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."
And people say BSD is dying?
It <b>should</b> be:
Windows is dying.
You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
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.
What will it mean to have no new IE till 2008?
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
When the cows come home, obviously.
They decided to bundle Duke Nukem Forever.
They just want to make sure they can steal every new feature Apple is putting into Mac OS X.3
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.
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.
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!
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."
Delays in the release of the release date of Windows Longhorn are caused by Windows Bonghorn.
Longhorn is the one that's supposed to add support for hardware based denial to your files when a media company says so.
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.
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...
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
.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...
The whole
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
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
...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.
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.
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).
.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.
Windows XP was released before the
The truth doesn't care what I think.
>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.
.NET will be all over Longhorn. Longhorn itself will be .NET based. The latest betas have explorer.exe running as .NET managed code.
.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.
.NET managed code, it'll be a lot of work.
They're leaving Win32 behind and going full
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
"Sufferin' succotash."
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."
They're still waiting on returns from the testing team code named "Script Kiddies"
Subverting the meta-moderating system since 2003
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...
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/
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!
Part of the Second American Revolution!
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.
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.
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."
Windows alone has many, many times the number of lines of code that Red hat 9 has.
.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The coolest voice ever.
"Wait for us we're the leader!"
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][