Slashdot Mirror
Windows Longhorn Beta for June Release
An Anonymous Reader writes "According to CNET, the Windows Longhorn Beta 1 is supposedly set for release this June. The Register has commentary on the delays the new OS has faced." From the article: "Longhorn was originally supposed to ship in 2004. In May, this year release was pushed back to 2005. This week Longhorn's availability has been delayed even further, with Microsoft execs declining to say when exactly the operating system might ship, eWeek reports."
So what makes this June Release by one Microsoft executive more believable than other announcements?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Your thought was the same as mine. Windows machines get a lot of diverse, funky software thrown on them.
I'll withhold judgement on Longhorn until I get to play with it. Maybe the changes will be worth the money to upgrade, maybe not. Maybe the graphics will look cheesy (a la XP) and maybe not. Either way, my Slackware box will fill the balance. I think an open mind is a good thing here.
That said, I can foresee (via the Slashdot palantir) a lot of people looking at their screens and wonering if all years of hype and buildup really just produced this. Think Doom 3 here: Yeah, it was entertaining, but it wasn't worth all the years of salivating and my $50.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
I do agree. I'm tired of seeing less-than-spectacular releases in the Windows line. WinME? That was pointless.
How about Longhorn being the "browserless OS?" If they hold true to that it means we'll probably be even more vulnerable to IE exploits--like hijacking our desktop background instead of just our browser homepage.
I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't redesign their product to focus on 3 things: the kernel, the GUI, and the rest of the apps they ship with Windows.
The one thing I love about Linux is the fact that the kernel is almost always stable. It rarely crashes. (with the exception of the use of alpha-release drivers or bad system memory) Yes, X may sprout some problems eventually but it doesn't take the whole system down.
The other thing they need to do is stop integrating software into the OS. I can't stress this enough. I don't want to have to worry about my entire OS being vulnerable because IE has been integrated into every possible aspect of my GUI. Keep it simple, keep it segmented in modules.
If they could ship an OS that had a rock-solid kernel, with a nice GUI shipped with it, and a few apps (IE, OE, etc) shipped as extras on the cd/dvd then I think they would finally have a worthy product on their hands.
Does Microsoft actually care about Mac OS X at all, whether as a competitive threat or even a comparative yardstick?
At a recent university talk, Gates claimed that the only OSes that would be around in 10 years would be Windows and Linux. Now that could simply be a snub to Jobs, or it could indicate that he doesn't even consider Mac to be on the radar anymore. With less than 2% marketshare, Mac OS X is pretty much inconsequential in both the predominantly Windows consumer market, or Windows/Linux enterprise market.
The ironic thing is, that if Mac OS X *were* to be around in 10 years, Microsoft would likely to be making far more money off it than if it disappeared. Why? The high gross margins (80+%) from Office mean that Microsoft often makes more money from a Mac bought with Office than Apple does (the gross margin on a Mac is 20+%).
With only Linux as an alternative OS, Microsoft would likely make nothing, unless Microsoft plans to start selling software for Linux...
Personally I think Microsoft does actually pay attention to Apple and uses them as a sort of free R&D lab. However, publicly, Gates seems to deny they're relevant now, and not at all in the future.
Interesting...
I say the same thing, but for Windows 2000. I have yet to find a show stopper at home to upgrade to XP. I don't see myself leaving 2000 on my desktop unless its to Linux (Which is already on file server/laptop).
Bye!
Once Longhorn comes out, Microsoft will again be so far ahead, it won't be easy, or even possible, for enthusiasts to catch up.
.NET code on your machine.
Hi Mr. Troll...have some food:
1. The entire OS will be accessible through a set of managed APIs. This makes coding 10 times easier and faster, and raises productivity to unprecedented levels. This also makes buffer overflows and some other security issues a thing of the past.
Good idea...let's call them shared libraries. They can handle all the functions that a modern program will need. We'll put them in a central location, like a "lib" folder, and then release their header files in a "devel" (short for developer) package. This means that any program writer will be able to see exactly what functions he needs to use. We'll also put all our trust in the security of one developer, and forget security as our responsibility.
2. New, resolution independent, vector based, GPU-enabled UI engine.... What's KDE/Gnome users gonna do? That's right, try to discern tiny non-scalable icons on these displays.
That's right...those damn communists will have to develop SVG Icons to compete.
3. Completely new UI, including some significant paradigm changes.
Because we all know that a new UI is far more important than stability, performance, security, ease of use, scalability, compatibility, ease of development, and speed of patch releases...right? Then again, maybe changing to a 3d environment will make it easier for new users, after all, computers haven't been using 2d interfaces for the last 20-some years, right?
Your webapps will actually run sandboxed
Just like, oh, I don't know...Java? Wait... Kind of like applets, but the entire webapp will be built out of them.... oh...I get it, just like a whole Java application. Got it. Silly me, I thought Java was only for applets...
Just think about the possibilities there.Wait! I've heard this before... the possibility is ActiveX...seamless integration of pr0n toolbars^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H client and server, huh?
web service protocol that's supported by the majority of computers in the world (when most people upgrade).
Standard...oh yeah, like TCP/IP, SSL, SSH, Telnet, UDP, and all those other standards...(too many to list)
The most important thing is, all of this will be available to Windows users out of the box, without any tweaking/recompiling/downloading dependencies
Yeah...clicking the icon for Synaptic was getting to be a pain in the ass. I also got pretty tired of having several gigs worth of...well, all the programs I need...included on the installation disks.
Developers will be able to rely on this stuff when building next-gen apps and be reasonably sure that if a user runs Longhorn, the app will run there.
Yeah, let's see how many DLL's we can cram into the system32 folder, eh? Until DLL's are gone (ahem...notafuckingchanceinhell...ahem), there will still be DLL hell.
It's time to stop copying Windows XP, folks.
Are you out of your fucking mind? MS copied Fisher-Price, not vice versa...
It's time to start copying Longhorn.
You know, you're right...let's copy a product that has to have a final specifications sheet, or even a concrete release date. Even better, let's copy our own innovations.
Now that the troll's full, I may as well poke it a bit:
That was by far one of the most uneducated, poorly cocnceived fanboy responses that I have ever read. Even people like Dvorak and Thurrot take more time to look at the status quo before proclaiming innovation.
Cheers,
-maztuh
The real litigious bastards...