Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft

Longhorn in 2006 639

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the maybe-this-will-slow-down-the-worms dept.
worm eater writes "Microsoft Watch reports that Microsoft officials are now aiming for a 2006 release date for Longhorn, the follow up to Windows XP. Microsoft has been hyping aspects of this OS to its partners since 2001. I'm beginning to wonder if the industry will be in a far different place than Microsoft envisions 3 years down the line."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Longhorn in 2006

Comments Filter:
  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:17PM (#7200082)
    The way things are going, the next version of Microsoft's OS will have many more security holes and even more "Palladium" evilness and DRM restrictions on what I can co with my own content on my own machine. Hold of on this as long as possible, Bill. Get the current one working first.
    • by NineNine (235196) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:18PM (#7200103)
      Even if they release it, who says that you have to use it? I've locked my company into W2K until I have a very, very good reason to switch. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is never a good idea.
    • Wait... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Aldric (642394) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:22PM (#7200147)
      Why should Microsoft be capable of implementing secure DRM when normal security has thus far eluded them?
    • The way things are going, the next version of Microsoft's OS will have many more security holes and even more "Palladium" evilness and DRM restrictions on what I can co with my own content on my own machine. Hold of on this as long as possible, Bill. Get the current one working first.

      And what do you base this 'expert' opinion on? From both reading about and using it, Win2k3 server is the best OS yet seen. Your supposed security holes arent being claimed by organizations such as SANS, so either they a

      • SANS also had a "Green" condition on their Stormwatch site, through two weeks of MSBlaster, Welchia and SoBigF. Go figure.

        Windows 2003 Server Extra-Long Name Edition for Domains (tm) has every RPC/DCOM issue as WinXP. Both of the production deployments were affected.

        Seriously - after a year of "trustworthy computing" audits with source and third-parties are able to craft 3 successive exploits against this service and its patches with only object code available to them?

        That's why you are a Troll, and MS ar

        • SANS also had a "Green" condition on their Stormwatch site, through two weeks of MSBlaster, Welchia and SoBigF. Go figure.

          What do you mean "Go figure" ?

          The green is the correct indicator condition. Microsoft is still making money hand over fist selling your insecure products that you have no choice to buy. Green seems like the correct "Stormwatch" condition to me. The storm of open source has not (yet) changed the indicator condition from green.
      • Your supposed security holes arent being claimed by organizations such as SANS, so either they are in collusion with MS, or else you are talking out of your ass.

        I vote [computerworld.com] for [internetnews.com] collusion [eweek.com]. Granted, two of the links I included discuss only flaws in IE 6.0 which aren't likely to be exploited on a server, but you never know what the customer may do. Finding critical flaws like this in just 5 months doesn't look too good. Try googling before you speak next time.

        As far as I can tell, the big change that Microsof

    • Windows?

      "Longhorn"?

      Better never than LATE!

      Palladium? Well, rome wasn't sacked in a day!

    • by bladernr (683269) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:32PM (#7200261)
      DRM restrictions on what I can co with my own content on my own machine

      Actually, I think the opposite is the problem. It seems that DRM restrictions are aimed at protecting other people's content, while so far MS has done a poor job of protecting my content.

      I stuff that I create (documents, code, music, whatever) is very open to theft on my Windows machine due to MS's poor security. Yet, they are spending tons on DRM for other people's content.

      Since their main customer is the mass-market, why don't they spend more time protecting the mass market and less protecting the professional artists with DRM? There are more of us than them.

      (BTW, before you get the wrong idea, I am a supporter of IP and its protection, however, I am an even bigger supporter of the monopoly supplier's responsibility to its customers. If they were not a monopoly I, frankly, would not care, and would let the market decide. Them being a court-verified monopoly places certain resonsibilities on them)

      • This was actually the big objection that photographers had when IE added it's little image toolbar a few versions ago. If you haven't seen the toolbar, when you mouse over an image, it appears with buttons to save the image, print it or send it by email. The photographers were wondering if Microsoft would enjoy an "email this application to a friend" entry in a toolbar as well as they enjoy an "email this photo" button which sends copies of copyrighted photos all over.
    • If history is any indication "plans for 2006" really means late 2007 or early 2008. Can you imagine what kind of market share Linux will have by then? I'm betting 10% of the desktop market. You read it here first.
  • Catch-22 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CGP314 (672613) <CGP&ColinGregoryPalmer,net> on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:17PM (#7200083) Homepage
    I'm beginning to wonder if the industry will be in a far different place than Microsoft envisions 3 years down the line

    I'm sure it would if Microsoft wasn't around. But they will bend the future to their will using the power of 40 gigadollars
  • MS really should follow Apple's model of releasing
    an OS update every year or so. 2006 is 5 years *AFTER* XP, with no real inovation till 2006, will people even care by then?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:18PM (#7200100)
    • GTK will have a decent file dialog
    • OpenOffice will be fast, and have a format painter
    • Apple will be using the G6 processor
    • BSD will have rose from the dead, haunting the trolls forever!
    • Debian will be still be using kernel 2.2 in the stable verision
    • "And only little girls will ride horses."

      They were Longhorns, no... short-horns... Kinda medium-sized maybe?

      • Duke Nukem' Forever is expected RSN
      • With Steve Jobs still in control at Apple, no sight of a cheap PowerMac or headless iMac in sight
      • IE6, decrepit as it is already, is still the lead browser on Windows, because Windows users are still too stupid to upgrade to something better *sigh*
      • der Fuhrer, err, I mean President Bush, still dumb & happy in his second term, still cannot pronounce the world 'nuclear' correctly
      • Vice President Dennis Miller. But that's my opinion; I could be wrong
      • Field Marshall Ashcroft still one crazy mofo
      • Disco still


    • ... as memories of Soviet Russia fade, Slashdot will flail around desperately searching for a place where YOU belong to all your base.

      ... as beowulf clusters become common, Slashdot will groan with agony, lacking a go-to metaphor for new tech goodies.

      ... as music gets worse and worse, Slashdot will pine for something, *anything* worth rebelliously distributing for free via P2P networks.

      And, of course,

      ... BSD will still be dying.
  • Am I the only one... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JCCyC (179760) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:18PM (#7200111) Journal
    ...who thinks Microsoft could have this OS ready sooner, but are waiting for user-hostile hardware (aka DRM) to take off?
    • two possible scenarios:

      A) they know it's going to be delayed anyway and they might as well admit it now instead of two months from the originally planned release.

      B) they know DRM is in its infancy (and is worthless w/o the BIOS controlling the OS choice)

      Once the computer refuses to boot w/o a DRM-enabled OS we are all screwed for no reason.
    • Yes. Yes you are.
      • by Jahf (21968)
        No. No he's not. Just look at the other posts around his ... and note the recent articles talking about Microsoft taking a greater interest in BIOS development.

        Is it the only reason for the delay? Doubtful. But it surely contributes at least on an intellectual / planning level if not strategically.
    • I'm beginning to wonder if the industry will be in a far different place than Microsoft envisions 3 years down the line.

      Ya like, Linux, OpenBSD, and MacOS X will be what _EVERYONE_ uses, and nobody will be on windows anymore. Then, windows will become a hobbyist OS, and people will start to migrate back to windows just so they can be different.
    • by Zocalo (252965) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:49PM (#7200452) Homepage
      I'm not too sure about that. For all their ethical faults Microsoft does employ some very savvy people, and they have to realise that DRM simply isn't going to survive the attentions of the crackers. I've suspected for a long while the Microsoft's support for DRM is merely playing lip service to the media corporations who seem to be getting an awful lot of political pull in corporate America at present. Having that kind of ally could be very useful the next time an anti-trust suit comes along, and it's a lot of license revenue too...

      My own pet theory about the tardiness of Longhorn is that Microsoft has simply decided to do a re-write of a huge chunk of the code. There are two possible candidates for why that I can see; firstly they really are trying to take their new stance on security seriously and are redoing some of the cruftier bits of code. Far more likely though is that they simply got too ambitious (again) over their Cairo-esque multimedia filesystem, decided the hardware and market still isn't ready for it and went back to the drawing board.

  • competition... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wtmcgee (113309) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:20PM (#7200124) Homepage
    i think the important thing is that, in 3 years, other OSes will have made huge strides to at least "catch up" in some areas they are lacking right now.

    hopefully, this will level the playing field a bit, and give more marketshare to Macs and other *NIX based OSes.
  • The Good and the Bad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SilentSage (656382) *
    Personally, I think this is welcome news. First of all, this puts the potential wide scale deployment of palladium another year down the road. Secondly, a year is long enough down the road for another generation of open source alternatives to eat more market share from Microsoft perhaps bringing a semblance of legitimate competition to the market. For you guys who are holding onto Win NT boxes who are waiting on Longhorn this probably isnt the most welcome news though.
  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:21PM (#7200142)
    "Where do you want to go today..oops, in 2006?"
  • Screenshots (Score:5, Informative)

    by jdh-22 (636684) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:22PM (#7200150)
    The screenshots of the latest build of Longhorn can be found here [winsupersite.com].

    Enjoy!
    • Oh my god, it's moving in the same direction as XP did (greater percentage of the screen eaten up by default, more pixels taken up by round cute window dressings, and start menus / taskbars / sidebars that are more cluttered and complicated than useful). Great, just what I wanted... *grumble*
    • Longhorn: just when you thought it wasn't possible to get uglier than XP.
    • Some nice ideas there, but why do they make the clock take up a fifth of the screen? And the centered-text stuff? I thought that died with Win3.1...
      Ya know, I feel shallow talking about Windows Longhorn's visual appearance, but at the same time, this seems to be M$'s only real advantage with its recent versions of Windows... not that this will last till '06, tho.
    • Did anyone else notice Microsoft's programmers' sense of humor?

      In this [winsupersite.com] screenshot, they display their prowess at pig latin: "onghornLay rofessionalPay" (bottom right).

    • These are prototype shots. Of course, I don't expect Slashbots to realize that, and I already see people making judgement posts like this is what Longhorn will look like, but still, allow me to interject a little bit of logic and sanity.

      Microsoft has yet to reveal their "photorealistic" interface codenamed Aero that is supposed to revamp the entire Windows interface. They're considering keeping it secret until release so that nobody steals their ideas. KDE, look out.
    • you kinda get the feeling they are trying to make a MovieOS
    • by Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:53PM (#7200493)
      As one of the largest failings of Windows XP was that it didn't antialias EVERYTHING, Longhorn will be finishing what XP couldn't.

      To keep up with new hardware, Longhorn will continue to competively use 96% of system resources through such bonus features as antialiasing the clock, folders, the XP search dog, and many more. For very fast computers, Longhorn is dabbling with a groundbreaking antialiasing loop, which, if there is nothing left to antialias, will loop in the background reantialiasing bitmaps that are already smooth.
  • With the perpetual delays, they might as well take a page from the "Duke Nuke'em Guide To Naming Future Products".
  • MS's vision: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quasar1999 (520073) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:22PM (#7200158) Journal
    I'm beginning to wonder if the industry will be in a far different place than Microsoft envisions 3 years down the line.

    No, I doubt that... Longhorn will be what Windows 95 was. 95 crushed OS/2 Warp, and Longhorn will crush whatever other OS crawls into its space while MS is developing it. Besides, with all the 'amazing new technology and breathtaking new UI' B.S., the media will have a field day with it for at least 3 months before launch... Mass hysteria will ensue, people will line up outside stores to get the first copy as it becomes available at midnight, Microsoft lines their pockets with a few more billions, and 2 weeks down the road, some major flaw in the OS will be exploited, bringing business and the internet to their knees... then the media will resume the Microsoft bashing, and Joe Q. Public will want to re-install whatever OS he had before, only to find out that the company has folded, and now he's stuck with this peice of shit... oh, but wait, now Microsoft is promising a new version that will have no flaws!
    • then the media will resume the Microsoft bashing, and Joe Q. Public will want to re-install whatever OS he had before, only to find out that the company has folded

      Hmm, since Johnny Q was running XP, you're predicting that Microsoft will fold?
    • Longhorn will be what Windows 95 was.

      I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the blind enthusiasm that preceded Win95 won't occur for Longhorn. The desktop market is much more saturated now than it was in 1994, and people like me are still getting by on 400MHz PCs. Some sources say that even Windows XP has only one-third of the market share and is split with Windows 98 (a five year old OS).

      When a person is faced with a $200 purchase, my hope is they look at what they already have and say, "Okay, Microsof
  • This probably won't help the MSIE stagnation problem [slashdot.org] at all.
  • Longhorn == Cairo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doktor Memory (237313) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:26PM (#7200206) Journal
    Everything old is new again. Remember a few years back, when OS/2 was still considered a semi-legitimate contender, Apple's market share was greater than a single digit, and most IT hands were pretty unconvinced that migrating from Netware to NT was worth the time, money or aggravation? Against what should have been an overwhelming competitive landscape, and armed only with what was in retrospect a dismal product (NT4), MS managed to convince IT managers everywhere that they were the Future of Computing as We Know It. Why? Well, there was this thing called "Cairo", and it was gonna ship Real Soon Now, and it was going to be an all-object-oriented thingamabob that would shine your shoes and make your teeth whiter. The industry bought it, hook line and sinker, and after NT4 had trounced OS/2 and Netware soundly, Cairo evaporated into the same neverland that Apple's Copland project did.

    Flash forward to now: Apple is regaining a bit of strength on the desktop, Linux is seriously eating into their server revenue, and while Windows Server 2003 is itself a solid (if unexciting) product, the greater gestalt of the Windows Infrastructure is looking more and more like a bug-ridden, unmaintainable mess. But wait, we've got this really cool technology just around the corner, it's called Longhorn and it'll get your whites whiter, you're gonna love it!

    The more things change...
    • One difference. Having been through Cario, most bigwigs are not going to go under again. Especially with DRM. DRM is acceptable on someone else's computer, but when it's your corporation brought to its knees by this, do you think for a second that they'd invite it?
  • by Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:28PM (#7200228)
    I'm debating what exactly the ups and downs of the next release will be. If my office uses Longhorn, there will be hell with DRM. And I'd hate to lose control of my own machine.

    On the other hand, I will only have to wait a week to find a root expoit and regain access to my own computer.


    Sort of strange isn't it? Everyone can gain access to your computer (1200 inevitable bugs)... except you (DRM).
  • The look of longhorn, with the quick launch stuck to the side, only adds substantial usability on a widescreen. I'm using a widescreen LCD right now and I that it is optimized for such a layout(I dock my messaging program on the right side). Perhaps Microsoft is waiting for the advent of widesreen formats in the desktop market. Will Microsoft pressure the display industry to release widescreens?
  • Software Assurance... Microsoft's revenue-enhancer of a year and a half ago. You pay a fee, and SA gives you the right to use the latest and greatest Microsoft products (office and OS, basically) for three years.

    Turns out there won't be a new version of Windows for three years. Nice trick!

    I guess if you are dying to upgrade to Office.NET as soon as it comes out (read: you are an idiot) then SA for Microsoft Office wasn't such a rip-off. We looked at where our business was going, and the fact that MS ha
  • To RTFA. I got to paragraph 70, and started drifting. This whold thing is a whole bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Microsoft wants to focus on sidling up to the customers, finding ways in which their product can fill holes. That's all fine, I suppose, if were any company but Microsoft.

    Knowing them, they'll sidle up to you, ask about your future plans, and when you say that MS innovation has stagnated, and that you want to do a switch to MAC or Linux... they'll declare sales-war on your ass. A new des

  • hilarity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erikdotla (609033) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:38PM (#7200320)
    I think the funniest part of all this is how MS sales reps used the new Licensing programs to browbeat people into signing up to "subscribe" to Microsoft software - where you'd pay them a yearly subscription fee and get whatever OS they released, if they released one. If you didn't, well, you'd still pay, and you'd maybe get one next year.

    Not surprising that as soon as a ton of people are on this licensing scam^H^Hscheme, they can now make everyone wait 3 years for anything new.
  • A total rewrite? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NightWulf (672561)
    I was under the assumption that Longhorn was a total rewrite of the windows os based on the new .NET framework. Is that still the case, or is it just yet another revision tacked on to a ball of twine of years of code.

    On a side note, i've been toying around with the new .NET stuff and it seems that their hope is to make the system more secure by basically having all the programs emulated by the framework, therefore nothing actually changes the OS, you guys think that's a good way to do things?

    • I was under the assumption that Longhorn was a total rewrite of the windows os based on the new .NET framework.

      They're replacing Win32 with all .NET stuff. Windows will be such a new revamp, and complete with the 3D desktop, WinFS, and all the other capabilities I've been hearing about, it should take Linux another three years to fully copy it all. :P
  • by ianscot (591483) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:43PM (#7200378)
    A few people have said MS should be following Apple's example, with substantial OS releases every year or so. I'm wondering, are these the same people who moan about the $99 cost every year or so too?

    Independent of the technical nature of the changes, if you want to seriously hype an OS maybe every-few-years is the way to go. It's hard to gear yourself up for a massive [sales jargon]paradigm shift[/jargon] every 12 months. The Mac OS that went out in 1984 basically underwent evolutionary change until OS 7, which brought true multitasking. Even OS 7 wasn't that jarring a change. Then it bounced happily along until OS X, really, if you don't count the hardware changes involved in the PowerPC chips and then the G3s.

    Not that I'm exactly enthused about Longhorn, or anything -- OS X will do fine for now. But the delay isn't necessarily going to hurt the marketing, here. People need a little rest between blockbusters -- when it's one must-see movie after another they get bored with it.

    • These are nits, and don't change your argument really, but being a geek of course i must comment....

      MacOS 7 didn't bring true multitasking, it improved on Multi-Finder (cooperative multitasking), which was a standard part of MacOS System 6. The transition to Sys 7 was (relatively) smooth and felt more evolutionary than it was, mostly because it cleaned up some UI stuff in the finder and most of the major changes were under the hood. Hmm, but then again, it brought the idea of "system enablers", so I gues
  • by weebler (661013) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:43PM (#7200379)
    This is actually fantastic news for the alternatives to Microsoft, especially at the workplace. This three year gap gives madhatter excellent chance for growth, because the viable alternative people will have for *upgrades* (as opposed to service packs) is madhatter + star office.

    Does MS really think people are going to be willing to run 5 year old technology on their work systems, when a cheaper and more current alternative is readily available?

    I just hope Sun will be able to push madhatter well enough for companies to let go of their grip of Microsoft products and open the future of corporate desktops to any player with a plan; be it Sun or whoever. It's just that currently, Sun is the other company that can do it. Who knows what the corporate desktop will look like in two years.

    • Does MS really think people are going to be willing to run 5 year old technology on their work systems, when a cheaper and more current alternative is readily available?

      How can it be any cheaper or more readily available if the "5 year old technology" is already paid for and is working? If something is paid for and working, ANY upgrade costs money and time.
  • (associated press AP reporting) In a stunning development, the justice department has enacted legislation which effectively places the computer industry on a "feature freeze". Feature freeze is a computer industry term which is usually applied to software when it is near mature enough to release. The feature freeze act of 2004 is empowered by the DOJs expanded Antiterrorist powers and was sponsored by Microsoft Computer Corporation. Microsoft spokeswoman, Ima Lamer, had this to say about it
    "The computer in
  • Longhorn!

    With DRM and Hilary Rosen, Jack Valenti, and the Boston strangler in every box!
  • I'm beginning to wonder if the industry will be in a far different place than Microsoft envisions 3 years down the line.

    Yeah, it will, and Linux, BSD, and OSX will be far different. You have to wonder what very impressive features Linux may have by then...

    Since the mid 90s I used to give tech stock advice to my "rich uncle"... my report on MS was usually "it's really good for at least 2 more years".

    A few years ago I finally got to say, "I can't see it going anywhere in the next two years, and
    more imp

  • I think the reasons why Microsoft is aiming Windows Longhorn for 2006 release are:

    1. Windows will get a new file system (WinFS). This is something that is completely different than NTFS 5 used in Windows 2000/XP and will take time to debug.

    2. Windows will likely get a completely new interface from the ground up. Even the current Luna interface used in Windows XP is essentially a derivative of the interface pioneered by Windows 95. That means the Taskbar with its Start button will be replaced by something
  • I guess someone has three years to come up with a solution to make Linux the defacto gaming platform.

    The bootable America's Army 64 Bit CD is a step in the right direction, but rebooting to play games is something people don't want to do.

    There are many people I know who would ditch Windows all together if they could play their favorite games in Linux nativley. Right now some of my friends will not give up on Battlefiled 1942, Raven Shield and host Recon among other games. They can appreciate America's Ar
  • Are they rewriting the OS so that its actually secure this time or are they waiting until people readily accept DRM as part of the operating system :)
  • Longhorn and Vegas (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) on Monday October 13, 2003 @02:33PM (#7200881)
    Does anybody know if Vegas offers odds on the actual release date of Longhorn? They seem to cover most any bet, why not this one? Options might include 2006 with 1 date push, 2 date pushes, 2007 with 1 date push, etc.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Monday October 13, 2003 @02:54PM (#7201032) Homepage
    Please write an entirely new OS!!!

    We don't need compatibility any longer. We're used to upgrading everything every 30 days anyway. We can dual boot the way Apple users continue to do between OSX and MacOS9.

    Write the OS so that only the OS runs at ring 0. Write the OS so that it fixes the problems associated with the message queue. Write the OS so that user level restrictions are STRICTLY enforced so that even if there is a bug found, the damage it can cause is severely limited. (Meaning that an SQL bug doesn't result in email viruses being distributed across the internet.)

    Please forget about tremendous levels of programability!! We don't need a word processor that knows how to format my hard drive or copy files into my system directory!! We just want it to process words. So far, the only people who really know how to use these "features" are the freaking virus authors!!!

    It's not like you have to do a lot of thinking about it. Apple saw the light and went with an advanced yet tested kernel. It has ALL of the appropriate features built-in with a license compatible with their purposes. Write your own *NIX core if you want to.

    Want to shut down Linux users? Write your next OS on a BSD kernel, make the old Windows apps work the way people want them to (it can be done... it's BEING done) and sell it to people. They will buy it because there are people out there who still trust you for some reason. Once you out out something with a *NIX kernel, you will see an amazing amount of curiosity and popularity.

    And did I mention that trivial bugs needn't be fatal flaws if the kernel enforces proper user level security? If I hadn't, then I will say it now. Trivial bugs needn't be fatal flaws if the kernel enforces proper user level security!!!!
    • by kylef (196302) on Monday October 13, 2003 @07:06PM (#7203146)
      Want to shut down Linux users? Write your next OS on a BSD kernel, make the old Windows apps work the way people want them to (it can be done... it's BEING done) and sell it to people. They will buy it because there are people out there who still trust you for some reason. Once you out out something with a *NIX kernel, you will see an amazing amount of curiosity and popularity.

      This is rather amusing, because it points out an odd trend amongst "technophiles" in computing today. Somehow or other, *NIX kernels have become synonymous with "software excellence." When this trend started is not entirely clear to me, but I'd say post-1995 for sure. If it is indeed a FUD campaign, it seems to be succeeding, because 10 years ago if anyone had mentioned that *NIX kernels were superior to modern OS multi-threaded microkernels they would have been laughed into submission.

      BSD-style *NIX kernels are NOT, contrary to what you may have heard, the end-all be-all of OS kernel design. In fact, most people who architect operating systems for a living will tell you that most of the concepts contained therein are good ideas, but they're somewhat stale and in need of some serious revision.

      I don't have the time or the inclination to go through a feature-by-feature comparison between a modern *NIX kernel and NT, but I'll point out a few examples. The NT kernel's native support for threads and access control list kernel object security are superior to what the *BSD kernels offer. Other newer features like microarchitecture to support several different system call APIs are virtually on par feature for feature with *BSD.

      So why would switching the kernel make the OS any better? If a kernel has the necessary features it requires, performs well, and provides remarkable stability, that's just about all that a kernel can do.

      I think you're confusing the recent security problems discovered in the Windows system with problems in the kernel itself, which are few and far between. Holes in IIS, or SQL Server, or even the "RPC System Service" are NOT problems with the NT kernel, and they should not be confused with them.

      Don't misunderstand me: I think the number of features that have been integrated into the Unix framework over the years (by the Linux and *BSD projects) is astounding and a telling tribute to what the research communities can accomplish when they work together. But that doesn't mean they're superior to what alternative OS kernels can do.

      And did I mention that trivial bugs needn't be fatal flaws if the kernel enforces proper user level security? If I hadn't, then I will say it now. Trivial bugs needn't be fatal flaws if the kernel enforces proper user level security!!!!

      I don't even know how to address this one. The NT kernel does MUCH more for security than any *NIX kernel. The trick is, people writing software that runs on the kernel have to make USE of these features properly. NT offers complete Access Control Lists and security descriptors for every possible kernel object. This is just about as granular as you can get, and better than the simple "rwx" permissions on file descriptors available in *NIX kernels.

      Now, why everyone logs into the Windows Shell with a superuser security account is an entirely different matter, but it is NOT the kernel's fault!

  • by Frobnicator (565869) on Monday October 13, 2003 @03:20PM (#7201235) Journal
    I really liked the comments about where technology isn't. Why doesn't everybody have a handheld computer that links the notes to the slides? Or records the conference and lets you take notes directly on it? Those are good questions.

    But then I would return the questions back to the CEO: Once you master the markets, why are you abandoning them? Why does IE still have linear browsing, linear back and forward buttons? Why does IE have so many unfixed bugs, and why isn't it fully W3C compliant? Why do all the Office apps change format with every edition, into something that prior editions cannot read? Why do my new Access databases not work with my old databases, and why does it ask to convert them when opened with the newer versions? Why don't any of the Office apps generate good HTML or XHTML or XML code? Why can't you copy certain complex pages from IE and paste them into Word without Word crashing?

    The answer: Once you've made the other systems irrelevent, such as the comment about developers saying "How do we port it to that other operating system -- what was it -- Linux?" when Microsoft gets there, they abandon innovation.

    And that, Mr. Balmer, is Microsoft's biggest problem.

  • by UnixRevolution (597440) on Monday October 13, 2003 @03:36PM (#7201358) Homepage Journal
    How else would they have the time to steal all the features from panther?

  • by theolein (316044) on Monday October 13, 2003 @07:07PM (#7203149) Journal
    I am a Mac user (used to admin XP boxes), so those who want to skip this, go ahead.

    I don't nearly hate Microsoft as much as some of the fanatic zealots, I've used Windows in all colours from 95 to XP to 2k Advanced Server, and I actually think that mostly it's good enough. I have found software relatively easy to install and use, and security to be mostly ok if one took the time to take note of patches and security warnings (Blaster could have been avoided by most by simply closing the port or stopping the service). I even find Office to be good enough, even though I have never used more than perhaps 20% of its features. The OS has definitely improved in XP and major apps like those from Adobe or Macromedia run better there than on my Mac.

    What I still don't like about Windows is the lack of UI consisitency. The dialogs and window layout in system critical components is anything but easy to comprehend and most often just resembles a mess of older dialogs that have been rearranged and newer ones that have been "tacked" on.

    However, for most people, Windows has been good enough even though the vast majority of PC users do NOT really understand how their computer works (and why should they?). Now on to my Longhorn puzzlings:

    1. I think MS has the cash reserves to withstand major mistakes that no other company can afford to make. Witness the subsidy of the XBox. MS can really afford to make major OS mistakes and the money will still flow in as the sheer momentum of all those millions of PCs that get sold all have Windows OEM on them. The situation might change a bit by 2006 in that Linux could well have achieved some critical mass in the business world by then. That possibility is, by all accounts very real, and I doubt that any business that will have switched to Linux will ever switch back to Windows, no matter how good it is, simply for the price point, which MS cannot beat. In home PCs I seriously doubt that Linux will have made huge gains by 2006. Some but not much. Windows is too entrenched in the home, I think.

    2.MS cash reserves could dry up very quickly if no new products arrive by 2006, but as some else mentioned, there's 64bit computing to consider, although I think Apple and especially Linux will beat them to the gun with uptake initially. I think that in the server arena, Linux will definitely beat Windows in 64bit computing.

    3.MS' UI task oriented approach as implemented in XP will almost certainly be a major feature in Longhorn in order to make the PC easier for home users to understand, but unless they address the issue with user newbie feedback studies, it will only confuse users as much as the current approach.

    4.The new compositing model, will probably present MS with major headaches initially as legacy software will probably work but not as well as it did before. It will be used to market the hell out of Longhorn though.

    5.Microsoft will, I'm sure, use whatever methods they can to lock future users in, be it server incompatibilities with Exchange or with DRM or with special pproprietry protocols, they will do as much as they can. They will certainly try to get hardware makers to implement features that lock out Linux, such as hardware DRM, and an MS coded BIOS that will break the hardware if changed, or things like DirectX only graphic cards. I'm sure MS sees this as a point in their survival.

    6.Lonhorn is probably a make or break milestone for Microsoft. They probably want to get as many users as possible onto XP and 2k3 server before Longhorn arrives. Longhorn will probably be for them like Win95 was, released with huge media attention pointing out the ease and beauty of the new OS. The timing is probably ok because their marketshare won't drastically erode by then. The only questions will be how far Linux and OSX will have progressed by then (probably quite a lot judging by what's happened since 2000) and if the enterprise will not have changed by then.

While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.

Working...