft meaningfully unbundles IE from XP, then you can distinguish it from "Core XP components".

      It's easy to install RedHat (or any other distro) without mozilla, Galeon and/or konqueror. Never having installed XP, I don't know how easy it is to install it without IIS and Outlook and, in all honesty, I don't care to try it.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    30. Re:tell me about it by mvpll · · Score: 1

      Yes, except that it completely broke because no-one noticed that the SSL certificate was about to expire.

    31. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should see a proctologist. They can remove anal tags.

    32. Re:tell me about it by nutbar · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ho my God! You forgot to close the whine tag! All the rest of slashdot will be whining! (Like we're not used to it.) See, it's allready started!

      Hey, dorkus malorkus, that was a C style comment and it looked closed to me! Bah, everyone seems to think everything is that newfangled XML thing these days.. *grunt* *groan* *cough*

    33. Re:tell me about it by d3faultus3r · · Score: 1

      no it's commented out! you insensitive clod!

      --
      read my blog
      musings on politics and technol
    34. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeat after me:

      I will learn to recognize a .sig when I see it.

    35. Re:tell me about it by The+Spie · · Score: 1
      Never having installed XP, I don't know how easy it is to install it without IIS and Outlook and, in all honesty, I don't care to try it.

      Yeah, you haven't installed XP. Otherwise you would have known that IIS is disabled by default and that Outlook comes with Office, not Windows.

      --
      If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
    36. Re:tell me about it by magores · · Score: 1

      Mod the parent Insightful, please.

      --
      I had a friend call me yesterday. He has a laptop with Windows.. He didn't know what version... He asked me if "anyone can see what he has been doing". ...Ummm... Bring me the laptop, and I'll make sure your girlfriend can't find your porn.

      --
      About a month ago, a different friend asked straight out.. "DUde, I don't want my girlfriend seeing my porn. How do I get rid of it?" Me--"What OS and broswer you using?" Him--"Yahoo"

      --

      Point is... Average Joe knows less about computers than you think he does.

      A "Service Pack" is a known entity to Joe. He doesn't know what is happening, or why... But Joe knows its "that time".

    37. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Mr. Goatse would use the tag, the net would be a much less dangerous place.

    38. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Mr. Goatse would use the tag, the net would be a much less dangerous place.

    39. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh the irony! It's the one thing on my system that's not up2date!

    40. Re:tell me about it by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Yeah, you haven't installed XP. Otherwise you would have known that IIS is disabled by default and that Outlook comes with Office, not Windows.

      Does Outlook Express come with XP? Excuse me for the misnaming. It seems silly for me that the extended version of the program has no extension while the basic version does. I intended "Outlook" to indicate any version of the MS mail system, not just the extended version.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    41. Re:tell me about it by Seeker5528 · · Score: 1

      "Debian's got all the way up to 3.0. Shouldn't it be up to somewhere between 28.0 and 42.0"

      There were several R releases for Debain Potato and a couple for Woody which are probably the nearest thing to a Windows SP release in the Linux world and come out more often.

      Later, Seeker

    42. Re:tell me about it by savuporo · · Score: 1

      Nobody forces you to RUN OE, and as long as it doesnt run, it does no harm. Plus, you can create a Win installation CD for yourself that does not install OE at all, go look it up on Technet, keywords: syspart, sysprep, unattend.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    43. Re:tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its a moronic .sig - comparing DOS to openbsd..

    44. Re:tell me about it by glwtta · · Score: 1
      still it does not look like they are planning any service pack.

      Well, they don't have service packs as such... you kinda apply patches until the next minor release - could that be why?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    45. Re:tell me about it by jemele · · Score: 1

      // this is a c style comment /* this is c++ style comment */

      -- did you ever why we had to run for shelter when the promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath the clear blue sky?

    46. Re:tell me about it by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Plus, you can create a Win installation CD for yourself that does not install OE at all,

      Usefull for corporate users, but lots of good that does for my roommate who's got XP running on her box... On the other hand, it's good to know that you can uninstall it cleanly because it would seem that many virus writers like to use it as a propogation vector, even if it's not being directly run by the user.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    47. Re:tell me about it by Lifthrasir · · Score: 1

      commenting about his sig? the whole point of it is that msdos doesn't have any remote capability and that's why there are remote exploits. it's called irony dude.

      --
      No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
    48. Re:tell me about it by Lifthrasir · · Score: 1

      commenting about his sig? the whole point of it is that msdos doesn't have any remote capability and that's why there are no remote exploits. it's called irony dude. (i suck, should have previewed)

      --
      No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
    49. Re:tell me about it by nutbar · · Score: 1

      You got it backwards, dipshit. Next time you try to correct someone, make sure you get your facts straight.

  12. So software gets delayed.... by anonymous+coword · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It happens all the time. Even in the Opensource community it does. KDE 3.1, Debian 3.0 and Linux 2.4 are prime examples of when software gets delayed to make sure it works properly.

    1. Re:So software gets delayed.... by error502 · · Score: 3, Funny

      software gets delayed to make sure it works properly.

      You realize we're talking about Microsoft here?

    2. Re:So software gets delayed.... by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      Microsoft?!?! This is the same company that showed off Windows 95's awesome USB support and got a BSoD! Open source/free(dom) projects usually don't have to worry as much about deadlines -- "It'll be done when it's done." But Microsoft is not known for delaying a product because it's buggy.

    3. Re:So software gets delayed.... by error502 · · Score: 1

      This is the same company that showed off Windows 95's awesome USB support and got a BSoD!

      That was Windows 98's awesome USB support.

    4. Re:So software gets delayed.... by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      95 diddnt have any USB support. Your thinking about the 98 demo.

    5. Re:So software gets delayed.... by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      when OSS software is delayed it doesn't really risk our marketshare. No new MS OS for 3-4 years? That can fuck up your bottom line. What does it say to shareholders that your company can no longer produce? While MS is trying to figure out what Longhorn is Linux and Mac OS X are getting use-approval from the government. Linux will hit 2.6 before Longhorn ships. OS X will be at 10.5 before Longhorn at Apple's current release rate.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    6. Re:So software gets delayed.... by anonymous+coword · · Score: 1

      Windows 95 did have USB suupport, just that it avalible only as an OEM version, Windows 95 SR2.

    7. Re:So software gets delayed.... by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      Actually, OSR2 (Win95B) still required a patch to gain full USB support.. it was OSR2.5 (aka Win95C, the one which said "with USB support" on the CD) which came ready out of the box.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    8. Re:So software gets delayed.... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Software gets delayed when it's not done when they thought it would be, but it's not nearly 2005 yet. Putting off the next release for more than 2 years is just begging to fall behind. Just about anyone else would at least plan to have some sort of release before then, even if it doesn't have every feature in the roadmap. Of course, some projects might not actually manage the scheduled release in 2 years, but that would be due to not estimating correctly in advance.

    9. Re:So software gets delayed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which, one might suspect, was not yet available at the time the initial release was demoed...

    10. Re:So software gets delayed.... by the+uNF+cola · · Score: 1

      Realize, that the diff between running apache on linux 2.4 or 2.6 is a miniscule difference. Usually winders breaks compatability. Also, because unicies are so.. component driven, you wind up getting fixes, seperate. glibc gets fixed. gtk gets fixed. gnome gets fixed. and they are all distributed seperately.

      When windows updates, it's WW3 :)

      --

      --
      "I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo

    11. Re:So software gets delayed.... by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      No new MS OS for 3-4 years?

      It would only be 2 years. Win2K3 Server shipped this April/May. I was at the launch.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    12. Re:So software gets delayed.... by Felinoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Usually open source projets don't have release dates.
      Microsoft prommises release dates so people alter plans accordingly open source projects say things like "any day now" or "soon we hope" nothing quite as hard set as "11/31/2020".
      Yes open source projects are "late" ("any day now" at least implys inside the same week)

      Linux 2.4 is probably a great example.
      It was late according to the media. There was never an offical release date not even a "any day now" date it just took longer than people were expecting and there isn't much Linus can say about that.

      Microsoft sets thies unrealistic deadlines and moves heaven and hell to meet them. This is part of why Windows has so many problems.

      But Microsoft releasing an unrealistic date is a far cry from the expectations of people outside the develupment process.

      At one point Linus said 2.4 wasn't late and he is right.

      A great example...
      Your going on a date...

      You could tell your date "I'll show up when I show up" knowing you don't know when you'll show..
      And knowing your date could just say "Feh" and cancle the date

      Or you could tell your date "I'll be there 6:30 sharp" knowing there is no way in hell you'll make it.

      Then when you show up at 10pm your date is mad at you for being late eather way becouse when you said "I'll be there when I get there" she desided you meant 4:30.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    13. Re:So software gets delayed.... by Josh+Booth · · Score: 1

      You are right. I'm a moron. Even so, it is a funny clip. I think you get it from chris.com

    14. Re:So software gets delayed.... by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      how many people know that?

      I know it, sure. You do. Slashdot does. Does Wallstreet? Does the public? Do the shareholders? Does the public care about an OS they're told they don't need? In the corporate sector does that matter? I don't know how many corporations install Win2K3 Server on every workstation.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    15. Re:So software gets delayed.... by swdunlop · · Score: 1

      Do not forget that Microsoft's marketing department has declared a newer, stabler, more secure Microsoft for our future.. We need to consider the slim possibility that they may actually be serious, and will wait until Longhorn is truly done before they release it.

    16. Re:So software gets delayed.... by mvpll · · Score: 1

      Err, it isn't like they have stopped producing a product. Nor are they in a highly competitive developing market where three(+) year old technology is "old school". By market share alone they set the defacto standards for office document formats and training costs.

      This news does explain why Microsoft started a big Windows XP product push on Aussie TV recently.

    17. Re:So software gets delayed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of stupid question is that? Wall Street's CIOs certainly know about W2003, and RedHat AS 3 and whatever else is coming out. Nobody gives a shit about what Sally Secretary thinks.

    18. Re:So software gets delayed.... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Too many 3rd party applications don't run on Win2K3 Server.

    19. Re:So software gets delayed.... by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I don't know... I've heard that 4.0 was due "in two weeks" from a noted developer of a popular OSS project for over a year now. It's been so long that it has become a running joke. We're finally to 4.0 beta now, though, so maybe in two weeks or so...
      BTW, Jammin' Jim, this is all tongue in cheek, you know.

  13. Error in quote. by killermal · · Score: 4, Funny
    "When I'm writing code at home or rendering something, why does it have to happen on my home machine? Why can't it seamlessly run those tasks on the dozen or so machines I have access to that are just sitting there?" he asked.

    What he really means... "When I'm having my network exploited by obvious vulnerabilities, why does it have to happen on my home machine? Why can't it seamlessly run that vulnerability on the dozen or so machines I have access to that are just sitting there? That's what we hope to bring you in the type of innovation we hope to bring you in the new 'Longhorn' OS."

    1. Re:Error in quote. by Refrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe he should look into getting a Mac, because they use Rendezvous to dynamically allocate renders, compiles, and the like across other Macs on the LAN.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    2. Re:Error in quote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's talking about something else. Something slashdotters bitch about all the time. He means X!

      So they are going to reimplement technology that is available elsewhere since 25 years. Wow, what innovation. If this is all MS can do, Longhorn will only be Windows XP + Cygwin.

  14. Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, who would have guessed this?? :)
    And, who is really sad anyways(besides MS). Longhorn looks like crap anyways, and is full of nasty things that stomp all over your privacy.

  15. This is one of the worst posts I've seen. by LostCauz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the end of 2005 is over 2 years away, that's a long time anyway. I would actually prefer that a company didn't say a release date, other than "When it's done."

    The only real relevence this has (that I see, anyway) is that it affects Licensing 6.0 or whatever it's called, and that wasn't even mentioned in the post...

    Don't get me wrong though, I hate Microsoft.

    1. Re:This is one of the worst posts I've seen. by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately software development on the corporate level goes beyond an engineer's ability to say "when it's done."

      Rather, it's the executives telling investors "oh yeah, it'll be done in a year and a half," then turning to the engineers saying "alright, you have to get this done in a year and a half or we loose a LOT of money, and YOU may loose your JOB if that happens."

      It's good to see Microsoft delaying a release date rather than rushing the engineers to do things sub-par to meet a quota or deadline.

    2. Re:This is one of the worst posts I've seen. by timmyf2371 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe you should read the article properly.

      But the delays also raise a potential problem for Microsoft. Those customers who subscribe to its Licensing 6 and Software Assurance program expect access to the next upgrade of Microsoft products

      "If you bought Software Assurance this year or last, under a three-year contract, what if the product upgrades don't come out by the time your contract expires and you don't get an upgrade out of the deal?" Gillen asked.

      That is one reason Microsoft has been evolving Software Assurance into more than a simple maintenance program. The company is now offering training, technical support and other components to make it a compelling offering beyond just a product upgrade, Gillen said.

      Microsoft's Breyer also made clear that the company does not guarantee any upgrades during the term of customers' contracts. "This is an important consideration that Microsoft's customers take into account when purchasing Software Assurance, which is a long-term, ongoing relationship between Microsoft and its customers, and a great deal of value comes from staying on SA long-term," she said.

      "We will exert enormous pressure on Microsoft to make sure it lives up to its Licensing 6 and Software Assurance promises," he said.

      If I was an IT Manager, I wouldn't personally be happy that having signed up to a subscription programme, I was now being told that the three-year contract wouldn't cover the next upgrade of the Operating System.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    3. Re:This is one of the worst posts I've seen. by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      If I was an IT Manager, I wouldn't personally be happy that having signed up to a subscription programme, I was now being told that the three-year contract wouldn't cover the next upgrade of the Operating System.

      Yes, that is why another delay is not just a joke and not trivial. Microsoft forced customers to do this against their better judgement, and now they find they paid for an upgrade but got patches. That can't be pretty.

      rd

    4. Re:This is one of the worst posts I've seen. by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1


      by the way, the "need to redo the security in it" has been alluded to, but from the Jim Allchin interview I read the other day in ComputerWorld, Blaster and SoBig made a permanent change in Microsoft. I mean a serious change. I don't know what they're going to do, but it's going to be intense. They're wounded now and pissed off.

      rd

    5. Re:This is one of the worst posts I've seen. by mpaque · · Score: 1

      > If I was an IT Manager, I wouldn't personally be happy
      > that having signed up to a subscription programme, I was
      > now being told that the three-year contract wouldn't
      > cover the next upgrade of the Operating System.

      Heh. Happiness is is irrelevent. The check cleared...

      That's the nice thing about being a de-facto industry standard. MSFT doesn't need to spend any money on this. Float some papers, announce some programs as a sop to the press and IS weenies, sure, but they need not actually spend money on anything. They'll still have the subscription contracts, and they'll still get all those sales from their PC VARs. The money keeps right on rolling in.

      You don't seriously think any business or government IT buyer would consider switching to another OS, do you? Oh, sure, there's the odd European city government, but they'll come crawling back. Momentum, retraining costs, and the transient drop in productivity during a switchover would get that buyer fired pronto. All the worms and security bugs in the world (which they do seem to have :-) won't affect this.

      All their computers, all their disks, all their data is locked into Microsoft. They're hostages. You don't bother to do favors to hostages. You just squeeze them dry.

      They'll pay for Longhorn. They'll pay for subscription access to patches. (Just wait a few months...)

  16. I know by Malicious · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Perhaps they're going to perfect one of the operating systems they already have available, before they release a new one.

    !

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    1. Re:I know by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps they're going to perfect one of the operating systems they already have available, before they release a new one."

      This is Slashdot. You're supposed to say "they're installing new exploits!"

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  17. My thoughts by W32.Klez.A · · Score: 4, Funny

    Delays in the release of the release date of Windows Longhorn are caused by Windows Bonghorn.

  18. Ok, give them a break. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1
    Insert start sarcasm tag here.

    They're just trying to patch all the security holes before they release the OS.

    You know that that type of paradigm shift isn't easy.

    Insert end sarcasm tag here.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Ok, give them a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are SO MANY that it takes them at least 2 more years to fix them! And that's just the ones they know about.

  19. What technology are they going to hold hostage? by mr.henry · · Score: 0, Interesting

    MS always likes to withhold some nice piece of tech to force people to upgrade.

    No USB in Windows NT.
    No Hyperthreading in Windows 2000.
    No ??? in Windows XP.

    1. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by WasterDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree on the USB thing, but hyperthreading, like, SFW?

      Perhaps the problem they are having is there is no nice piece of tech *to* hold back.

      Dave

      --
      I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
    2. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by El · · Score: 1

      Uh, no security in XP? And how many times can they get away with the marketing claim that "You need to buy our new OS because frankly our old OS sucks!" before consumers catch on?

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    3. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by mentin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No ??? in Windows XP

      Don't worry that you can't fill out ??? now - you will be able to replace ??? with some new technology in two or three years when it appears, and blame MS for not supporting it in OS which was released 3-5 years before the technology.

      After all, NT was released long before first USB devices appeared on the market, and Windows 2000 released long before first HT-enabled processors appeared (although contrary to the parent HT works under W2K - after all it is hardware feature, not software. Lack of special optimization for HT does not prevent it from working). Since all this does not stop you, it should not prevent you from blaming MS for not supporting ??? .

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    4. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 1
      No ??? in Windows XP.
      That's easy: Internet Explorer. See this post.
    5. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft could have easily included USB support in an NT service pack. Same with hyperthreading for 2k.

    6. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by rreyelts · · Score: 1

      Well, I bought my copy of Windows XP for a bluetooth stack about a year ago. Apparently there are no plans for releasing one for Windows 2000. I expect something similar will happen to XP when Longhorn comes out.

    7. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      How many times? ALL of them!

      They'll never get brighter consumers. Ever ever ever. People like following the trend, and people like shiny new things.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    8. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by xavier909 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stage 1 - No USB in Windows NT.
      Stage 2 - No Hyperthreading in Windows 2000.
      Stage 3 - No ??? in Windows XP.
      Does that mean
      Stage 4 = No Profit in Longhorn??

      X

    9. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else are they going to pay people to keep updating the OS?

    10. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by Squarewav · · Score: 1

      What's bad is windows 3.11 they havn't updated that in forever, no usb, 3d video, directx, fat32, support for more then 16 megs of ram, ms should support my copy of win3.11 till the end of time. I dont care if the os doesn't have the ablity to support these things, I want them damn it

    11. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by sn00ker · · Score: 1
      Microsoft could have easily included USB support in an NT service pack. Same with hyperthreading for 2k.
      Then people would be bitching about them adding new functionality through serivce packs rather than using them to fix bugs. Much as I dislike MS, they're in a DIYD-DIYD situation. They can not release technology updates in service packs, and then people whinge about how they don't support x technology that was released before the OS came out, or they can release technology updates in which case people berate them for using service packs for something other than fixing problems.
      MS could release versions that have the new technology enabled, like Win95-C came with USB support, but they do tend to have a policy of not allowing for retroactive upgrade to the latest technology. I can't blame them for this, since they do have to make money of their software.
      --
      "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
    12. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      And how many times can they get away with the marketing claim that "You need to buy our new OS because frankly our old OS sucks!" before consumers catch on?

      Hmmm...let's see:
      Win3.1->win95
      win95->win98
      win98->win98se
      win98se->winme
      winnt4->win2k
      win->winxp

      So far 6 times!

    13. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by Phishfry · · Score: 1

      The same goes for 1394 stack, WinMe and XP shipped with TC/IP network stack for firewire and Win2K did not. It is available from third party vendor though$$$(from unibrain)

    14. Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? by mpaque · · Score: 1

      Technology? Hah! They already have all the customer's data. All the documents. All the databases. That should be sufficient to make the customer do their part and fork over more cash.

  20. Less Patches by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But according to IDC's Gillen, there are other possible reasons for the delay, including the fact that Microsoft's ability to rapidly introduce change into its products is becoming increasingly difficult.

    Maybe the "ability to rapidly introduce changes" can be read "ability to patch." I hope they use the extra time to test the security and operability extensively, to patch holes and problems before they reach the consumer.

    It's general knowledge that one should not introduce a broken product to market, nevermind try to cover it with patches. Lets hope they release a fully stitched quilt, rather than rely on customers to make a run to the local fabric store.

    1. Re:Less Patches by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I'd like you to point out a system that actually does something useful that hasn't needed a patch. Even OpenBSD had one security hole by default so far... and it doesn't really do much of anything out of the box.

      The problem with Microsoft isn't that they release software with flaws. Programming flaws happen. The problem with Microsoft is that they let their marketroids drive technical decisions and you wind up with stupid shit like the RPC vulnerability in WinXP Home. They were more concerned with support costs from supporting stupid people who couldn't get RPC working than with doing the Right Thing and leaving it off for the 75% of people who just don't need it, so they wound up being embarassed by MS Blaster. Hopefully, this delay means that they're taking the time to sit back and evaluate their systems more thoroughly to make them something that's actually worth the two hundred dollar price tag... it's okay to send the customers to the local fabric store if you have to, just not as often as they do it for as big of peices of fabric as they do.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    2. Re:Less Patches by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I think you're right - they've reached the point where they now realize the importance of good security practices, but they've got so much insecure legacy code to deal with that they can't just fix it, they have to start over and rebuild it from scratch, while maintaining bug-for-bug compatibility (minus the security holes) with their legacy code so that everything still works.

      I think if I were Microsoft I'd try really hard to just buy the entire WINE project, port it to NT, and start from there, using their expertise combined with Microsoft's access to the original code and staggering resources. Of course, if Microsoft did that, the entire open source community would probably feel about the same way some Mac users feel about VirtualPC....

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:Less Patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'd like you to point out a system that actually does something useful that hasn't needed a patch. Even OpenBSD had one security hole by default so far... and it doesn't really do much of anything out of the box.

      You realize, of course, that the above is by design? The stringent internal codebase audits and the fact that it doesn't ship with services enabled is WHY there's only been one remote exploit in all those years.

      ALL operating systems should be shipped doing so little 'out of the box'. That's what clueful admins are for; that's what the nice (but nonexistent) user documentation in the box is for.

    4. Re:Less Patches by Sanction · · Score: 1

      Of course, if Microsoft did that, the entire open source community would probably feel about the same way some Mac users feel about VirtualPC....

      Geez, I just start relaxing at the end of the night, and you have to remind me of this...evil I say!

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
    5. Re:Less Patches by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1
      It's general knowledge that one should not introduce a broken product to market, nevermind try to cover it with patches

      Products like Apache perhaps? (remember where it gets its name from :) No, products should be shipped 1st release - with bugs, 'features', etc. (after all you can't get rid of them, so why bother trying too hard). Once people have this (and they know its 1st release software), they can find those bugs, tell what bits the like/dont want, enhance the missing functionality and release v2.

      In MS case, version 3 was always the magic number, and probably still is. Too bad they changed to date-based version numbers.

      In short, its generally the users fault - no-one wants something that just works, they always want more bits, more toys, more 'extended-functionality', better performance. Too many people run the latest software because they either don't want to be 'left behind', or because they 'need' the cool new features.

      Then they complaint he software isn't 100% perfect. Well, pity them, yaa-boo. Go run something mature. And, I know they cannot do that due to the nature of the software industry today. The simple answer to that is not to always upgrade the moment the upgrade hits the shelves.

      My tuppence. Cheers.

  21. Fine with me. by Faust7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Common sense says this is a good thing. I'd rather they took more time, and developed a better product (not sarcasm -- what do you think Microsoft, of all companies, is doing all this time?) rather than released something buggy early.

    1. Re:Fine with me. by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1, Insightful
      " Common sense says this is a good thing. I'd rather they took more time, and developed a better product (not sarcasm -- what do you think Microsoft, of all companies, is doing all this time?) rather than released something buggy early."

      Please. This is Microsoft. What in the entire history of the company gives you this idea? No, not their words, only their actions count.

      They don't care about releasing buggy software. Never have. Why should they? The market never hurts them for doing it. No, they are probably busy putting in new DRM crud that will cause all manners of problems for the end user while coordinating new hardware lock-ins with various manufacturers, and trying to find ways to include code that will break stuff from competitors.

      Oh sorry, that's their past history. No, I have no idea what the delay is this time, but for sure it isn't because they are worried about releasing buggy code. Microsoft? ROFL!

    2. Re:Fine with me. by Bilange · · Score: 1

      rather than released something buggy early.

      They already did. Windows ME. ME stands for Mediocre Edition.

      --
      "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
  22. Just A Coincidence? by MBCook · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The important part:

    As for the reasons Microsoft is further delaying Longhorn, one theory is that the company could be postponing the release of the next wave of its flagship products until the remedy order issued last year by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to settle the antitrust case against Microsoft expires.

    That agreement, valid for five years, forces Microsoft to make available for license the protocols between its client and server environments.

    "Once they get beyond the time frame of the remedy, they will be free to change the client and server protocols, which could make it more difficult to emulate a Windows server or client, as was the case prior to the remedy order," Al Gillen, an analyst with International Data Corp., in Framingham, Mass., told eWEEK.

    Does this fact seem to just a little to much of a conincidence? It would make perfect sense for MS to wait untill they can go back to their "old" ways again. That said, it will be a LONG time between product releases, which makes me want to agree with some other posters who have said that this suggests we'll see a Windows XP: Second Edition or something like that.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Just A Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just A Coincidence? (Score: 5, Flamebait)

      That is classic.

    2. Re:Just A Coincidence? by swdunlop · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have some solid marketing numbers on market share of XP versus Microsoft's earlier releases? Perhaps they are perceiving some market resistance, and feel they can wait until there is wider adoption of XP before they foist Longhorn on everyone.

    3. Re:Just A Coincidence? by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      Real world stats Puts 98 at ~30%, plenty of folks to buy a new comptuer with XP before they need to upgrade to Longhorn.

  23. Re:"officials"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    corporate officers are officials within the company. The statement is absolutely correct and perfectly reasonable.

  24. Theory #2 by gnu-sucks · · Score: 4, Funny

    They decided to perfect their work

    Well, of course thats why.

    From back in the day:

    "I guess this is why we haven't released windows 98 yet..." Thats Bill Gates at the Windows 98 Preview party back in the day, right after it crashed on him, on stage, for plugging in a scanner.
    1. Re:Theory #2 by deblau · · Score: 1

      For anyone interested in video: Win98 crashes on Bill.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  25. Microsoft Announces End of Windows Development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a shocking Labor Day announcement, Microsoft Chairman and Co-Founder Bill Gates announced the end of Windows development. Gates stated that "Windows XP is pretty darn good" and "efforts to make it better have failed because it's impossible." Windows 2003 will also mark the final server version of Windows. This announcement comes after similar announcements regarding the future of Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. Susan Ortega, Microsoft VP in charge of public relations, spoke to reporters a bit more about the development. "The fact is, Microsoft has more money than it needs, and we'll be able to pay thousands employees on interest alone. We don't really need Windows for a revenue stream, and we already have 95% of the market. We don't think anything else will be able to top Windows as it stands now, and computers really don't need to advance anymore. The 80's and 90's were exciting, but so far, the 00's have just been boring for Microsoft. It's time to quit." Speculation is running rampant that the next version of Office may be the last, and all other Microsoft development could stop in the near future.

  26. Thanks to Apple by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 0, Troll
    Yes, Microsoft is now delaying Longhorn. Apparently they have some uh.......revisions i guess you could call them..........yeah.....something leaked about OSX and free R&D......

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Thanks to Apple by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      wtf, TROLL? This was a JOKE! God moderation on slashdot has gone downhill with the rest of the site lately.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  27. Security enhancements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    or perhaps after their little DCOM buffer overflow that enabled SoBig etc to flourish and cost buisness (m|b)illions the goverment gave them a quite word in their ears behind at the back of the office car park and "persuaded" them to concentrate harder on security and less on TTM (time to market)

    not that i would know, or i would of logged in :}

  28. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This gives Mozilla more time to catch up to IE users, since a new version of IE won't be released until Longhorn is! Yay for Firebird! Everyone go use it if you don't already, it's the best browser.

  29. Delayed? Preposterous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I downloaded Windows 2003 Longhorn BETA version and a CDKEY crack from the GNUTELLA network. If anyone can, please search for it and offer it as a mirror; that's one of the many cracks products I'm serving on a mirror. It's not illegal when it is for non-commercial use, so I'm studying it and wholeheartedly think people in IT should try the same, and make sure it is only a secret as Microsoft is known to rape people into purchasing licenses (with duress)

  30. Poor hardware manufacturers... by tugrul · · Score: 1

    No Longhorn, no Duke Nukem Forever... what will drive their sales? :)

    I wonder what kind of quantifiable effect this has on the tech economy...

  31. Also, Debian Tyron 3.2 released in 2005. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tyron will be the name for debian 3.2, after debian sarge (3.1). It will still be using gnome 1.4, kde 2.2, and kernel 2.2 when the world has moved on to KDE 4.2, Gnome 3.0, and Kernel 2.7.

    s/debian/microsoft and get a 5, funny, not joking!

  32. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    here's a far fetched idea. Microsoft has realized they need a Unix Kernel that implements all the POSIX standards, instead of the current pre-emptive threading/scheduling that sucks for heavy weight server apps. Indigo is suppose to replicated J2EE functionality, but from a ton of benchmarks I've run the last couple of months, the threading is a huge barrier. True POSIX threading is needed, so a single system can have more than 1 heavy weight thread per CPU. Say what you like, but Microsoft's own websites states this emphatically. Until the kernel is fixed and rewritten, it simply won't get them into the large enterprise back-end systems. No on that I know of in the financial software market considers windows for anything beyond small/medium load applications.

    Maybe that's what they really bought from SCO.

    1. Re:Maybe by spitzak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could somebody elaborate on this, or is this person just karma whoring? I thought MT on NT was actually quite acceptable. They did screw up multi *processing* so that a Unix-style solution where one program calls another is inefficient, but I though multithreading where two processors share all memory pages was done reasonably well.

      What NT needs from Posix is the uniform filename space. This could be done by migrating some of the innards "kernel names" to the FileOpen interface so any normal program can use this and access "unions" or whatever they call them. This would get rid of drive letters and allow at least a form of symbolic link, these are by far the biggest defects in NT from my perspective.

      They also need to allocate all communication channels from the same pool of "fd" numbers and fix their damn select mechanism so that it accepts all of them (it is ok if they always report ready or never report ready, but it is inexcusable that I need to send different things to different interfaces).

      I would also like them to return '/' from all their interfaces that return pathnames, and to make filenames be raw byte streams rather than a piece of the GUI (ie eliminate case-independence and wide-character interfaces) but these are probably hopeless. (and the case-independent disease has now invaded OSX Unix so we are probably doomed)

      A real fork would be nice too.

    2. Re:Maybe by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Informative
      So basically you want NT to turn into UNIX? You're not going to see them abandoning Unicode filenames - frankly it'd be stupid - since then you loose a useful I18N feature.

      NT already has a unified namespace, the object manager namespace, which the filesystem is a subset of. IIRC, the path 'C:\WINNT\' is translated into \??\C\WINNT, and \??\C is a symbolic link to \Device\Harddisk0\Parition0, translating it into \Device\Harddisk0\Parition0\WINNT internally.

      NT also has the equivalent of UNIX file descriptors, HANDLEs. Instead of select, you have WaitForMultipleObjects. And unlike POSIX select which can only wait on files and sockets, you can wait on practically anything in NT: files, sockets, semaphores, events, timers, etc...

      NT isn't UNIX. Don't try to use it like UNIX and you'll tear out a lot less hair.

    3. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, from pages MSDN it appears to be true of exchange, and Sql Server. Here are some links related to the topic http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/40 90a.asp, http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Articl eID=273. I'm sure there are more, but consider the following fact in the context of High Performance/High Availability. A typical high end enterprise system has to support tens of thousands of transactions per second. If the default number of worker threads for Sql Server is 255 and recommended max is 512 on a heavily loaded SMP box, is it likely Sql Server can support 5K concurrent queries? Or does this tell you the way Sql Server is designed is not appropriate and wouldn't be able to support say 10K concurrent queries a second like DB2 and Oracle? Forgetting the fact that current SMP bus motherboards can't that level of parallel access anyways. On a 4 CPU box with a couple hundred concurrent queries, the CPU usage will already be between 60-80%. With that kind of utilization and heavy cost of context switching, could Sql Server handle that kind of load?

    4. Re:Maybe by kahei · · Score: 1

      What NT needs from Posix is the uniform filename space.

      Got one.

      This would get rid of drive letters

      They're only there for backwards compatibility.

      eliminate ... wide-character interfaces

      Who could *possibly* think of that as a *good* thing to do??

      A real fork would be nice too.

      Ahhh, someone who grew up with Unix could :)

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    5. Re:Maybe by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      I believe the primary problem with threading on NT based kernels is that they are allocated a meg of stack space, meaning that if you run 1000 threads you just exhausted a gig of virtual memory. Once you get above a certain number of threads, you no longer have enough address space left.

      IIRC context switches are somewhat heavyweight on NT kernels too, though the reasons for that are unknown to me. The original poster was not just karma whorign though, Microsofts own employees have written about the problems with thread scalability. That doesn't necessarily mean that Windows doesn't scale however. Don't confuse the two.

    6. Re:Maybe by spitzak · · Score: 1
      UTF-8 can (and should) be used to encode Unicode into bytes. Wide character filenames solve nothing and cause unbelievable pain for anybody trying to quickly upgrade 8-bit software. And if you think it makes anything simpler, think again, and read up on "combining characters" (which NT fails to implement correctly, by the way).

      I am well aware of this "unified name space" However they do not make it accessable to the FileOpen call that almost all C libraries make open() call, therefore by my definition it is inaccessible. They could easily fix this but they are obviously completely paranoid about back compatability.

      And you cannot send a file descriptor returned by open() to WaitForMultipleObjects. Again this could be fixed if they would realize that "fd" *is* a "handle".

    7. Re:Maybe by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Ok, tell me what I pass to open() (not to some NT-specific call) that will open a file on the floppy without the string starting with "A:".

      Wide characters are a mistake. Read up on UTF-8 before you make brain-dead comments again. I am *NOT* talking about eliminating Unicode.

    8. Re:Maybe by Foolhardy · · Score: 1
      Wide character filenames solve nothing and cause unbelievable pain for anybody trying to quickly upgrade 8-bit software.
      If the code was written so that character types are abstracted, then it wouldn't be a problem. Besides, you can still use the ascii versions.
      However they do not make it accessable to the FileOpen call that almost all C libraries make open() call, therefore by my definition it is inaccessible.
      Yes, that's because the win32 api needs to be compatible with previous applications. Still, you can use symlink "GLOBALROOT" to get to "\" in the namespace. \\??\GLOBALROOT\Device\HarddiskVolume2\WINNT. Otherwise you will have to use the native api.
      And you cannot send a file descriptor returned by open() to WaitForMultipleObjects. Again this could be fixed if they would realize that "fd" *is* a "handle".
      What do you want to wait on? Pending file operations? Overlapped file operations are meant for async IO, and they take an event handle that is waitable.
    9. Re:Maybe by Foolhardy · · Score: 1

      A thousand threads? What needs 1000 threads? NT as much better methods of handling multiple requests like IO completions ports (much more efficent than running one thread per transaction concurrently).

    10. Re:Maybe by spitzak · · Score: 1
      If the code was written so that character types are abstracted...

      That will not work. "abstracting" requires storage for what state the characters are in. When I get a string that says it is a filename I want to use it, not figure out what interface I need for it. By your arguments we can all be using EBCDIC as well as ASCII. Read up a little on UTF-8 before you say even more stupid things.

      Right now I cannot use the "ascii versions" to access files that are named with unicode characters, so don't give me any BS about using that. NT could easily be fixed to accept UTF-8 there, and the fact that they don't do this does not make me believe they have any idea what is going on or what is really needed.

      The Win32 API could easily have been compatable by making "//??/..../" work without using a new call. It would only be incompatable if somebody had make a zero-length file in the root directory (is this even possible?) and then a directory called "??" below that (again I believe this is impossible). Why do you think they picked such weird wording? Yet they seem intent on requiring all software and libc to be rewritten to use the new API. Either they are totally clueless, or they are purposely trying to make cross-platform compatability impossible. In either case it makes me hesitatte to trust Microsoft to design or implement anything.

      What do you want to wait on? Pending file operations?

      I want to accept a fd provided by a third party without having to know what produced it. Try writing some real software for a change and you will see what a pita this current situation is. For a company that claims it is "object oriented" they certainly have not shown any indication that they care one bit.

    11. Re:Maybe by Foolhardy · · Score: 1

      You can always convert UTF-8 to Unicode using MultiByteToWideChar and the CP_UTF8 flag.

      New API? Windows NT has always been based on Unicode, had Unicode versions of the win32 APIs, and used Unicode internally. It's not Microsoft's fault that software like libc can only handle ASCII. UTF-8 is just a hack to cram non-english characters into ASCII-compatible characters so they will be compatible with UNIX programs that can't tolerate non-ASCII character sets.

      No, it's not possible to create filenames that are empty or are named "??" with the win32 api, since ? is used as a wildcard. You can create them using the native api, as it has less checks than win32. Anyways, you can use the GLOBALROOT link or the convenient "C:" etc links to get to all of the drives, so what's the problem? I guess one problem is that the native api supports this much better, without the need for things like ??, but it's poorly documented, and not officially supported. That definitely is Microsoft's fault, but it's more political than technical.

      You expect WaitForMultipleObjects to be able to use a third party file descriptor? Either you figure out how they are doing it, or tell them (the library's developers) to support a wait function. Besides, if they just call ReadFile or whatever without specifying an event for an overlapped operation, the call is synchronous; the operation is complete when the function returns.

    12. Re:Maybe by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Before you call UTF-8 a "hack" you might want to look up "combining characters" as defined by the UTF-16 spec. A fixed-size encoding is the worng idea and will always evolve to a variable-sized one. UTF-8 can now unambigouously and simply represent all Unicode characters up through 2^31-1, and is now easier to correctly interpret than UTF-16 which can only do up to 2^20-1. Plus the obvious advantage that you don't need two interfaces to every possible service in order to preserve back-compatability.

      Converting UTF-8 to UTF-16 or UTF-32 is NOT a solution, as the mapping is not unique (due to errorneous UTF-8 sequences). This can lead to serious security and other bugs where software assummes two different strings represent two different objects. The only correct solution is to define file names and other text id's as an unambigous stream of bits with as few rules as possible (for Unix it chokes on a byte-aligned stream of 8 0 bits and a byte-aligned stream of 8 bits representing '/', this is not ideal, but a lot better than even 8-bit Windows where case-insensitivity and a large number of reserved characters breaks it).

      "wide characters" are WRONG and this has been proven over and over again by bone-headed attemts to do I18N on Unix systems. You would think Microsoft would at least observe these mistakes before repeating them. Plan9 and UTF-8 existed at the time they were designing I18N, so they have no excuse for not at least seeing the solution.

      As for "?", well somehow Unix has allowed wildcard characters to be placed into filenames for 30 years now, so you would think Microsoft could figure out how to do this. Especially since command-line parsing is done in the program rather than the shell (a good idea, imho) and thus it should be much easier on Windows than on Unix.

      The shocking thing for me however is that Windows defenders will always say "using the command line is hard" and then every possible excuse for the stupidity in the Windows file system is excused with "that makes it easier to type a file name". Hint: the only reason to type a file name is because you are using that command line!!!

  33. I don't see what the big deal is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone complains that they release buggy unfinished software. Then they decide to delay said software so it can be better and everyone complains that it is getting pushed back.

    Which one is it?

    Also, I Longhorn will be fairly hardware intensive for all the bells and whistles. I can understand them wanting to wait 2 years until more households have better PCs.

  34. It's in their best interest to release it soon(er) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because who's to say that if they release it in June 2006, most people wouldn't have already switched to (Gnu)/Linux with KDE version 5 or something? People often discredit Linux-on-the-desktop, but it's *vastly* improved just over the past year or so, and by the time longhorn actually comes out it may be an overall better solution.

    Another thing that comes to mind after viewing some of the latest builds of longhorn is that people might actually be more familiar with KDE or GNOME than they will be with this strange new GUI MS is putting into it. KDE will probably have more in common with the Windows 2000 desktop than this new 'task based blah blah tech-support-nightmare' that we'll probably see in longhorn.

  35. Wow, in Plain English!! by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 4, Funny
    Microsoft's Breyer also made clear that the company does not guarantee any upgrades during the term of customers' contracts.

    We made them think they would, but the fine print said they probably wouldn't.

    "This is an important consideration that Microsoft's customers take into account when purchasing Software Assurance,

    We try to steer around the topic.

    which is a long-term, ongoing relationship between Microsoft and its customers, and a great deal of value comes from staying on SA long-term," she said.

    As the chef Elzar would say (in an Australian accent): "Try the Microsoft Software Assurance program. It has the biggest profit margin." The great deal of value comes when you give Microsoft money.

    --
    ...just my 2 gil.
    1. Re:Wow, in Plain English!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is a perfect example of Microsoft PR responding to Microsoft licensing issues. Notice that Breyer is basically saying the following (my rewording of the above statements):

      "Under the Microsoft Software Assurance Program, the customer is under obligation to give Microsoft money, but Microsoft is not contractually obliged to provide ANY goods or services. If you stay with SA long-term, you'll probably eventually get something for your money."

      Who deals with companies like this???

    2. Re:Wow, in Plain English!! by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      Elzar's accent is (New) New Yawk, not Strine.

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  36. Even though I'm using Windows... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...I can't really say this really bothers me at all (yeah yeah, then just move on to next article, right?). But come on, what do I really expect? More eyecandy. More "protection from myself". More Messenger, WMP and goodness what else providing "integrated Windows features that can't be removed and keep nagging you".

    Btw, is anyone else having the problem that burning CDs, and opening CDs without autorun, it never seems to remember the non-MS default that I select (Nero and "do nothing", respectively), even if I check the appropriate box? I'm sure that wouldn't happen if I went down the One Microsoft Way... The question is, will Longhorn finally annoy me enough to make me jump ship? Oh well maybe I'll have to wait a year longer for the answer. Boo-hoo.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...I can't really say this really bothers me at all (yeah yeah, then just move on to next article, right?). But come on, what do I really expect? More eyecandy.

      The desktop will be hardware accelerated DirectX, so eyecandy won't slow things down.

      More "protection from myself".

      People always play this card without citing a single example in XP. Can you?

      More Messenger, WMP and goodness what else providing "integrated Windows features that can't be removed and keep nagging you".

      How do they keep nagging you? I don't ever use WMP, and I removed Messenger at least a year ago.

      I'm not having your CD problem at all. I'm using the latest Nero 6.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    2. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      I'm not having your CD problem at all. I'm using the latest Nero 6."

      Does anyone else see the irony/hypocracy in this with regards to the article? When windows breaks and we have to upgrade to fix it, we get annoyed. When smaller programs need to be fixed by future versions we just accept it.

    3. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Gah! A Windows zealot! Run for your life!

    4. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by timiscool999 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Use the group policy editor to turn off Autoplay. That's the surefire way to do it. If you ever need to use the autoplay app, then you can just run it yourself.

      To do what I did:
      -Go to Start->Run and type "mmc"
      -Go to File->Add/Remove Snap-in
      -Click "add" and then "add" the Group Policy Editor
      -Most likely you'll connect to the local machine
      -"Close" then "OK"
      -Under LocalComputerPolicy/ComputerConfiguration/Administ rativeTemplates/System there is an option to "Turn off Autoplay." Enable that option.

      Now you're set. No more DVDs will ever install Interact automatically without your knowledge!

    5. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      If my kernel was broken and I was forced to upgrade... it would _piss_ me off.

      Okay, so I could just switch over to the already compiled and installed 2.6.0-test4 that's fairly functional sitting in my bootloader... but it would still piss me off... and you can't just switch to the next kernel in windows... lol.

      That reminds me, I need to get the mixer working under 2.6... and I need grsecurity to support it soon too...

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    6. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People always play this card without citing a single example in XP. Can you?

      In Win2k and I believe XP why does it make me do a extra click everytime I go into one of the system folders? I know I want to be in there or else I wouldn't have gone to the folder. I could understand it warning me once, but every single time I enter the folder. I'm sure your going to say there is a registry hack out there to change this behavior, but I shouldn't have to be hacking the registry to put some sane behavior into my OS.

      Another example is the XP search. When I go to do a search it makes me select some kind of search when all I want is to type a search string and go.

      It is all these extra clicks in Win2k and now XP that bug the hell out of me. From the screenshots of longhorn I doubt I will be able to get any windows dev done w/o jumping through hoops just to open a file.

      Just to keep a bit on topic, let me give you my take on the delay. I think that MS is feeling the corporate backlash of forcing corps to upgrade, and not have the corps feel as though they got anything out of the money they spent. Many CTOs are sitting around wondering what XP gives them on a corp desktop that Win2k doesn't(I'm actually wondering too :) . The magazine and TV ads have all pointed to a more secure system, but we have seen how that panned out. So, in closing I think MS is now waiting for (or trying to find) a new "killer" tech to put into Longhorn so that there will be a clear reason to upgrade.

    7. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by SirDaShadow · · Score: 1

      >In Win2k and I believe XP why does it make me do a extra click everytime I go into one of the system folders? I know I want to be in there or else I wouldn't have gone to the folder

      WHAT? On ALL versions of Windows, it will warn you ONCE and only once...is he trolling or something?

    8. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by e_AltF4 · · Score: 1

      ...I can't really say this really bothers me at all (yeah yeah, then just move on to next article, right?). But come on, what do I really expect? More eyecandy.

      The desktop will be hardware accelerated DirectX, so eyecandy won't slow things down.


      We really need a hardware accelerated DirectX desktop for a want-to-be-your-server-OS .... NOT.


      More "protection from myself".

      People always play this card without citing a single example in XP. Can you?


      Windows File Protection (WFP)
      DRM support that's part of the Windows Media Player
      Registration + Re-Registration on HW changs
      Nice Messenger running by default and needs a guru to remove
      etc.

      Just get XPAntiSpy and check what it disables and why :-)

      More Messenger, WMP and goodness what else providing "integrated Windows features that can't be removed and keep nagging you".

      How do they keep nagging you? I don't ever use WMP, and I removed Messenger at least a year ago.
      I'm not having your CD problem at all. I'm using the latest Nero 6.


      I'm not having your CD problem at all. I'm using SuSE 8.2 :-)

    9. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >The desktop will be hardware accelerated DirectX, so eyecandy won't slow things down.

      That's not his point, he's suggesting that the new version is eyecandy - not extra functionability. When I use XP I immediatly goto the "classic" theme and make it show the standard desktop icons just to be able to use the damn thing. I certainly am not alone in that regard.

      >People always play this card without citing a single example in XP. Can you?

      The above. The "are you sure you want to view these system folders" screen. The crippled search option until you change folder options to show "hidden" and system files. The hiding of tray icons, some of the 'inactive' ones are pretty important.

      >How do they keep nagging you?

      Here's a default Dell computer with Office. Try to just close, let alone remove, messenger. "Sorry, another program is using this." Umm, who? Its outlook, but it won't tell you that. So for millions of people it sits there wasting RAM because they can't close it. More WMP means more browser intgration and DRM. Some people don't like that.

      >I'm not having your CD problem at all.

      This problem is fairly common and a few good google searches brings up a few solutions.

      Regardless, I have yet to see a good reason to move from 2000 to XP. System restore is tempting but not needed. When technophobes ask me why they can't just get Windows 2000, which they know pretty well, on their new computer I tell them its because Microsoft doesn't want them to. Learn XP or find your old 2K CD.

      The same could be true for Longhorn, the desktop model of computing is actually pretty simple and more bloat and pretty colors doesn't help - it hinders. I'd rather see effort put into the applications than the OS. Ideally, the OS shouldn't be the selling point, the apps should be. Pretty colors and 3D shouldn't be applauded, good HCI practices should be.

    10. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      My install of win2k at work could be borked, but it does ask me everytime I go into a system folder. Maybe windows just knows that I really shouldn't be in there :p

      BTW, I don't think it started warning you until Win2k+.

    11. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      On ALL versions of Windows, it will warn you ONCE and only once...is he trolling or something?

      Um, wrong. It warns you once per folder per login session. So you get warned when you go into WINNT then again when you go into System32. Log out and log back in, get warned all over again. Are you trolling or something?

    12. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      In Win2k and I believe XP why does it make me do a extra click everytime I go into one of the system folders?

      Because people snooping around will realize it's a system folder they shouldn't be poking around in, and power users will just *click* the Show Content link and never see it again. How is this a problem?

      I know I want to be in there or else I wouldn't have gone to the folder. I could understand it warning me once, but every single time I enter the folder.

      Um, it only shows it the very first time.

      I'm sure your going to say there is a registry hack out there to change this behavior, but I shouldn't have to be hacking the registry to put some sane behavior into my OS.

      You're right. So just click Show Content and it won't ever show ever again. Or you could just uncheck the freaking box in Folder Options.

      I'm always amazed at people who can hack up X config scripts yet are stumped by the simplest Windows options.

      Another example is the XP search. When I go to do a search it makes me select some kind of search when all I want is to type a search string and go.

      So hit the top link, All Files and do it.

      It is all these extra clicks in Win2k and now XP that bug the hell out of me.

      What extra clicks in 2k?

      From the screenshots of longhorn I doubt I will be able to get any windows dev done w/o jumping through hoops just to open a file.

      Doubtful. A bit initiative for Longhorn is easier access to files, particularly gigabytes of it. You'll be able to search absolutely everything.

      Just to keep a bit on topic, let me give you my take on the delay. I think that MS is feeling the corporate backlash of forcing corps to upgrade, and not have the corps feel as though they got anything out of the money they spent. Many CTOs are sitting around wondering what XP gives them on a corp desktop that Win2k doesn't(I'm actually wondering too :) . The magazine and TV ads have all pointed to a more secure system, but we have seen how that panned out. So, in closing I think MS is now waiting for (or trying to find) a new "killer" tech to put into Longhorn so that there will be a clear reason to upgrade.

      Honestly, I think the delay is just getting the technology working. Apparently, they're working on a completely new, photorealistic interface called Aero that, coupled with the hardware-accelerated desktop, is going to blow people away. They're talking about not even releasing preliminary shots of it for fear that people will steal their ideas.

      Yeah, yeah, call me a Microsoft shill. I follow this stuff.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    13. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Um, it only shows it the very first time.

      Actually I just tested it on a Win2k laptop I have here and it does ask once per login. Since I log out of my box everyday it does appear to be asking me everytime. So, I was wrong in my initial claim of it asking everything, but it does ask more than once(at least in Win2k).

      So hit the top link, All Files and do it.

      That is still an extra click I must do. Why not take me right to a search box that already has focus so I don't have to go back to the mouse?

      I'm always amazed at people who can hack up X config scripts yet are stumped by the simplest Windows options.

      I gave up hacking X scripts awhile back. RH 9 just worked out of the box and I haven't done any real hacking yet. I want my OS just to work so I don't have to think about it. I don't need it getting in my way everytime I need to do something.

      Apparently, they're working on a completely new, photorealistic interface called Aero that, coupled with the hardware-accelerated desktop, is going to blow people away.

      I like eye-candy like the best of them. At the end of the day though, if it doesn't help me complete my job any faster or even worse slows me down then I don't want any part of it. It is funny that the tech people I talk to(even the pro MS ones) say frequently that they plan to stick with Win2k indefinitely. If all MS has is some new game like interface they are going to be hard pressed to sell it to the corps.

    14. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by aelfwyne · · Score: 1

      Actually, WFP is not protection from yourself. By no means. In fact, WFP is probably the #1 feature of 2k/XP that has almost completely halted the old phenomenon of Windows "OS Decay", where an install of windows would degrade in quality over time.

      Why is WFP good and how does it do that? Well... If you are like most users and install/uninstall apps, there's a good chance in the older OS's that this would degrade your system. Various versions of VisualBASIC installers, as well as other badly designed installers would overwrite existing DLL's regardless of version.

      Such changes could result in Windows ME running with DLL's (the most common IIRC was ctl3d.dll or something like that) which dated back to Windows 3.1! I have *seen* it. Often, it won't complain right away as basic function calls are the same. But some apps will fail if they use newer function calls, and incompatibilities can result in "unexplained" lockups, etc..

      For example, take your typical Win98SE install. A new feature back then was System File Checker. Why was it necessary? Because the System Files would get corrupted or replaced as I explained above. Take a 98SE machine that's been in operation for a year or so, and had programs installed/uninstalled. Run SFC tool. See exactly how many out of date DLL's were put on top of more current ones.

      So... don't just assume because a feature is an annoyance, that it doesn't help protect the system. That's the kind of logic that makes Linux users login as root to surf the net.

      --
      -- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
    15. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by urmensch · · Score: 1

      You're right. So just click Show Content and it won't ever show ever again. Or you could just uncheck the freaking box in Folder Options.

      I click this every time I relog in and I have the freaking box unchecked so I shouldn't see it at all. ;(

    16. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The desktop will be hardware accelerated DirectX, so eyecandy won't slow things down.
      If you think Windows Longhorn is going to be faster than 2000 or XP because of this you're kidding your goddamned self kid. 2000 and XP are already hardware accelerated in 2D. You fucking putz.

      People always play this card without citing a single example in XP. Can you?
      I think he did in a reply. You don't mind clicking "yes please show me the goddamn system32 directory" every single time you need in the goddamn thing? You don't mind a simple fucking shit-code driver rendering the whole goddamn system unusable without resorting to cheap fucking hacks like the System Restore in XP??

      How do they keep nagging you? I don't ever use WMP...
      Well two fucking cheers for you mate! That's not the goddamned point! You can't remove the goddamn software at all! No other operating system in the whole fucking world requires a fucking media player to be functional. Any, and I mean any distribution of Linux? Doesn't need xmms or fucking mplayer or xine just to goddamn run!
      Mac OS X? Either opt out of the install of iTunes or drag the fucker to the trash to be rid of it. Jesus Hebrew Christ you don't have to have Quicktime installed to have an OS that doesn't barf on you.

      You fucking sheep MicroSoft fanboy. You and your ilk make me fucking sick taking up for the largest, most evil fucking corporation in the whole goddamn world. Do you not realize how fucking shitty the corporate computing landscape is thanks to MicroSoft and uninformed fucking fanboys like yourself?
      Obviously the only Windows machine you've had to keep up and running is your own.
      Let me tell you kid that keeping a whole company's (read 1500+/-) Windows network and machines from fucking eating itself is a fucking torture I wouldn't wish on anybody, even you poster boy.
      Keep fucking pushing MicroSoft and see what it gets everyone in about 15 years.

    17. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've heard all of these and numerous others. The point is, it's a new learning curve without the benefit of any new functionality. Hell, I'd keep my old OS for that if it didn't mean I couldn't open a damn email or upgrade half my software! Oh, that also means buying new hardware?


      All the benefits are for the corporations controling the technology! Why do we still have to pay for it?

    18. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by lsdino · · Score: 1

      Just FYI: In Folder Options (Start->Control Panel->Folder Options) there's a choice on the View tab "Display the contents of system folders". You want to check this, and your "problem" will go away. No registry key setting necessary.

    19. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mmmm ...

      In the final analysis LongHorn is just another iteration of the Windows NT kernel with a new file system ... not a radical change. (That's supposed to come with BlackComb - which seems to be being put on the backburner as MS tries to make yet another passle of cash from the NT cash-cow.)

      Yawn.

      There have been rumours that BlackComb would be a UNIX look-alike (perhaps ripping the core of FreeBSD and whacking a shell on it) but if MS has to incorporate all the Win32, ActiveX, .NET and other code it will be a totally different beast to the NIX's we all know.

      Just my 2 cents worth ...

    20. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      When I use XP I immediatly goto the "classic" theme and make it show the standard desktop icons just to be able to use the damn thing. I certainly am not alone in that regard.

      I use OSX, and while the Aqua theme is vastly better than Luna, I use a piece of software called Duality to get (mostly) the Platinum theme from classic Mac OS (it's not exactly the same as Platinum, but it's reasonable).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    21. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by qtp · · Score: 1

      If you are like most users and install/uninstall apps, there's a good chance in the older OS's that this would degrade your system.

      I think you mean "older verions of Windows".

      I have never run into this problem in non-Microsoft operating systems.

      I am amazed at how much difficulty Windows has with recognising the current version of a file.

      (example: when using the MS Baseline security analyzer, I am constantly warned about files being a later version than the reccomended patch. I have to assume that Microsoft would not allow a later version of a file to reintroduce a flaw that an earlier patch was released for. I fail to understand how the designers of the BASA did not see the usefulness in having the program only look for the latest file version included in all of the patches that the BASA is looking for.)

      I also wonder why I must go to more than one update site to update machines if I want to keep the Office installs up to date as well. If the Windows Update site is capable of knowing what version and patch I have of Explorer and MediaPlayer, then why can it not do the same for Office? And why do I have to cart around all of the Office install disks in order to upgrade from the network? And why do I have to reboot in order to upgrade an application?

      Compared to my prefered environment (Debian), Windows is a royal pain in the ass to maintain.

      --
      Read, L
    22. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by J-B0nd · · Score: 1

      >Regardless, I have yet to see a good reason to move from 2000 to XP. If you asked me a week ago, I would have agreed unconditionally. However, the one thing tempting me that I recently found out is that Adobe Premiere Pro v7.0 for XP ONLY works on Windows XP. Since I'm big into video editing and compositing, I was really looking forward to being able to use Premiere Pro. Now I'm seriously considering upgrading.

    23. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Display the contents of system folder"

      That option isn't in 2k. At least not in the location you describe it. If you find it in 2k please post again as I too would like to turn off this annoying feature.

    24. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add Remove Nero as AutoPlay Handler
      Copyright 2002 - Doug Knox
      http://www.dougknox.com/
      Quit crying!

    25. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by nathanh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's not his point, he's suggesting that the new version is eyecandy - not extra functionability. When I use XP I immediatly goto the "classic" theme and make it show the standard desktop icons just to be able to use the damn thing. I certainly am not alone in that regard.

      Sure, and there were people who said the same thing about Windows 95 and the "Windows 3.1 look" option that it offered. "I'll never change" they declared. But eventually Microsoft will deprecate the old look and you'll be forced to change.

      Every generation goes through the same phases. New and shiny. I'll never change. Remember the good old days. You're in stage 2.

    26. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Refrag · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      The desktop will be hardware accelerated DirectX, so eyecandy won't slow things down.
      Wow! Just like Macintosh has had for about a year now with Mac OS X Jaguar -- only using the industry standard OpenGL instead of a proprietary version.
      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    27. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Refrag · · Score: 1

      If you're big into video editing, why are you using Premiere?

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    28. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to my prefered environment (Debian), Windows is a royal pain in the ass to maintain

      Keep in mind that Debian has assumed Internet connectivity from the very beginning, while Windows did not.

      The reason you find all those "system" DLLs in Windows installer packages is because customers had no reasonable way of getting updated DLLs from Microsoft, except with program disks.

      Now that does not excuse various deplorable behavior (downgrading, deleting dlls) from the developers, but without using a time machine, Microsoft has no way of fixing all of those installer. So, "System File Protection" was a reasonable kludge.

      I have never run into this problem in non-Microsoft operating systems.

      Used to be fairly common on MacOS as well. ("No, I was running QuickTime 3! How did QuickTime 1 get there!?")

    29. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's not his point, he's suggesting that the new version is eyecandy - not extra functionability. When I use XP I immediatly goto the "classic" theme and make it show the standard desktop icons just to be able to use the damn thing. I certainly am not alone in that regard.

      You'll be able to do the same in Longhorn.

      The above. The "are you sure you want to view these system folders" screen.

      Again, it's a one-time thing. You click the link and it's gone.

      The crippled search option until you change folder options to show "hidden" and system files. The hiding of tray icons, some of the 'inactive' ones are pretty important.

      So turn auto-hide OFF! Come on--this is getting ridiculous. If, as you claim, you went so far as to configure the Start Menu back to Classic Mode, that means you had gone to Taskbar properties...and what checkbox is that right at the bottom? It makes me think you're trolling.

      Here's a default Dell computer with Office. Try to just close, let alone remove, messenger. "Sorry, another program is using this." Umm, who? Its outlook, but it won't tell you that.

      I will grant you that this is a retarded annoyance put in just to shove Messenger down our throats. Turn off messenging in Outlook. Then add the .inf for Messenger so you can uninstall it.

      So for millions of people it sits there wasting RAM because they can't close it. More WMP means more browser intgration and DRM. Some people don't like that.

      WMP9 asks you to configure its options the very minute you start it up. You can maintain your privacy easily and turn off all the digital rights management and song lookups. I don't know what you mean about browser integration because I said "No" when it asked me the first time--and it never did again. Of course, I now use Mozilla so the point is moot anyway.

      Regardless, I have yet to see a good reason to move from 2000 to XP. System restore is tempting but not needed. When technophobes ask me why they can't just get Windows 2000, which they know pretty well, on their new computer I tell them its because Microsoft doesn't want them to. Learn XP or find your old 2K CD.

      Oh, please.

      People, Windows XP was a home-oriented release to get people off the 9x codebase. XP does have several enhancements over Windows 2000, in the kernel and in the user area, so there is of course a Professional version if people want to use it for their workstations. But the big deal about XP was the sudden injection of actual stability over the stinking pile of horseshit that was Windows 95 through ME (you wanna talk about bullshit Windows releases, read up on ME sometime). XP was geared toward home users. If you're using 2000 at work and it's fine for you, stick with it. Surely this is obvious.

      The only reason I have XP and not 2000 on my laptop is because 2000 has generally crummy laptop support (the whole thing started slowing down and acting peculiar on me). XP runs like a dream. I tried Linux but I can't even get APM to work correctly no matter which distro or configuration I try.

      The same could be true for Longhorn, the desktop model of computing is actually pretty simple and more bloat and pretty colors doesn't help - it hinders. I'd rather see effort put into the applications than the OS. Ideally, the OS shouldn't be the selling point, the apps should be. Pretty colors and 3D shouldn't be applauded, good HCI practices should be.

      Visual cues are very important. And when people are spending all their working day sitting in front of Windows, it's more efficient and reduces fatigue to not have stark gray boxes but instead pleasant, flowing lines. Apple spends millions on this kind of research. So does Microsoft. They wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't a reason. I for one would love a beautiful OS to work in. There is nothing wrong with things fading in and out because it makes your work experience more seamless. An

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    30. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Every generation goes through the same phases. New and shiny. I'll never change. Remember the good old days. You're in stage 2.

      Oh please, don't attribute some hackneyed excuse to a person you don't know. I'm almost 30 and have used home computers since I was a kid. I taught myself basic on a trs-80 and have used and gotten used to something like a dozen different OS's and their variations. Not to mention played with more themes than I care to remember.

      XP comes out of the box with common functionality missing: the My X icons. We're not at the point where the average user can go without these. Even the lowliest technophobe will be instructed to do something with these icons when there's a problem or even through normal computer use.

      The colors are garish and annoying. That's subjective, but show me a good looking piece of software with contrasting primary colors. There isn't too much out there.

      Yes, humans are animals of habit, but there's a big difference between nostalgia and hiding system functionality and a terrible attempt at improving the old desktop model.

    31. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >People, Windows XP was a home-oriented release to get people off the 9x codebase.

      Now you're being naive. MS had no problem pushing 2K out to home users. XP is very much an unneeded revenue generator. It produced a lot of hype, some changes, and made MS a bundle. Remember: MS's greatest competitor is itself, it needs stuff like XP every so often so people see the OS as a premium item that is worth upgrading to the same way Intel markets clock-speed not benchmarks to the home user.

      That's how you run a profitable monopoly.

      See Also: Windows ME
      See Also: The Megahertz Myth

    32. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Brewdles · · Score: 1
      'Does anyone else see the irony/hypocracy in this with regards to the article? When windows breaks and we have to upgrade to fix it, we get annoyed. When smaller programs need to be fixed by future versions we just accept it.'

      Except that Nero updates aren't really fixing anything - they're actually adding functionality. CD/DVD burners have advanced a lot, and you'll need to upgrade the software to use all of those dot-points you saw on the side of the box of your new hardware.

      App updates like that just aren't the same as OS patches - you're not updating because you were given a sub-par product, you're updating because you want new features.

    33. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Well, Apple just did that. And it seems to have done well. Of course, what they really did was fund several years of development of the OpenStep APIs and they're quietly shuffling the old stuff under the rug.

      If Microosft can put a better kernel under their stuff, that'd be good. But I don't really see them rewriting everything in the new paradigm, since I don't believe .NET is going to be the "current big thing" when BlackComb ships. So that'll still leave them with an awful lot of Win32 baggage, and there's no road forward outside of their R&D labs.

      I see a clear OS X advantage going forward, Apple has a better thechnology now.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    34. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Though Microsoft is being a bit more ambitious with the 3D effects according to their tech demos. But by then, OS X should be pretty advanced as well. We'll have to see.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    35. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm almost 30 and blah blah blah.

      That only reinforces the parent's point. Stage Two, old man.

      Yours Truely,
      -- Stage Three

    36. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      We really need a hardware accelerated DirectX desktop for a want-to-be-your-server-OS .... NOT.

      Longhorn isn't a server OS. Next.

      Windows File Protection (WFP)

      This is no different than the system files in Linux being accessible only by root.

      DRM support that's part of the Windows Media Player

      What DRM support? You mean that checkbox that comes up the very first time when you run WMP9? The one that asks you to set up all the privacy options right from the start? It's three simple checkboxes--song lookup, media file lookup, and automatically grabbing licenses for copyrighted content. No DRM at all.

      Registration + Re-Registration on HW changs

      I've never encountered that, and in fact, SP1 increase the leeway for hardware changes. It's not even an issue and I doubt you've ever come across it (in other words, you're just making up issues you've never even experienced).

      Nice Messenger running by default and needs a guru to remove

      Agreed. Though it doesn't require a "guru" whatsoever.

      I'm not having your CD problem at all. I'm using SuSE 8.2 :-)

      No kidding. You're struggling with trying to read the ugly-ass font rendering on this web page right now. ;)

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    37. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      If you think Windows Longhorn is going to be faster than 2000 or XP because of this you're kidding your goddamned self kid. 2000 and XP are already hardware accelerated in 2D. You fucking putz.

      No, it's not.

      I think he did in a reply. You don't mind clicking "yes please show me the goddamn system32 directory" every single time you need in the goddamn thing?

      It only shows it the first time. If it keeps showing it for you, uncheck the little easy box in Folder Options. Another non-issue.

      You don't mind a simple fucking shit-code driver rendering the whole goddamn system unusable without resorting to cheap fucking hacks like the System Restore in XP??

      Um, badly coded drivers take down any OS.

      Let me tell you kid that keeping a whole company's (read 1500+/-) Windows network and machines from fucking eating itself is a fucking torture I wouldn't wish on anybody, even you poster boy.

      I know you're just a badly worded troll, but I've been running Windows and UNIX and now Linux networks for a decade.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    38. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The desktop will be hardware accelerated DirectX, so eyecandy won't slow things down.



      Only if you buy new and faster graphics hardware.



      And that's really the main reason for LongHorn, after windows has forced people to buy faster CPU's and bigger harddrives and more RAM for years, now the graphics card manufacturers want to be part of the deal also. So when LongHorn comes out, it is going to force people to buy the newest GF6 ultra extreme. And that's just to be able to use windows for writing a letter.


    39. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The "are you sure you want to view these system folders" screen.

      That also happens in Windows 2000, of course - and just as in 2k, the first time it happens, just click the "Show me the files" link and it never bothers you again.

      The crippled search option until you change folder options to show "hidden" and system files.

      Also true of 2k. Again, turn it off once, and it's gone.

      The hiding of tray icons, some of the 'inactive' ones are pretty important.

      Okay, that's new in XP - but again, you can turn it off if you don't like it, or set the individual important ones to "always show".

      There are plenty of things to rail against Microsoft for, but easily-changed options and a GUI that you don't like because it's different aren't very good ones, imho.

    40. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP boots a lot faster than W2K. It also has much better wireless support.

    41. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by EddWo · · Score: 1

      If you have installed WMP9 have a look in device mangager, show hidden devices, go to "sound, video and game controllers".

      See something called "Microsoft Kernel DRM Audio Descrambler"?

      Thats DRM, you get it with WMP9 wether you want it installed or not. It doesn't do anything unless you are trying to play back a DRM protected track.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    42. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Refrag · · Score: 1

      Well, I wouldn't call their 3D effects more ambitious, but they are definitely more silly. :p I don't really want my windows to wave around like a flag while I move them across the screen. I like Mac OS better, our windows must have more starch.

      It's sad (for Microsoft) that Apple was able to do this several years before Microsoft without even controlling their own graphics API like Microsoft.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    43. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      "The above. The "are you sure you want to view these system folders" screen. The crippled search option until you change folder options to show "hidden" and system files. The hiding of tray icons, some of the 'inactive' ones are pretty important."

      So you're complaining because the system is geared for newbies who may turn that feature off and trash their system, whereas all it does for you is bug you once for a mouse click, which you're never bugged for again?

      Of course, I do have complaints of my own regarding Windows Explorer (which make the above pale in comparison), like how it spontaneously forgets its folder views (for example, when you set it to show the detailed view in all folders, but you come back later and find it dragging things out by showing thumbnails). The only solution is right click, select the view of choice, go to the tools/options and set all folders to look like the directory I just adjusted the view on, hoping it stays the same this time around. THAT is a pain.

      Another annoyance, is when you're saving graphics to disk from IE, it also insists on showing thumbnails every single time. Even though that helps some folks to avoid redundant files, it's still a nuisance. This occurs even if you turn off thumbnail caching in XP.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    44. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      "What DRM Support?" There's a s**tload of it

      Here's my story.

      Last spring, I was taking a computer animation class that involved making a 3-5 minute video for the final project. I had a 30 second opening clip that I needed a static screenshot from. I opened it in Windows Media Player, figuring I could just take a screenshot and crop off what I needed. I successfully took the screenshot and pasted it into my image editor program...but when I tried to save the image, only the text I had added in the image editor program saved...the screenshot I had pasted in from WMP never got written to disk even though it appeared in the image editor program. When I closed WMP, the screenshot data DISAPPEARED and all I was left with was the text i had typed in seperately. Now tell me that WMP doesn't have DRM or excessive OS integration.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    45. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a loser :)

    46. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1
      "Regardless, I have yet to see a good reason to move from 2000 to XP."

      Ditto. In fact, when I bought a surplused laptop from my last employer, and it came with Windows 98 instead of 2K server (which was what we'd been using), I was ecstatic. At least on the laptops, 2K server was much, much slower; I'm told this was at least partly the disk drivers. Since I don't need anything from 2K server at home, I'm sticking with 98. It's fast, small, and does everything I need it to do (run a handful of tools, and a game now and then).

    47. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      Windows Explorer sucks. One of the things I missed the most after migrating from the Amiga to PC in the early nineties was a good file manager tool. I suffered Windows Explorer and its patethic rivals until GPSoftware finally finished their port of Directory Opus to Windows. DOpus is so powerful, elegant and robust that it puts every other file manager to shame. So, er, just throw away that stupid Windows Explorer and try DOpus. It's a real eye opener.

    48. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by SirDaShadow · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I use Windows XP and I don't have this problem. Seems like it only happens on Win2k. Here is the answer: Annoyances

  37. It will be ready when the develpers say so by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1


    Could it be that Microsoft is now taking a page the Linux kernel development model?

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  38. That's Not The Point by weston · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's not the point here. The "when it's ready" release schedule in the open source world is a great thing. If MS has learned that lesson, we should all be clapping. MS may never give us open source/libre software, but if they produce good software vs "good enough" software, the world will be that much better.

    However... the point here is that Microsoft is creating an incredible window of opportunity here for their competitors. OS X is a better desktop system than Win XP. The open source desktops, perpetually behind, may well have time to catch up. Perhaps more importantly, with no new release of Internet Explorer in the works for the next two or more years, people might start to learn to look for alternatives and download browsers again. We could see a resurgence of competition and innovation in the web browser space -- and we'll probably get more standards compliant browsers in the mix.

    In short, yeah, it's great to pillory Microsoft, but the big news here is not the egg on their face. It's the chance to show them up, and take part of their marketshare again, while their product line is aging, their reputation for security is trashed, their licensing policies are painful, I/T budgets are tight, and really, who has actual *affection* left for them anymore?

    1. Re:That's Not The Point by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1


      MS may never give us open source/libre software, but if they produce good software vs "good enough" software, the world will be that much better.

      Hey wait, isn't that MS's current advertising catchphrase? (at least on the radio)

      "You know the type. Everything's good enough. No matter what the problem is, it's good enough. But while that approach may be okay for an old AC unit, it's definitely not okay for an OS. Now's the time to upgrade to Windows XP professional."

      -a

    2. Re:That's Not The Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just FUD
      MAC OS X is probably better as desktop.. but wtf ? you use desktop not to look at nice pictures or menus - you use it to launch applications! got the point ? apps for mac os x are numbered
      wtf ? IE sin't standards-compliant browser ? then obviously you never coded JS in NN 4.x
      ah yeah.. and microsoft gonna be loser...
      that's what i call a wishful thinking

  39. Software Assurance by VikingBrad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Isn't it strange now that MS have migrated most of their customers to Software Assurance that gives customers rights to new versions of the software that new releases are coming out more slowly.

    XP came out within 2 years of 2K but now they look like 4 years from XP to the next version. I remember some analysts at the time were saying that Software Assurance only was good value if upgrades came out more often than once every 3 years. Now it looks like it would have been cheaper to not buy Software Assurance and just re-buy a new license when the new version becomes available. Or use an OS with less restrictive licensing ;-)

    Cheers

    VikingBrad

  40. Needs a Better Name by handy_vandal · · Score: 5, Funny


    Instead of calling it "Longhorn",
    I think they should call it "Shorthair",
    as in the phrase,
    "We've got you by the short hairs now."

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Needs a Better Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's short and curlies and longhorn is a code name

    2. Re:Needs a Better Name by El · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why change it? Anybody that has seen an adult male longhorn can tell you, it's really a lot of bull!

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    3. Re:Needs a Better Name by simetra · · Score: 1

      I think it'll be shipping with a tie-in promotional product, like a bottle of KC Masterpiece BBQ Sauce.

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    4. Re:Needs a Better Name by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Funny

      "We've got you by the short hairs now."

      So now I have to wear this tin hat and shave my balls? Christ, Linux is not improving my odds with the ladies. Maybe I should get a mac now.

    5. Re:Needs a Better Name by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Christ, Linux is not improving my odds with the ladies. Maybe I should get a mac now."

      Giving up on women altogether?

      *rimshot*

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  41. Slight change in business, no big deal by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This means that Microsoft's marketing division hasn't figured out how to get businesses to upgrade next year, especially when you factor in the less than avid response to Windows XP and their recent security problems. In addition, Linux shows no signs of slowing up, and Novell may even be making a small come back (emphasis on the word "small"). This means that Microsoft will seek revenue from licences and Office while spending the real money on figuring out how to stop IBM.

    Expect to see a lot of other smaller, less significant Microsoft software hitting shelves in the next two years (at least twice as much as usual) while Microsoft targets the datacenter with their R&D budget, and outfits like SCO with their legal purse.

  42. What? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The complete opposite is true. Microsoft is well-known for missing release dates. At least three of the previous releases of Windows were at least two years late.

    The whole .NET was announced at least three years ago. Instead of complaining, lets take solace in the fact that they're at least trying to get it right, instead of some "release early, release often" schedule...

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of complaining, lets take solace in the fact that they're at least trying to get it right, instead of some "release early, release often" schedule...

      I'd rather complain.

    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except the problem is this Microsoft vaporware is a huge problem in the computer world. Microsoft can announce virtually any product as a response to some competitor, promise it'll be better, and then get around to actually writing it months later. In the mean time, a lot of people end up not buying the competitor's product simply because they either know the MS version will eventually be widely used, or they can't explain to the PHB why they want to buy one thing now instead of buying a non-existant product from MS. If it weren't for the fact that MS had such a stronghold over revenue gathering on every PC sold, they wouldn't have the money to weather the period to actually produce every single vaporware product they've made (let alone the one's they've not made and instead watched the competitor die from customers expecting an MS offering any day or MS seemingly preparing to buy out the company). Breaking MS's stronghold over Windows sales is the beginning of real competition in the computer industry.

      (Note: I'm obviously using a loose definition of vaporware, as often enough MS does actually eventually produce the product they stated. Usually, it's less than expected, later than expected, and really not worth having waited for. Thankfully games don't interoperate with the OS much or MS would have crushed the PC gaming industry a long time ago.)

    3. Re:What? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, look, no matter what Microsoft does, people bitch. Now they can't even announce their product line without it being an evil conspiracy.

      Let's use this opportunity to finish playing catchup and then surpass them. People have been saying Linux is "ready for the desktop" since 1999, and it's just not, at least not with current offerings. Let's get to work!

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:What? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      Then again if they push the date outside of the contracts (the pre purchase of future releases) that M$ forced business into, then business will have to buy again, what they already bought.

      More dollars without service. It is nice to see marketing get back into the driver seat at M$.

    5. Re:What? by Unregistered · · Score: 4, Funny

      or MS would have crushed the PC gaming industry a long time ago

      Instead of leaving that up to EA?

    6. Re:What? by torpor · · Score: 1

      Lest ye forget 'announce early to confuse your enemies customers' is a Gates mantra from the 80's. I'm not even going to give you a history lesson.

      He's mastered this by now. It ain't no conspiracy.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    7. Re:What? by olderchurch · · Score: 1

      Well, look, no matter what Microsoft does, people bitch.

      Yeah, isn't it nice!

      --
      Disclaimer: This opinion was created without the use of any facts
    8. Re:What? by glwtta · · Score: 1
      Well, look, no matter what Microsoft does, people bitch.

      And no matter what I do, MS fucks me in the ass. At least we are both consistent.

      Let's use this opportunity to finish playing catchup and then surpass them.

      Cool! What are you going to be doing?

      (Incidentally, is there a single cliche more ridden into the ground than "ready for the desktop"?)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    9. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " People have been saying Linux is "ready for the desktop" since 1999, and it's just not, "

      ,.... waaaaa,...!
      ok, maybe kde 3.1 isn't that stable yet. ( but it's major eye candy and will be stable soon, have yuou seen it? )
      http://www.kde.org/screenshots/images/3.1/fulls ize /1.png

      What about Gnome2 and kde 3.0?

      (you can use linux without even knowing what a command line is now,...)
      http://www.gnome.org/start/2.0/screensho ts/csm-des ktop.png
      http://www.kde.org/screenshots/images/11 52x864/kde 300-snapshot3-1152x864.jpg

      -i'm not even talking about stability just appearance. should i mention the stability difference between win and lin.

      - these aren't even creative themes, just basic desktop's
      -i guess i don't understand what 'ready for the desktop means' (unless it means, will hang frequently, freeze and crash when you have multipul process running,...)

  43. Take as long as you want, Microsoft. by winkydink · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As long as you keep extending support for Win2k, I don't care if Longhorn ever ships.

    IMHO, Win2k is the best OS that Microsoft has ever made.

    not that that is saying much ;)

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Take as long as you want, Microsoft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100%. If XP didn't have product activation then it would get my vote as best Microsoft OS.

  44. huge differnce by b17bmbr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    RH, any distro for that matter updates so many packages. with windows updates and fixes, it is for the OS itself. pertiod. when you consider that even rh comes with well over 1000 packages, most are third party apps, open source sure, but not rh apps. there is no double standard.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    1. Re:huge differnce by mentin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see any difference at all between
      fix to Apache bundled with RedHat or fix to IIS bundled with XP,
      fix to Mozilla bundled with RedHat or fix to IE bundled with XP,
      fix to PHP bundled with RedHat or fix to ASP bundled with XP.

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    2. Re:huge differnce by Paleomacus · · Score: 3, Informative

      here's a difference...

      I don't see any difference at all between
      ...
      fix to Mozilla bundled with RedHat or fix to IE bundled with XP,

      IE is not bundled with XP, IE is so interwoven into XP that it can't be removed.
      However Mozilla is extremely easy to remove.

    3. Re:huge differnce by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Actually, MS are trying to get 3rd-parties involved with updates.

      Case in point: it offered me an update for my NVIDIA card recently, supplied by NVIDIA.

      (Of course, it was too stupid to notice that I'd applied exactly the same update directly from NVIDIA about a month before...)

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    4. Re:huge differnce by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of course there is.

      When you have people arguing that Linux is a kernel not an operating system; it's the "userland environment" that makes up the GNU/Linux operating system, and there are holes in all those userland apps, it's a part of the operating system.

      You can't have it both ways. Besides, those errata security fixes aren't for all those 1000 packages. Plus, look at my sig.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    5. Re:huge differnce by ltwally · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "RH, any distro for that matter updates so many packages. with windows updates and fixes, it is for the OS itself. pertiod."


      Well... that's not entirely true. After you take away the patches that are for Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player there aren't nearly so many "core OS" patches.

      That being said, there is no doubt that Microsoft products are less secure than many of their competitors' products. A design decision was made by Microsoft years ago, when security issues were much less of a worry, to focus on features and not security. Now they have the nightmare situation on their hands of something like 80 million lines of code to audit. Security holes are bound to plague them as long as they insist on maintaining the win32 code-base. IMHO, the only thing that could possibly rectify this situation is a new code-base, from the ground up.
      --



      /dev/random
    6. Re:huge differnce by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 3, Informative
      Don't forget the fact that my copy of Windows cost me several hours worth of work. My copy of RedHat cost me bandwidth. It was made by people who write software because they enjoy writing software. I think that's reason to cut them slack.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    7. Re:huge differnce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn man, you post all over this website. you are the most committed troll I've ever seen.

    8. Re:huge differnce by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I don't see any difference at all between
      fix to Apache bundled with RedHat or fix to IIS bundled with XP,


      IIS is not an XP feature.

      fix to Mozilla bundled with RedHat or fix to IE bundled with XP,

      IE is the only browser bundled with XP. RedHat comes with several choices.

      fix to PHP bundled with RedHat or fix to ASP bundled with XP.

      ASP is not an XP feature.

    9. Re:huge differnce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIS is not an XP feature.

      Yes, it is.

      IE is the only browser bundled with XP. RedHat comes with several choices.

      Your point is?

      ASP is not an XP feature.

      Yes, it is.

    10. Re:huge differnce by mentin · · Score: 1
      IIS is not an XP feature... ASP is not an XP feature.

      What do you mean? They come on XP Pro CD and can be easily installed.

      IE is the only browser bundled with XP. RedHat comes with several choices.

      How does it change things when it comes to patching?

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    11. Re:huge differnce by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      XP is produced by microsoft
      IIS is produced by microsoft
      IE is produced by microsoft
      ASP is produced by microsoft

      linux is not produced by rh
      apache is not produced by rh
      mozilla is not produced by rh
      php is not produced by rh

      each of the individual groups are responsible for the software they produce. Microsoft is responsible for any security flaws in xp and all the xp you mentioned above. No two of the open source projects mentioned above are maintained by the same group... there is no one person responsible for all of them.

      The microsoft apps however and their flaws are all the result of the shoddy programming from one shoddy company.

      rh doesn't claim mozilla and php are part of the OS. Microsoft DOES claim IE and ASP are. rh doen't claim apache is part of the OS. Microsoft does claim IIS is. Of course none of these applications are part of the OS (even IE isn't, the OS is the kernel not even the shell qualifies), but microsoft claims they are so it can tie them into it's monopoly and gain a monopoly in those areas either. If they can't take the heat that come with that they should get out of the kitchen.

      This is all ridiculous though, the number of patches released for a product are no gauge of how secure or insecure it is... the obviousness of though holes and damaged caused by them are, I think it's fairly clear who wins in this competition.

    12. Re:huge differnce by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually kernel is a synonym for operating system. An operating system doesn't include userland apps.
      Which is why when refering to the operating system please call it by the name the author chose for it, LINUX. GNU/Linux is a name made up by someone who writes applications which have a port to the Linux operating system.

      The reason microsoft gets a few choice applications thrown in is that THEY insist they are part of THEIR operating system. That doesn't make an application like a web browser part of the linux operating system.

      For another thing, all of the security holes and bugs in those programs lay at microsoft's feet, they aren't merely bundled by microsoft, they are written by the same shoddy programmers who write the rest of it.

      Microsoft has gone further than call those applications part of the operating system, they've made sure you cannot reasonably remove them (no getting rid of media player shortcuts doesn't qualify as REMOVEING it.). With linux there is no application including the GUI itself that I can't remove... since there is actually an option whether or not to install this or that web browser, then those applications stand on their own merit and don't group together as linux. A bug in Mozilla only affects mozilla users (windows or linux mozilla users generally), a bug in IE affects every windows user because they can't get rid of IE even if they want to.

      Furthermore, according to mr gates 1/3 of winxp systems crash more than 3 times daily due to bugs in the OPERATING SYSTEM... and that's just the ones who use the error reporting service.

      It's not too late to get out of this pit, you can start using your mind today and find the link (i'll give you a hint, it was covered by slashdot) to the interview in which he gave those numbers all by yourself ;)

    13. Re:huge differnce by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player"

      According to microsoft these programs are part of the core OS. They also aren't removeable, even if you want to use a different email client, webbrowser, or media player, you can't get rid of them. Since you can't remove them from the core OS, their bugs are and should be grouped in with it.

      "IMHO, the only thing that could possibly rectify this situation is a new code-base, from the ground up."

      I agree, a new code base (kernel, new gui, etc) is the way to go. They should contract someone else to write it as well. They also need a new development model... and the only way they'll be able to use that new development model is to figure out a new business model. Somehow I suspect none of this will happen though ;) At best they'll give us another system like NT, that appears to be great at first and rears it's ugly head later.

      Closed source doesn't make them more secure, it merely makes it take longer for the peer review... and most of the peers reviewing have no intention of telling microsoft when they find holes.

    14. Re:huge differnce by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIS is included with XP (pro)

      --
      No reason to lie.
    15. Re:huge differnce by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Actually kernel is a synonym for operating system. An operating system doesn't include userland apps.

      I know that. I agree with you. I thought that was clear from my post. I was saying you can't have it both ways.

      Which is why when refering to the operating system please call it by the name the author chose for it, LINUX. GNU/Linux is a name made up by someone who writes applications which have a port to the Linux operating system.

      I agree 100%.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    16. Re:huge differnce by jaybird144 · · Score: 1

      IIS is an XP feature. In fact, one of the viruses currently afflicting Windows XP (W32.MSBlast.d) takes advantage of a security hole in IIS in WinXP.

    17. Re:huge differnce by EddWo · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is so bad about the NT kernel that it needs to be rewritten?
      I am sure there are security holes in the API layers, services, applications etc. But please show me something that effects the kernel itself. From all accounts NT was written to be a multi-user networked system with security built in from the ground up.
      Win32 was written for the 9x series which had no security and then stuck on top of NT, any problems with Win32 are not problems with NT itself.
      A new gui (Aero), API (Avalon/.Net) are the features that are scheduled for Longhorn. Thats probably why it will get so far behind schedule.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    18. Re:huge differnce by telstar · · Score: 1
      "It was made by people who write software because they enjoy writing software. I think that's reason to cut them slack."
      • That's a pretty idiotic meter. We accept bugs because the people responsible for them enjoyed writing shoddy software? What's to say the programmers at Microsoft didn't enjoy writing their software? Furthermore, what's your gague of enjoyment ... the fact that they programmed for free?

    19. Re:huge differnce by spotteddog · · Score: 1

      Wait a second....
      LINUX is the KERNEL, not the OS. The OS would better be described as the GNU os.

      From the GNU homepage (http://www.gnu.org):

      "Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as ``Linux'', they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems."

      So kernel != os

      --
      . there used to be a sig here.....
    20. Re:huge differnce by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      No one has to work on Linux. They do because they enjoy Linux. They (usually) don't get paid to do so. Microsoft employees get paid to make software work right. Which one should I get upset at when things don't work? The one who gets paid to do this job or the one who does it for free.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    21. Re:huge differnce by shaitand · · Score: 1

      When you have a base of more than 50 nt based systems, and you never see a true blue screen, or never have to chkdsk /r (or fixboot) from the recovery console because an NT based system mysteriously stops booting for no apparent reason. Or better yet, when you can get the icons in the system to load consistantly in the same order each time you boot the machine... let me know and I'll start debating this issue. I agree though the NT kernel is about as good as say... OS/2 was when first released (gee wonder why, could be that the same team of ibm developers wrote them... could even be that they are basically the same code!).

      It's true that win32 is the source of most of the OS issues, but it's also true, that the only possible salvagable portions of the system weren't written by microsoft. As far as I know microsoft IS writting the new gui and api so I won't hold my breath. Different programmers too, but considering the same sort of garbage is spewed out from microsoft in every application they produce and those must come from different development routines it has to be microsoft policies that cause the evil and not the programmers. I'd be amazed if longhorn turns out to be stable, efficient, AND as secure as the current releases of *nix. Even if it is... it's not exactly like those *nix systems are going to stand still while MS catches up... and without a doubt the OSS ones develope more rapidly.

      Hell they could make a good start simply by seperating mediaplayer, ie, oe, asp, etc and making them removable... permanently. And then getting rid of this horrid registry concept. Just taking the idea of text based configuration from systems like linux and adding in text processing tools and a decent cli shell would make the system MUCH easier to administer for someone with half a brain who knows what he's doing. leave the point and click for the idiot mcse's.

    22. Re:huge differnce by shaitand · · Score: 1

      yes I'm well aware of what the gnu homepage says. My entire statement was pointing out that what stallman and the gnu say on the subject is incorrect.

      Explain to me how you can compile and run the gnu apps and run them on BSD, proprietary unix, etc. Now, explain to me how one would port the kernel to run on another operating system. You can't, you can't port the operating system to another operating system, you can port the applications to another operating system.

      So kernel == os

      the operating system is the part which controls the hardware, manages memory etc. Applications interact with the operating system, using calls it provides etc. The difference is quite clear really.

    23. Re:huge differnce by spotteddog · · Score: 1

      What about micro kernel based systems? You can port the file system translators (and other "essential" items that manage hardware) from mach to L4. You can run multiple instances of HURD on HURD.

      By your argument, there are no operating systems (or everything is an operating system) since everything that runs on a computer system (given enough time and effort) could be ported to another system. Microcode, BIOS, kernel, apps - there is no distinction.

      Traditionally, the OS has been the userland experience. The whole CP/M, MS-DOS, Unix, etc. mess with useful utilities is the OS.

      Yes you can port an OS to another os and run apps on it. Apple does it with OS X (you can run OS 9 in a window), MS sort of does with a DOS compatability layer in NT/2000, and let us not forget things like the emulators that run old 8 bit computer programs.

      To port the kernel to run on another OS, you just have to create an abstraction layer that converts the native systems OS API to something the Linux kernel expects to see. VM Ware does a fine job of this (run Linux in Windows, Windows in Linux, go crazy and run Linux in Windows in Linux).

      Take the case of porting a complex application like MS-Word from Windows to another OS. There are lots of supporting libraries (dll's) that have to be ported that rely on other libraries (in other words they rely on OPERATING SYSTEM FUNCTIONS, which may or may not be KERNEL functions).

      It is all just code, and code can be made to run where ever, on what ever.

      The kernel is traditionally the part that handles memory management, task scheduling, talks to hardware, etc. The OS sits between the kernel and the user and allows the user to create/use useful applications.

      --
      . there used to be a sig here.....
    24. Re:huge differnce by Ciggy · · Score: 1

      I agree, a new code base (kernel, new gui, etc) is the way to go...

      Just loike good ol' MSDOS 6.22 (Kernel) + Windoze 3.1 (GUI)?

      --

      A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
      A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
    25. Re:huge differnce by shaitand · · Score: 1

      An emulator makes for something different, it's a wrapper which uses the current OS. Your emulated experience is tricking an operating system into believing it's controlling hardware when it is not.

      Yes you can port the Linux operating system to another hardware platform, but it is still the linux OS. I don't think anyone would argue that the HARDWARE is an operating system, whether emulated or real.

      "The kernel is traditionally the part that handles memory management, task scheduling, talks to hardware, etc. The OS"

      That is very nearly the definition of an operating system. On the linux operating system there are many shells, many compilers, many greplike utilites, etc... there are lots and lots of applications, all of which talk to the kernel or a layer which talks to the kernel. The operating system is the lowest level software layer in the system, or the kernel.

      Microkernel architectures are no different, AFAIK, linux microkernel's have a loader which loads them into memory and they more or less remap the interrupt vectors and turn themselves into the operating system on the fly, regardless of what OS you are using before, by the time they have actually booted THEY are the operating system. As for what technically constitutes a "microkernel", I never said the OS had to lie in one file, or even that it technically MUST be only the kernel, a better definition is the lowest level layer of software that provides an api for interfacing with the core hardware. In linux however, this is entirely done by the kernel.

    26. Re:huge differnce by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Take the case of porting a complex application like MS-Word from Windows to another OS. There are lots of supporting libraries (dll's) that have to be ported that rely on other libraries (in other words they rely on OPERATING SYSTEM FUNCTIONS, which may or may not be KERNEL functions)."

      yes I can write supporting libraries too, this is merely a logical seperation, technically an application is really the primary executable, all supporting datafiles and all things which would be included if it were statically linked. I really fail to see how this breathtaking concept of libraries which make programming more manageable has anything to do with the operating system. Ultimately when the chain is followed you end up with calls to the REAL operating system, the lowest level api at the bottom of the tree... in linux this api is entirely provided by the kernel, in some systems it is made up of multiple files yes... but combined they perform more or less the same task as the kernel.

  45. Theory #3 by metamatic · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're basing it on the next release of Debian.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  46. That's fine but... by insecuritiez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We really need a service pack 2 for XP. There's a million updates on windowsupdate, too many for most modem users. So let's see MS bring out sp2 and get working on sp3 so that we don't have more and more security updates to download.

    1. Re:That's fine but... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      SP2 is scheduled for this fall.

      Actually, I sort of like what Microsoft's strategy is. XP is "Good Enough", and I don't mind that it will be *the* windows for the immediate future. One thing that bugs me with Apple's approach is that you always seem to need the latest OS to use the latest softaware. Yes, 10.2 is a lot better than 10.1, but what if I'm happy with 10.1 and don't want to pay $120 to upgrade? Many Mac apps now *require* 10.2 - that's stupid. There are very few Windows apps that won't work fine on 98 or 2000. And Microsoft gives you *free* upgrades for 98 - my old computer (Pentium 300, 192MB memory) doesn't really nead XP (It's in the kitchen for web-surfing, mostly), but since I got it, I've recieved, free:

      Internet Explorer 5.0 and 6.0
      Windows Media Player 7.0 and 9.0
      DirectX 8.0 and 9.0
      Internet Connection Sharing (98SE)
      Outlook Express (Several New Versions)
      Lots of bugfixes and security patches

      All of these updates make the OS just a little bit better. Moreover, I can still run games like Jedi Outcast. Try tunning a recent Mac OS game on OS 8.0 - it's not going to happen. I love Apple's upgrades to the OS - each major version has had substantial, worthwhile upgrades. I just don't like the fact that I need the latest OS to run the latest software.

      Now, admiddadly, Microsoft has abandoned Windows 95 - but if you have a computer that old, you probably shouldn't be running DirectX 9 or Windows Media Player 9 or Internet Explorer 9 anyway. Well, actually, Internet Explorer 5.5, the last version for Windows 95, runs fine on my Omnibook 800CT (Pentium 133, 32MB memory). I know that people claim that Mozilla renders faster, but in my experience, Internet Explorer is faster, especially on older hardware.

    2. Re:That's fine but... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      what we really need is font smoothing for win2k so that I can go back to a more stable and less bloated OS.

    3. Re:That's fine but... by Maserati · · Score: 1

      The difference with Apple is that Apple writes useful software that uses the new APIs in their upgrades. Other developers do too. An awful lot of Windows software out there writes to the older APIs, so Microsoft has to keep compatibility or people will bitch that their weird shareware app breaks.

      Let's see, any software that depends on:
      Inkwell (not that there is any)
      Sherlock 3
      WebKit (Opera)
      QuartzExtreme
      Rendezvous
      new or updated libraries on the Unix side

      will break instantly if run on 10.15. Apple's marketing pitch is that the new capabilities that come from the new features are worth the upgrades. They've actually got more "cool new stuff" in daily use (Rendezvous) than Microsoft does.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  47. Since when/ by anonymous+coword · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did microsoft employ debian develoeprs in their management? Only the debian developers know how to delay stuff this bad.

  48. Are you for real? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    You honestly think Microsoft is going to let Windows XP sit for six years? They've already said there won't be a Windows XP: Second Edition and that SP2 will be out next year.

    Microsoft would stagnate with no new Windows release. 2006 at the latest, guaranteed. This is already a pretty big stretch.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:Are you for real? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I doubt they'll let things stagnate either. There is just too much money to be made in new OS releases. If Longhorn isn't going to be ready for several years, they'll just cobble together some peice of crap like Windows ME, which really only came to be because XP Home was taking too long.

    2. Re:Are you for real? by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1

      Microsoft products have been stagnating for years. XP is just NT with anti-aliased fonts. Not much new there.

      I am sure Microsoft will come out with some cosmetic releases fo windows while waiting for the 5 year clock to expire.

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    3. Re:Are you for real? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      They'll probably have some rehash of Windows XP, with more media features. Yes, I know they've already released one such product, but I'm betting that they will release another.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  49. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by Azureflare · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's hard to say, but by 2006, Linux will hopefully be pretty advanced. Just look at the improvements in the past year, Linux Desktops have made leaps and bounds in usability. The kernel is in pretty good shape, the only thing that could use improvement is the GUI, which, though difficult, is not as difficult as a complete rebuild of the Windows kernel/GUI. Microsoft is trying to be everything, and will soon find out how difficult that is.

    Perhaps they will succeed (In fact, I'd be surprised if they weren't able to roll-out a decent product...You'd think they would have learned from their past mistakes by now!) So, all in all, I'm pretty excited about all the developments, though I do think that a later release date is both better for Linux desktop users and for Microsoft as a whole; it'll mean Linux will have more time to penetrate, and Microsoft will not release such a product riddled with exploitable code (*cough* RPC *cough*). It's better to set a standard of slow-and-steady than fast-and-inaccurate.

    Am I alone in thinking that maybe if Microsoft takes more time to develop their product, it will benefit everyone, Windows users and Linux users alike?

  50. How do you improve? by foo+fighter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the problem Microsoft is running into is one of finding areas that need so much improvement they can get away with charging for it.

    I personally think Windows 2000 Professional is a damn fine operating system. I run it at home and my workplace has standardized with 2K.

    XP Pro added nothing of note except more onerous licensing conditions and a confusing UI change. Everyone I've met who uses XP changed the UI back to Windows 2000. Also, the only reason they use XP over 2K is because XP came with their new, name brand computer.

    Really, what does Microsoft add to, change about, or remove from its desktop operating system to make it worth upgrading?

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    1. Re:How do you improve? by erikharrison · · Score: 5, Informative
      I hate XP with a passion. That aside XP offers these things over 2k:
      • Integrated PPPoE client
      • The only feature worth having in ME - System Restore
      • Built in CD burning capabilities
      • Built in firewall
      • Virtual directories - browse archives like directories, and consequently perform extractions from file manager
      • Windows 95 compatibility mode
      • Faster searching, with ability to search based on type (more sopisticated than *.txt searches)
      • Lots of random, minor cleanups - privacy controls in IE, primitive (and I do mean primitive) virus checking in OE, tools from the 2k administration pack included by default, etc
    2. Re:How do you improve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " what does Microsoft add to, change about, or remove from its desktop operating system to make it worth upgrading?"

      How about a SQL-99 DBFS. That is the only thing that would get me. Organizing tens of thousands of mp3's and videos is damn near impossible with a flat file system. When every directory is just a SQL command I will be in bliss.

    3. Re:How do you improve? by urmensch · · Score: 1

      I'm running 2K right now and I miss being able to log in more than one user at a time. Also I think the fonts are better.

    4. Re:How do you improve? by aelfwyne · · Score: 1

      Of that list, the only feature I find myself in requirement of is the Integrated PPPoE client. This because in 2000, using SBC's silly connection manager and EnterNet 300 combo is so slow and unreliable in comparison, and I never could get 3rd-party clients working reliably either...

      As far as the theme... No, I don't like or use the default XP theme either... But StyleXP allows much cleaner skinning than any option available in 2000 due to better support in the OS... So I can make it look like it is KDE and feel at home :)

      Personally, I'd like to see Longhorn delayed indefinitely. Force MS to provide patches for XP and 2000 for even longer to keep these OS's alive, before we're totally sold upriver in Longhorn.

      --
      -- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
    5. Re:How do you improve? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      Most of that stuff ellicits a big fat "meh" from me. Yeah, it has a lot more stuff built-in, but my non-built-in solutions for 2k work just fine, thank you. For that matter, maybe I don't want it at all? I don't need PPPoE, I prefer Nero, and I wouldn't trust Windows' firewall for shit.

      As for file-type searching, is this different than 2k's search pane, which has a drop menu to select by type? Unless they changed NTFS to index MIME types, I don't see how file type searching could be any more sophisticated in Windows. In fact, I just checked an XP machine, and I guess you're referring to their "Search Companion", which I suppose is helpful if you only know which kind of file, rather than the exact extension.

      I'll tell you, one thing I do like about XP and genuinely miss in 2k is simultaneous logins. Frankly, I probably would have switched my 2k boxes to XP if I could use the simultaneous logins with the old style login screen, which strikes me as a very odd and unnecessary limitation.

    6. Re:How do you improve? by koreth · · Score: 1
      • Faster boot times
      • Better desktop integration with images and sound files (browse a picture directory as a bunch of thumbnails, etc.)
      • UI improvements like most-frequently-used programs instantly available in the start menu, auto hiding of inactive system tray icons, stacking of similar windows in the taskbar when there are lots of windows open
      • Built-in VNC-style remote access
      • Fast user switching
      To name a few more. It's pretty disingenuous to say they didn't change anything. It's not like the radical architectural change between ME and 2K, but there's some worthwhile stuff in XP and I run it rather than 2K by choice on both my home Windows boxes.
    7. Re:How do you improve? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Windows 2000 is a shining example of an OS done right.

      What isn't widely known is that Windows 2000 was supposed to be released sometime before 1998 (along with Windows 98, which was also heavily delayed).

      A 3 year delay produced the best M$ operating system to date. Just look at what happens when MS tries to make a release date at all costs: Windows ME.... quite possibly the worst friggin' OS on the planet.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    8. Re:How do you improve? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      RASPPPoE worked for me for the limited time that I needed it. It installs itself as a protocol driver so you can use DUN, and it has a very low footprint. I wouldn't know how it stacks up against XP's implementation (the authors obviously think RASPPPoE is superior) but it works great in earlier versions of Windows.

    9. Re:How do you improve? by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

      "Just look at what happens when MS tries to make a release date at all costs: Windows ME.... quite possibly the worst friggin' OS on the planet."

      That was my thoughts exactly, Thats why I think *BSD's and Linux are so stable, not just the foundation but there is no stock holders screaming for a release date "its ready, when its ready" is great!

      If they (MS) take thier time this Longhorn release could possibly compete with linux. I'm only half joking about that cause free software seems to grow much more quickly.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    10. Re:How do you improve? by RustyTaco · · Score: 1
      The only feature worth having in ME - System Restore
      You mean the one what "helpfully" makes it imposible for AV software to remove Blaster by "helpfully" to a magical folder not even administrators (or LOCAL_SYSTEM) can clean it out? All the "I found blaster but I can't delete it" errors from Sophos made the users comfortable until we were able to flush System Restore on each system.

      - RustyTaco
    11. Re:How do you improve? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Faster boot times

      This is largely a myth or really a trick of perception. The GUI comes up faster but I still have to wait a while before everything loads and then I can actually use the thing.

      Also, this fast GUI launcher breaks PGP. Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather be able to use the free implementation of PGP.

      >Better desktop integration with images and sound files

      This is a good thing? Yeah, nothing like sitting around waiting for little thumbnails to generate and load up when filenames are all I want. Come on, this is pure fluff. Also this integration can also been seen as WMP bundling. Some people simply don't like a DRM media player running by default.

      >UI improvements like most-frequently-used programs instantly available in the start menu, auto hiding of inactive system tray icons, stacking of similar windows in the taskbar when there are lots of windows open

      An informal poll of almost all the XP users I know have switched to the classic theme to avoid all this. Whether these are actual UI improvements is questionable and from what I understand of HCI I would say hiding icons and functionality is wrong.

      Many people don't need everything bundled with their OS. Free underpowered and largely featureless CD burner, zip app, and firewall? No wonder third-party apps like Norton, Nero, Zonealarm, etc are almost ubiqitious in the Windows world.

    12. Re:How do you improve? by smash · · Score: 1
      Cleartype, more complete driver support out of the box, and better startup times.

      Seriously, those are the only reasons I use XP - a lot of the other features are nice, but its not as stable as 2k.

      I've got a laptop at work (with an additional LCD for multihead), and a nice 17" LCD on my home desktop, so cleartype is a huge plus.

      For those who haven't used an LCD before... it makes pixels MUCH more visible.

      Yes, this means you get excellent contrast, however, text looks like ass unless its been smoothed with cleartype.

      XP is just much better suited to laptops with regards to driver support, wireless networking, etc...

      That said, I prefer 2k in all other respects, and ran it for 2 years - its definately the best OS microsoft has yet produced...

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    13. Re:How do you improve? by jjeff · · Score: 1

      Don't forget bluetooth!

      of course most slashdotters have probably never used it due to the fact America has been slow on that uptake.

      stupid thing is I can't get this damn MS bluetooth tranceiver working on windows server '03 - yet on the box it says.. and i quote:

      "Hardware - Software - Compatibility.
      The Microsoft Advantage"

      --
      when everything is working perfectly.. BREAK SOMETHING before something else FUCKS up!
    14. Re:How do you improve? by spacefrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Added nothing of note?

      Remote desktop sharing, which is, for all intents and purposes, terminal services controlling the local console, is for me, quite frankly, the most significant improvement made to Windows since NT 4.

      I know this is Slashdot, and about a million people will try to tell me that I could use VNC (or PCAnywhere, etc) to achieve the same result. Bullshit. VNC, PCAnywhere, etc., are wonderful for remote system administration, troubleshooting, etc, etc, but for trying to use a remote system for productive work (even over a 100Mb switched ethernet connection) they are almost worthless. The latency alone...

      Before somebody tries to tell me that I could accomplish the same result with W2K server... Once again, bullshit, BTDT. It's perfectly speedy enough, but there are certain things that are vital for my work, which can only run on the local console. Full debugger capability, being a prime example (you can not debug a COM DLL, that is being called from a service or anything else running outside of your process space except on the local console or a remote control of the local console.)

      Also, being Slashdot, you are all thinking.... "Gee, X has been able to do that forever." Yes, and I love it. I use the Cygwin version of XFree86 to establish X sessions to my 'nix boxen every day, and have been doing so with various X servers running on various platforms for many years. However, I have client work, which is what pays my bills, that can only be effectively performed on a Windows machine (not that there is anything wrong with 'nix, but they pay me to write software using Visual Studio and SQL Server.)

      Running XP on my main development machine (a 2 CPU P3), made the difference between needing to buy a $350 laptop vs. a $2,500 laptop, and the work of maintaining a full development environment on said laptop. I'm sitting in my living room right now, with an RDP connection to my XP machine upstairs, and an X11 connection to my PPCLinux box.

      YMMV, but I would have killed for this ten years ago.

    15. Re:How do you improve? by erikharrison · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, we we're just discussing what technical changes had occured between 2k and Xp, not what change were useful . . .

    16. Re:How do you improve? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Also, I think the firewire capabilities has improved in XP vs 2K.

      I thought that WinZip had something like an Exploring extension to open archives as if they were directories. I suppose it makes sense to integrate that feature.

      Built in firewall... that didn't seem to help block the ports used by Blaster or Sobig.

    17. Re:How do you improve? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      I hate XP with a passion. That aside XP offers these things over 2k:
      * Faster searching, with ability to search based on type (more sopisticated than *.txt searches)


      Unless you are searching for text within *.java or *.jsp. Real handy. Here is the fix for XP - or switch back to win2k like I did...

      To configure Windows XP to search all files no matter what the file type, obtain the latest service pack for Windows XP and then turn on the Index file types with unknown extensions option.

      If you use this method, Windows XP searches all file types for the text that you specify. This can affect the performance of the search functionality. To do this:

      1. Click Start, and then click Search (or point to Search, and then click For Files or Folders).

      2. Click Change preferences, and then click With Indexing Service (for faster local searches).

      3. Click Change Indexing Service Settings (Advanced). Note that you do not have to turn on the Index service.

      4. On the toolbar, click Show/Hide Console Tree.

      5. In the left pane, right-click Indexing Service on Local Machine, and then click Properties.

      6. On the Generation tab, click to select the Index files with unknown extensions check box, and then click OK.

      7. Close the Indexing Service console.

      http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=K B; en-us;309173&

      Not sure if win2003 has this 'feature' or not....

    18. Re:How do you improve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You no longer need that crap software.
      Just upgrade to SBC Yahoo DSL [same service, new name].

      Although because I don't really know your setup, you may need a new DSL modem, I recommend a wireless one, and one of Apple's Powerbooks. .mac

    19. Re:How do you improve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Windows 95 compatibility mode
      Included in a W2K Service Pack

      > Faster searching
      Cartoon dog doesn't make it faster. It's the same shit as W2K. Index Server.

      > privacy controls in IE, primitive (and I do mean primitive) virus checking in OE
      Free download for existing Windows users.

      This list looks a little to precooked. Are you astroturfing here?

    20. Re:How do you improve? by anethema · · Score: 1

      I never really understood cleartype.

      It just seems to make the screen a touch blurry on my laptop.

      So i just use the regular AA for text

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    21. Re:How do you improve? by smash · · Score: 1
      It just seems to make the screen a touch blurry on my laptop.
      Wierd.... I never really understood it either, until i started using LCDs extensively.

      Normal AA doesn't seem to smooth text enough on the systems I use - text still looks really jaggy.

      Interesting...

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    22. Re:How do you improve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Bluetooth? XP doesn't have native Bluetooth support. It was meant to be included in SP1, but for some reason it was left out.

    23. Re:How do you improve? by aelfwyne · · Score: 1

      AC Said:
      > You no longer need that crap software.
      > Just upgrade to SBC Yahoo DSL [same service, new name]

      *BZZ* Wrong. I have SBC Yahoo DSL. Connection manager software (SBC Connection Manager/EnterNet 300) is used in 2000 and previous. You have to install your own PPPoE client to get around it. The SBC Yahoo software is utter junk. Thus, I use XP since it gives me no hassle getting on my DSL.

      --
      -- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
    24. Re:How do you improve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Built in CD burning capabilities" - that take forever to work

    25. Re:How do you improve? by jjeff · · Score: 1

      its in a windows update.

      --
      when everything is working perfectly.. BREAK SOMETHING before something else FUCKS up!
    26. Re:How do you improve? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I personally think Windows 2000 Professional is a damn fine operating system

      I personally think you need to get out more..

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    27. Re:How do you improve? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      Here's another:- Improved Unicode capability.

      Might seem trivial for you unilinguals, but the ability to type in mother tongue is a very important thing. For some reason, MS hasn't quite released a service pack of sorts for users to type in Telugu in pre-XP systems (There is a tweak, but that's known to work only on every Thursday that's a full moon).

      Then again, this is a capability that's so well-hidden, that most users don't even know about it. All the same, this could be the only reason why I'm hanging onto XP and not downgrading back to 2000.

    28. Re:How do you improve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is largely a myth or really a trick of perception. The GUI comes up faster but I still have to wait a while before everything loads and then I can actually use the thing.

      Run XP-Antispy. Remove all the extra crud that XP loads by default. Trim some services. Cut Messenger out of boot, cut out any extras you can.

      Trimmed XP seems faster than trimmed 2K... But I guess that's a subjective measure.

    29. Re:How do you improve? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      An update you can only get if you are a hardware manufacturer or you bought an MS Bluetooth Keyboard or mouse.

      Even if you get it its not a very good implementation. No PAN support, no virtual serial ports, no FTP Profile, OBEX Synchronisation, Headset Audio etc.

      The update seems to be an SP2 thing, but that has been delayed now. They could a least make a version of activesync that uses their bluetooth sockets when working with PocketPC 2003 which has bluetooth built in.

      It will probably not be until longhorn that they support bluetooth properly.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    30. Re:How do you improve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virtual directories - browse archives like directories, and consequently perform extractions from file manager

      I remember PC Tools for Windows 2.0, which ran on top of windows 3.1. Its file manager could show you the contents of zip files as if they were regular directories, and you could drag and drop files to and from them. Funny how it took a decade for this to be done by microsoft.

      Actually, that PC tools was pretty cool. It had virtual desktops (still not available in windows), a sort of dockapp/tray functionality, a pretty UI (with 3D window borders!) and plenty of features I can't remember but didn't get into windows until years later. Sadly, it was so unstable that I never saw it run for longer than one hour in a row, so eventually I went back to pure 3.1, which managed to clock in three hours between crashes.

      Ofcourse, now I run debian and I measure the time between system downtimes in months, and most of those are due to hardware or power failure.

    31. Re:How do you improve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the setting for the order of subpixels on your system is wrong. Cleartype basically makes your horizontal resolution three times sharper (by drawing text on subpixel boundaries instead of pixel boundaries; subpixels are the red/green/blue elements that make up a pixel). The net effect is silky smooth text, but only if configured correctly.

    32. Re:How do you improve? by Deaths+Hand · · Score: 1

      You missed one thing out of the list of improvements XP has over Win 2k - it has support for IPv6. Quite an important enhancement I would say. A pity Microsoft won't backport it to Win2K, because I prefer using Windows 2000 myself.

  51. Distributed computing included? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    If MS includes distributed-computing features in Longhorn, I predict a slew of viruses and worms that take advantage of that to spread. They'll inevitably fail to segregate the client and server code sufficiently and they'll provide for automated loading of the code to be executed to the server that'll execute it, and that'd be all I'd need to create a really nasty self-spreading worm.

  52. Bad troll by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Come on, you can troll better than this. DCOM didn't allow SoBig, it allowed MSBLASTER. But it was patched a whole month before. Slashdot reported on it, and the government even announced it twice. SoBig is a user e-mail attachment thing. Microsoft can't go door to door holding people's hands. It's not their fault users are stupidly running the attachments.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:Bad troll by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      It's not their fault users are stupidly running the attachments.

      Nice - blame users for poorly designed product. Now THAT's a winning strategy.

    2. Re:Bad troll by ball-lightning · · Score: 1

      Nice - blame users for poorly designed product. Now THAT's a winning strategy.


      Yeah, what a crappy e-mail client Outlook is. It would have been so much better if it Outlook required a 16 character passcode, asked you 15 times you were sure, and then finally deleted it (and made you undelete it manually) before even considering letting you open that attachment!


      In all seriousness now, come on. Outlook was designed so that the average Joe A could email average Joe B anything he wanted, and have it work. Blaming Outlook for SoBig is like blaming the telephone the secretary who gave her bosses password out (social engineering) for ringing (it made it too easy to answer the phone!) The fact is, even if it WAS harder to open attachments, the only thing that would happen is people would complain, learn how to do it, and open the damn things anyway. The only thing that can stop such social engineering viruses is virus protection software, and a good dose of common sense.


      Hey, it might be fun to bash Microsoft (and if you want, go and use MSblaster all you want, it made them look bad) but SoBig had everything to do with the user.

    3. Re:Bad troll by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      How is it a poorly designed product because the user runs the attachment? Honestly. You have yet to explain this to me. Outlook already pressures you into how unsafe attachments are.

      You're probably the kind of guy who bitches about the "hand-holding" XP does, but now you're bitching that Outlook doesn't hold people's hands enough when it comes to attachments.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
  53. Processors by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Funny

    Probably when processors can support that filesystem of theirs without making it look too terribly slow ;-)

    1. Re:Processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NTFS will run just fine on anything back to the first Pentium processor.

    2. Re:Processors by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I was referring to the new one in longhorn that is some sort of object relational database.

  54. Too bad there is no futures markets on software by jerryasher · · Score: 3, Funny

    With a futures market on software shipments we could easily determine when software ship date is., just as I can predict next years weather by looking at the price of orange juice futures.

    And please don't tell me yet again about how economists point out that markets can't predict anything. Nattering nabobs indeed.

    Moreover, if we had a futures market on software shipments, then we, as users and managers could lessen risk of software delay or software bugs by buying hedging options.

    A futures market in software would also let unemployed, overly expensive, middle-aged with families, but otherwise wise programmers leverage the outsourcing trend. Whether the software is made here or there, certain factors creating delays, etc. will be present and us older and wiser programmers would be able to use our years of experience to arbitrage the market.

    Futures markets -- why must our overlords keep us from them?

    1. Re:Too bad there is no futures markets on software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet THEY want to buy the futures THEY want without any interference from the peons! What else could explain the bleak future we've got ahead of us?

    2. Re:Too bad there is no futures markets on software by willabr · · Score: 1

      I think that's what Poindexter tried to acomplish with the now infamous "Terror Futures Market". Which although it sounds bad, would have worked better then the system of "experts" being used now. Market forces at work.

  55. Long Horn Porn delayed says M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a digrace the current windows porn from M$
    has only one female most of the men with bugs on them and diseases, the tape jams all the time... .Not the time to waste on.

  56. It comes preInstalled with a 'Bill Gates' Personal by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    It now comes preinstalled with a 'Bill Gates' personality...

    Security does not make money let the worms be free!!

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  57. Trying to compete with Open Source by imnoteddy · · Score: 2, Funny

    To show that they're better than Open Source MS would like to keep Longhorn as vaporware longer than Mozilla was.

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
  58. Excellent! by dspeyer · · Score: 1
    This is great news for the world domination wing of the Open Source Community. We only need to compete against a static product for at least another two years. Two years to bring everything up to or beyond Microsoft levels. And, while our release schedules may slip occasionally, we do deliver continous innovation.

    Mark me down for GNU/Linux dominance on the desktop by december of 2004.

    1. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: "We have two years to steal.. er.. 'innovate' Windows XP's GUI and slap stupid penguin icons all over it. Never mind the fact that you'll need to compile 743 individual toolkits to run the thing."

    2. Re:Excellent! by FireBreathingDog · · Score: 1
      Mark me down for GNU/Linux dominance on the desktop by december of 2004.

      Maybe Linux, but certainly not GNU/Linux.

  59. In addition, by awfar · · Score: 1

    I would guess that they will use this time to prepare users to new technologies, tools, and concepts, and further embed newer technologies into users machines with their "service packs" and "fixes" (as they have done before). This will help ease the fear and trepidation of something new, which is paramount in business. They know from experience that business users mostly choose to NOT be early adopters.

  60. As if Linux has any better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to get my mousewheel working today, I had to restart XFree86 after editing an archaic text file. How come I don't have to do that in XP?

    People in glass houses throw too many stones...especially regarding a "better product."

  61. Copy Apple's Strategy by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Longhorn sounds like an OS development effort that is spinning out of control. Microsoft could always copy the strategy that Apple used when Apple's Copland effort blew up in 1996 -- buy a company with a Unix-based OS and switch everyone to that.

    Should Microsoft call it Visual Linux#.NET or OS XP?

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Copy Apple's Strategy by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or they could just buy Apple and stick the Windows logo on OS X. They've copied almost everything from OS X, anyway, they may as well just buy the durn thing and get it over with.

    2. Re:Copy Apple's Strategy by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Um, why does it sound like an "OS development effort that is spinning out of control?" Seriously.

      Betas and technology demos are given regularly. Microsoft recently had their developers conference take a look at Longhorn. They know what they're doing with this. .NET has been planned since at least back in 2000. They're finally fixing all the things people bitch about--the interface, the filesystem, the security, and Win32--and people can only complain about the length of time it takes them.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:Copy Apple's Strategy by mrobinso · · Score: 1
      > Should Microsoft call it
      > Visual Linux#.NET or OS XP?

      BlueHat

      .mike

      --
      -- Karma whore? You betcha. --
    4. Re:Copy Apple's Strategy by lowrez · · Score: 1

      Microsoft had a Unixish OS.... Xenix... Now called SCO ;)

  62. I think this time... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...they will actually try to write something secure.

    They will find a significant drop in sales afterward though... people will be unwilling to upgrade if their systems are stable, bug free and secure. It is against their business model to write secure code.

    They'll have to come up with a new way to keep people buying Microsoft... who knows what it will be.

    Longhorn's probably not vaporware though... more likely they realize after all the crap MS OSs have been through lately... what with being on the top news for being vulnerable, unreliable and close to being the weak point of civilization itself, I guess they are rethinking that "business as usual isn't the play to make this time around."

    Do you know what makes people stop using WinNT 4.0? NOTHING. It works well for businesses. Active directory? People STILL don't know what it is or what it's for or how it can improve the way they do business. MS drops support for it and people will STILL continue using it. What terrible thing will happen to Microsoft when they create a secure and stable OS? We know they can -- they have the money to throw at it and if they are willing to delay release of their newest OS project, then I'd take that as a sign they intend to make it secure and stable.

    I'd say that CAN do it and they WILL do it. But the question that rings in my mind is what doom it will spell to Microsoft when they do. No more upgrades for a long time... people won't want it or care about it. That's a huge chunk of income for them.

    1. Re:I think this time... by rritterson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This would be more true if new computer purchases didn't continue to grow. I don't have a stat to offer, but I'd figure more money is made on computer purchases than on upgrades.

      Also, simply because the OS is secure and stable does not mean that new technologies will not be developed. Perhaps the entire model of the desktop will change and Microsoft will have a new OS to support it. IMO, Microsoft has too much cash and too many employees to simply fall down and be unable to get back up.

      --
      -Ryan
      AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    2. Re:I think this time... by naelurec · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have to agree with you. I think this next OS will be "the best OS Microsoft has ever released" .. it will be "more secure", "more scalable", "more productive" *insert previously used MS marketing claim here.

      So what will be the kicker? Perhaps they will push a subscription based model? You can only rent the software, no buying allowed?

      Perhaps with Bill & Co selling stock (according to Yahoo, it looks like Bill dumped ~$309 million worth of MSFT in August) with Bill's plans of being completely sold out by 2006 (or 2008? forgot which..) he is planning on "doing the right thing" and releasing a solid, secure operating system.

      Or perhaps the feeling is that quite frankly, the PC in its current form is well umm.. too overly complex and cumbersome. Perhaps with things like tablet PC, wireless broadband, etc, there will be a shift toward application specific embedded platforms and desktop PCs as they exist now are on their way out (I doubt by 2008 .. but I really don't see these kludgely things around in 2020+..)

    3. Re:I think this time... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      They'll have to come up with a new way to keep people buying Microsoft... who knows what it will be.

      Subscription-based software via .NET.

      Active directory? People STILL don't know what it is or what it's for or how it can improve the way they do business.

      I'm not sure what you mean here. All Windows networks I've ever worked with use Active Directory. It's the central part of both 2000 and 2003 Server. You don't really have a choice in the matter.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:I think this time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are still a lot of M$ networks that use NT4 PDCs, etc... You can still run win2k and WinXP clients with an NT4 style backend... And a lot of people are doing just that because NT4 really isnt
      all that broken, aside from some serious inadequacies in userland... (e.g. directx, USB, etc...)

    5. Re:I think this time... by 4minus0 · · Score: 1

      It is against their business model to write secure code.
      I think you make a very good point with this. Perhaps the most creative take on this I've seen so far here. And one that I feel is probably the closest to the truth.

      Do you know what makes people stop using WinNT 4.0? NOTHING.
      I have clients that absolutely refuse to upgrade beyond NT 4.0 Server. I don't push the upgrade to Win 2kx because it makes no sense to. The machines are firewalled off from the internet and are humming along as I type this. (I hope;). To reinforce your point, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

      I'd say they CAN do it and they WILL do it. But the question that rings in my mind is what doom it will spell to Microsoft when they do. No more upgrades for a long time...
      I think we're seeing this now with Win2k, this reluctance to upgrade from NT 4 to Win2k(server and desktop) and from Win2k to XP (on the desktop) and Server 2003 (um, on the server) is what Microsoft fears most. The only desktop upgrades I'm seeing with our clients is with new computers bundled with XP. Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot when they made Win2k. Of all Microsoft's OSes, its the one that I see most of the time in corporations of all sizes, I dig Linux(hey I'm using it to type this) and I really dig OS X, but Win2k is a decent enough operating system; I can count on one hand the times I've seen it crap out completely. To reiterate, corporate users aren't beating down the walls in Redmond to upgrade to XP, they sure as heck aren't going to upgrade to Longhorn if it's released anytime soon. This may just be Microsoft betting on users getting an itch to upgrade when Win2k/XP starts to "feel" a little long in the tooth. They may be re-thinking their OS release schedule. Just a thought.

      --
      You've got an easy breezy wind at your back...most of the time.
    6. Re:I think this time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but MS really doesn't make any money to speak of from new computer sales.
      I think the figure is something like $10/license for OEM copies. Note: we're talking big distributors like Dell and HP, not Mom & Pop's Computer Shop--they still get screwed and have to pay closer to $100.

      If businesses and home users don't adopt the new OS, MS has to rely on making money from new sales of it's Office software. That's why you see the new license structures MS instituted. They realized that businesses don't need to upgrade because what they have works fine for what they're doing.

    7. Re:I think this time... by trash+eighty · · Score: 1
      Do you know what makes people stop using WinNT 4.0? NOTHING


      not so true, M$ are due to stop supporting it soon, thats why my place has begun migrating all of it's NT4 workstations to W2K. the only reason though!

    8. Re:I think this time... by johneee · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that if, oh, Windows 3.11 was "stable, bug free and secure", you'd be happy using it? (Or, even that dog of a system, NT3.1)

      I wouldn't. This summer just for shits and giggles I set up virtual PC and installed every OS since Windows 2. Hoooo boy do they suck (even though at the time I thought they were the best thing since sliced bread)

      I know that at the time it didn't seem like there were great usability and functional improvements, but when you look back, they hit you in the face.

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    9. Re:I think this time... by danila · · Score: 1

      Having a good product is not a problem. May be Bill wants to take the Henry Ford appoach (he didn't like that most companies at that time didn't want to sell a good product, but a product that the customer would want to replace soon - can't find the exact quote, sorry). :)

      But in any case there is still a lot of innovation to be made on the OS market. If MS somehow manages to add ~100% security and stability, they can start adding features. There are many possible routs to be taken and as an aside they will again be able to fully utilise the CPU power that Intel and AMD throw at us. :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    10. Re:I think this time... by golrien · · Score: 1

      I'd say that CAN do it and they WILL do it. But the question that rings in my mind is what doom it will spell to Microsoft when they do. No more upgrades for a long time... people won't want it or care about it. That's a huge chunk of income for them.

      See, I'd like to agree with you, but you're assuming that you are clever than Microsoft at business (ie, you've seen this coming before they have). Going purely by who has almost $50 billion in the bank and who spends the most time reading Slashdot, I'd say this assumption is wrong. They may be junkboat coders but, hey, they know how to make money in (=out of) the world.

  63. Smart move by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    Next move is to never again announce a release date untill the product is in the "final polish" stage.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  64. Gotta hate that subscription licensing though by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    If they wait too long to ship, what are they going to give the people who are on the golden upgrade path? Another service pack?

    Kind of funny that Microsoft shows signs of waiting until its right AFTER they get their customers to pay for the lesson...

  65. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by AntiOrganic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree. I tried Linux on the desktop last summer, but just wasn't able to stick with it because it didn't do what I needed. I'm currently typing this on Debian 3.0R1/Gnome 2.2 (I've made this my primary computer) and I'm amazed by the lack of things that I can't do on it. gFTP, Gimp 1.3, Evolution, Gaim, Totem/xine, RhythmBox, AbiWord, Gnumeric, XChat 2.0, and Anjuta have entirely eliminated any need for Windows. Hell, it's even got an RDP client so I can connect to my Windows 2000 servers at work. The only complaint I still have is with Gnome's system-level configuration tools compared to KDE's excellent control panel -- however, I hear these are on the way.

  66. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No I totally agree with you. I think it's clear that the competitive threat of Linux has forced MS to respond with a complete overhaul of not only their products but also their business practices (well, from a technology perspective, at least). They have started to take software quality and security issues more seriously for example (recent hiccups not withstanding).

    I am not sure I agree that "Microsoft is trying to be everything". I think they have a clear idea of their market (desktop machines running productivity tools e.g. office, and the server machine space responsible for document management, collaboration and file and web serving). This sounds pretty focussed to me.

    I have had my ear to the ground and I gather there is some eyebrow-raising new technology within longhorn. For example, I think you'll see a complete re-architecting of the Windows API internals to use the .NET framework, and the .NET CLR integrated with the system scheduler and memory management code at the lowest levels of the platform (just above the HAL). This opens up new technical possibilities in terms of scheduling, resource allocation and management etc, and will the monolithic UNIX-like architecture of Linux a real run for its money, performance-wise.

    In turn, this may spurn some re-architecting of the Linux internals, as competition for high performance heats up.

    I have been using both Windows and Linux for over 10 years (started with 3.1 and 0.99pl13 respectively) and I think this represents a very good thing for *both* Windows and Linux alike ;)

    Regards

    koro

  67. Give them a break! by csoto · · Score: 1, Funny

    They have to make extra special sure that the RPC features work just as well under 2K/XP before release!

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  68. What's the deal with .NET? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    When Windows 95 came out, there was a big push that apps be ported to it rather than just run in 16-bit legacy mode. With .NET, there is no such push. You know the taunt, where are the shrink-wrap Java apps? Yeah, where are the shrink-wrap .NET apps? Does Windows XP even come with the CLR/.NET runtime or do you have to download and install it?

    What incentive is there to write something other than an internally-used app to .NET? One incentive would be if they came out with a Mac .NET and maybe even used it so the same code base to Office could run on PC and Mac. Don't see that happening.

    Am I missing something? Is .NET really meant as a server-side thingy? Is .NET really not meant for the desktop since MS has not made a big push to put .NET on a lot of desktops?

    1. Re:What's the deal with .NET? by sirshannon · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are shrink-wrapped .NET apps, most coming from MS (since they are one of the few companies that make boxed software that only runs on MS).

      Windows XP was released before the .Net framework v1.0 was released, so XP does not come with it installed but it (v1.1 at this time) is listed on the Windows Update site. Windows 2003 Server does ship with v1.1 of the .Net framework.

    2. Re:What's the deal with .NET? by Kenja · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since I allready purchased a shrink wrapped .Net application (Partition Magic) I think your barking up the wrong tree.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:What's the deal with .NET? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, where are the shrink-wrap .NET apps?


      Obvious, perhaps, but both Visual Studio .NET and VS .NET 2003 are written use .NET, and are huge improvements in the UI side of things over previous versions.
    4. Re:What's the deal with .NET? by KindAloysiusX · · Score: 1

      Actually, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and 2003 are mostly unmanaged code, being based on an original shell that began life in 1996-7 I believe. They do have certain key components written in managed code, however, and in the next version the managed proportion will be greater.

  69. bundled with windows by David+Jao · · Score: 3, Informative
    Are you forgetting how much is bundled with Windows XP, or do you just not anything about Windows?

    Tell me where in Windows XP I can find:

    • C compiler
    • Email server
    • Office suite
    • SQL database server
    • C++ IDE
    These are all included in redhat, but not in Windows XP.
    1. Re:bundled with windows by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Tell me where in Windows XP I can find: C compiler Email server Office suite SQL database server C++ IDE

      Windows alone has many, many times the number of lines of code that Red hat 9 has. Also if you install Windows 2003 and know where to look you can actually find a C# compiler, email server, SQL database engine, etc. etc.

      The high rate of patches for Windows XP also reflects the fact that Microsoft closed up shop for a month to go on a security bug hunt. Yet another reason is that XP contains an emulator for applications that were written to run under Windows 95. Emulators are notorious for requiring tweaks.

      Yet another explanation could be that more people use XP so more people find code paths that have bugs.

      Basically the number of patches issued is about as meaningless an indicator of code quality as number of lines of code per day is a measure of productivity.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    2. Re:bundled with windows by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Windows alone has many, many times the number of lines of code that Red hat 9 has.

      Do you have any numbers on this? IIRC, Redhat 9.0 is 3 nearly full disks of binaries whereas I have a single dev disk at work with win2k(all versions)/win98(all versions)/win95(all versions).

      It's not that I don't believe you, it's just when I statements like the one above thrown around like a fact I like to see some numbers behind it.

    3. Re:bundled with windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one example:

      Is Apache functional and feature-filled enough for you? Do they need to "copy" MS IIS better?

      If it's good enough to run almost two third of web servers then it's good enough for you (unless you are a pompous prick).

    4. Re:bundled with windows by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Windows alone has many, many times the number of lines of code that Red hat 9 has.

      Also if you install Windows 2003 and know where to look you can actually find a C# compiler, email server, SQL database engine, etc. etc.


      I have installed Windows Server 2003. It came with 0 lines of source code compared to over a GB of source code that came with Red Hat 9, so as far as I am concerned Windows has no source code at all.

      2003 came with an SMTP service, but no mail server. Red Hat 9 came with both POP, IMAP mail servers and SMTP services. I haven't checked for the C# compiler, but I know MS gives that away free as part of the .Net SDK so I'll credit that. However I don't see revision control systems, IDE's, etc to match the 20 or so languages and related development tools that come with RedHat 9.

      As far as a SQL database engine, maybe. But is that available for use in developing database backed applications? I sure haven't seen any indication of that.

      Basically the number of patches issued is about as meaningless an indicator of code quality as number of lines of code per day is a measure of productivity.

      Perhaps there is some validity to that statement. I will have to think about it.

      Yet another explanation could be that more people use XP so more people find code paths that have bugs.

      I think that if you argue that XP has many times the number of lines of source code that Red Hat has, you will have to accept that it also has many times the number of bugs unless you can convince me that MS somehow magically writes higher quality code than everyone else. Since we already know that products like Windows 95 have bug rates per LOC comparable to industry norms, I think you are going to have to come up with some pretty good arguments for this proposition.

    5. Re:bundled with windows by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Man, bloody thing would explode if all these were included. Can you imagine the length of the critical updates list?

    6. Re:bundled with windows by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Basically the number of patches issued is about as meaningless an indicator of code quality as number of lines of code per day is a measure of productivity."

      that much at least is true

      "Windows alone has many, many times the number of lines of code that Red hat 9 has."

      and maybe 10-15 built in applications (counting crap nobody will ever use), redhat has what a few thousand? If what you say is true that makes windows pretty damn bloated wouldn't you say?

    7. Re:bundled with windows by shaitand · · Score: 0

      Actually the numbers I've heard show that apache runs over 80% of the webservers out there if you count apache on windows.

    8. Re:bundled with windows by hplasm · · Score: 2, Funny
      And could you also dig up a decent graphical interface.

      Yeah! Are you listening Mr Gates? The Fisher-Price look is so XP...

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    9. Re:bundled with windows by hplasm · · Score: 1
      Imagine..."Please insert DVD 1 of 25..."

      Gak!

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  70. You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MS doesn't regularly miss deadlines??? Man, they sure as hell do in the universe I live in. I'd bet they blew the deadline at least once on the majority of major Windows releases, all the way back to 1.0.

    No one here will like it, but the fact is that MS's development model is a lot closer to that of the average open source project than it is to the stereotypical "cathedral" model. They put competing groups on the same project to see who can get it done first, they add features at the last second, they change course at the drop of a hat, and they blow the ass off schedules on a regular basis.

  71. bluetooth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you using bluetooth for?

  72. Bill is waiting until the X-Prize is won by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Funny

    so he can use the $$$$ from the sales of Longhorn on a trip into space.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  73. M$ Innovation ROTFLMAO by crovira · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Look for "Clippy" junior and "Bob Part Deux"

    I wonder who they're going to rip off now?

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  74. What can they really do? by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    2k/XP are stable (in Windows terms), they run apps well. I can't see any drastic changes, improvements or features coming along and I think Microsoft knows this.

    They can't integrate much more for risk of annoying the DOJ, all I can see them improving on is the security side of things.

    1. Re:What can they really do? by ratfynk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Integration is not the issue, the security features are the problem. They will have to introduce the features in MS office, which they have done. Then the processor encoded content locks they want are giving Intel fits. Microsoft has now got to go it alone with their version of trusted computing. What the implimentation is trying to do is make it so business can send .docs, xls, in a read receipt form. This will be set so that unless you have the security key to read the document you will not be able to decode it. MS is trying to impliment its own encription that will only alow other MS based systems to comunicate. The same old shit but with the twist that it is for your security that you must only use MS encript locks and keys. Intel is getting some kind of pissed at Microsoft because they need the high end server and scientific multiprocessor market to make their current Itanium processor line pay. So far Unix and Linux is kicking the shit out of MS at this, so the 3 billion Intel invested in 64 bit multiprocessing is not paying off. That is why MS licensed SMP protocols from SCO, they are trying to catch up to IBM and Linux but are having one hell of a time because the Intel 64 bit implimentation sucks.

      --
      OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
    2. Re:What can they really do? by johnnorthwood · · Score: 1

      remind me not to employ you at my r&d department

    3. Re:What can they really do? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fine, I'll play marketing guy for you, since I follow this stuff.

      * WinFS--SQL integration into the filesystem. You'll be able to search gigabytes of data and metadata.

      * DirectX desktop. Gorgeous visual cues with no slowdown.

      * Scalable desktop. Vector-based is a way to put it. If you have a really high-resolution monitor, things will be correctly scaled for you so you can see. Things will be the same size onscreen going from a 1024x768 to 1280x1024 resolution. You can also change the scale manually.

      * Entirely .NET based. Though Win32-compatibility will no doubt be offered, everything including explorer.exe will all be running as .NET managed code.

      * New, "photorealistic" interface called Aereo. Nobody really knows what's going on here, and they've said they might not release any screenshots until it's finished because they don't want their ideas being used elsewhere. This is actually the most intriguing to me. Will they revamp the whole Start menu/taskbar thing, or just stick with the idea they have in the current betas?

      We'll have to wait and see.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:What can they really do? by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1

      Is Microsoft going to make a break with the old WIN32 past with Longhorn? Will it be like when WIN32 replaced WIN16 with Windows 95 and NT?

      WIN16 sucked so bad we were ready to leave it behind as soon as we had the chance. Win 2K and XP actually work OK. I do not think people will be lining up to replace it.

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    5. Re:What can they really do? by johnnorthwood · · Score: 1

      remind me not to employ you at my marketing department

    6. Re:What can they really do? by johnnorthwood · · Score: 1

      remind me not to employ you at my employment department

    7. Re:What can they really do? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      I left the memo on your desk.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    8. Re:What can they really do? by johnnorthwood · · Score: 1

      remind me not to... ahh shutup already

  75. right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just like nobody uses Google now because MS is going to build a better version... And nobody is switching to Linux because the next version of Windows is only 3 years away... Huh?

    1. Re:right... by abigor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You obviously don't write software for a living. The MS practice of "partner, learn, announce competing version" is well known by many developers. Ask anyone at Pivotal.

    2. Re:right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My discussion was about consumer level vaporware applications/OSs. Of those, only Linux in that list applies. Linux is spreading well enough in servers. MS is still the "standard" for interoperability, though, on the desktop.

      MS has done a great job strong arming the PC desktop market because they rest at the base selling of PCs. In any other industry and they have to extend their monopoly; their word has a lot less meaning for servers and search engines. MS Cola just won't have anything but a marginal effect on Coca-Cola sales.

      A side note about Linux is, Linux's adoption in the consumer market at present is limited to a few "geeks" who hate Microsoft, love Linux, are using Linux like a fad, or have just chosen Linux over any other possible OS for their platform. With ever increasing interoperability and programs as more people use Linux, I think the delay of Longhorn might spurn some to give Linux a try before Longhorn can produce a new paradigm which might lure people to it. Things like SuperKaramba, though, lead me to believe that even if Longhorn was on schedule there'd be a good deal of interest in Linux. Apple was able to make a Unix user friendly. I think a bunch of geeks, some artists, and general lovers of Linux will eventually do the same with Linux.

    3. Re:right... by EddWo · · Score: 1

      or Sendo
      or Burst.com

      I think i'm recognizing some sort of pattern here.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
  76. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    I did the same thing and I couldn't find a decent media player alternative. Despite that pain in the ass DRM, WMP is the best I've used because it catagorizes everything and is easy to use. This make a huge difference when you have thousands of mp3s and even when you catagorize every album into subdirectories. The best I could find for linux were clones of wmp that looked and worked like the one from windows 3.1 and about as usable.

    Again, the only drawback is the drm and all that does is slow the adoption of wma's because mp3s sound just as good to me.

    One good media player would do a lot to convert those regular people into using linux than most open source people think.

  77. doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because so-called "web standards" are specifications of policy, not technical merit or need.
    Perhaps the release will accomodate these "standards", but currently there is little incentive to play along.

    1. Re: doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to comment about the oxymoron: 'relevant W3C standards' but you sorta beat me to it.

    2. Re: doubt it by penguin7of9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because so-called "web standards" are specifications of policy, not technical merit or need.

      I agree that many W3C standards are not well designed and are often for things nobody wants. But Microsoft is a participant in the W3C. That means Microsoft is partly responsible for the bloat and redundancy of those standards.

      If Microsoft realizes the problems with W3C standards, they should (and could) throw their weight around to change things. For Microsoft to encourage the development of bad standards on the part of the W3C and then not implement it themselves amounts to sabotage.

  78. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by alext · · Score: 1

    Your main point is valid, but only if Linux seizes the opportunity to make strategic improvements. New Desktops, however pretty, will not be sufficient.

    There have already been a number of extraordinarily complacent posts assuring us that there will be little worth having in Longhorn, that delays are being caused by minor security fixes, that features will be "borrowed" from OSX etc.

    This is grossly misleading and potentially very damaging to Linux.

    Right now, in 2003, Linux has no equivalent to Dotnet or WinFS nor any plan for such features . Such VMs and DBs that do exist are completely unexploited (and often impossible to exploit) from the kernel, the core tools and the popular desktops and office applcations.

    WinFS and Dotnet do represent significant advances to the consumer platform and Linux is likely to have its 30 year heritage all too visible unless its different development groups start talking and planning.

  79. Security? by heli0 · · Score: 1

    Maybe they are rewriting the whole OS in Ada?

    --
    Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
  80. quality, mate, quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Someone else" fixes the braindamaged design that Microsoft released. It isn't so much fixing as it is doing it the way it should have been done.

    1. Re:quality, mate, quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So as long as I steal things well, I'm OK?

    2. Re:quality, mate, quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but don't forget, you have to smile while you do it.

  81. IE7 is out, its called the google toolbar by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was just playing with the new google toolbar and it more or less turns IE into something that can compete with the features of Moz/Firebird. It provides a search box, intelligent pop-up blocking, and a right-click option to search Google for outlined text. Google now offers a spyware free version too.

    One of the big advanatages for OSS was being able to push through needed features at a fairly quick timetable. Now IE has caught up thanks to google. Still, there's no tabs, the stability is nothing to write home about, and the security holes/ActiveX crap is still there.

    I don't see much incentive for MS to improve their browser, it has the marketshare of the gods and the web is maturing technology. I'm sure many people and companies are more interested in seeing if RSS syndication hits critical mass and what's going on in the mobile market. Computers arent selling like hotcakes anymore, uber-phones and PDAs are.

    Maybe google can improve some other MS toys. How about the Google PGP toolbar for Outlook/OE? Google holds your public key after you install it and anyone who wants to email you can simply point and click their way to encrypted email with Google branding.

    1. Re:IE7 is out, its called the google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try out googlebar with mozilla. Googlebar is way more customizable than google toolbar, and we all know the benefits of using moz over ie.

      http://googlebar.mozdev.org/

    2. Re:IE7 is out, its called the google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are youi sick or what ?
      search for "MyIE2 homepage" on google and be enlightened

  82. Unnovations by horace · · Score: 1

    So Microsoft is going to copy Mosix and/or grid computing.

    I wish someone would make sure that journalists ask "You mean like Mosix or grid computing already available for some time in the world of open source?"

  83. Packaged Deal by Herkum01 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Microsoft says that they plan to release their new OS as part of package which shall include "Dukem Forever."

  84. Waiting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    microsoft is waiting for Apple to release next OS...

    because they need something to copy off of.

  85. No ??? in Windows XP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No 3D Desktop in Windows XP.

    I'll bet this is what the holdout is. The problem is waiting on the majority of machines out there to gain 3D capability. Or more precisely...enough time for companies to justify replacement of thousands of existing desktops so that all new machines will have 3D built-in. You would be surprised that a large percentage of desktops still do not have the level of 3D capability that Microsoft needs to pull off Longhorn. Apple has it easy, just get the users to buy-in to a brand new machine...a.k.a the G5 and Panther.

    It's called resource-shift-delay. They've done it before, many times.

    +1

  86. No ??? in Windows XP... by rmdyer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No 3D Desktop in Windows XP.

    I'll bet this is what the holdout is. The problem is waiting on the majority of machines out there to gain 3D capability. Or more precisely...enough time for companies to justify replacement of thousands of existing desktops so that all new machines will have 3D built-in. You would be surprised that a large percentage of desktops still do not have the level of 3D capability that Microsoft needs to pull off Longhorn. Apple has it easy, just get the users to buy-in to a brand new machine...a.k.a the G5 and Panther.

    It's called resource-shift-delay. They've done it before, many times.

    +1

  87. Ship date-MOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When the cows come home, obviously."

    Going to be installed on Gateways first.

  88. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    For my MP3s, I use RhythmBox. My real complaint with this software is that it uses ludicrous amounts of memory (60+ MB!) when dealing with collections of MP3s my size (5,500+). It's slow for this reason, but I'm onl a 500 MHz Pentium III, in all fairness. It does a nice job of emulating the functionality of iTunes while adding a few neat features of its own. They all get organized by artist/album/genre, et cetera. It has a faster equivalent for KDE but its name escapes me at the moment.

    Xine/Totem have been able to handle every DivX/XviD-AVI, every QuickTime and every RealPlayer file that I've thrown at it. My only complaint is being unable to play encrypted DVDs, since I can't seem to get the d4d/d5d plugins working.

  89. Fine with me.-And a one, and a two. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...what do you think Microsoft, of all companies, is doing all this time?) rather than released something buggy early."

    It takes awhile to count 46 Billion dollars.

  90. #$% me so corny... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    me love you longhorn...
    The article alludes to a prior 2005 prospective ship date announcement.
    Cite a historical example of a non-trivial software product achieving early delivery.
    Assuming ( answer != null ), name a few big projects that shipped on time.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:#$% me so corny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Project Manhattan?

  91. Cite a source by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Troll

    Cite a source and prove it.

    Oh, that's right, you can disable Palladium. But it's fun to forget that, isn't it?

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:Cite a source by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can disable it if you don't want half the newer programs that will come out to run.

    2. Re:Cite a source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, that's right, you can disable Palladium. But it's fun to forget that, isn't it?
      You can disable it, but do count on the fact that Windows will make it a pain in the ass for you. Much more so than any other OS.

      And the fact that disabling it will tell the OS it's a "Palladium-capable system with Palladium disabled" instead of "No Palladium available" will just increase your chances of being constantly nagged to enable it.

      So you'll pay more to choose between using crippling technology, or to be nagged for having it disabled. Good deal!
    3. Re:Cite a source by danila · · Score: 1

      That's the same as the administrator account in Win2000/XP. It looks like you can run your system as a user with limited rights and have a more secure system. In reality many products require that you have Admin rights for installation (and sometimes just for running it) for no apparent reason.

      I can well imagine that although you will be able to diasble Palladium, programs like Windows Media Player, Real Player, may be Quicktime, etc. will refuse to install and run... :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    4. Re:Cite a source by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I can well imagine that although you will be able to diasble Palladium, programs like Windows Media Player, Real Player, may be Quicktime, etc. will refuse to install and run... :)

      My prediction: The first application to require Palladium (as opposed to just supporting it, like WMP and Real will at first) will be Windows Update. For non-corporate users, anyway. It'll be an easy sale, since the argument for a secure way to update your OS is strong and valid. Of course, to use Automatic Update you'll have to leave Palladium on all the time. Eventually there'll be a patch that'll turn it on and leave it on whether you like it or not, possibly as part of a fix to a critical security vulnerability. My guess is also that if Palladium has flown that long, few people will care.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Cite a source by donnotill · · Score: 1

      just like the RPC update did for XP the RPC service in Win XP can no longer be stopped or disabled without a registry hack ... and of course the only warning given by MS was that this update may affect certain system settings

  92. The push will be Longhorn by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    .NET will be all over Longhorn. Longhorn itself will be .NET based. The latest betas have explorer.exe running as .NET managed code.

    They're leaving Win32 behind and going full .NET. The big push will be then, and you can bet the new version of Office will help that push, as well as a new Server product.

    There are a lot of very major changes going on with Longhorn. I don't blame them for taking their time with this. From hardware acceleration on the desktop to SQL engine integration to revamping everything to run as .NET managed code, it'll be a lot of work.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:The push will be Longhorn by sumho · · Score: 1

      rewriting explorer in .NET ? NO! explorer already uses 20-30% of my cpu just to browse the start menu...

      --
      All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss. -Douglas Adams
    2. Re:The push will be Longhorn by steve_l · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those screenshots of explorer crashing with a .NET exception do not prove that explorer.exe is now a .net app -a COM component running in the process could be managed code.

      That said, I have no evidence to disagree with any of your statements. The longer they slip, the more PCs will be able to run a deep .NET stack and not have the system appear dog slow.

    3. Re:The push will be Longhorn by Nkwe · · Score: 1
      They're leaving Win32 behind and going full .NET

      I belive that they are writing the support apps (Explorer, IE, Management utils, etc.) in .NET and pushing developers to develop in .NET. Under the covers .NET still calls Win32. I don't think this is scheduled to change in the Longhorn timeframe.

    4. Re:The push will be Longhorn by EddWo · · Score: 1

      I hope it does. .Net should be a replacement API.
      It is JITed differently on each platform so it could be made to use the platform native API (NT) instead of going through a compatibility layer. All they would need to do is rewrite the class libraries. Any changes made in NT can be reflected in the .Net class libraries as well. Its a way of maintaining App compatibility accross multiple platforms and architectures.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
  93. It's in their best interest to release it soon-PLF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Xine/Totem have been able to handle every DivX/XviD-AVI, every QuickTime and every RealPlayer file that I've thrown at it. My only complaint is being unable to play encrypted DVDs, since I can't seem to get the d4d/d5d plugins working."

    Go to the Penguin Liberation Front (real name) site and download the appropriate rpms. Gxine also embeds itself into Mozilla and allows playback of whatever xine can handle.

  94. Debian by Sphere1952 · · Score: 1

    I just update every so often so I've got all the latest and greatest of the 100s of apps I've got on this machine. I guess there's a few security fixes in one or another of the updates from time to time.

    One thing I know. SoBig.F was only a pain because the network sucked for days.

    --
    Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
  95. These DNF jokes are getting WAY old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    werd.

    1. Re:These DNF jokes are getting WAY old... by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      So is Duke.

  96. "Millenium" has it covered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as they release it by Dec. 31, 3000, they'll be OK.

  97. People misunderstand Windows XP by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The big deal with XP was getting all the home users off the 9x/DOS codebase. Sure, you corporate clients were barely affected--we were already running NT/2k.

    XP is geared for home users, though they offer Professional because it does lend improvements over 2k that warrant it being used for workstations.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  98. Duh! The beta testing on XP isn't finished yet by spress · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're still waiting on returns from the testing team code named "Script Kiddies"

    --
    Subverting the meta-moderating system since 2003
  99. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

    Right now, in 2003, Linux has no equivalent to Dotnet or WinFS nor any plan for such features . Such VMs and DBs that do exist are completely unexploited (and often impossible to exploit) from the kernel, the core tools and the popular desktops and office applications.

    I'm assuming that your referring to a Linux system as a whole and not explicitly the kernel. The reason why these shouldn't be part of the kernel are pretty straightforward, .NET is a development framework and WinFS is a database driven file system. That said, the equivalents for .NET would be Mono / dotGNU and for WinFS you could use Oracle's IFS , not free but then neither is Windows.

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  100. Mod parent up by los+furtive · · Score: 0

    I had to reboot no less than 4 times to bring a Windows 2000 machine up to snuff last friday.

    --

    I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

  101. The delay by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    They are actually going to get it right this time?

    or they need the time to get enough bugs in it to live down to there normal standards.

    When you buy MS you are paying to be a beta tester.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  102. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will KDE finally be capable of actually getting viruses?

    1. Re:Why? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "will KDE finally be capable of actually getting viruses? "

      When it has a couple of interesting features to use, then yes.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  103. damn by Li0n · · Score: 1

    that's gotta be a damn loooong horn then!

    --

    ~
    ~
    :wq
  104. When It's Ready!!! by spazoid12 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What? Has George Broussard joined MS? "It'll ship when it's ready!" My were'd I put my DN4ever CD??? It's gotta be around here somewhere...

  105. Wy do nassty peoples accuse MSFT of stealing? by mpaque · · Score: 1

    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030828. html

    That's why.

  106. Why wait for 2005? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 0, Troll

    You can get all the advanced features and functionality of Longhorn (and then some) later this month! Where? Here, of course!

  107. Corrections by EverDense · · Score: 4, Informative

    The parent post is hardly "Insightful".
    Windows 3.1 was released in April 1992.
    Windows for Workgroups 3.1 and 3.11 were MAJOR versions, they were released in Oct 1992 and Nov 1993, respectively. Where are the Windows NT entries? v3.51 and v4 certainly major versions (released during 1994).
    Windows 98 and 98SE can be considered MAJOR versions (maybe not under the hood, but still...).

    --
    http://jesus.everdense.com/
    1. Re:Corrections by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Informative
      "Windows 3.1 was released in April 1992. Windows for Workgroups 3.1 and 3.11 were MAJOR versions, they were released in Oct 1992 and Nov 1993, respectively. Where are the Windows NT entries? v3.51 and v4 certainly major versions (released during 1994). Windows 98 and 98SE can be considered MAJOR versions (maybe not under the hood, but still...)."

      I should have said that 1990 was Windows 3.0, not windows 3.1 - you are correct about that being wrong.

      But Windows 3.11 and WFW 3.11, even though they introduced some significant new things, they did not introduce a major revision of the OS. It was still the same OS with some important new features, particularly in the networking department.

      Even though some consider Win98/se to be major revisions, they were still updates to win95 and did not give a fundamental change in the OS's operation (except for IE integration) and basically built on what was already there. They were significant updates but I do not count them as major revisions.

      As to NT, that does not apply here. I'm talking about desktop OSs. Notice that I mentioned that Win2k was the first 32 bit desktop windows. I do know that NT was out there long before win2k came out.

    2. Re:Corrections by EverDense · · Score: 1

      Three little words that put paid to your disregard for Windows NT as a desktop OS: "Windows NT Workstation".

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    3. Re:Corrections by Keeper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He probably meant Windows 3.0 (which WAS released in 1990) and not Win3.11.

      Incidentally, NT 3.51 and 4 were intended for use in a server enviornment and not a desktop environment. Neither were "hugely" adopted either; I've never seen anything before NT 4, and I didn't see NT4 very much either.

      Win98 & 98SE were major revisions to Win95, but were based on the same fundamental code/technology. As such, 98 and 98SE were not fundamental changes to windows.

      Win2k represented the first version of NT that was "good", and was also the first version of NT that was widely used beyond a server role.

      The original poster's timeline was correct. Major OS release events from Microsoft generally happen every 5 years.

    4. Re:Corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind you are talking to an audience that was 15 years old at the time, and would never have run such a primitive enviornment as NT that did not run every video game.

      For anyone doing real "desktop" work, on real hardware, with real memory tho -- NT (any ver) was a fuckin' godsend.

    5. Re:Corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? So the NT4.0 Workstation I used to develop under was a server product, was it?

    6. Re:Corrections by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Windows NT 3.5 :

      Native OpenGL support that helped annihilate an entire market for expensive graphics workstations.

  108. 'My Grid', and 'Grids Close to Me' by Plugh · · Score: 4, Funny
    "why does it have to happen on my home machine? Why can't it seamlessly run those tasks on the dozen or so machines I have access to that are just sitting there?"

    Looks like Microsoft is trying to get on the "Grid Computing" bandwagon, which has been gathering steam ever since the economist ran an article about it. Oracle and IBM both have major Grid Computing initiatives, and Microsoft wants to pretend they can play with the Big Dogs in the Server Room.

    Imagine once the Microsofties dumb the concept down to the Windows level... the 'My Grid' and 'Grids Close To Me' icons on an ostensibly well-trained admin's desktop... aaaaarrrggghh!

    1. Re:'My Grid', and 'Grids Close to Me' by andrewski · · Score: 1

      They already do play with the big dogs in the server room. That's the funny part!

      There are many organizations using Windows right now in ways that boggle the mind! Geospatial, scientific, embedded, energy, aerospace, storage nets, etc. It's difficult to understand the motivation sometimes, but you can't claim that there's no market for high-performance MS servers.

      I don't really approve, but god dman if it isn't true.

  109. Delay is good by cpuenvy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am not alone when I say this: Windows 2000 is the best Microsoft OS since DOS 6.22. I had to get that off my chest.

    I think that the reason they are delaying Longhorn is because of all the bad hype they have received this past week. They are beginning to realize that people now are concerned about security. When they have to pay someone like myself $45.00 an hour to remove a stupid worm from their computers, they are pissed. They want to know why this is happening to them, and it is getting easier to explain to them that the Windows code is swiss cheese, since they hear it being confirmed on the 6 o'clock news.

    Microsoft is obviously delaying the release due to the fact that they had shit for security in the code they posses now, and they are bringing it to the table to clean it up.

    A man can have dreams, can't he?

    --
    DISCLAIMER:

    I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.

    1. Re:Delay is good by Tony · · Score: 1

      I am not alone when I say this: Windows 2000 is the best Microsoft OS since DOS 6.22.

      Well, that's damning with faint praise.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  110. You know what that means? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Windows XP might live long enough to get enough patches to become stable and for all the software to catch up.
    2. When Longhorn comes out, it might be stable.

    Of course this is just wishful thinking. I'm sure they'll do something diabolical in the meantime. Maybe they feel like there's enough money to be made yet by the use of licensing press gangs. "You WILL sign up, or we'll sue you into the ground, you dirty corporate pirates!"

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  111. A way to kill Java? by ZooSpeed · · Score: 1

    Justice Dept. to Microsoft: Put Java back in Windows.

    Microsoft to JD: Okay, no problem. We'll put it in the next major release.

    Bill to MS: Delay the release until Java is forgotten.

  112. gargh, it burns!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ugh, that avant thing looks like such a P.O.S.

  113. Never shipped isn't long enough by ThoreauHD · · Score: 1

    Of course I'm biased. I have to install all this crap when they spew it out.

  114. XP is to 2K as Me is to 98 by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    I only have XP because I get it free from the Uni.
    MS is going to have to come out with something pretty spectacular to get me to move from 2K.

    Millenium was more of a downgrade from 98. I got it since it was only $50 and completed my upgrade path so I could continue to avoid paying for full versions.

    XP is basically the same way for 2K users. It's not a very valuable upgrade. But for those who have 98 and aren't comfortable with an OS like 2000, it's an excellent upgrade option.

    Ben

  115. Here Comes MicroLinux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This gives them time to redo the whole thing based on Linux. Since no one can see the source code, who's to know?! (Yeah, well, I guess there'd be a bunch of clues, but still, it might be their best chance at a secure system.)

  116. Apple Apple Apple by va1entino · · Score: 1

    It's a good time to be a Mac user...

  117. What features are "Major" except for hardware? by gelfling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    MS has a microincrmental approach to actual new feature inclusion, a glacial pace for real UI changes and an invisible, it will work when it works if it works at all approach to under the covers patches and design fixes.

    So what could possibly be Major? Yet more restrictive DRM?, A new driver model that sends all the HW vendors to hit the bottle? Eh?

    If I were deeply cynical which of course I'm not I'd say that 'delays' such as they are are keyed to the symbiotic relationship they have to Intel. When/if Intel bakes a new batch of chips they need to sell suddenly a 'new' version of Windows will come along to 'need' them.

  118. Your Dates are off... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

    1985: Windows 1.0 (the first windows) 1990: Windows 3.1 (the first windows that had enough flare to get widespread useage) 1996: Win95 (the first windows for the desktop with 32 bit code and memory protection) 1999: Win98 (Introduces USB support) 2001: Windows 2000 (the first 32 bit windows for the desktop) 200?: Longhorn

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  119. SP2 in mid 2004 by antdude · · Score: 1

    Link.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  120. Less useful than it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These "free updates" that companies pay for are a waste of time, primarily because hardly anybody upgrades OS's on corporate machines. The potential cost in downtime and lost data just aren't worth it.

    I think companies are buying licenses with their PC's and then just buying new PC's every 3-4 years with the new OS on it.

    1. Re:Less useful than it seems by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1


      You must have missed that whole Software Assurance mess I was referring to. Companies were practically extorted to buy annual licensing that amounted to replacing Windows every three years, even if they didn't want to. This makes what they paid for is patches instead of a Windows upgrade. Software Assurance must be being rethought even as we speak.

      rd

  121. I have a few words to say: by MoronGames · · Score: 1, Funny

    Microsoft Windows Forever.

    --
    hey!
  122. You missed the biggest one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet time synchronization!

  123. How long.... by starnix · · Score: 1

    has Windows XP been out in comparison to say RH9. Of course there are going to be more updates available for XP. If there weren't that many out everyone would be complaining they dont patch their bugs. For fucks sake give MS a break. Don't get me wrong, I HATE MS. I have used LINUX exclusively since Windows 98 came out, before that, OS/2 Warp. I am no friend of Microsoft or thier business practices but give some credit where credit is due. As for Longhorn being delayed again.... Does it really surprise anyone? MS has been tooting the (Long)horn about Longhorn for years now to make people "Wait and see" (TM) what Microsoft has to take on LINUX and others (Rumors of longhorn made MY boss decide to not take a serious look at LINUX), Just another case of Vaporware. Don't tell me it isnt vaporware because until there is a shrinkwrapped version of it that I can buy, it is nothing more. I have no doubt it will come out eventually and probably be fairly nice for the general public, but until then, Longhorn is an urban legend.

  124. Linux as Kernel only.... by Glasswire · · Score: 1

    It's perfectly possible to run just linux as a router and only use the kernel.

    Hmmm, I'm certainly not a Linux guru, but with no shell support how do you control it or shut it down?
    Something tells me it's not possible to run a system with just a kernel (-how you bootstrap with no-bootloader app?)

    1. Re:Linux as Kernel only.... by noweb4u · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong. I've used a linux machine when init had died, and only the kernel was working and running. Even parts of the kernel were dead and locked.
      I've been sitting at a kernel oops where I was still routing, blocking, and natting packets via the machine using iptables.

      I could easily set up a machine where there is only a few executables, and replace /sbin/init with a program that loaded my IPtables policies and went into a "while (1) { sleep 1000; };" loop. Control it with the power switch. The filesystem's not dirty because it never went read/write.

      Hell, my linux firewall already is using bridging code to filter packets without having a valid IP address to attack it. It's crashed multiple times where I couldn't manage it, but it was working just fine.

    2. Re:Linux as Kernel only.... by Glasswire · · Score: 1

      Hmmm (again).
      I could easily set up a machine where there is only a few executables, and replace /sbin/init with a program that loaded my IPtables policies and went into a "while (1) { sleep 1000; };" loop.
      Gee, that's sounds like the kernel is NOT the only file on the machine. Those "few executables" kinda break the premise of running only a kernel- which was the original claim. I still wasn't clear on how you get along without a bootloader, too.
      Seriously, as Stallman relentlessly reminds us, an operating system is more than a kernel. You can run a very lean system with not much else, but I don't see how you can run with only the kernel. If you know how, please detail how from a cold startup...

    3. Re:Linux as Kernel only.... by noweb4u · · Score: 1

      The kernel is capable of bootstrapping itself if written raw to a floppy disk (or at least it was at one time).

      Hardcode your rules in the kernel. Set your IP address as the NIC is detected, and when IPTABLES is initialized, do so with a default set of rules which matches your requirements exactly. Don't forget to make ip_forward default to 1 instead of 0! (It used to, in 2.0.x series kernels with forwarding enabled in kernel)

      Change the part of the kernel which starts /sbin/init to simply run "while (1) { sleep 1; };"

      But now we're stepping into the level of pedantics that only a slashdot user could appreciate.

      The idea was to demonstrate you don't need a useable OS to run a system. It could be very simple to make a kernel that does only forward packets after inspecting them with IPtables, and if I were better at C programming, I'd demonstrate.

      Besides, as far as I know, stallman's reminders are to reinforce the idea of calling it "GNU/Linux" rather than just Linux. Not to challenge some kernel hacker to write an implementation that is self running.

  125. WHY DO SLASHDOT MODS HATE MICROSOFT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    It never fails, some slob says anything remotely positive about MS and they get modded down. I'm going to give up on Slashdot. I even hat Microsoft but geeze, its not like we cant learn something from having a discussion that includes people saying nice things about MS.

    The posts where I say Linux is great I get +5 mods. And the posts where I say make some inteeligent argument and conculde Well MS is going to challenge Linux on this or that I get this amazing battle of the mods taking place with ten or more points all told being exchanges +3 informative +2 interesting -5 overated.

    slashdot is just got too many kiddies or immature dolts. I've got to find a greener pasture where linux and Mac OSX are still welcome but the moderations is more discerning. anyone have any suggestions

  126. Longhorn won't require 3D by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Longhorn will have a tiered approach. There will be the full-on 3D configuration, the middle-level, and so on. You can scale all the way back to normal 2D operations like now, and they are even including the Windows 2000 theme like XP has.

    This is all covered at WinSuperSite, by the way, in the "Road To Longhorn" articles. Whether or not you like Paul Thurrott, he has the sources in Microsoft to get actual information on future versions of Windows.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  127. They could push the release date up if they just, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    would take a big dose of EX-LAX. Then they would shortly give birth to their latest brainchild..

    See, that wasn't too hard was it??

  128. Cheaper if.... by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

    Sure, it would have been cheaper IF Microsoft had not threatened to "audit" those companies who were on their shit-list if they did not sign up for Software Assurance.

    Companies that could pass an official audit with less than a bank-breaking settlement are few and far between.

    Stewed
    Squirrel

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  129. Cart before the horse by Theatetus · · Score: 1

    They're smarter than that, I think. You're average non-geek doesn't purchase new hardware because it's 1337; he purchases new hardware because the new software he's running is stomping his old hardware into a flaming mass. Whenever they put out a 3D-accelerated desktop, people will flock to get new boxes.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  130. I feel a draft. I smell a patent wumpus. by tjstork · · Score: 1



    i bet the plug in patent forced this delay.

    --
    This is my sig.
  131. Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by melted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Longhorn will be to previous versions of windows what Windows 95 was back in the day - a radical change. Old apps will be supported, but only in compatibility mode (like 16-bit win. 3.11 apps are supported in windows right now). All the new APIs will be managed which means fast, secure and componentized. There will be new security model. There will be new UI library very different from what you can use now, and, again managed. GDI will only be supported in compatibility mode - graphics engine will change as well. This coupled with a shitload of other technologies will make it a worthy target for developers and businesses.

    Do not underestimate the power of several thousand quality developers fueled by several billions of dollars. They've hired out creme of the crop in the dotcom bust phase and now their workforce is better and more dedicated than ever.

    If they're willing to adjust the schedules on top of that, the resulting product may really be scary good.

    1. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Do not underestimate the power of several thousand quality developers fueled by several billions of dollars.

      There have been several well known studies done by MIT and other well known institutions that show the number of developers is not a predictor of quality or quantity of software. In most of the studies, the primary factor in the over all quality of a piece of software was the depth of knowledge in a specific field.

      In the area of security, microsoft is still just trying to get enough people. But the primary problem for MS is this. They can't simply dump all the existing code and rebuild from scratch with security at the core. What is worse, trying to retrofit may cause far more problems than it solves. I'm too lazy to google the links, so those who believe the myth increasing the number of programmers some how makes software better and finish faster needs to read up on the topic.

    2. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      Longhorn will be to previous versions of windows what Windows 95 was back in the day - a radical change. Old apps will be supported, but only in compatibility mode (like 16-bit win. 3.11 apps are supported in windows right now). All the new APIs will be managed which means fast, secure and componentized. There will be new security model. There will be new UI library very different from what you can use now, and, again managed. GDI will only be supported in compatibility mode - graphics engine will change as well. This coupled with a shitload of other technologies will make it a worthy target for developers and businesses.

      Microsoft is releasing OS X?

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    3. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by Sven+Tuerpe · · Score: 1
      Longhorn will be to previous versions of windows what Windows 95 was back in the day - a radical change.

      Within the last ten years we have seen three such radical changes in the Microsoft OS world: DOS -> DOS+Win, 3.x -> 9x, 9x/ME -> 2000/XP. The publishing and training industries are quite happy about it, but is anybody else? What is it they are changing so radically so often, and why?

      In the Unix/Linux world, on the other hand, we have seen just evolution: a steady stream of improvements, leaving intact what was not broken in the first place while improving what needs improvement. In the Unix world, today I'm still using knowledge I acquired ten years ago under AIX, HP-UX, or SunOS, like vi and shell commands, central APIs, etc.

      What does that tell us about radical change?

      --
      http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
    4. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by jcr · · Score: 1

      There have been several well known studies done by MIT and other well known institutions that show the number of developers is not a predictor of quality or quantity of software.

      It's not scientific, but in my experience, the number of developers on a project is an excellent predictor of the likelihood of failure. After you get more than five people touching the same code, the more there are, the worse the result.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by jcr · · Score: 1

      Longhorn will be to previous versions of windows what Windows 95 was back in the day - a radical change.

      I see it more as MS's answer to Copeland. It will be the first OS project that they'll have to admit has tanked.

      Now, when that happened to Apple, they were able to buy NeXT to deliver the OS they needed. Who is there for MS to buy to pull their feet out of the fire? (After all, look what a bleeding mess they made out of VMS.)

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by master_p · · Score: 1

      Well, will all this new technology bring anything different to us users ? nope. We will still have to open applications, to double click icons, to select menu options, to insert CDs/DVDs and install software, to browse the web, to download programs, to send and receive e-mails, and to play games.

      I don't see why everything should be .NETed and VirtualMachined. I mean, look at other OSes(and Windows so far): they do a fine job without all the bloat of .NET. People have been doing computing successfully without any VM; Microsoft does not understand that Java is successful not because of the VM but of code compatibility in different platforms and of the rich libraries available.

      Despite of these philosophical differences, I wish they really delay for as long as possible the release of Longhorn, since it would be a totally new O/S from the inside, in order to release it with as few bugs as possible.

    7. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by miffo.swe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think ive heard the same thing before...

      Hum...

      Ahh yes!

      It was when DOS 3.2, 4.0, windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, NT, 2000, XP, 2003 was released.

      Damnit man stop parroting MS spindoctors, it makes you sound stupid you poor thing you.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    8. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Well gee, you see that behavior with every consumer product, not just Windows. Each subsequent revision of a given product includes additions that didn't make the cut in previous versions, some better or worst. For the most part, however, they hope it's an improvement (and in many cases there is an improvement).

      Take automobiles, for example. As many here know, antilock brakes were around for over 50 years, but never really entered the mainstream until just 15 years ago. Does that make them new? Of course not. Does that mean, therefore, that none of the auto industries should tout ABS in their ads? "Buy the new 2003 Turd Coupe, guaranteed to kill you, your family, and everyone around you in a 40 foot wide fireball when you crash!"

      I don't think bloody well so.

      It's not a matter of (good or evil) spin doctoring, that's just a common fact. You aren't going to sell Model Y because it's exactly the same as Model X, or even Model W. Even Linux operates on that method, why bother recompiling your kernel if they don't list off any improvements with the new version?

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    9. Re:Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! by danila · · Score: 1

      That's natural for the OSS model. You can release as often as you like. MS can't. OSS doesn't spend billions on marketing, MS does. So MS needs to concentrate everything they make over several years into a new product, hype it to the sky and earn shitloads of money. If they used OSS model, you'd see much smoother evolutionary development.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  132. Longhorn == Bad memories(OT). by Trollificus · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Man, everytime I hear the name longhorn, I am reminded of the time a friend of mine downloaded a mad pr0n picture by that exact same filename, and recognized his ex-wife honking on some guy with a 12 inch cock. I kid you not.

    We had a good laugh about it. But wow, that was creepy(not to mention the fact that the name stuck with me after all these years).

    --

    "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
    - Gov. Jesse Ventura

  133. Longhorn features by AvengerXP · · Score: 1

    New and improved faster boot times

    All your applications will crash at startup even before the OS is loaded, just like with XP! See how ICQ can't connect because the firewall/network isnt connected yet and still loading!

    I love XP but thats my #1 gripe. I hope LH takes care of this.

    --
    Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
  134. Indeed. by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Windows Server 2003 took longer to release because of the re-written IIS and .NET layers. Security was also a main concern, but not because XP or 2000 were insecure.

    They had plenty of vulnerabilities and many exploits that could have been prevented by patching and such... however, with SQL Slammer, Code Red, and others that had come out, Gates decided, this is it, we have to change some process somewhere. So he overhauled their development process one more time to focus around security in EVERY decision. So they halted development for 6 months, sent every single developer to a school in developing secure code, purchased 200 million in books on secure programming for their developers, and then went back to work. That right there delayed things 6 months alone.

    Then, as part of Gates' orders, their next job was a line by line review of every single coded product Microsoft makes. Everything from Windows Server 2003 to the IntelliPoint software. While analyzing that code for common security mistakes, they also founded a new security organization for companies to join to exchange common coding conventions for secure code and publish common mistakes and to allow joint development knowledge to be shared, and hired on 500 people at the company to develop tools that do nothing but scan code. Those tools go out and look at code to find buffer overrun issues (the most common security flaw in existence), and to look for other common security mishaps in code.

    After the review, they implemented the changes found therein. Then ran the new tools that by that time were done being developed, then implemented those changes, then got back on track with development and yes, rewrote the IIS layers to be partially built directly into the kernel for substantial performance increase. So with all that happening, the review, the tool development, the changes, the security education and reorganization, there were delays, yes. They got it out and look what it has... Two known vulnerabilities of which BOTH of them are a non-issue out of the box and are in areas that are rarely used.

    1. Re:Indeed. by jo42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lads, observe the above posting to see how to bullsh*t really well.

      What this MBA (Master Bullsh*t Artist) doesn't tell you is that Windows Server 2003 was vulnerable to the same RPC exploit that the Blaster worm took advantage of. Go look for yourselves here: MS03-026 if you don't believe me.

    2. Re:Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMFAO.

    3. Re:Indeed. by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      And your reply contradicts anything I said where?

    4. Re:Indeed. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Compared to the number of security errata fixes Redhat puts out, I'd say only three fixes, two of them non-critical, is enough to make people stop bitching already. 2003 is damned solid.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    5. Re:Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe next time they will actually *learn* something about security. Like YOU DON'T PUT A F*CKING WEBSERVER IN THE KERNEL. On the next IIS-exploit, they are going to find out that even LocalSystem is peanuts compared to Ring 0.

    6. Re:Indeed. by ThoreauHD · · Score: 1

      I din't know RedHat came with RPC ports wide the hell open. There's security and then there's microsoft security. Have you seen what RedHat fixes in these patches?

      Ex: Package xmms- exploit revealed to gain root access when logging in as user with loopback to a toaster oven and hitting the ctrl-F6 key while playing Xvid with Swedish subtitles.

      RedHat supports thousands of separate applications along with the OS- Which is the kernel only. You can't compare RedHat to windows when Microsoft thinks a mediaplayer is something special. You have well meaning intentions.. you just aren't calibrated in the head is all.

    7. Re:Indeed. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      RedHat supports thousands of separate applications along with the OS

      Yes. All of which they have the source to, and all of which they choose to include in their distribution.

      I take that to mean that they've looked at the code, and declared it safe to use, or at least as safe as they're willing to warranty it (which is not at all, iirc). If there's an exploit found in code that ships with a Linux distribution, then it's the distributor's responsibilty, imnho. I don't care if it's (c) RedHat or not.

    8. Re:Indeed. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      YOU DON'T PUT A F*CKING WEBSERVER IN THE KERNEL

      You mean like the Linux kernel patch to put http-serving in the kernel?

    9. Re:Indeed. by jcr · · Score: 1

      Umm... Why didn't they just get a site license for Purify like any normal software developer would?

      Sorry, but hiring 500 bodies to do something over that's already available off the shelf sound patently ridiculous.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:Indeed. by torpor · · Score: 1

      Ah really. So we're going to be cashing in on Microsoft and their viruses when now, exactly?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    11. Re:Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh? I can write a patch that puts a fucking flight simulator game into the "the kernel" (meaning my kernel). What's your point, dimwit?

    12. Re:Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I din't know RedHat came with RPC ports wide the hell open.
      Well, now you do: RedHat out the box is horrifically insecure. We put a RedHat box up at home, closed off everything we knew about, put up a firewall, went to work and came home to find we'd been rooted. Now we have a Windows box doing the same job and it's never seen a second's problem.
    13. Re:Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think his point was that it's an accepted technique for improving webserver performance and works well. If it's reliable then what's the problem?

    14. Re:Indeed. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Indeed indeed - if you read MS blogs, you'll also know that some of that DCOM code dates back from the 80s. When the DCOM exploits came out, they had programmers who had never even seen the code before trawling it.

    15. Re:Indeed. by Dante · · Score: 1

      "You mean like the Linux kernel patch to put http-serving in the kernel?"

      You know this is a perfect example of _WHY_ linux is superior, it was deamed to hackish to live and was unceremoniously booted out of 2.5.x very early in the cycle. Think about it, they realized that it caused more problems including security and remove a feature. Think about how difficult it will be for Microsoft to support this for the years to come, because some customer will demand it back.

      --
      "think of it as evolution in action"
    16. Re:Indeed. by Lurker · · Score: 1

      Well, now you do: RedHat out the box is horrifically insecure. We put a RedHat box up at home, closed off everything we knew about, put up a firewall, went to work and came home to find we'd been rooted. Now we have a Windows box doing the same job and it's never seen a second's problem.

      Is the Windows computer connected to the network?

    17. Re:Indeed. by spotteddog · · Score: 1

      "Two known vulnerabilities of which BOTH of them are a non-issue out of the box and are in areas that are rarely used."

      Gee, that blaster thing sure did mess up a whole bunch of Windows 2k servers.....

      It was by sheer luck that the programmer did not know how to include Win 2k3 in the list of systems to replicate from. From Symantec's website (http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/ven c/data/w32.blaster.worm.html):

      "While Windows NT and Windows 2003 Server machines are vulnerable to the aforementioned exploit (if not properly patched), the worm is not coded to replicate to those systems."

      The vunerability is there, and will be exploited. You *must* patch a Win 2k3 server out of the box or face possible problems from a copy code script kiddie.

      Hardly a non issue out of the box.

      --
      . there used to be a sig here.....
    18. Re:Indeed. by Ciggy · · Score: 1

      So they halted development for 6 months, sent every single developer to a school in developing secure code, purchased 200 million in books on secure programming for their developers, and then went back to work.

      Reminds me of the story that the MOD ordered lots of copies of the Ladybird book on computers. The publishers politely wrote back stating that they were intended for 8 year olds; only to get a reply confiming the order. [or something like that...just can't find my source at the moment]

      --

      A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
      A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
    19. Re:Indeed. by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Maybe next time they will actually *learn* something about security. Like YOU DON'T PUT A F*CKING WEBSERVER IN THE KERNEL. On the next IIS-exploit, they are going to find out that even LocalSystem is peanuts compared to Ring 0.

      And in the meantime you will actually learn about OS architecture.

      IIS having kernel level access is that it has a kernel level DRIVER. Nothing more.

      And this is mainly for Cache Performance speed increases. So it is a kernel level driver, just like other drivers used throughout the OS.

      Even with the Ring 0 (kernel) driver, IIS STILL has to pass through NT's object based security model.

      Now, explain how having a ring 0 driver is a big security problem?

      The only problem that could happen is if the IIS kernel driver was poorly written and crashed the OS. (Not likely to happen if it hasn't happened in 2 years of testing.)

    20. Re:Indeed. by JamieF · · Score: 1

      No, it just sounds like Microsoft.

      When your company is based on hiring smart people right out of college, you end up with a lot of smart people, but they also [a] don't know anything about how the rest of the world has solved the same problems before and [b] don't think that the world could possibly have solved any problems before, or at least not as well as they could have. So you get a bunch of half-assed solutions to already-solved problems, but this time with key requirements overlooked, lots of bugs and design mistakes, and new terminology. We're all very fortunate (seriously) that billg and his underlings have finally started to see the light of interoperability, and started to phase out the flawed MS/IBM technologies in favor of stuff that the not-working-for-Bill smart people worked out.

      There are still problems that have yet to be solved convincingly by anybody, of course, but I don't see MS being as magnanimous as Apple has suddenly started to be about trying to solve those problems in an open and standardized way. (In this case I'm referring to Zeroconf, Rendezvous, etc., which are so new and weird that I'm not sure it they're good solutions yet, but they seem to be, and they're definitely not the same sort of well-intentioned but ultimately flawed and inflexible technologies as stuff like the AppleTalk stack.)

  135. You're missing the key piece of logic by melted · · Score: 1

    They CAN dump existing software by sandboxing it within compatibility mode. Like for example win16 apps that can't crash each other anymore and have to obey security restrictions in Win NT/2000/XP. Remember, there was no security whatsoever in Win 3.11. In my opinion, making Windows secure just requires a lot of education of users and developers. Apps should not require admin accounts to run, every user should know how to run a piece of software under another account (aka runas). Their security model kicks ass, only nobody's using it that's the problem.

  136. Window of Opportunity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to ramble but here goes nothing...and please forgive me for the metaphors...

    I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that this is merely the calm before the storm. The tone of many posters here indicates a bit of hope as they see this as an opportunity to accomplish a lot but rest assured that the Empire will not rest. The cunning Architect is a dirty competitor and will never play fair. Longhorn will be the masterpiece in the Empires arsenal as the most elaborate system of trapping users in its clutches.

    I'm a Windows user by necessity but I'm trying very hard (I hope) to get away from the clutches of the Empire. The problem is that there are still many apps (e.g., graphic design/DTP) that I use that are simply not available or not as robust in the Open Source world.

    I've tried several releases of Mandrake and RedHat in the past several years (RH 6-9 inclusive) and found the evolution amazing and encouraging in both distros. I have two PCs at home. One running WinXP and one RH 9. I use Mozilla Phoenix/Thunderbird for browsing and e-mail in the WinXP PC. These details will hopefully illustrate one small point.

    Just a few days ago I decided to give old RH another kick at the can, as it were. Although I found the overall look and feel has improved significantly, I was very disappointed in the area of application installation process. While using RH 9 I tried to install Mozilla 1.4 using RPM. Guess what the obstacle was that I encountered? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "dependency". Why? After all these years, RH at least, still has not come even close to getting it right. I like RH and I don't want to pick on it but it was what I was using and it will be the focus this ramble. And, no, none of the other distributions are any better from my perspective.

    I'm no computer geek or a programmer but I do like getting my hand dirty with the inner working of the OS to a certain degree. Over the past decade of using DRDOS/MSDOS/Windows, I like to think that I've accumulated some savvy. I'm a curious person. I want to see how things work and tweak things in my capacity. I consider myself an above average Windows user. I often help my colleagues at work and many friends and family members to troubleshoot their Windows and application problems. The point is that I can be expected to go out of my way to get an application working. But, most PC users I know are blissfully clueless and they will not stand for this level of "sophistication" to be expected of them. If I was frustrated with installing a new application under RH 9, then think how the average windows user will feel and react faced with this process.

    The point here is that often users don't want to know how the microwave works. They want to heat up their food with the push of one or two buttons. The average user cannot be expected to do anything more than use the mouse to click a few options here and there to install an app. As soon as you ask the average user to look into a folder or search for a file (or any such "involved" task) in order to install an app, you will have lost. This point has been made her on /. one-million-and-one times already. Sad? Yes!!! But, that is the reality.

    Until the open source community comes together and agrees upon some common UI standard from the user's perspective, Windows will always be a moving target and, in my estimation, unconquerable on the desktop. If desktop is unconquerable then nothing else matters. This is the battle line. Developers in the open source community must focus on this task. If 95% of the workers out there use a Windows-based PC at home, then businesses will use Windows-based PCs and naturally Windows-based apps on their standard desktop PCs. Conquering the sever market is nice but as an average user, I couldn't care less about that. The desktop will not be conquered from the business end alone. The average home user must also be considered as important.

    The Empire is well aware of the disjointed nature of the open source comm

  137. Fresco chance para Cairo? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Wheee, I thought Fresco (fka Berlin) had had trouble. ;)

    While this may be good news for Cairo) and Fresco, in giving them more time, it may also indicate something else, that Microsoft found out that the hardware is not and will not be good enough (even if I doubt that idea).

  138. Increase in alternate browsers by lpret · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does it seem like there are more browsers out there? I use Opera pretty much exclusively, but I switch to Mozilla because some pages render better in Mozilla. If I have to use an IE-based browser, I go with MyIE2 which has the tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, etc. that Opera has made me addicted to. It just seems like there's more choices out there simply because IE is doing nothing new. Works for me.

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  139. Why??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's not like there innovating anything. OSX Panther's already doing it!



    Pretty sad when you're late at being late...

  140. This is Darl McBride by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Funny

    DEAR SIR/MADAM:
    I AM MR. DARL MCBRIDE CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SCO GROUP, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, IN LINDON, UTAH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I KNOW THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOUR BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD NO PREVIOUS COMMUNICATIONS OR BUSINESS DEALINGS BEFORE NOW.
    MY ASSOCIATES HAVE RECENTLY MADE CLAIM TO COMPUTER SOFTWARES WORTH AN ESTIMATED $1 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS. I AM WRITING TO YOU IN CONFIDENCE BECAUSE WE URGENTLY REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE TO OBTAIN THESE FUNDS. IN THE EARLY 1970S THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION DEVELOPED AT GREAT EXPENSE THE COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE KNOWN AS UNIX. UNFORTUNATELY THE LAWS OF MY COUNTRY PROHIBITED THEM FROM SELLING THESE SOFTWARES AND SO THEIR VALUABLE SOURCE CODES REMAINED PRIVATELY HELD. UNDER A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT SOME PROGRAMMERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY DID ADD MORE CODES TO THIS OPERATING SYSTEM, INCREASING ITS VALUE, BUT NOT IN ANY WAY TO DILUTE OR DISPARAGE OUR FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERSHIP OF THESE CODES, DESPITE ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH AND THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY, WHICH AGREEMENT WE DENY AND DISAVOW. IN THE YEAR 1984 A CHANGE OF REGIME IN MY COUNTRY ALLOWED THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION TO MAKE PROFITS FROM THESE SOFTWARES. IN THE YEAR 1990 OWNERSHIP OF THESE SOFTWARES WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPORATION UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. IN THE YEAR 1993 THIS CORPORATION WAS SOLD TO THE CORPORATION NOVELL. IN THE YEAR 1994 SOME EMPLOYEES OF NOVELL FORMED THE CORPORATION CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, WHICH BEGAN TO DISTRIBUTE AN UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM KNOWN AS LINUX. IN THE YEAR 1995 NOVELL SOLD THE UNIX SOFTWARE CODES TO SCO. IN THE YEAR 2001 OCCURRED A SEPARATION OF SCO, AND THE SCO BRAND NAME AND UNIX CODES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL WAS RENAMED SCO GROUP, OF WHICH I CURRENTLY SERVE AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

    MY ASSOCIATES AND I OF THE SCO GROUP ARE THEREFORE THE FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERS OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARES KNOWN AS UNIX. OUR ENGINEERS HAVE DISCOVERED THAT NO FEWER THAN SEVENTY (70) LINES OF OUR VALUABLE AND PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODES HAVE APPEARED IN THE UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM LINUX. AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE, THIS GIVES US A CLAIM ON THE MILLIONS OF LINES OF VALUABLE SOFTWARE CODES WHICH COMPRISE THIS LINUX AND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD AT GREAT PROFIT TO VERY MANY BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. OUR LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE ADVISED US THAT OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THESE CODES IS WORTH AN ESTIMATED ONE (1) BILLION U.S. DOLLARS.

    UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY EXTRACTING OUR FUNDS FROM THESE COMPUTER SOFTWARES. TO THIS EFFECT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE MANDATE BY MY COLLEAGUES TO CONTACT YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. WE ARE PREPARED TO SELL YOU A SHARE IN THIS ENTERPRISE, WHICH WILL SOON BE VERY PROFITABLE, THAT WILL GRANT YOU THE RIGHTS TO USE THESE VALUABLE SOFTWARES IN YOUR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE NOT ABLE AT THIS TIME TO SET A PRICE ON THESE RIGHTS. THEREFORE IT IS OUR RESPECTFUL SUGGESTION, THAT YOU MAY BE IMMEDIATELY A PARTY TO THIS ENTERPRISE, BEFORE OTHERS ACCEPT THESE LUCRATIVE TERMS, THAT YOU SEND US THE NUMBER OF A BANKING ACCOUNT WHERE WE CAN WITHDRAW FUNDS OF A SUITABLE AMOUNT TO GUARANTEE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS ENTERPRISE. AS AN ALTERNATIVE YOU MAY SEND US THE NUMBER AND EXPIRATION DATE OF YOUR MAJOR CREDIT CARD, OR YOU MAY SEND TO US A SIGNED CHECK FROM YOUR BANKING ACCOUNT PAYABLE TO "SCO GROUP" AND WITH THE AMOUNT LEFT BLANK FOR US TO CONVENIENTLY SUPPLY.

    KINDLY TREAT THIS REQUEST AS VERY IMPORTANT AND STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. I HONESTLY ASSURE YOU THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL AND RISK-FREE.

  141. Oh no! Vaporware from Redmond? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

    Redmond spews vaporware at about the same rate that SCO spews litigation and threats. Both only serve to keep the market in turmoil.

    Such a strange coincidence! Two closed sopurce companies that have both adopted the strategy of, "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with your bullshit." Its a great way for a company with a technologically inferior product to keep people from seeing their piece of junk for what it really is.

    Unfortunately, it frequently works.

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  142. Re:Even though I'm using Windows... your siggy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lemme give you my address ...

  143. Definition of Uber-geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A geek is someone who reads /. daily.

    An Uber-geek is one who posts and then comes back later to see what others think of his wit..

    1. Re:Definition of Uber-geek by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "An Uber-geek is one who posts and then comes back later to see what others think of his wit.."

      Actually, that is just someone who wants to see what people said in response to him, it has nothing to do with geekiness.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  144. [OT] The bunny by legLess · · Score: 1

    The bunny ... the bunny ... oooh, I love the bunny ...

    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
  145. no dealine? by steffl · · Score: 1

    it will ship when it's ready? watch out MS! it's a slippery slope... next thing you know you're going opensource!

    erik

    --
    ...all excited, don't know why...
  146. NT already has uniform filespace by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

    It's always funny that a bunch of ignorant people mod up an ignorant post. As of XP, you are not required to use drive letters. Mountvol.exe lets you mount any disk volume to any valid NTFS path.

  147. Damn! by mrselfdestrukt · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one not giving a shit about Longhorn being delayed?

    --
    "I used to have that really cool,funny sig ,but it got stolen."
    1. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

  148. Microsoft Bob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am still waiting for an update to Microsoft Bob

    1. Re:Microsoft Bob by f8xmulder · · Score: 1

      ...Man, I miss Microsoft Bob... I mean, MAN, THAT MICROSOFT BOB SURE WAS A PIECE OF CRAP!! (adjusts inner monologue to [inner-only])

  149. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by dieman · · Score: 1

    You know, how many users do you know actually use Windows-F? Therefore, how useful is WinFS to 'consumers' compared to power users?

    I think it just makes intrusive datamining from spyware easier. :)

    --
    -- dieman - Scott Dier
  150. No, no, you have it all wrong!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wait for us we're the leader!"

  151. No, no, you have it all wrong!!! by Dion · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Wait for us we're the leader!"

    --
    -- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
  152. Microsoft isnt the ONLY one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Microsoft is the only company I have ever seen that can delay a product 5 or 6 times and THEN rush it out the door ready or not

    Have you forgotten about Eidos and Tomb Raider: AOD? Oh...so has everyone else ;)

  153. I can't find something in the comments.. by MikShapi · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there supposed to be this little bothersome thingie called PALADIUM in Longhorn?
    This thing that, coupled with a Fritz chip (or worse, Fritz functionality in an Intel CPU) won't let "sec[cough]ure" apps (read: apps that play unencrypted mp3's such as winamp, and that don't make you pay-per-play) run? or worse, delete your "illegal" (read: what you ripped from your own CD) mp3's? Hardware that enables remote policy to be dictated to your machine by Herr senator Fritz? An attempt to spread the sick DMCA concept worldwide (courtesy of RIAA/MPAA-bribed US lawmakers)?

    I can't say I'm losing more sleep over it than I did over CSS, and it took very little time for CSS to get broken, and yet somehow I'm just not looking forward to Longhorn as much as I would have had I not known about Paladium...

    --
    -
  154. Windows teeth by Erik+K.+Veland · · Score: 2, Funny

    By the time Longhorn is released in 2007 it will be dubbed Longtooth.

    --
    "I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
  155. Bullshit by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    They did not copy everything from OS X. They copied none of the Mac's elegance or ease of use, and the instability, OS-level insecurity, and sheer counterintuitiveness of the interface are innovations Microsoft came up with all on their own.

  156. File management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows File Protection (WFP)
    DRM support that's part of the Windows Media Player
    Registration + Re-Registration on HW changs
    Nice Messenger running by default and needs a guru to remove
    etc.


    Don't forget the Desktop Cleanup Wizard.

    "You seem to be incapable of managing your own files. Would you like them to be deleted?"

  157. I wonder what... by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Could it be that Bill & co. just realized they were trying to glue their UI abortion on top of a rewrite of IBM's AS400 concept of a database [i]system[/i]?

    Perhaps they realized that doing so would break all the games that are responsible for a huge chunk of Wintendo sales.

    Maybe they've decided to wait for the SCO mess to settle out. After all, if the pressure from Linux were taken off, you can bet Microsoft would stretch out the features from Longhorn over a couple intermediate releases. What better way to pick the pockets of the community again?

    Or perhaps it's the second coming and Bill just realized it'd be easier to port the entire suite of Microsoft applications to Linux than to finish Longhorn in this century.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:I wonder what... by alext · · Score: 1

      trying to glue their UI abortion on top of a rewrite of IBM's AS400 concept of a database

      Sounds fine to me. Flat files had their day a long time ago, if they ever belonged in a consumer OS to start with. Of course, nothing will change in the Linux world until years after Longhorn arrives because it will take that long to convert developers from the belief that Linux should be a bunch of device drivers to the idea of building an information processing and presentation system.

    2. Re:I wonder what... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      My point is more that once again, Microsoft's "new" technology has been in production with other companies for many, many years.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  158. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Broussard of 3D Relams admits that Duke Nukem Forever may be a bit delayed!

    Seriously though, is anyone really surprised by this "news"?

  159. Pushing it back until... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Palladium (or whatever they're calling it today) is available? Or until they can buy some more laws to ensure that they can enforce their licensed-not-owned view of hardware? Giving up on the PC altogether and just aiming at Son/Grandson of X Box as the replacement for home PCs? Working out exactly how they can lease rather than sell software and content to Suzy Homemaker and Carrie Cubicle?

    Tune in next year when these and other exciting questions will be ducked by Microsoft marketdroids.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  160. It will, indirectly by melted · · Score: 1

    Windows will become 10 times easier to program for. Apps will need much less debugging because there will be no such thing as memory management problems. There also will be rich API like nothing you've seen before. A school boy will be able to develop shit that only a qualified developer can handle these days, and good developers will put out tons more quality code than they possibly can today. This thing will be like an explosion. Imagine being able to deploy ONLY managed software on multiple architectures simultaneously and being able to rely on full-blown OS support for such software!

    1. Re:It will, indirectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We heard that ten years ago with java and it still hasn't happened. Next.

    2. Re:It will, indirectly by master_p · · Score: 1

      I said "different to us users". Not developers. Not anyone is a programmer(although I am, I am speaking as a user now).

      Maybe it's easier to find and organize information with the Longhorn Windows FS. Who knows.

  161. I've heard somewhere that Windows division at MS by melted · · Score: 1

    I've heard somewhere that Windows division at MS has FIVE THOUSAND programmers. Sure, the kernel team must be very small, but for everything else it's manageable if everything is sufficiently componentized.

  162. It can NOT tank by melted · · Score: 1

    Their entire company is at stake. They can't afford it to tank, and this is why it never will tank. Sorry, but that's just Microsoft, they've done this in the past multiple times (the latest one was .NET effort - four friggin' years, amazing quality delivered), they will do it again.

    1. Re:It can NOT tank by jcr · · Score: 1

      Their entire company is at stake. They can't afford it to tank, and this is why it never will tank.

      That was said about Copeland, too, and it turned out not to be the case.

      MS has enough cash in the bank to stay in business even if they have to write off every dollars spent on Longhorn to date. The money will keep rolling in from their headlock on the PC makers, even if they have to keep shipping XP for five more years (or longer.)

      Like Copeland, Longhorn is in the process of collapsing under the conflicting demands of: 1) backwards compatibility, and 2) the greatest case of feature-bloat ever seen in the industry.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  163. You've only heard this once by melted · · Score: 1

    On this scale you've only hear this once - when Win 95 was released. So shut up and write some code - hard times are coming for desktop Linux.

    1. Re:You've only heard this once by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      No, ive heard that very same thing over and over. Since im one of these oldies who have actually been around working with computers since the DOS days i have seen just the exact same hype every time a new OS has been released by MS. The hords of minions scattered all over forums posting statements like you did about something that isnt even half-ready isnt new. Even Windows ME was hyped to the absurd. By the time it came out people had so high beliefs about it that it was a major dissapointment to see just how overhyped that piece of junk really was.

      Linux has nothing to do with this, Microsoft have always been hyping their OS and products like Net etc.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
  164. Having Read (at +4) All The Comments... by UberDork · · Score: 1

    Speaking as someone who is not quite a fan of Microsoft, I do find it interesting that the mention of a release (or its delay) of a new MS 'Operating System' is generally simply used in this place as yet another excuse to kick the crap out of them.

    Compare this with the usual reaction to a release announcement of an open software product.

    Sure, there are always people who will take the opportunity to show just how much they hate the world and everything in it, but there is certainly a lot more MS bashing (to which I do not *totally* object) around when they (MS) announce a product or make an announcement that they are delaying the release of same.

    Isn't it just possible that they are starting to get the message?

    Now that I read back over this, I feel so ashamed...

  165. ya...right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There will be new security model"

    Yea...an interesting one. It will still be vulnerable to every passing virus and worm, but it will prevent people from listening to their WMA files if somebody decides you've listened one too many times.

    Seems fair.

  166. What is it they are changing so radically so often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want the answer to your question?

    This may appear to be a troll, but isn't:

    Bill Gates has always lusted over the Mac. He lusted over it back in the early days, and just when he thought he pulled even with XP, Apple released OS X, which despite all the gotcha with backward compatibility and speed is simply a better OS under the hood than the Windows NT base that is the underpinnings of XP.

  167. Betas and technology demos != Development Progress by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    Betas and technology demos are given regularly.

    Leaving aside the humorous notion of a plurality of betas, the existence of betas and technology demos are no gaurantee that the project is not getting out of hand. Multiple major slippages of the schedule are a really bad sign. And if the time between versions grows too large, the development team spends too much of the latter part of the effort fixing the obsolete parts created in the early part of the effort.

    Also, betas and demos are no substitute for widespread adoption and usage of the OS because the people that look at betas & demos are markedly different from the mainstream computer-using public. Being wrapped in a cocoon of its own coders and developer devotees is likely to create code that is geek-approved and user-hated. Four years between OS versions is a long way to go without true feedback from the average user.

    I'm not necessarily saying that MS does not know what they are doing or that they don't have good reasons for changing the release date. They just need to be careful that Longhorn does not turn into something like Apple's Copland.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  168. Re:Oh no! Vaporware from Redmond? by micromoog · · Score: 1
    Except that Microsoft is hugely successful, with their software installed virtually everywhere, and SCO is rapidly failing, with a small and shrinking install base.

    Wait, maybe that's because the two companies actually have little in common and your comment was just typical "us and them" Slashdot tripe.

  169. Metacorrections by kahei · · Score: 1

    NT4 was widely used outside of a server role. I've seen many large (10,000+) sites that used NT4 workstations, and many that still do, and I've also seen large amounts of number crunching and general purpose software still running on NT4. I'd say NT4 penetrated well in both the file/print server role and the workstation role, and pretty well in the application server role. Maybe the story is different at little companies, but it also seemed to take on the role of standard Excel platform in most places, and that alone is a big role.

    The importance of NT4 really shouldn't be underestimated; it's one of those things people are going to be supporting forever, because the upgrade path since then has been less than clear. I wish we could all just use .NET and forget about the whole Windows history.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  170. Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (troll) by ckaminski · · Score: 1

    And it looks like an iMac! ;-)

  171. Slashdot formula for every new MS OS: by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    While putting aside the bugs, it's always odd when MS works on a new OS:

    Slashdotters will always laugh/complain about delays in releasing it, even though they constantly preach on the values of Linux and OSS, whereas Windows should technically hold no interest for them.

    When MS (mainly to keep their bottom line) rushes out a product (such as Windows ME, and allow a raft of flaws/bugs to make it into the release, Slashdotters will laugh/complain about them releasing it to begin with.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  172. ASP.NET Web services on my laptop by ednopantz · · Score: 1

    Putting the desktop client and the web service on the same PC means I don't have to lug a server to demos or try to get Win 2K Server to run on a laptop.

  173. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by alext · · Score: 1

    I trust you've been so good as to inform Microsoft that their attempts to make Dotnet part of the OS are doomed to failure? I'm sure that they would be interested in your "straightforward" explanation, as would we.

    Your equally valuable insight regarding the nature of WinFS appears not to address its potential value to consumers, or the consequences of the lack of an equivalent in Linux. I would not myself care to make predictions regarding the number of Linux systems that will be developed for an obscure and very expensive database file system from Oracle, but if you would care to keep us informed of progress in this area I'm sure nobody would object.

    Regarding Mono and dotGNU, the first thing that should be said is that are both highly dubious attempts at a dumb clone of Dotnet and, given its proprietary nature, represent a commercial risk that most corporations and many individuals are unlikely to find worthwhile.

    The most successful VM on Linux both by number of available applications and (by several orders of magnitude) commercial investment is Java. Therefore embracing Java or, at minimum, developing an unencumbered and solution like the Perl VM is the only credible way for Linux to progress and thereby offer a competitive alternative to Longhorn.

  174. Linux has all these: Big F'ing Deal by cculianu · · Score: 0, Troll

    This just proves to me how Wind0z3 is a toy OS.

    * larger memory mapped file size

    Linux already had huge amount of memory mappable as mmap'able since probably the mid 90's.

    * larger driver and system space

    What does this mean? What the drivers before had to be mapped to a particular region of memory or something? I don't get it. Linux can take as much 'System Space' as it freaking wants. The kernel can map as many memory pages as it wants for itself. Why was this ever limited in the first place?

    * ability to detach from processes being debugged

    WOW. Imagine THAT! I think Linux has had this ability since 1.0!! Stupid Microsoft OS.

    * callbacks for file system filter drivers

    How useful. Yeah you convinced me. Now let me write Microsoft that big check for their buggy worm-infested OS. Now that I can install filesystem filter drivers easily using their callback scheme, I can really fly! No wonder they have that commercial where everyone is flying out the window in their office. I mean this was the one feature people really were screaming for in order to increase their productivity and become super-beings and reach nirvana. THANKS BILLY FOR THIS GREAT OS!

    1. Re:Linux has all these: Big F'ing Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude ... he was responding to the claim that XP is just 2K with a new GUI, not making any claims about the superiority of XP to Linux. Relax, 'k?

  175. Re:It's in their best interest to release it soon( by alext · · Score: 1

    A most interesting contribution to the debate, and one which I find myself quite unable to respond to adequately. My only hope is that there are others here more qualified than I that can rise to the challenge that you have set.

  176. Tie-In Promotional Products by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    I think it'll be shipping with a tie-in promotional product, like a bottle of KC Masterpiece BBQ Sauce."

    If they rename the product "Shorthair", maybe it will ship with a promotional bottle of BBQ flavor K-Y jelly.

    --
    -kgj
  177. Theory #3 (Serious though) by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    Theory #3:

    They need to get people to actually start buying their current releases, since most businesses still run Windows 98 or Win2k, and their surveys of IT managers indicated that they wouldn't be purchasing XP simply because Longhorn was coming out so soon.

  178. My fantastical take on things... by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

    I am imagining that MS is doing some heavy closed-door scrambling to bring security to a level where it will pass the sniff test.

    However, in the next few years, I can see the following possibility playing out:

    2004: Next Windows iteration released with minor UI changes, possibly new licensing terms;

    2005-2008: MS licenses a *nix variant to do the heavy lifting under the UI (a la Apple/OSX), coupled with the next major UI overhaul (new flashy GUI w/.Net/subscription-based application delivery). This would lend stability at less cost, allow programmers to move towards non-kernel programming projects in support of .Net/applications (not that I know anything about this matter, but it don't stop me from blathering)

    2006-2008: Also about this time, if MS licenses a *nix for core services, I would expect Apple to release Marklar on the world. I'll let someone else pick up the fantasy from there.

    This is simply my own fantasizing. Your mileage may vary. ;-)

    --
    Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
  179. Every time... by GatorMan · · Score: 1

    ...Apple adds a new feature to the OS, MS has to go back to the drawing board and figure a way to work it into their latest offering.

    "Fast user switching? Damnit! Call in the coders."
    "Expose? Damnit! Call in the coders."
    "Quartz Extreme? Damnit! Call in the coders...and the pastel-loving artists!"

    haha :D

  180. Microsoft Can't Win by fmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Slashdotters complain about Microsoft releasing products that have serious security flaws and bugs. But then when Microsoft slips a release date, does the Slashdot crowd applaud Microsoft for not rushing the product to market prematureley? Nope. The Slashdot forums are filled with posts speculating about the delay being due to technical incompetence or some kind of nefarious scheme.

    Would it really kill people to be fair and balanced? As it now stands, it's a lot closer to the Fox News standard of "Fair and Balanced."

    1. Re:Microsoft Can't Win by schon · · Score: 1

      when Microsoft slips a release date, does the Slashdot crowd applaud Microsoft for not rushing the product to market prematureley?

      I certainly do.

      I think that it's a great thing - don't ship it until it's done.

      Just like the Linux kernel.

      Don't forget that for each of the major kernel releases, there were people here bitching that it took too long.

  181. It's generally only on Windows Update by AzrealAO · · Score: 1

    Once the driver is WHQL Certified. Quite often, when drivers are first released by nVidia (or anyone else for that matter), they are not WHQL Certified, and you'll get the warning message about installing non-certified drivers. So it's quite likely you installed the non-WHQL driver direct from nVidia, and then Windows Update had the WHQL Version available a month later.

  182. What FUD. by AzrealAO · · Score: 1

    Name some.

    Almost without exception, every single high profile Windows exploit in recent memory has either had a patch available for it before there was an exploit active in the wild, or it exploited the user (getting people to activate an attachment).

    Where are all these problems that are exploited for 6 months before Microsoft releases a stealth patch?

    1. Re:What FUD. by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      well, google returns a likely candidate as the very first result if you search for "windows security flaw patch finally released". A link to the story is here.

      It got Microsoft's "critical" rating as it allowed local or remote users to execute code with operating system privileges.

      Now admittedly this one (MS02-024) "only" took five months to be patched but that's still completely unacceptable - and that's just the first result out of 9.720 search matches. FUD? I don't think so.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
  183. Good plan... Buy SCO! by waferhead · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if they bought SCO, their software would suck and we would hate them...

    (Waiaminite...)

  184. or coming to their senses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody has any obligation to honor something that's stupid.

    1. Re:or coming to their senses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try telling that to a judge. Not to mention that little thing called 'ethics' that seems to have been lost.

    2. Re:or coming to their senses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as I was saying, if they think the W3C standards are stupid, they should leave the W3C. Continuing to participate in, and endorse, the creation of stupid standards and then go off and do something different in-house is dishonest.

  185. I think this is planned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've looked at the leaked alpha. If you use the tweaknt utility to make it report itself as a server version the copyright date on the login logo reports itself as 1985-2006. It might mean nothing but I expect more delays.

  186. the difference between sharecropping and slavery by kraksmoka · · Score: 1
    Microsoft's Breyer also made clear that the company does not guarantee any upgrades during the term of customers' contracts. "This is an important consideration that Microsoft's customers take into account when purchasing Software Assurance, which is a long-term, ongoing relationship between Microsoft and its customers, and a great deal of value comes from staying on SA long-term," she said.

    is that when you're a sharecropper, at least you know your rights before you get screwed! with m$ you're just a slave to the monopoly.

    the only ongoing relationship is slavery to their shitty insecure expensive proprietary system. /end rant

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  187. SCO by Syberghost · · Score: 1

    It's SCO's fault; Microsoft is delayed removing all the code they stole from Linux, that Linux stole from SCO.

  188. What about Software Assurance? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    For those companies who paid (or were extorted) the SA6 licenses, aren't they guaranteed a new upgrade in 2004? That was one of of the major selling points. Reduced upgrades in 3 years or does my memory fail me? What is MS going to do if they fall behind schedule? Offer them their money back?

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  189. A bit deceptive don't you think? by Kwiik · · Score: 1

    Magrathea caused the market crash..

    --
    Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    1. Re:A bit deceptive don't you think? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Who caused people to be fed up with forever having to upgrade their software?

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
  190. This has to do with upgrade protection by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    I betcha this has to do with the upgrade protection program.

    Lets say you buy Office XP and Windows XP and purchase upgrade protection. I believe you can buy it in 2 and 4 year increments.

    Well most people will probably purchase the 2 year plan just to save money.

    So Microshaft says "hey look at all the recent customers" They only bought 2 year protection programs!" "Ok" says the bean counters we just push back the release of our latest offering 2 years.
    TaDA! revenue protection program for us!
    Now my wife can get that tummy tuck.

  191. Gimmics and minor improvements by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    >WinFS--SQL integration into the filesystem. >You'll be able to search gigabytes of data >and metadata.

    With a decent filesystem layout you can do this anyway. Plus Windows has an indexing service. Also this feature isn't in the home version.

    >* DirectX desktop. Gorgeous visual cues with >no slowdown.

    Gimmic

    >* Scalable desktop. Vector-based is a way to >put it. If you have a really high-resolution >monitor, things will be correctly scaled for >you so you can see. Things will be the same >size onscreen going from a 1024x768 to >1280x1024 resolution. You can also change >he scale manually.

    Waste of time changing resolution then, plus this is already possible.

    > Entirely .NET based. Though >Win32-compatibility will no doubt be offered, >everything including explorer.exe will all be >running as .NET managed code.

    And the benefit to me is? more slowdown.

    >* New, "photorealistic" interface called >Aereo. We'll have to wait and see.

    Gimmic, playing catch up to OSX.

  192. Well... by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    It's 2003 and we still use keyboards, have Mice/trackballs and use 2D flat screens. We need new input devices and displays for anything radical to happen.

  193. I smell another commercial version of XP by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    The last time Microsoft got behind in developing a consumer edition of Windows (XP), they brought out another edition of the previous OS (Win9x), that having been the failure known as WinME. With Longhorn delayed again, this is going to present Microsoft with a challenge in convincing Joe Blow to buy a new PC with a shiny "new" OS. I think this means we'll see shrink-wrapped editions of XP Media Center Edition with some other cosmetic changes hitting the stores shelves in Q4 2004... I guess that means Earthlink will once again blame Microsoft for not giving them ample enough time to rewrite their software so it works with the new edition (Earthlink's software, especially for DSL users, wouldn't work with WinME for weeks after the release - they blamed Microsoft for that - yet AOL was patched up quickly in comparison)...That is, if Earthlink is still in business by then...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  194. Here's a story. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I'll probably butcher it, but you should get the gist:

    Long ago, Horse was troubled by Wolf, in the sense that Wolf wanted to eat him. Horse knew he could not best Wolf, so he came to Man and said: "Wolf is our common enemy. Let us join forces to defeat him." Man said: "Very well. Let me put this saddle and bridle on you, so I may ride while we hunt Wolf." Horse agreed, and using his speed and Man's spear, they hunted down and killed Wolf. Horse then said: "Wolf is defeated! Now that the danger has past, you can remove the saddle and bridle." Man laughed and said "But I like it up here! Now giddyap!"

    The lessons of this story are twofold: Horses are gullible idiots, and Man can't be trusted to relinquish power once given it.

    So the question is, are you Horse or Man?

    Let me be more direct: You do realize that once you have a Palladium-based system, the ability to turn it on and off is a feature which can be disabled, right? Oh, but I'm sure they won't, right? *Whinny!*

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Here's a story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, i get it, but who is the wolf? how can you leave such an important character unresolved?

  195. Longhorn=Cairo? by Cardbox · · Score: 1

    When OLE2 was launched in 1994, Cairo was the Next Big Thing after NT. Compound files would be implemented natively, distributed everything, and so on. Cairo was due within two years.
    Replace "Cairo" with "Longhorn" in the above paragraph (and "1994" by "2003") and you get the picture.
    When we're discussing this in 2012, what will "Longhorn" (ready in two years) be called then?

  196. User's don't buy Windows because of pretty graphic by melted · · Score: 1

    User's don't buy Windows because of pretty graphics. The reason they buy it is because there's a shitload of relatively cheap software available for it. And this is about to increase three-fold.

  197. I'm one of the oldies, too by melted · · Score: 1

    There is hype and there is delivery. You should learn to recognize the cases where Microsoft can not afford to fail. There were quite a few of those. In these cases they always deliver. They burn people and tons of cash in process, but if they really have to - they'll be there.

  198. Re:User's don't buy Windows because of pretty grap by master_p · · Score: 1

    What else do you need that you can't get right now ? what does the 'three-fold' increase stand for ? and all these new 'apps' will use the same libraries anyway...they will be different wrappers around the .NET libs.
    Hardly innovating.

  199. Probably the truth... by ninji · · Score: 1

    Maybe microsoft decided to actually make a stable OS this time, and take the time it needs to not make it full of security holes... With all the MSBlaster and SoBig.* contraverse, perhaps they decided instead of rushing to get a new windows on the market and make a few million or billion bucks, they might actually be spending time to take care of security precautions.... I once read a white paper from a microsoft exec saying that the original windows(98 and pre) were not developed with security in mind... and 2k and NT and post it was taken into consideration (as security being an omnipresent factor of importance when business and etc choose and OS) but my point being, the document I read (which i assure you was from a microsoft exec, which more than a few of live within a mile of me) said that The new windows (longhorn and post) are/were/have been developed from scratch becuase the previous ones were full of shotty errors, horrible programming conventions, etc, creating a working but generally (and unpubliclly 'flawed' OS) labeled as "stable"(we all know how 'stable' windows really is ;X ) but any word can be used ambigiously, 'stable' by what terms, as in it works, works without any flaw, works without possible flaw, works with flaws, or maybe even just 'runs on a pc'.... Thats way too much babble from me, but my point is, I assume that the MSBlaster and SoBig Scares have cuased microsoft to take as many precautions as they can to make windows shake away its rep as a 'blatently insecure operating system'...

  200. When will ActiveX feel the heat? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    When do we have to start worrying that ActiveX components have become obsolete (to develop)? Part of what .NET is about is that Windows Forms components are much easier to develop and much more object-oriented (allows inheritance while ActiveX/COM is compositional).

    But if one has already developed a set of ActiveX controls and is comfortable with a set of tools for writing them, they are far and away the most cross-language thing around -- at least in the Windows world. Not only do they work with VB 6 and with the Borland languages (and with Eclipse SWT, although with some restrictions), they work in Visual Studio .NET as seemlessly as they do in VB 6.

    What I mean is that for developing software components for resale, it seems that ActiveX offers the biggest market because it is usable from VB 6 as well as VB .NET, and it is better to have the ActiveX in unmanaged code because you don't have to worry about customers installing the CLR.

    Right now, porting perfectly good ActiveX components to .NET seems like a waste of time. Microsoft already had an ActiveX/COM compatibility layer in J++ (the RCW/CCW thingy), and there would have been peasants with pitchforks at the gate of .NET broke compatibility with the mass of legacy ActiveX/COM components, but the support for ActiveX/COM in .NET is too good -- it is the WINE of Windows (only .NET ActiveX/COM compability actually works while I hear WINE is a work in progress).

  201. Hey you losers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You idiots. You assholes.

    There wasn't any date given for Longhorn anyways. How can you delay something that you never promised a deadline on?

    Idiots.

  202. Washington Post by muirhead · · Score: 1
    There's an article in the Washington Post here with a reciprocal link back to this story.

  203. Parent is a known troll. Mod accordingly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at some of this troll's past work.

  204. Wanna bet $1K on that? by melted · · Score: 1

    I say it won't tank, and I bet you $1K it won't. It may be delayed a little, but it will be delivered.

  205. Parent is a known troll. Mod accordingly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at some of this troll's past work.

  206. What's wrong with a delay? by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... Imagine a world where you didn't have to upgrade as often as you change your mind. I now upgrade only every second version or so. I went from Win95 to Win2k and I'll change after Longhorn. Linux is especially frustrating this way because by the time I had my purchased copy of Suse 6.3 perking along nicely, 7.3 was already out! Enough already!

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.