Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Longhorn Delayed

Posted by ryuzaki0 on 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."

43 of 736 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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?

    2. 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.

  2. 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

      --
      watch this
    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 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.

    4. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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 :}

  9. 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.

  10. 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?

    --
    Tweet, tweet.
  11. 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

  12. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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?

  17. 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?

  18. 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.
  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. 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!
  22. 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.

  23. 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.
  24. 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.

  25. 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.'"
  26. 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 ...

  27. 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.

  28. 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."
  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.