| 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 |
 |
Windows Longhorn slips again, becomes megaproject | |
|
||
| Time: 04:33 EST/09:33 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
Yes folks it's spring in Seattle at last, the moss has gone green, and the Redmond marketing team is busy altering perceptions by dispensing prestige exclusive executive access to prestige publications. The second of the week so far is Bill himself, in Fortune, painting a rosy (albeit staggeringly vague) picture of Longhorn. Who's next? Steve? But everybody gets Steve... Anyways, immediately the obvious bottom line of Bill's disclosures to Fortune writer Brent Schlender is that Longhorn, once upon a time the intermediate point release on the way from Windows XP to Blackcomb, the real big one, is now not-a-point-release, but is instead "a radically new version of Windows, code-named Longhorn, which, if all goes well, will come out sometime after 2005." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 305 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:47:19 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/26/2002 12:15:55 PM |
| I really doubt they will wait that long without an intermediate release, but if they do, I'm really glad I didn't opt for Software Assurance on the OS.... |
| #2 By 1868 (68.9.46.160) at 6/26/2002 2:36:42 PM |
|
Thank Goodness!!!!
Microsoft is listening to its customers. Finally, the years of a radically new OS every year are drawing to a close! Honestly, point service packs are fine, and heck I'll even pay for an optional bundled package of serivce packs(no more than $19.95) and I would hope that no new features would be included because it would make my life miserable. Ex. "Oh yes I am running Windows Xp B.1.0.4 and it has NewTech", and Ex. "My WindowsXP C.10.7 netmeeting doesn't work with my friend who has Windows XP D1.0.8, I have to upgrade for $89.95 for it to work" Microsoft keep bumping out good(none of that NT4 Service pack 3) service packs and I will gladily upgrade all of my companies machines to XP and I bet I will honestly consider your new license scheme and not scream(well, you can hope). |
| #3 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 6/26/2002 3:20:23 PM |
| Shit I wish they just would have released XP for home and as a service pack to 2000 Pro. I mean come on my company has around 22000 PC's and at my local business unit I am just now getting PC's up to 2000 Pro. Most are still at Win 95 and a few at NT 4.0. Only a few 2K servers in the whole company. We are a big company and if they keep this up we will still be behind in the OS world. When you've got 22000 PC's that is a shit load of upgrading to do, and expemsive. Slow down MS let some people catch up, just release service packs for gods sake. Oh and yes I do run XP Pro, just my users who are behind. |
| #4 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/26/2002 3:38:17 PM |
|
#6, ummmm.... did you actually read the article?
No new OS until 2005. That's 3yrs from now. XP was launched in 2001. That's 4 yrs between releases.... and that's just with the current scheadule, MS's release scheadule always slips behind. BTW, who ever said that you should be running the latest OS on all those 22000 PC's, you run what you need. If some areas need XP, then get XP for those areas ONLY and leave everyone else at 2000. |
| #5 By 2332 (165.247.4.19) at 6/26/2002 5:22:26 PM |
| I love how The Register happily ignores the fact that Mozilla missed FAR more milestones than they ever met (what was it, 2 YEARS late?), but when Microsoft decides to drastically increase the scope of Longhorn, and thereby are forced to push back the release schedule, The Register hops on it like it some how validates their insane pseudo-reality. |
| #6 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 6/26/2002 5:55:47 PM |
| #7, I was saying thank god they are not releasing another one yet, as far as I know .Net is supposed to be out next year unless I am wrong. Most companies have not moved to 2K yet and now MS has a new server that was supposed to be out next year. Anyhow as far as the OS upgrade for my company, 90% of the PC's I have are Windows 95, which is not a good OS in a Corp environment. It is a pain in the ass to get it to change passwords on a domain or too secure. As well as the fact it crashes all the time. Now if I want to make it better I move them up to 2K Pro and all new PC's bought in the last year are running 2k Pro, so it is slowly coming up. As far as servers, the company might have 5 2K servers out of a couple hundred, simply because 22,000 CAL's is quite expensive. That was my point on the OS releases, personally I like 2K and XP, and I know the clients will not get XP for quite some time, so 2K it is for me. No matter anyway. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/26/2002 6:02:58 PM |
|
RMD - Well actually almost 4 years late, if you consider Netscape should have released a version 5.0 in late 1998.
|
| #8 By 1868 (68.9.46.160) at 6/26/2002 6:23:03 PM |
| What I meant by "Finally, the years of a radically new OS every year are drawing to a close" is that Microsoft can no longer claim that every new OS they release is NEW and in someway radically different. Now the marketing campaing for longhorn will actually be more realistic and hopefully the OS will have some awesome benifits from 4+ years in development. |
| #9 By 5444 (208.180.140.230) at 6/26/2002 7:54:52 PM |
|
#13,
Well some of the features have been in on again off again development since 1992. So it will be nice to finally see them come to fruition. But things to note. If longhorn requires Palladium to run. that would REQUIRE everyone to upgrade hardware to run it. depending on where AMD and Intel decide to put the circutiry to support Palladium, it could be an easy chip change out. but if it is in the chip set, ti would require at th emin a motherboard change out. Now this will be a shame as there are SEVERAL other nicities in the OS that will be known as Longhorn. The unified File System for one. the Moving of the OLD GDI code to use the GPU to acutally heop with the features that have come to be in the UI. The .net framework, which allows for a program to be written once for a 32 bit platform or a 64 bit platfrom and run on both with no modification. Including the bringing of true unicode support to win 9x. the extra middle ware isn't as important to me. But DRM has a place not that I agree with it if it prevents fair use. El |
| #10 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/26/2002 10:18:29 PM |
|
mctwin:
.NET Server was actually supposed to come out in the beginnning of this year. eldoen: I can almost guarentee you that Palladium won't be required to run Longhorn, for one, that would be just stupid, two, Microsoft says that users will be able to control Palladium however they like, three, well, no three at the moment, forgot what I was gonna put... oh well. Anyway, my guess is that either one of two scenarios will happen. A) Palladium-based security will be a combonation of both hardware and software, meaning that you can still have some of the security features, but not all of it if you don't have the hardware. B)Palladium will be totally hardware in which case if you don't have the hardware to run Palladium-based features it simply turns off those features in the OS and they are no longer visable. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 305 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:47:19 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
