| 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(R) Windows(R) .NET Server 2003 will be changing to Windows Server 2003" | |
|
||
| Time: 08:31 EST/13:31 GMT | News Source: Pocket PC Thoughts | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
The product name Microsoft(R) Windows(R) .NET Server 2003 will be changing to Windows Server 2003. Microsoft is making an effort to clarify the naming and branding strategy for .NET. As support for Web services becomes intrinsic across our entire product line, we are moving toward a consistent naming and branding strategy to better enable partners to affiliate with this strategy and customers to identify .NET-enabled products. The first product to be affected is Windows .NET Server 2003. The new name for the next version of Windows is Windows Server 2003. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 149 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:31:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 931 (67.35.55.90) at 1/9/2003 9:25:50 AM |
|
You know I really with they'd stop screwing with the names every 6 months, there creating confusion amoung the less informed... Seriously why they just couldn't have used the project\codename name up till now it beyond me. Christ just think of there own costs in now having to go change the name everywhere in the software\documentation\helpfiles\msdn\website..etc..
You know NT 6 would have been just as good a name..lol (like anyone really cares what it's called) This post was edited by KnightHawk on Thursday, January 09, 2003 at 09:27. |
| #2 By 531 (12.107.125.29) at 1/9/2003 9:57:14 AM |
|
#3, one of the reasons that companies like Microsoft choose a "real" product name to replace the codename for the product early on, is because they need to replace all of the text and graphics in the product with that name. While it's possible that they could continue calling a product by its codename up until the last few builds before release, they would introduce a huge amount of code-churn by replacing the text and graphics all at once, with no real way to test it out.
For example. Imagine if they had a string of length 33 like "Microsoft Windows Whistler Server". If they changed it to "Microsoft Windows .NET Standard Server 2003" (which is length=43) without updating the declared length of the string (or something that's dependent on it), the string would be truncated to "Microsoft Windows .NET Standard S" The same could hold true for graphic resources. If the new graphic has a different color depth, or different dimensions, something could break. I do, however, agree that changing the name of a product at the RC stage is a sort of "what the hell are you doing?" kind of thing. Honestly though, if they want to start clarifying what .NET really is for its consumer base, be my guest. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/9/2003 10:07:33 AM |
|
I wonder if Microsoft does focus groups?
I mean, what brainiac thought it was a good idea to call the new development framework .Net, and then go in and rename all of the server products .Net even though they had nothing to do with the development framework... and then on top of that rename all of their services .Net even though they may or may not have used the development framework? I could have told them that was a bad thing. Bill, next time call me! We'll do lunch and I'll review your business plan for horrible flaws like this! :) |
| #4 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/9/2003 11:07:25 AM |
|
I still think this is a foolish name. There was a precedent set (not that Microsoft seems to care about them with their product names) with Windows NT. The product name (with version number) comes before the edition of the product. So, we had Windows NT 4 Workstation/Server/Terminal Server Edition, etc. In like manner we had Windows 2000 Professional/Server/Advanced Server, etc. So this should be Windows 2003 Standard Server/Web Server, etc, not Windows Server 2003 Standard.
sph, here's a curious item with the NT version number. The version of the app server, IIS, used to happily coincide with the version of the operating system. This falls apart with Windows 2003 Server, since the OS version is 5.2 and the app server version is 6. Even though IIS is a rewrite and deserves a new whole number version, I think it would have been better to stick with the same version number as the OS itself. Just my opinion though. blue, if Bill takes you up on that lunch offer, I'd be happy to join you (for the free food) and provide a second opinion (second to yours, not Microsoft's). Also, .NET does make sense for their Enterprise servers, but I'll explain why I think that a little later. |
| #5 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/9/2003 11:45:26 AM |
|
OK, I'm feeling brave now, so here is why I haven't really disagreed with ".NET" appearing everywhere.
IIRC at PDC 2000 when .NET stopped being called "Next Generation Windows Services" and was formally announced as .NET, it was to do a very important thing. .NET was to give you your data any where, any time, and on any device. As such the set of technologies that deliver on that vision deserve the .NET moniker. Since SQL Server 2000, Exchange Server 2000, Mobile Information Server, etc. are enabling technologies to get you your data any time, any where, and on any device, I'm OK with them being called the .NET Enterprise servers. Here is a breakdown, as I've under stood it, of the usage of .NET. .NET vision - Your data any time, and where, and on any device. .NET initiative - The paradigm shift required to implement the .NET vision. .NET platform - The actual bits to which the paradigm is shifting. This would of course include the .NET Framework and VisualStudio .NET, but would also include the .NET Enterprise server line (since the platform allows you to connect to them to achieve the vision). Version of Windows/Office/Servers that are part of the platform (and since Windows Server 2003 ships with the .NET Framework 1.1 it is part of the platform) and/or those that don't have the bits of the platform (e.g. don't run on the CLR) but deliver on the vision, deserver the .NET moniker. If that thinking is accurrate, then the reason Passport became Passport .NET is that Passport enabled authentication any time, any where, and on any device (e.g. it delivered on the vision even though it didn't have CLR based bits). As I've said before this is why the .NET Enterprise servers server the ".NET" when spoken of as a group even though they don't have any CLR based bits. If Office 11 (and it does IIUC) supports scripting or CLR hosting (I think called VSA), than it deserves a ".NET" some where in its name. Particularly in 2002 Microsoft folks often said that XML integration in products earned for them the ".NET" in their names. I think this distorts the vision. The end user doesn't give a rat's piece of cheese (that's for that expression, blue) about XML. The end user cares about getting his data any time, any where, and on any device. If XML (or CLR bits for that matter) are or aren't involved, he really doesn't care (nor should he). Finally, I find it ironic that perhaps the first product to deliver on the vision and be part of the platform, has just lost the .NET moniker. Windows Server 2003 actually has CLR based bits, is a foundation of the platform (for the Enterprise Servers), and generally is designed to deliver on the .NET vision. But alas....now that the name actually made sense, Microsoft changed it. Whoever wants to disagree with "Windows .NET should be a fully managed API" won't find disagreement from me. I think "Longhorn" which is supposed to have a fully managed API (IIUC) also deserves the ".NET" just as VisualStudio .NET 2002 and VisualStudio .NET 2003 both deserve the ".NET" in their names. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 149 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:31:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
