Microsoft Longhorn Delayed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Monday September 1, 2003 @11:32AM from the still-gathering-saltlicks dept.

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."

8 of 736 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:tell me about it by mentin · 2003-09-01 11:41 · 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
Re:Methinks... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:41 · 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...
Software Assurance by VikingBrad · 2003-09-01 11:54 · 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
What? by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-09-01 11:56 · 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 · 2003-09-01 12:16 · 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.)
How do you improve? by foo+fighter · 2003-09-01 12:01 · 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
Re:tell me about it by oni · 2003-09-01 12:03 · 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.
Re:Even though I'm using Windows... by gad_zuki! · 2003-09-01 12:54 · 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.