| 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 |
 |
WinHEC: Longhorn Slips to Late 2004 | |
|
||
| Time: 14:20 EST/19:20 GMT | News Source: WinInformant | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Anyone hoping to see the next major release of Windows next year will be sorely disappointed, as various representatives from Microsoft revealed Tuesday morning that Windows "Longhorn" will not ship until the second half of 2004 at the earliest. The Longhorn delay revelation came on the opening day of the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) in Seattle, a forum where Microsoft often discusses future directions and strategies. The first Longhorn mention came during the keynote address, which was delivered by Jim Allchin, Group Vice President of the Platform Group at Microsoft. "Longhorn won't ship until beyond 2003," Allchin said. "We are going to synchronize a tremendous amount of technology behind that release. You'll see little pieces of those technologies throughout the show." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:55:49 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2 (24.54.153.167) at 4/16/2002 3:59:23 PM |
| I didn't feel like upgrading yet anyway. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/16/2002 4:47:31 PM |
|
#4 - That's inaccurate. XP has quite a bit over Win2k.
The Win98 move over Win95 was similar. It introduced some new tech, had a more matured UI. But unlike Win98... WinXP is noticeably more reliable than Win2k, whereas 98 was noticeably less reliable than 95. |
| #3 By 2 (24.54.153.167) at 4/16/2002 4:49:30 PM |
| I will admit I kept Win2000 on one of my main PCs. |
| #4 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 4/16/2002 4:51:12 PM |
|
Soda,
I wouldn't necessarily say it's more reliable, but it certainly is more compatible... TL |
| #5 By 1868 (209.6.172.123) at 4/16/2002 4:51:16 PM |
|
I totally agree with post #1. I love XP and I love Win2k, but I mean they need time(just like Win95 needed it) to mature. If MS just went and released longhorn full steam, and claimed it was the best OS ever, so quickly after XP, I would really hold the bar high. More than likely I wouldn't upgrade, and I would wait for some really improvements. [Why? Does this so similiarly recall the situation I was in when considering Win 98-I loved 95(ok, so it crashed at lot-but it was the best damn OS at the time) when it was out and just wanted MS to continue to work on it with free service packs. Win 98 didn't really carry any benifit, and it fell well below the bar I had set for it-therefore I didn't upgrade.] I am looking for MS to make XP another "95" in terms of "free" upgrades such as service packs, and hot fixes. I will only upgrade when I see something as monumental as I did when I switched from NT4 to Win2k in terms of functionality benifits(namely reliability and security). I hope MS makes Longhorn have some MAJOR(and I mean MAJOR) reason to upgrade. I don't need fluffy eye candy like extra useless features such as more card patterns for solitare, and I don't want more blot. I like the idea that if MS gives XP some time to mature and to become the standard, then it will be able to find features that users really want. Also, wantever they do, I hope I never see an 3d interface like I have seen in some of the demos, because while I *kinda* like it, every computer user I have shown it to, has become lost and disorientated by it. Just my 2 cents.
Also, keep up the awesome work Activewin- I really enjoy the format, layout, and work that you guys put into this site. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 5:04:04 PM |
|
I had been thinking that delays could ultimately impact the Software Assurance program, but this seems to be the kicker. Originally, MS was arguing that it would be upgrading Windows faster with more substantial improvements (I think they said every 2 years with SPs in between). That's why the extra cost is validated: you get the freshest releases of the new OS. But if the time between OS releases has now increased to 3.5 years--isn't that approaching the average and normal business upgrade cycle anyway? Aren't you now paying a greater price for something that you have to wait for?
Seriously, I'm curious what others think--I'm not just trying to bust balls. |
| #7 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 4/16/2002 5:48:03 PM |
| SodaJerk, I think it should be every 3.5 years. Most companies have not even upgraded to 2K and now XP has been out for 6 months. The company I work for has over 22,000 PC's and almost 1000 servers. That is a hefty upgrade price. The only 2K PC's are the ones that are newly purchased with 2K, with no XP PC's except for the IT managers at each Business Unit. So I would say that is not a good thing and MS should keep the releases at 3 or more years. Give the Consumer Base time to upgrade before you make them have another one. Would the new licensing scheme help out some companies. Well Yes, but our licensing is up in the Millions of dollars a year by MS's new licensing. Do you know what it is now, zero dolars per year. We still have Windows 95 machines and NT 4.0 machines all over the company. My business Unit alone is %90 Win95. Do I like this, well no. I am budgeting for next year to upgrade them all to 2K Pro. When the company is to switch from NT 4.0 to 2K AD. That is just for information on what my big company is doing. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 6:02:46 PM |
|
No, mctwin, I'm not arguing in favor of the Upgrade program nor am I arguing for shorter upgrade cycles--I am arguing that this was how they justified the program, but if they do move to a more rational 3-4 year cycle, aren't they undercutting their entire licensing program?
We're pretty similar, but we're not that big--300-350 installs, mostly NT 4.0 with a few 2000 installs (maybe 10) that were allowed to stay because of tech-savvy users, even fewer XP users. We are still using the 97 apps. We just migrated Exchange to 2000, and it'll probably be 2003 before we have migrated all of our servers to 2000. Desktops get migrated to 2000 towards end of year and into 2003. We are looking to avoid XP entirely--though I am in the humorous position of asking to skip 2000 and go to .Net for the web servers... but it seems they'll go to 2000 too eventually--after the desktops. So, yeah, MS puts us all in similar boats--large or small. |
| #9 By 3 (213.107.104.13) at 4/16/2002 6:22:05 PM |
| Thanks for the comments #8 |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 6:22:57 PM |
| Coach, where have you been? What am I saying that is confusing to people? Weren't we just talking about Licensing 6.0 yesterday? There are normal people out there, right, that know what I'm talking about, right? |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 6:38:50 PM |
| Thank you, someone who understands--yes, I'm all for delays... I wish they'd go back to regular industry versioning even... But if MS cannot deliver substantially improved upgrades on a regular and tight schedule, the entire logic of Software Assurance is out the window--making it even less compelling then it already is. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 7:30:34 PM |
|
Because you couch it as theoretical and talk about some holy grail, whereas myself and this other guy are talking about what is here today. I am not talking about the effects of such decisions on how these plans work out or not or effect product development--I am SPECIFICALLY asking if THIS delay provides substantial new evidence to overturn and reject Software Assurance as it is TODAY. That is the difference between what you are saying and what this other person is saying. I'm not disagreeing--I just wasn't finding your comments contributing to the question I raised.
I hadn't really realized he said they are motivated to delay-- if this is a first thought on everyone's mind, isn't it clear that SA should be rejected? Once they catch you in a subscription model, they have assured themselves of the profits that they would otherwise need to gain from a substantial update... Which is completely contrary to MS's argument, that they will have greater incentive to deliver updates expeditiously. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 19:49. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 8:28:40 PM |
|
Yeah, but wasn't Longhorn supposed to be interim build on the way to Blackcomb? When's that coming 2006? Less and less do I think Microsoft has any sort of lead at all in web services. VS.Net is nice and all, but we're getting pushback after pushback. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 22:08. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 8:55:03 PM |
| No, maybe you should stop guessing, I'm saying that they are still two years away from delivering a web service to consumers via the OS--so web services are still the domain of the web application server market. This is mostly IBM and BEA. And MS's vision is slowly realligning with other's (competitors but more importantly the customers). |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/16/2002 10:06:59 PM |
|
sodajerk - Why do I keep having to go Huh?
Two things... Why do you think you need Longhorn to do .Net. Second... MS/IIS has a good 50% of the web application server market. |
| #16 By 3339 (64.175.41.113) at 4/16/2002 10:12:47 PM |
|
I didn't say you need Longhorn to do .Net; it is my proposition that the most substantial thing that MS contributes to the advancement of web services is bringing it to the consumer via the OS--that keeps getting pushed back. Another advancement is certainly ease of development, but I think that is offset by the other camp, which being focused on corporate dev. and Java, is less inclined to the quick, simple tools that VS.Net offers.
If you think IIS is an application server, you know less than I thought, soda. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 03:56. |
| #17 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/17/2002 2:14:31 AM |
|
sodajerk - Oh, this ought to make for a good laugh.
Please, tell me, oh great one, what defines an application server? |
| #18 By 3339 (64.175.41.87) at 4/17/2002 3:27:14 AM |
|
Wow! It's no big deal--I could maybe understand finding the term irrelevent possibly, but if you do not know the term and the market, that's also fine--but I do find it shocking that you don't know how the rest of the industry organized and developed early on... I'll provide you a definition, a breakdown of the marketplace (more or less as it is today), an article that questions the definition/marketplace, and a web site dedicated to appserver market research. Not because they are good links or I agree with them... just because it was so easy... (And maybe because they'll cause some confusion too, who cares) It's tough, I know: Google, webopedia definition, follow links...
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/application_server.html http://serverwatch.internet.com/articles/appsmkt/index.html http://news.com.com/2100-1001-214783.html?legacy=cnet http://www.techmetrix.com/ Wait! ... Before we go any further are you just kidding? Come on! Ha, Ha. No? Well, we'll see... |
| #19 By 3339 (64.175.41.87) at 4/17/2002 3:27:34 AM |
|
Personally I was more or less pointing out how the other web services developers are primarily aligned this way. My definition would be: acting as an application broker between legacy backends (Unix, mainframes, etc.), databases, and web interfaces using CORBA, J2EE, or Microsoft products (COM, DNA, .Net)--but no one provides a Microsoft solution except Microsoft so really this is never the environment--except, yes, it is because these server platforms integrate with modern systems as well. This was the original web implementation for big iron legacy crap. This is what web services was built for; why, in some way, there were web services from the very beginning... Back then it was mostly just IBM, Borland (but then at that brief moment, Inprise, I think), and BEA, and upstarts like Forte, and I forget who else... Ultimately, Bluestone came along... But before then, the term "application server" was already confused with more content management-oriented systems like Allaire's products which were, well, I guess they were a Microsoft-like and an MS platform appserver--I guess maybe Macromedia is still doing that stuff... And database platforms (IBM's is already integrated, so is Borland's, Oracle, etc)... At some point, Sun swallowed up Forte, HP swallowed up Bluestone, etc... In many ways the market was already defined by Java although other object models were still a huge part of it--integration and commerce being the keys; basically, this is where the heavylifting Java development has been centered over the last five years--and that probably characterizes the definition for me--what this market was in 1999. There were a fair number of companies that provided an intermediate or evolving, or a nascent piece of the puzzle--yes, it is a fuzzy market... Oh, I forgot to mention, that early on this market was defined by providing the complete platform: transaction orbs, Java-CORBA bridges, certificate and authentication services, commerce capabilities, integrated IDE and tools to deploy these applications, logging tools, load balancing, fault tolerance, etc....That fills out the definition really, the integrated platform, etc. I was pretty sure that you still hear (I guess you don't, soda, huh?) that BEA (WebLogic) continues to lead the market (around 35%--don't hold me to it, daz), IBM WebSphere (30%+), Sun iPlanet, Borlands AppServer, HP Bluestone, Zope, etc... filling it out, kind of thing.[As a historical note and to give you something to attack later, Apple's WebObjects (first developed by NeXT) was the first application server, but in my own definition of the market as it quickly developed between IBM/BEA/Borland/HP/Sun, WO is certainly excluded... but it is more a complete development/application/deployment package than is IIS...] To be honest, I used to know more about this market, but I can tell you this is who are doing web services (and B2B too, but they are less a factor). Ultimately, if you read the links I provide, you read something along the lines of there is no MS equivalent because it is the entire platform. I would say BizTalk would have to be chosen as the most equivalent product because of the persistent market-defining characteristic of transactional capacity. But, of course, just looking at IIS there is confusion because does that include Certificate Server? Transaction Server? Site Server? Index Server? Maybe, that's splitting hair's, but clearly you would want to include SQL Server and VS or at least InterDev, etc... Microsoft is out of sync with this market definition because they give away some of their products for free, some for nearly nothing, and some licenses, if fully in compliance, that are insanely expensive. That is the MS model. |
| #20 By 3339 (64.175.41.87) at 4/17/2002 3:35:52 AM |
|
Oh, and I forgot that you could say, yes, there is the open source Java implementation that gets pieced together quite frequently, and most closely resembles the Microsoft model in that it reuires bringing the pieces of the platform/puzzle together...
Wheww... I don't know if you like what I said, but maybe you've earned a respite for tomorrow--I'm tired. I'm sure you like that, soda. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 03:36. |
| #21 By 3465 (206.20.132.147) at 4/17/2002 7:48:32 AM |
| Maybe Microsoft won't make a mistake of releasing a crappy OS like XP. That's why they're waiting longer to release Longhorn. |
| #22 By 4209 (163.192.21.14) at 4/17/2002 9:57:05 AM |
| SodaJerk, I did understand what you were saying about the licensing. I was stating the same, with the size of our company we would need to have an OS a year to be able to justify the cost of the licensing for over 22,000 PC's and 30, 000 users. That would suck, by the time we hadall the PC's updated the next release would be out. It would for one be a pain in the ass cycle, two would mean the users would have to adjust to new software on a regular basis. I mean I still have a big install base of Office 97 and Windows 95 machines. I mean we could updgrade to 2K all around then not need another upgrade for 5 years. So where would that save a company money. I don't know really, I am sick of the damn changes every six months, and sometimes wish they would let a product mature and get a larger install base before they release another damn OS. I like XP, and I guess it was needed for the home users, but we Corporate users already had a stable OS in 2000. Now if they could only go another 2 years before the next OS release for the desktop I will be happy. |
| #23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/17/2002 10:44:03 AM |
|
sodajerk - Ahh, well thank you S00P3R genius for your fine description.
Now if I can translate your 4 paragraphs of crap... "Well actually IIS is an application server, but since I hate Microsoft I'm going to claim it isn't and then make an ass out of myself trying to backwards justify this position." You make me laugh sometimes, you are just so bloody clueless. BTW, Biztalk is an EAI product... it's not an application server product. Other similar products are WebMethods, SeeBeyond, Mercator, etc... What primarily defines application server is the Transaction processing in the middle-tier between the web UI and the database layer. You are familiar with n-tier development, I hope. This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 10:57. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:55:49 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
