| 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 |
 |
Allchin: Yukon Coming in '03-'04, Longhorn in '05 | |
|
||
| Time: 19:59 EST/00:59 GMT | News Source: Ent Mag | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
"Yukon," the code-name for a major overhaul of SQL Server, will be ready for general availability sometime during the 2004 fiscal year, and "Longhorn," the code-name for the Windows operating system release after Windows .NET Server 2003, is coming in 2005, according to a senior Microsoft official. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 171 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:56:33 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1868 (141.133.144.220) at 9/12/2002 9:35:53 PM |
|
Again, why do we need the new 6.0 liscensing scheme, oh because MS wants more money(but my organization is on board, so I pipe down now)
Well, I am happy to here that we have some time before we have to do another major upgrade, because I just don't see the incentive(s) of any of the new technology in the near future being a must have. I mean, XP has XML integrated to a certain extent and Office XP has a nice core set of features. I feel like MS should model XP after the way they supported 95(not the A,B,C version stuff) but by continually fixing many of the flaws in the original release for the next couple of years, and what I mean by that is that I hope to see atleast 2 more(can I say that I would like to see no less than 4 major) service packs(that don't include any really "new" features) but that make the OS more stable(it already pretty much is, but it can always be more stable), secure(its really not secure so I hope to see it truly be secure) and for it to be continue to support newer technologies(like DVD-RW). My 2 cents |
| #2 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 9/12/2002 9:40:08 PM |
| That leaves over a year and half before I get to beta test a new version of Windows.... I'm depressed now.... :( |
| #3 By 1868 (141.133.144.220) at 9/12/2002 9:49:51 PM |
|
CPUGuy, I think we all can agree that we want a better overall product than a "new""shiny" one that doesn't work the way it should.
Here's my analogy. Built a car, put it in the market, learn where it is weak and improve it, but don't just push out another car that hasn't even had the time to be built better than the first car. |
| #4 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 9/12/2002 10:58:28 PM |
| Zeo, and your point is? |
| #5 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/13/2002 12:19:16 AM |
|
Actually,
What they are talking about is the replacement for BIOS know as EFI, Extensible Firmware Interface. With an OS that is built on EFI, it can dynamically update the firmware even while the OS is loaded. Of course there is more lower level control but that is another benifit. El |
| #6 By 1868 (141.133.144.220) at 9/13/2002 12:48:51 AM |
| CPU my point is that you shouldn't be depressed you should be happy that MS is going to be building XP out to be a good OS, before even attempting to touch a new OS. |
| #7 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 9/13/2002 1:19:43 AM |
|
sph: Longhorn is set to be a MAJOR update to Windows....
That being said, what makes you think that I think it will be major just by the look... do you take me for an idiot or what? Gates and Allchin have both said that Longhorn was going to be a major update. Even if it was just a minor update, I don't care, simply, I love to test software, especially Windows, it's just fun to do, for me. |
| #8 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/13/2002 2:12:06 AM |
|
Longhorn will be a 6.0 update, Bascially everything that has or was going to be in Blackcomb is now in Longhorn.
The new UI, the New File System. There will be a major overhaul in one sense. the .net framework sdk and the Platform sdk, will merge. Basically meaning In Longhorn, the framework is the windows API. The New UI is programmed in Managed code, etc. The other significant change will be the File System based on Yukon. This is a Very significant change and ties into the New UI. and several other underlying technologies. I do agree when LH was first announced it basically was going to be an XP sp2. at that time the new with DX wasn't even a feature. as we moved forward more and more features of Blackcomb moved into Longhorn, and more and more delays showed up for it as a result. It appears, at least to me, that the announcement of LongHorn into the path was to have a gateway if the antitrust trial went drasticaly wrong. Longhorn had no real purpose on the platform map and it was announced when the antitrust case was split between the DOJ and hte states. Since that time the trial has gone fairly well for MS, the software needs to meet the DOJ show up in SP1. XP has been fairly stable, and the .net servers added the Framework as part of the servers and delayed until late 2002 shipment In early 2003, MS starts the beta cycle for the Next phase of .net. the Yukon stage, The Yukon stage is a very important part as it puts the baseline for the next stage. the Longhorn stage. During this the Development tools will improve, and allow developers to have one platform to develop accross all devices and even platforms. VS.net will become the IDE for the MS platform. Office, Enterprise Servers (all enterprise servers, sql server, exchange server etc etc biztalk), the platforms (PC, Server, Small forms (ce, Pocket PC) I see significant changes coming ot the OS in Longhorn. I am sure you may want to reevaluate your thoughts. xp was a gusied up 2k, which later through the framework in. Longhorn will replace the current windows API with the framework. Xp got NTFS 5.1, LH will replace NTFS with the Yukon based File system. nuf said. El |
| #9 By 10022 (24.169.197.221) at 9/13/2002 10:54:14 AM |
|
a rewrite would be the best thing for everybody icluding MS. the PR they could get and the markiting would be huge. Its time for MS to starty thinking about dropping some legacy stuff. how many PCs that have ISA and non PnP devices will be able to run Longhorn? probably none, same for XP and 2000 to some extent but there is still support for those old technologies. Drop it. They tried too long to keep support for old applications too (an argument could be made to the DOJ that "hey we wnet out of our way to make sure 'uselessApp 95' still works on XP eventhough it would be a lot easyer and cheaper for us if we didnt") If a prgram isnt written for 2000/XP then i really dont want it installed on my PC.
I think they will do a rewrite. If their next generation OS comes out with lots of new useless features and has a huge security hole found 2 days before launch, the credibility of MS will be done for. I bet they have found lots of useless stuff in the code after that security check. Just like using an EQ to master your final mix- its better to cut something else than to add something more |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/13/2002 11:06:01 AM |
| Still amazed at people who don't realize XP is a major upgrade from Win2k. Especially now after SP1. |
| #11 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/13/2002 11:10:56 AM |
|
A complete rewrite? A complete rewrite of what? I am almost 100% sure this will not happen. First, 2-3 years is simply not enough time to rewrite that much code from scratch. Second, the potential incompatibilities would be far more destructive than the potential security, etc. benefits. Third, what would a rewrite really mean--largely they would be writing new code that has the same functionality as the old code. Is there really any benefit in that? Also, you really think they're going to rewrite everything (a complete rewrite)? I mean, does calc.exe need recoding?
They'd break more than they'd fix. If there were fundamental issues that couldn't be addressed without a full rewrite, I could see it happening, but I don't think there's anything in the current code that can't be fixed without rewriting every line of code from scratch. The costs would be far greater than any benefit--for MS and consumers both. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/13/2002 1:57:58 PM |
| Windows XP is the best and fastest selling version of Windows to date. More than 45 million copies have been sold in the first 9 months. Whatever we think or say about it, the numbers don't lie. |
| #13 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/13/2002 3:02:25 PM |
|
Trip,
Well it depends on how you look at it. During the Yukon Development, it was known for most of its development that it was going to be the basis of the new FS. During the Development of the Framework, it was known that would become the Basis for the New OS replacing the old Win API. In that idea, the work has been going on for at least 3 years. Before even Windows 2k was complete. Actually technologies that will be part of longhorn have been in some form of development since the Original Cairo plan was announced in early 2005 Although there were technology issues inside MS that got cut or realigned. As a matter of fact the Universal File store or object file store or Storage+ depending on what time we are talking about was suppose to be in Win 2k, And was dropped at the time. With the Consumer group and the Business OS group in one common platform now. And we can finally get rid of the Real Mode BIOS, (Win NT doesn't need it win 9x did) dropping of high power Legacy devices, RS232 ports. the older game ports etc. even the Old floppy drive and IDE connectors. ETC. Stanrting in Jan the first of the transisitions in the hardware platform will start. More EFI based systems will start showing up at the IA 32 level, By the end of 2003 Most if not all of the legacy ports will be gone, and the transition to UGA will begin 3gio based Graphics cards won't need the old VGA hard table support allowing graphics card vendors to remove that from the silicon to use for other features. So yeah there are changes coming. and Longhorn will be big. it does appear that Blackcomb has either been rolled into LH or that it will be something bigger. Read perhaps that famous. Winbsd that we have heard over the past few years;) And this isn't that far fetched actually. look at ROTOR and taking the framework platfrom to BSD Unix. and if the windows API is moveing to the Framework:) think about it. El |
| #14 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/13/2002 7:06:06 PM |
|
or win95 to Win ME, although Win ME is a Multimedia OS at the shell level so there are some changes there.
But one thing to remember there is the consumer side that goes from win 9x to win XP and that is a SIGNIFICANT change. El |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/13/2002 8:27:23 PM |
|
Everybody want something different in an Operating System. I as a developer want a nicer platform to code against. As a consumer I want any device I have to connect happily to my PC and work correctly without me installnig stuff to make that happen. As a gamer.... As a parent... As a knowledge worker... Everybody wants something different.
Why would Microsoft stop writing code? Why would they not offer new features? Risky? Well, Bill Gates said he was betting the company on .NET. If Windows is Microsoft's foremost product, it only makes sense to incorporate all that is .NET into the Windows operating sytem. |
| #16 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/13/2002 9:07:09 PM |
|
Mr, Dee.
I am looking for the OS that was promised back in 1995:) Longhorn finally sounds like it will deliver on all of those. El |
| #17 By 1896 (216.78.253.30) at 9/14/2002 9:06:38 AM |
| Eldoen what is ROTOR? I foud infos about Winbsd but nothing about ROTOR. About Blackcomb I was wondering too what is going to happen to that project; I guess that will be either a further evolution of the OS or it will becoem a concept study to be used in the development of other projects as more or less happened to Cairo. Thanks in advance for the info. |
| #18 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 9/14/2002 10:58:37 PM |
|
Trip:
Any decent programmer will tell you that re-writting code is the dumbest possible thing you could do. Overhauling the code is more like it, sifting through it, seeing what parts they don't need, seeing potential security risks, replacing old componants with newer ones, etc.... |
| #19 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/15/2002 2:00:42 AM |
|
CPUGuy, it all depends on what your goals are with re-writing. SQL Server was completely re-written at versio 7. On a hardware level Intel completely re-wrote their processor when making Itanium. Re-writes aren't always bad. If, for instance, the next Windows is going to be completely written in managed code, then the entire OS would have to be re-written.
As for whether that is true or not, I'd say that none of us really have a clue what Microsoft is doing with DirectX, "Avalon", future versions of the .NET Framework, the "Yukon" file system, etc. Since we don't know what exactly Microsoft's plans are, I don't see much point in having a conversation about it. I'll also say that I highly doubt Microsoft is the least bit interested in the WinBSD project succeeding. |
| #20 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/15/2002 10:18:59 PM |
|
Bob,
While I agree we don't know the final implementation, MS has said in several platforms what is going ot happen over the next few years. There is some reading between the lines. While News of Avalon is vague, MS has said that the Framework would be replaceing the core of the platform. And it makes sense too if they can get the performace they are looking at. Looking at the Visual Studio.net Development tools roadmap for Everett, Yukon (whidby) and for Longhorn, it reveals several new items. VS.net for Yukon for example will unify the database, Office and windows development. and everett will unified the Small devices (compact framework and desktop the .net framework, and the web platform, asp.net, as well as Several Enterprise wizards and enhancements) From Winhec we know that a new UI will have some fairly hefty requirements in the 3d pipeline and memory movement, .98 GB/s at 1024x768 32 bit colour depth with 60hz refresh rate. Must be running DX9 drivers and be at least a dx 7 card with 32 megs of memory. Also at winhec we know that the new UI and a GDI next will be accelerated with Direct X. Probably DX 9.1 From some of the PDC's we know that ALL API's that warrent the Move will be moving to a dual platform at first COM+ and a Mangaged platform, Direct X being the first. So I agree, we don't have implementation yet, we do have a roadmap for what is coming. The devil will be the implementation. and what that offers. From a developer's point of view, it matters little now as it isn't the platform that is going to have immediate return on money. But by starting to target the .net framework now it will lead to an implementation that will work with the future version of windows natively. By the platform SDK moving to managed code there will be less and less that will require com interop. It also move's more items into the Garbage collector Which will hopfully lead to an even more stable systerm, and help to start blocking several viruses that exist especially if the MSH moves to the sandbox of the framework. El |
| #21 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/15/2002 10:36:39 PM |
|
What you suggest makes sense, El. I've heard from various Microsoft folks items that conflict with your statements though. Then again, if we look at how much Microsoft's published vision of the future has changed in the last twelve months, that shouldn't surpise anyone.
I heard at a local Microsoft conference in December of 2000 that the next version of Windows after what was then "Whistler" would be completely managed. That you would be able to remove as much of the system as you wanted. The rep explained further that Microsoft was heading in this direction in a move to mimic Linux's ability to have a really small kernel, yet be able to add as many "non essential" system components as desired. You seem to have a more complete understanding (or foresight) of Microsoft's plans than most. I just get tired of reading posts from people that really have no idea what they are talking about. Calling "Avalon" a replacement for the Win32 API and the like. I guess the unsubstantiated rumors just kind of bug me, especially the ones that don't even make sense. For instance, if Microsoft plans to replace the current Win32 with anything, the most logical replacement would, of course, be the .NET Framework. I'm tired of venting now. Anyway, I think you see my point. I like your take on the future, so let's hope it comes to fruition. BTW, the MSH you referred to is Microsoft Help, right? |
| #22 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/16/2002 12:53:13 AM |
|
MSH is Miscrosoft Scripting Host.
Which is a Com hosted scripting engine right now. it is what gives the ability to script in OE and even Outlook and other programs it is the componet that Makes VBS and JS possible in the system accross the platform. Not sure about VBA though I believe it gets some of its features from it. But some of the security features in WSH is what give unfettered access for some of the activex controls etc. WSH had a recent update to 5.x somthing. don't remember exactly which version number. El |
| #23 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/16/2002 1:03:45 AM |
| I'm quite familiar with WSH. I've never heard it referred to as MSH. |
| #24 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/16/2002 2:15:03 AM |
|
just read an article that listed it as MSH, and had stuck in my head when I wrote the comments earlier. I know it better as WSH myself;)
Believe they probably meant it as WSH though:) El. Had a long reply in the yukon message and it crashed on me;( Will type it again tomorrow. |
| #25 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/16/2002 4:05:10 AM |
| Just make sure to let me know so I see it. These articles will be off the front page in a few hours, I imagine. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 171 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:56:33 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
