| 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 |
 |
Next XP rev Longhorn a 2003, client-only product? | |
|
||
| Time: 06:58 EST/11:58 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The Grand Old Duke of York is clearly in charge of Microsoft's operating systems roadmaps for, having marched Longhorn up to the top of a distant (2005, said his Billness) hill earlier this year, he has now marched it straight back down again. Longhorn, the next version of Windows XP, will not after all be a 2005 product, but will quite possibly be a next year product after all. Which would suggest it's been pulled out of the 'hard megaproject' category (never mind, Bill already got the glowing write-up in Fortune) and moved over into the 'easy-ish rev' one. This possible revelation comes in Mary-Jo's latest in eWeek, but you'll have to parse the Delphic quotes to figure out the signposts. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 157 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:31:43 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 11/11/2002 8:13:27 AM |
|
I guess they need the money...
TL |
| #2 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 11/11/2002 8:22:58 AM |
| Making money is how the economy works... it is kind of the point of running a business. |
| #3 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 10:06:58 AM |
|
Perhaps if the media didn't jump on every word and rumor that Microsoft utters, this wouldn't seem like much of a big deal. Anyone who has any dealings in software development, knows that product roadmaps change.
Also, I don't see why the lack of a "Longhorn" server makes the "Longhorn" client a minor release. A SQL based file system, 3D UI, and managed platform API say to me this is a major release. Since we have the option to buy or not buy the product anyway, though, who really cares? Most folks expected "Longhorn" to be minor when it was first announced. Then it became major and "Blackcomb" become the far distance future. An unnamed minor release was kind of announced to come before "Longhorn". Does it really matter what features are associated with which codenamed project? It doesn't make a bit of difference to me. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 11:57:26 AM |
|
kev, I'm not sure I agree. If the "Yukon" engine is good enough for the tools that SQL Server has, then wouldn't it be good enough for "Longhorn" ? Perhaps I'm wrong, but if you can query it and get the right results, does it really matter whether the OS is querying or Query Analyzer (or any other SQL Server tool) ?
Anyway, since when is "Longhorn" coming out in 2003? It seems rather strange that Microsoft would do that since they've yet to release even a public (or private as for as I am aware) beta. The first public "Whistler" beta was about a year before Windows XP RTM'ed. I'd expect a somewhat similar schedule for the next version of Windows. Since this is mid November 2002, I wouldn't expect a new version of Windows till at least early 2004. |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 11/11/2002 12:16:07 PM |
| I hate to burst Mary-Jo's bubble (never have liked her, she's always shown how incredibly STUPID she is in every single article she's ever written) but it would take more than 1 year just to beta-test the product, and then on top of that, there hasn't even been an alpha program started, so the EARLIEST a new OS could come out would be 2004. |
| #6 By 7760 (12.107.12.130) at 11/11/2002 12:45:56 PM |
|
>>Also, I don't see why the lack of a "Longhorn" server makes the "Longhorn" client a minor release.<<
I agree. Whistler/XP was a very major release and, yet, we're still waiting (over a year later) for the Server release. When I read that Longhorn "could" come as early as 2003, I read that as Dec 2003, and only then if the alpha and beta programs go as smoothly as possible (yeah, right). Windows releases almost never go final exactly when they were planned to in the alpha/pre-alpha stages. We can't blame one Microsoft employee for getting a little optimistic. If expected release dates vary from employee to employee, then opinions are likely all that they are. Only dim-witted journalists and those that read them would read every opinion as evidence of a drastic re-thinking at the Redmond offices. I read this news of a possible 2003 release really as news of a likely 2004 release, which is a whole lot more realistic, it seems to me. I want them to take their time on this, and the stability of XP gives them the freedom to do this. Besides, I want my XP Pro certification to be current as long as it can :) |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 1:08:10 PM |
| It was a major release from the 9x perspective. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 2:25:08 PM |
|
J, Windows XP marked the combining of the NT and 9x codebases. It was a minor upgrade from Windows 2000 and a major upgrade from Windows Me. It isn't that hard to understand. Why are you being obstinate about it?
You're talking technical not marketing? Huh? |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 2:26:18 PM |
| You and I weren't talking about version numbers, so Claw's statements have no relevance to what you are saying. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 2:42:48 PM |
|
Microsoft marketing is a bit annoying. I take serious issue the moniker ".NET Enterprise Servers" when there is no .NET code in them. I'm especially annoyed that Windows 2000 is included in that category, since it was released months before .NET was announced.
As for Windows XP being a major upgrade... It was a minor upgrade for Windows 2000 users. It was a major upgrade for Windows 98/Me users. Since there were far more Windows 98/Me uers than there ever were Windows 2000 users, it makes sense to call it a major upgrade. For the majority of users, it will be a major upgrade. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 4:22:13 PM |
| Whatever, J. I'd rather listen to Handle's Water Music than argue with you. You win. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 5:02:38 PM |
| Drivers are really interesting. If I remember the specs of WDM (Windows Driver Model) it was possible as far back as Windows 98 to write drivers that worked under both 9x and NT. |
| #13 By 10022 (24.169.197.221) at 11/11/2002 5:39:16 PM |
|
#25 , unfortunatly not many companies took advatage of that.
i thought i read somewhere that a db based FS was tried in Win2000 early on. If so then there probably has been work on it all along. with all the changes in 2000 over NT, its no surprise that a major change/addition like that would have been dropped if there was no hope of having it completed in time with the rest of the OS or support for it from any apps or 3rd party. although it would be cool to be able to have such functionality (especailly 10 years out when all of are lives have been so digitized for so long) to be able to search like that, it needs to be totaly seemless to users (who cant understand a simple dir path). there are users that can't find a file that they know the name of let alone searching for attributes or metadata. hey billG: if you got another 100 million- start a PC education class for your users- just think of all the problems you could avoid in the call centers |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/11/2002 5:41:31 PM |
| Perhaps someone could define "major upgrade". It might help the debate if we were consistent on our use of terms. |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/11/2002 7:04:46 PM |
| sp, Palladium, a managed platform SDK, or a new 3D UI/API would also put it out of the group where Windows 2000 and Windows XP live. |
| #16 By 5444 (208.180.140.124) at 11/11/2002 11:06:56 PM |
|
XP is a minor update. in the nt Realm. Bascially they took what was promised within a short time after 2k was released and alligned the code for both pro and consumer edition on the nt core.
Neptune was going to be based on the nt core but not neccesarily alighed with the Business edtions. So neptune and Odessey the minor update to 2k was combined to make whistler and the code bases were aligned. In the long run this will make it cheaper to support. Both business and consumer bascially have the same code base (minus a few features) But it did add some significant underpinnings (like the native recognition of framework based executables for istnace) even though it didn't ship with the framework. Unfortantly there is no clear thing that makes .net what it is. is it the framework?? if that is so then longhorn will be the first real client that has the framework in it. So in that light Longhorn would be aligning the Client with the servers (which have the framework built in) Is it just web services. in that light even Win 98 could be a .net dream. as they can all consume services. From a technology stand point. .net won't really start until the .net servers. come out. And then it will only truely be the beginning. if rumors of what blackcomb is to become actually occurs. El |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/12/2002 6:29:44 PM |
|
Am I the only person who saw Bill on Charlie Rose? Bill was his usual elusive self, but he was stating pretty firmly that Longhorn was major and would include the new file system.
He also predicted a few to several more months to "iron out" the major technological challenges and then a year to two to bring in all of the other fixes, updates, new look-and-feel etc... In other words, Bill's view is entirely inline with the one we had 2-3 weeks ago (2004 to 2005). (Bill was on Charlie's show the night or night after the tablet launch--not exactl sure what date that works out to). |
| #18 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/13/2002 1:38:41 PM |
| I didn't see it, jerk, but from what I've heard there is no reason to believe the stuff WinFS, Avalon, etc. won't be in an OS shipping 04/05. Perhaps there will be a Windows XP SE before that, but by 04/05, I think we should expect to have the new stuff. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 157 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:31:43 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
