Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP To Get Longhorn Technologies
SilentChris writes "According to CNet, Microsoft is revising their plan for Longhorn. In addition to scaling back WinFS, they will also have separate releases of Avalon (the new graphical system) and Indigo (a new network architecture) for Windows XP and 2003. If most of the updates will be available for current versions of Windows, what is the incentive to upgrade?"
Silly Chris, It'll introduce more bugs and keep you more tightly bound than ever to Microsoft Update, because you'll have so much time and energy vested in keeping your system going you'll be terrified of switching -- I think it's something like the Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe it should have it's own name: Redmond Syndrome.
Further, you'll probably find everything doesn't work as well with your current video card and networking so you'll have to buy *NEW* stuff from vendors -- stuff endorsed by Microsoft as being up to snuff with their shell-game specifications.
As for Longhorn, you'll still buy it like all the other cattle (Ha! Longhorn! Cattle! Now I see the connection!) when it comes out, by the way, I expect the successor to Longhorn to be Bighorn (Guess the species! ;-)
Now please excuse me while I bash my head against the wall for having made sport of my Sith Master, Bill in a prior post.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"[W]hat is the incentive to upgrade?"
I want to know that too. I'm running Win98SE without any trouble. Why should I upgrade to Longhorn?
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Is that, like XP, MS will pay off application developers to cause their apps to break in previous versions. A great example of this is with Adobe, who's latest video offerings only work on XP, forcing me to upgrade.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
Why does there need to be an incentive to upgrade? People allways complain that Microsoft "forces" them to upgrade (not that they ever have in my opinion), shouldn't we all be happy that thats not going to be the case (assumming that these two things are the only diference between XP and Longhorn, not that they are)?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
What the the reason to upgrade to ME from 98? What was the reason to upgrade to XP from 2000? People like upgrades. Upgrades, no matter how small, bring features. Upgrades have the appearance of better quality and more "on-the-edge."
Plus, even if two technologies get ported, Longhorn is supposed to be a "unified" desktop with Internet, mail, etc. This is one major reason to upgrade for the tech-newbies and possibly the tech-geeks.
You upgrade because DirectX or XNA, or whatever the hell they call the next graphics subsystem used by games will only be available on Longhorn. Why else would you upgrade?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
What was the incentive to upgrade from Windows 2000 to XP*. Let's see, we had:
- Rearranged control panel
- A new theme
- Ummm...the search puppy?
The die-hard fans will upgrade because it's the latest and greatest, everyone else will get it with their next computer, and the corporate world will wait 3 years and then take the plunge.
This is still a blow to Microsoft, but not a major one. Maybe another baby step away from the OS monoculture.
*I know there was more incentive to upgrade from Windows ME, but I'm sure many a 2000 user switched over as well.
I've been led to believe by many here on /. that Microsoft forces me to upgrade. I don't have a choice, nor does Microsoft need to create incentives for people to upgrade, just brandish the gun and quite those who ask questions. Am I now to believe that that position, promoted by so many on /., including the editors, was wrong? Impossible.
Microsoft is adding these features to Windows XP and Windows 2003 server in order to give developers a reason to use these technologies. So they can use Avalon and Indigo in their applications and still have people on older OS's be able to use their applications. Much like how .NET was backported to Windows 98. Developers wouldn't develop applications in .NET if they knew that only a small percentage of Windows users would be able to use it.
It's a win-win IMHO, Windows developers get to use new features and develop application using more intuitive and powerful tools and Microsoft gets a larger application base for Longhorn.
-- D3X
If Avalon and Indigo is the new ways of displaying and programming applications. As a company why would I start porting my apps to it if it won't be used until 2006! If I have a pratical application now, then when 2006 comes out a lot of "native" apps .
I suppose they do this so that developers can deploy their new apps (based on Avalon and Indigo) on the XP platform as well. It makes sense - and will give a more rapid transistion. (Instead of waiting for Longhorn to get the marketshare needed to have custom Avalon/Indigo-apps written for it).
;)
But what do I know?
(The color theme for it.slashdot.org needs a revision btw)
If most of the updates will be available for current versions of Windows, what is the incentive to upgrade?
Remember the product activation in XP? All MS has to do is end-of-life XP and you can't re-install it because MS won't authorize it. You'll be fine with your current system until you need to do a re-install, then you'll buy the next version even though it offers you nothing new and you know you'll have the same problem in another 3-4 years.
...because MS and Adobe would work together just to screw you over.
Chances are the Adobe app is making use of features _new_ to XP. So, what you are essentially bitching about is that these new features were not back ported to whatever previous version of MS OS you used.
And of course, if MS did back port these new features, you'd be bitching how MS is always adding new fangled features to released version of OS that do nothing but add bugs, insecurity, and instability.
Just admit there is nothing MS could ever do to appease you, and quit fucking using their software. That's why god gave you Linux.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
This is a smart move. First they schedule the release way ahead in the future, so the competition thinks they have plenty of time. Then, they release the new futures early, so that they are first to market. By the time Longwait is released, there will be plenty of application support already. In the meantime, the hype their technologies sky high so people will forget about looking for alternatives, let alone implement them. Wow, respect.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
"So I'm going to have to upgrade to a 5GHz Pentium IV so XP runs efficiently?"
That is certainly the prayer of Dell, Gateway, HP, and everyone else selling HARDWARE. Are you still wondering WHY all of these vendors ain't in a rush to make Linux their OS of choice???????
99% of all questions in this world have the same answer.. MONEY.
These updates will be handed out a' la Windows 98 SE style. You'll have to buy an upgrade edition to apply to your XP for the low, LOW! price of $379.85. It will inevitably gork up your registry, good portions of the file system will be damaged by the install process, you'll suffer irrepairable data loss, and the disclaimer in the EULA will have even more ridiculous terms than the fact that you can't get more than $5 or the price of the software if you decide to sue, whichever is least.
*THEN*, after about a year or 18 months of massive amounts of bugfix patches, service packs and other silly nonsense, they will release Shoehorn, the bastard stepchild of Windows XP SE and Longhorn's ugly second cousin OS that's only been seen on a production server somwhere in the MS complex in Redmond. That will cost you your first child, rights to half the real property you own, and $1,999.
This, my friends, is *INNOVATION*!! Yes sir, sign me *RIGHT UP*!
I'm starting to think that Longhorn might suffer the same fate as Apple's mid-90s Copland project. They create enormous hype for it, give developers plenty of betas and do lots of previews, but it never ends up materializing. And then, the best features from it get rolled into their existing operating system (Copland -> Mac OS 8, Longhorn -> Windows XP) and it gets canned. Then, years later, they realize that they really should have completed the objectives of the project because their existing system is getting old and stale.
Of course there probably won't be so many parallels, but I do suspect that Longhorn will end up vaporizing and the most-demanded features and the interface will be integrated into the existing platform.
Signature.
Sun is doing this right now with Solaris 9.... 10.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Microsoft will also support the activation of Windows XP throughout its life and will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end of the product's lifecycle so users would no longer be required to activate the product.
So they guarantee that at the end of the product lifecycle (which is completely up to them to determine) they will stip providing the activation service. They also say they will "likely" turn off activation, that's legal-speak for never in a million years. Especially since they know if they don't turn it off, they will be forcing everyone to upgrade. Since when has MS ever let the right thing stand of the way of increased immediate profit?
What are you attempting to say? That XP SP1 and SP2 cost money? That W2K sp1-4 cost money? That NT4 SP1-6 cost money? I don't get what you're saying.
;)
And SP1 broke XP machines? I've never heard of that, and I've upgraded around 20 AND read slashdot regularly
Jeez, if I had mod points I would mod you "unintelligible"
Longhorn is going to include some exciting new technologies such as Avalon, WinFS, Indigo, and most importantly their new Monad (you really must research this, as it could do for Longhorn what BASIC did for Microsoft's first operating systems). While these are just codenames for abstract ideas (and possibly just buzzwords) it will certainly be exciting to see some of these things deployed.
And when this wonderful new OS is released, free of bugs, wonderful, and secure, only then will icon change debate be real.
Besides, they just anounced the cut of many features today, what's to stop your precious Avalon and Inigo being left on the cutting room floor before the release. I've heard the same hype "This version is secure, honest" several times now, and I don't believe now more than for ME or 2000 or XP. Until a released version isn't broken, I say we keep the shattered panes of glass.
SAILING MISHAP
> While I realize that the majority of the /. crowd is from the UNIX world
Oh please. A majority of the /. crowd are poseurs. A majority run a variant of Windows.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
What do you need 64-bit support for?
What do you need XAML for?
What do you need Avalon for?
Look, I've gone over to a Mac. Mac OS X has some of the nifty features that Microsoft's talking about. Quartz Extreme is really cool and I'm sure Avalon will be just peachy. But these things are not why I use my Mac... in fact my Mac just barely runs QE using a third-party hack, and I've got it turned off right now. It's a G4-upgraded G3 with no AGP and second-generation PCI. It doesn't run Panther (I tried) and it won't run Tiger. But I still consider it an upgrade over my 1.7 GHz P4 even though it's 1/4 the clock speed and has 1/4 the bus bandwidth and 3/4 the RAM and nowhere near enough expansion slots.
So.. it's not the new features. It's the fact that it's a hell of a lot closer to the "it just works" ideal. It really does... just work. I don't have to deal with all the hassles of Windows, I can just use it. Yeh, Apple is heading into the same feature mess, and maybe it's a good thing that I can't upgrade to Tiger. But if I could have upgraded to something as (relatively) bug free on that P4, even if it came out of Redmond, I'd have done it. Even if it had fewer "features" than XP.
THAT would be an incentive to upgrade. New APIs that I only need because other people have upgraded so I have to upgrade to be compatible? I'd probably do it, eventually, but I wouldn't like it.
Apple's already got it's next generation GUI and graphical layer, ala Avalon... and it's had it in various incarnations for the past three years.
:)
So even if Avalon comes out, say, in 2005, that means the competition, Apple, has implemented it for 4 years already. I do know Avalon and Quartz aren't the same in letter, but they are the same in spirit, being 3d accelerated hardware based composition and rendering engines.
As for other technologies... we'll see how fast Apple's Tiger comes out, and the next releases, regarding WinFS and other technologies
Linux just sits there happily re-implementing the best of all worlds.
GPL Deconstructed
Think about it: if Longhorn is a major break from Win2k3/WinXP, and products written for Longhorn (using Avalon, XAML, Indigo features, taking advantage of WinFS, etc.) won't run on these older technologies, what software company in its right mind would write code using said technologies? NONE.
However, if software companies could write code that utilizes these new features, and these new features would also work on older, still in-use OSes, then said technologies become an option for a software company.
This move makes sense: without it, Longhorn would have a next to impossible time gaining market traction, IMO.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I called it "scaling back" in comparison to what it once was: a SQL-like metadatabase for every file accessible on a computer. It was actually a very cool idea, and I'm not sure why MS abandoned the networking features (where I work, anything that should be catalogued is on remote servers, not on desktops).
Then there was some confusion, because "WinFS" sounded like a new file system. Then it was called a service on top of NTFS, which wasn't as dramatic. Now it's unclear what it'll end up being.
The 3 cornerstones of Longhorn, if I remember correctly from an early webcast, was:
* More robust file system
* A better windowing system
* Better security and connectivity
One is going to be "beta" and two are going to be released for current OSes. MS *has* scaled their plans back.
Silly rabbit, upgrades are for other OS's. You see, the term "upgrade" doesn't really fit into the subscription based model that MS has been alluding to. You'll "subscribe" to the windows platform after purchasing your new PC in 2006 and you'll continue to pay and you'll continue to receive things like winFS, avalon, indigo and whatever else they think up. the fact that MS is stating that they will be available as updates indicates such a strategy. the problem however... is microsoft's "it's done when it's done" philosophy. this philosophy doesn't work well for people who pay money on a recurring basis to get new and exciting features. They, and most software companies seem to have a history of delayed software releases.
It's quite obvious why MS would do this. It's basically the same reason why they let piracy run rampantly and unhindered for so many years, and then suddenly started making stronger efforts to get people authorized via the BSA.
Quite simply, they want people on their new technology, and want to force people - as a society - to upgrade.
How will they do this? The same way they've done it in the past. Want to run Office 2000? Great, you'll "have to" upgrade to Windows 2000 as well, because it's unstable under Windows 98. Want to be able to read that document you just got from a friend? You need to upgrade to Office 2003.
Now, how do those situations translate to the current situation? In much the same way they're taking over the video game market with the Xbox, MSN Messenger, and DirectX: make it beneficial to the early adopters, get them hooked, and then draw people in via social networking.
DirectX started out as a free 'add on' - Direct3D. It wasn't used by much, because it sucked. Then people started writing games using it, and it matured to what we have today. People wanted those games, so they got them, regardless of what they were based on. I suspect this will happen with the new "longhorn" technologies: people will install the frameworks "for the hell of it", install applications using those frameworks, and friends will see the new stuff and desire it. Then they'll follow suit, so on and so forth...
In the case of the Xbox, they sold/sell a decent contender at much below production costs to try and get significant market share. They also bought out as many game providers as possible. This relates to the longhorn tech because MS is basically giving away the components - for now. In the future (aka, the Xbox2, or lonhorn itself), there will be a premium for the better products (better graphics/continued support or better stability, etc.) because they've established a market demand for those products by giving them away for free.
In essence, it seems to me like MS is trying to turn around a potentially harmful situation (mass migration due to a huge, sudden platform change) into a positive one for them. Good for them. This has a lot of potential to really harm Linux in many ways.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
What can be done in seven years' time with hundreds of emplyees? Amazing stuff.
.NET 1.0, .NET something else and now Longhorn which will be another - considerable - departure.
:)
Not nearly as amazing as what can be done by several hundred thousand.
If people are really going to be able to hack up some XML applicaton like what's hyped, there might be some serious problems, no matter how many Mono's or GNU DotNETs there are.
Some feel that Microsoft has actually lost the war for the Windows API through too much chopping and changing over the past three or four years. It's all fire and maneouvre - COM, DCOM, DNA,
So now let's say I'm a Windows development shop. What do I do? Invest up to seven years wasted time only to see it break and have to relearn and reinvest everything? Or do I stick to Web technologies and maybe other platforms with more stability (API-wise - I don't mean ones which fall over less although that is a consideration)?
Until the community stops getting cocky and starts getting worried, nothing will ever go anywhere.
I haven't seen much change in the level of vitriol aimed at Microsoft over the past ten years of being a Linux user. Hackers are cocky and impatient and arrogant - it often goes with writing good code. Despite all this "unprofessional behaviour", Linux has progressed enormously.
Being afraid is a good thing(tm), because it gets people working harder.
Here's the One Overarching Single Great Grand Unified Truth about Linux's progress. If you take anything away from this lecture^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpost let it be this:
The vast majority of people working to improve Linux do not care about what Microsoft is up to, least of all what development tools they are hyping. Why should they be?
So, again, I emplore somebody to please change the graphic to more accurately represent what we have to fear this new century.
Perhaps the hourglass symbol?
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Nope merely millions of other users, each with a little pin.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
"if most of the updates will be available for current versions of Windows, what is the incentive to upgrade?"
Hah, Why do you think you'll have the option of *not* upgrading once you buy a new computer or some new hardware comes out that winxp doesn't support?
Don't you worry little droogie. You'll upgrade.
I'm sick of this tripe. I don't mean to jump on you alone, but I've seen way too much of this FUD parroted around Slashdot, and you're the winner of my rant. :-)
If Microsoft doesn't innovate, then why is it that the list of improvements in the Linux 2.6 kernel reads like a feature list of NT from the early 90's?
That's just comparing the kernel, and I won't even go into the features that NT has that Linux still hasn't implemented.
You probably didn't know that NT already had those features, because most people don't seem to know much about Windows beyond the GUI. They assume that what they see on the surface is all that goes on. (And don't make the mistake that the NT kernel is the only innovative part about Windows.)
My point is that you shouldn't yell about the lack of innovation in a product just because the feature you're looking for isn't there.
I got a nice laugh from it *shrug*
No need to be negative against someone with some wacky accusations just because someone made a mindless joke.
Lighten up.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
"It really does... just work."
I recently bought a Mac and I agree that most things "just work"... provided you stick with Apple-recommended hardware. iPod "just works". My Sony camera, despite having a basic firewire port that's properly handled in both Windows and Linux, doesn't. When you don't mind a monoculture of hardware, Macs are great.
That's one of the nice things about Windows, and one of its biggest drawbacks: you can pop just about any hardware in and it'll recognize it, configure it. I've been continually surprised digging up old ethernet cards, popping them into 2003 servers, and having them work as soon as the system starts up. Only problem is sometimes there's too much variance, and the system gets flaky trying to match 1980s hardware with 200x drivers.
So you don't look like a complete bozo when all your friends show off their Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" and Linux new X.org systems. Both are looking really cool already, are getting lots of press coverage, and Microsoft needs to do something to give their customers the feeling that they are not being left behind any more than they are already. This is a "me too" release.
(pssst... Funny doesn't help your karma (really, check the FAQ))
Microsoft has been seeing increased resistance from developers over stuff like Avalon.
"No, I _don't_ want to throw away my WinForms stuff to develop for Avalon, which may be easier and more powerful to use, but will restrict my target market to those running Longhorn," is the general vibe.
By making Avalon available for Windows XP (presumably as some sort of runtime), Microsoft makes developing against Avalon a more realistic proposition.
As for all the users in here asking "why the hell would I want Avalon?" - some application developer will choose to use Avalon, and if you want that application, you'll want Avalon.