| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Ponders Windows Upgrade for '04 | |
|
||
| Time: 10:34 EST/15:34 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. is weighing a plan to add a new milestone to its Windows road map. According to developers close to the Redmond, Wash., company, a proposal to deliver a Windows 'Yukon' release—timed to tide over Microsoft and its users until the long-awaited Longhorn debuts—is on the company's drawing boards. Microsoft executives have held fast to their promise that Longhorn will be the version of Windows designed to follow Windows XP on the desktop, and Windows .Net Server 2003 on the server. In recent weeks, however, company representatives have taken to calling Longhorn the next "major" version of Windows. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:20:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2062 (68.129.118.224) at 9/26/2002 11:43:42 AM |
|
This is all guess work, there's nothing set is stone. You never know, microsoft might just wait until 2005 or 2006 for longhorn.
-gosh |
| #2 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 9/26/2002 1:22:52 PM |
|
We don't need NEW!
How about, for a change, they just clean up what we have, which is more than sufficient, and improve reliabilty and performance even further. I know, we have that pesky little Microsoft desire for 'revenue' to contend with, meaning it'll never happen :( TL |
| #3 By 531 (208.241.173.124) at 9/26/2002 1:39:12 PM |
|
#9, I was thinking the same thing, but it could be a combination of both, or it could be a change in the way MS codenames products.
First of all, there have been countless products at Microsoft that have had the codename Cairo, so it's not that they don't recycle... :) Secondly, Microsoft has been talking quite a bit about sync'ing their products to a single timeline, such as saying that there will be a "Visual Studio for 'Yukon'" and a "Visual Studio for 'Longhorn'", so it's reasonable to assume that Microsoft may be creating codenames for products that will be based on a similar technology. So, Yukon may now be the codename of a technology, not a product so to speak. Therefore, any product using that technology may carry the Yukon name, such as Windows Yukon, VS for Yukon, SQL Yukon, Exchange for Yukon, etc. I don't know if that's what they're doing, but it's just something I thought of. |
| #4 By 531 (208.241.173.124) at 9/26/2002 1:40:25 PM |
|
Frighteningly enough, I agree (somewhat) with TL in #10 for a change. I'd much rather see Microsoft wait a few years and release a major overhaul to the OS than to see them make incremental changes, and package it as a new OS.
Of course, I would imagine that MS doesn't want to get tangled up in a long development cycle like with Windows 2000 where they just kept adding new stuff and delaying the product, but Win2k is such an evolutionary step forward from NT4, that it really paid off. There's upsides and downsides to both, I suppose. This post was edited by mikekol on Thursday, September 26, 2002 at 13:41. |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 9/26/2002 4:53:55 PM |
|
FinancialWiz:
So, let me get this straight, it's ok for RedHat, Mandrake, etc... to release incremental updates, but Microsoft isn't alloud to? It's not like you HAVE to buy it... this anti-MS bull is really getting old... why not start thinking intelligently for a first. |
| #6 By 6253 (12.237.219.240) at 9/27/2002 2:52:36 AM |
|
Yukon remains the code name for the next major version of SQL Server. The key thing to understand is that this version of SQL Server is intended to provide a mechanism for unstructured storage. Currently, SQL Server supports only relational storage. That means you have tables with rows and columns. If a given row in a table has 10 columns, then every row has 10 columns. A column can be NULL, but it is still there.
Exchange Server is currently built atop a highly modified version of the Jet Engine originally designed for Access. (Jet is also used by Windows itself for things like the WINS and DHCP databases.) Many people wonder why an enterprise messaging system like Exchange would not use Microsoft's enterprise database SQL Server. It's because the Exchange Information Store requires unstructured storage. In other words, there is a database underneath Exchange and it contains tables. But a given row in a table can contain entirely different fields than another row in the same table. In computer science textbooks, this is sometimes known as sparse storage, but Exchange goes further by allowing end users to dynamically alter schema of in folders which they have permission to (which also explains why permissions were strictly folder-level prior to Exchange 2000, much to the detriment of people trying to move Lotus Notes applications which required document-level or item-level security). The version of Jet that comes with Access does not provide unstructured storage, but the Exchange team forked their copy of the code long ago and spent years getting high-performance, high-capacity, fairly reliable unstructured storage out of Jet. (The Exchange version is no longer referred to as Jet but rather as ESE for Extensible Storage Engine.) Once you have unstructured storage, a lot of other things become possible besides messaging/collaboration like in Exchange. You can begin to replace things like the NTFS file system itself. That's what the notion of Windows for Yukon is: a version of Windows which can choose Yukon-based storage instead of NTFS or FAT. I think the confusion in this article is simply from the slurring of Windows for Yukon into simply "Windows Yukon." Probably unintentional, and probably done by the author's sources as opposed to the author. The tech world is full of sloppy name dropping. How many of us are guilty of calling "Netscape Navigator" simply "Netscape" for years until Netscape gave up and actually renamed their browser to simply "Netscape"? Personally, I think there is too much optimism about Yukon. The Exchange team has already decided that Titanium (their next major version) will stick with ESE, despite original plans to put it on Yukon. Exchange will not move to Yukon until Kodiak (the version after Titanium). If Exchange can't get onto Yukon for another 5 years, it seems doubtful that Windows itself will make it. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:20:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
