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."
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.
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.
Longhorn is the one that's supposed to add support for hardware based denial to your files when a media company says so.
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.
Well it must be a god send for the other browsers. I bet ie 7 will will have somerevolutianry new feature, snapback and tabs!
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.
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."
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
>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."
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...
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.
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