Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software

MS Says Longhorn To Arrive 2005 520

Posted by timothy from the long-march-to-chicago dept.
Lawrence Person writes "According to this article in PC World, Microsoft 'publicly confirmed 2005 as the release year for Longhorn, the successor to Windows XP.' And of course, we all know tha Microsoft release dates never slip..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Says Longhorn To Arrive 2005 More

MS Says Longhorn To Arrive 2005

Comments Filter:

  • Activation?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by brandona788 ( 307504 ) <brandona788@hoFO ... m minus language> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:51PM (#5903585)
    Will we have to activate the box before we open it this time around?

    • Re:Activation?? (Score:5, Funny)

      by PFactor ( 135319 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:56PM (#5903671) Journal
      Microsoft is moving to "ProActiv-ation", where they KNOW you will install it on 69 different PC's, so the upfront retail cost will be roughly the GNP of Madagascar.
    • Will we have to activate the box before we open it this time around?

      Hmmm... 2005. Well, Mr. Lucas is supposed to have Episode 3 out in 2005. Hmmm... What's that part about Anikin again?

    • PreActivation (Score:4, Funny)

      by DoraLives ( 622001 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @05:13PM (#5905724)
      Will we have to activate the box before we open it this time around?

      You will submit the proper documentations and proofs of identity (yourself, your family, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers, and others to be determined by Microsoft as befits each individual activation of your New Microsoft Product)to activate your New Microsoft Product at least one year BEFORE you purchase it. Any Fraud, Attempted Fraud, Suspected Fraud or Contacts Leading To Suspicion Of Fraud discovered during Microsoft's routine vetting proceedures shall be forwarded to the Cognizant Authorities (Local, State, Federal, Trilateral Commission, Other) who shall exercise such measures as are deemed necessary to properly reeducate you and see to it that you activate your New Microsoft Product properly the next time.

  • Release date (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FooBarWidget ( 556006 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:51PM (#5903588)
    I wouldn't mind if they delay their release. The longer they wait the more chance Linux has to succeed.
    It's just like IE vs Netscape - Netscape took too long with Mozilla and now IE is everywhere.

    • Re:Release date (Score:5, Informative)

      by unborracho ( 108756 ) <ken.sykora@NospAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:55PM (#5903644) Homepage
      Windows 98 integrated IE into its operating system (and still is to date) to eliminate competition from Netscape. That is the reason IE is everywhere, not because Netscape was slacking on Mozilla as you suggested. If Mozilla was better than IE in terms of ease of use (for the people using windows, IE was just there, and was convenient to use), Mozilla would have come up ahead of IE. But the fact of the matter is (and the DOJ ruled on this) that Microsoft was using anti-competitive behavior to drive competition away from Netscape.

      • Re:Release date (Score:2, Interesting)

        by haystor ( 102186 )
        The reason why Netscape left my computer was that DNS queries would lock all of netscape functions. I just hated going to a site and waiting for a DNS timeout before I could regain control of the browser.

        IE 4's rendering speed was a huge improvement as long as you didn't touch the active desktop stuff.

        • Re:Release date (Score:5, Insightful)

          by xanadu-xtroot.com ( 450073 ) <(moc.tibroni) (ta) (udanax)> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:36PM (#5904182) Homepage Journal
          IE 4's rendering speed was a huge improvement

          I understand that you're refering to things from 5 or more years ago, but...

          Use Mozilla. It blows IE out of the water (for me). The only thing I use IE for is to hit windowsupdate and that's only because MS bans any other browser from using it...
          • And if you leave Mozilla loaded in the background (the quickstart option) IE pales in comparison when it comes to speed. Ever notice how the entire IE interface freezes while a page is loading? That's bad design. The only other complete web browser that is faster than Mozilla is Opera, which keeps a rendered copy of web pages in your history, so going back is instant (IE and Moz re-render and read from disk when you press the back button).

      • Re:Release date (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:02PM (#5903736)
        But the fact of the matter is (and the DOJ ruled on this) that Microsoft was using anti-competitive behavior to drive competition away from Netscape.

        Well, gee whiz! If the DOJ says so, it must be true! I guess I SHOULD quit smoking pot and switch to good, healthy american tobacco and booze! And while I'm at it, I'd better cover up any naked statues I have!
        • "Well, gee whiz! If the DOJ says so, it must be true! I guess I SHOULD quit smoking pot and switch to good, healthy american tobacco and booze! And while I'm at it, I'd better cover up any naked statues I have! "

          Wish I had a mod point. NineNine makes a pretty good point, the DoJ ruling is brought up ad-nauseum. What's worse is that people have selective memories about what ruling to side with.

          • Re:Release date (Score:4, Informative)

            by mkoenecke ( 249261 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @03:12PM (#5904566) Homepage
            Sorry: it was *not* a DOJ ruling, but rather a finding of fact by a Federal court, which finding was upheld on appeal (the only thing reversed was the penalty). In terms of law, Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its monopoly and violating antitrust laws. That case is closed and of public record.

        • Re:Release date (Score:3, Informative)

          by Salsaman ( 141471 )
          Hmmm well, let's see what the District of Columbia had to say then, shall we:

          91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft, its executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting, to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did not release the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially afte

      • Re:Release date (Score:5, Informative)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:09PM (#5903826) Homepage Journal
        "Windows 98 integrated IE into its operating system (and still is to date) to eliminate competition from Netscape."

        One could make the argument that KDE is doing the same thing with Konqueror. The reason that nobody's crying foul on that, though, is because there are better browsers out there and people will go find them. In MS's case, they had the better browser. Why go download a browser when IE's doin the job? If MS had a shoddy browser like Konqueror (well Konq's not that bad, but bear with me) people'd flock to Netscape and there'd be none of this nonsense over MS trying to secure a monopoly via the browser.

        Yeah yeah, convicted monopoiist, whatever. There's still strong reason to have IE and Explorer use the same interface. Why make browsing the web (the killer app for Windows 95 and even 98) such a different experience from browsing around on your commputer? KDE does this. They seem to think it works too. Plus, HTML can be used to customize the interface. All kinds of benefits here.

        So yeah, MS may have been shitty about putting IE on there and making the competition's battle harder to fight, but the reason to make IE what it was in relation to Windows was a predictable evolution of the OS. IE's rendering engine is very versitile. You can throw HTML, Text, JPEGS, Flash, and a bunch of other objects at it that the web has caused to become standard, and it'll view it. (Not to mention the plugin support...) Why rewrite all that when you can modularize it and have a bunch of apps call the same thing?

        Long story short, IE's bundling with Win98 may have dealt a death blow to Netscape, but there's enough reason to believe that wasn't MS's sole reason to include IE.

        • Re:Release date (Score:5, Insightful)

          by afidel ( 530433 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:22PM (#5904004)
          Some problems with that:
          1)Linux is not preinstalled on 99% of desktop pc's
          2)KDE is not the only desktop environment
          3)The KDE team is not a monopoly illegally using that status to force their way into another market.

          • Re:Release date (Score:5, Insightful)

            by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:29PM (#5904089) Homepage Journal
            "Some problems with that:
            1)Linux is not preinstalled on 99% of desktop pc's
            2)KDE is not the only desktop environment
            3)The KDE team is not a monopoly illegally using that status to force their way into another market. "

            Fair points. However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have? What should MS have done in order for that to not be an abusive action of a monopoly? The only answers I can come up with involve MS intentionally crippling their own product. I don't feel that's reasonable. I'm open to suggestions.

            (BTW, I'm serious here. I want to know how MS could have handled that to avoid everybody's anger at them.)

            • Re:Release date (Score:4, Insightful)

              by jkabbe ( 631234 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:37PM (#5904194)
              However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have?

              Well, they could have written the browser as a puggable component and then published the interface. That way developers could still use a browser embedded in their app but if a user wanted to replace IE with another browser (that conformed to the spec), they could. So it's integrated into the operating system yet still replacable. This wouldn't satisfy all the concerns, but it does deal with the technical ones.

              Of course, Microsoft would argue that it's not their job to help their competitors and, besides, it would ruin the consistent user interface (meaning, anything not from Microsoft is not consistent). But then Microsoft doesn't admit to being a monopoly either....

              • Re:Release date (Score:3, Informative)

                by NanoGator ( 522640 )
                "Well, they could have written the browser as a puggable component and then published the interface."

                Didn't they do that? I can write a VB app right now that calls the IE renderer and then write my own interface to it. I can rewrite IE in VB if I wanted to because of that component.

                Can I replace that component? No idea. I'd be afraid to because, like you hinted at, MS likes to hide features.

                "Of course, Microsoft would argue that it's not their job to help their competitors and, besides, it would ru

                • Re:Release date (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by jkabbe ( 631234 )
                  Didn't they do that? I can write a VB app right now that calls the IE renderer and then write my own interface to it. I can rewrite IE in VB if I wanted to because of that component.

                  Can I replace that component? No idea. I'd be afraid to because, like you hinted at, MS likes to hide features.

                  No they didn't do that. They published an interface to call IE and then linked IE to essential files so it is darn near impossible to remove. They did not write IE as a pluggable component (one that can be rem

        • Re:Release date (Score:3, Insightful)

          by shotfeel ( 235240 )
          In MS's case, they had the better browser.

          IMO they didn't hit parity with Netscape until version 3. Had any other company tried this, they would have been out of business by that time. No other company could have gotten their sub-standard browser on so many machines for that long, plus weathered the cash drain.

          So, yes MS eventually had a better browser, but they did it by using anti-competitive practices to dry-up cash flow and use (thereby slowing development) of what was a better browser. Again, all M

      • Re:Release date (Score:2, Interesting)

        by DrSbaitso ( 93553 )
        The actual precedent is somewhat less clear than you indicate. First of all, the "DOJ" did not rule on anything. They were the prosecutor for the US government; the District and Circuit Courts of DC "ruled" in the personages of Robert Penfield Jackson, Colleen Kotter-Kelly, etc. Also, Microsoft's argument was that by developing an integrated product, the result was superior to standalone products. A consent decree in Microsoft II ruled that this is okay as long as the integration provided "some" additional

    • Re:Release date (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:55PM (#5903647)
      Windows 2000 is a pretty damn good product. I know of a lot of companies that have settled on that until something better comes out. I think that for once, MS doesn't *have* to rush to push out a product, because the one they have right now is pretty damn good.

      • Re:Release date (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jpetts ( 208163 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:17PM (#5903921)
        MS doesn't *have* to rush to push out a product, because the one they have right now is pretty damn good

        No, you're wrong. That's just exactly why they do have to push out a new product. Windows 2000 is good enought that people don't want to change from it once they have it working. This, of course, hits Microsoft's revenue, and they need to keep bringing in the shekels. Hence the push (with License 6 among other things) to get people into a model where they have to upgrade whenever Microsoft's business needs dictate, not when the user's business needs dictate.

      • Re:Release date (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:17PM (#5903923) Homepage
        I think that for once, MS doesn't *have* to rush to push out a product, because the one they have right now is pretty damn good.

        The fact that Windows 2000 is or is not a good product doesn't determine whether or not they *have* to rush to push out a product. The need to revitalize cash flow on sales of a new OS version to pacify shareholders, does.

    • Re:Release date (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gilesjuk ( 604902 )
      Trouble is, if the release is delayed they'll release XP again with some minor interface tweaks and bundled extras calling it XPSE or something.

    • Re:Release date (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "I wouldn't mind if they delay their release. The longer they wait the more chance Linux has to succeed.

      It's just like IE vs Netscape - Netscape took too long with Mozilla and now IE is everywhere. "

      If the Linux Community were more about innovation and less about mimicking what's already been done before, that might be reassuring. However, that's not the case. The longer MS takes to develop this new release, the more work Linux will need to catch up.

      This should be a wake-up call to the Linux Community
      • The problem is that Linux must both innovate AND mimic the MS world lest the Winheads keep regurgitating their oft-too-often heard "I can do blah in Win but not in Lin" tripe.
    • "The longer they wait the more chance Linux has to succeed."

      Seeing as how XP provides a much better end-user experience than current incarnations of Linux, I'd say your reasoning's likely to fly in the opposite direction. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to create a distro of Linux that can turn heads away from XP. Then, when Longhorn comes up, Linux has an all new uphill battle to climb.

      Microsoft's drastically changing how the GUI's going to be drawn. I don't think this'll be a simple code

  • zerg (Score:2, Funny)

    by Lord Omlette ( 124579 )
    That's a relief, now I don't have to buy Windows Server 2003.

    • Yeeeah. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Faust7 ( 314817 )
      That's a relief, now I don't have to buy Windows Server 2003.

      Mmhmm. Longhorn is a client OS. It is the successor to XP, not 2003.

      I hope that you're not planning to use Longhorn for all your datacenter needs, or Server 2003 for all your desktop needs. :)

  • Hype? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by saitoh ( 589746 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:53PM (#5903613) Homepage
    Part of me looks at this and goes "so?" and part of me thinks about the opposite extreme with where Apple doesnt say anything (or much) is coming soon and just releases it and lets people find it themselves...

    But seriously, isnt this just a tad bit too far in the future to look toward? Or is this just to get people to quit emailing/speculating about when its coming out.

    • Re:Hype? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by plcurechax ( 247883 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:55PM (#5903651) Homepage
      Not unlike the time they were warned by the courts against marketing of vapourware. From the Pre-slashdot era.

      Competitors found MSFT spending nearly as much on advertising not yet ready products as when they were released (pre Win95 actual release hype).

    • Re:Hype? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:00PM (#5903710) Homepage Journal
      "But seriously, isnt this just a tad bit too far in the future to look toward? Or is this just to get people to quit emailing/speculating about when its coming out. "

      I think it's damage control. The screengrabs of the beta that leaked are misleading in a few ways. In some ways, it looks pretty far along (i.e. a buncha new buttons there) in other ways it looks rather buggy and incomplete. (MS's stereotypes alter people's perceptions towards the negative)

      By announcing that MS is taking another 2 years to work on it, it makes the beta images not seem so bad. "Ah, we're talking REALLY early here. They have quite a bit of time to really clean that up. That's good, I guess I should buy XP today."
    • I'm curious how this article became Slashdot news. The last article mentioned the 2005 release date, and it has been common knowledge for a long time now that 2005 was the year Microsoft was slating for as the release date. More informative news would have been this preview [wininformant.com] of Longhorn's 3D compositing graphics technology that was shown to Paul Thurrot of WinInformant at WinHEC.

      It leads me to believe Slashdot just wanted another Longhorn article on the front page due to the wild comments the last one gar

  • Longhorn renamed: (Score:5, Funny)

    by PFactor ( 135319 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:53PM (#5903620) Journal
    Windows 2006

  • This is message! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    To the all Gnome, KDE, X, OpenOffice, Linux, glibc, and all other developers. You now know you have TWO years to make Open Source better. KDE 3.2 prealphas looks promising, but X's rendering system needs a huge lift and OpenOffice needs to get a lot faster and stabler.

  • Fun to Snipe, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by weston ( 16146 ) <<westonsd> <at> <canncentral.org>> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:54PM (#5903624) Homepage
    And of course, we all know tha(t) Microsoft release dates never slip...

    It's fun to snipe, of course, and it's nice to feel some kind of safety/security in the fact that they've been very late on many things and/or delivered with bugs.

    But don't get too comfy. If you're a competitor or someone who'd like to see them go down in flames (or at least severely humbled), the important thing is beating them to the punch, and jeers from the sideline don't help win a race.

    • jeers from the sideline (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bani ( 467531 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:58PM (#5903687)
      i dunno about that. jeers from the sideline have screwed up many a race when it distracted them :-)

    • Re:Fun to Snipe, but... (Score:4, Informative)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:03PM (#5903747)
      It's fun to snipe, of course, and it's nice to feel some kind of safety/security in the fact that they've been very late on many things and/or delivered with bugs.

      It's easy to mock, but at least Microsoft have ship dates and feature lists. That means decision makers - like CIOs and CTOs - can make at least tentative plans. The Open Source style, it'll ship when I feel it's more-or-less ready, and it might have feature X unless I get bored coding it, drives potential users away.

      • Re:Fun to Snipe, but... (Score:5, Informative)

        by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @03:46PM (#5904911) Homepage

        It's easy to mock, but at least Microsoft have ship dates and feature lists. That means decision makers - like CIOs and CTOs - can make at least tentative plans.

        A.K.A. vapourware. Announce nifty new features that you will be providing a year from now, and even though a competitor is offering the same feature now, they'll hang on just a bit longer so they don't have to switch platforms. And then realise how stupid they were when you release the product without the new features, and say they've slipped back to the next release. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.

        Remember when Win95 was supposed to eliminate crashes forever because of its 32-bit memory protection (or something like that)? Remember when Win98 was released, and it was supposed to be far more stable than Win95? Remember when WinME was released...

    • Since MS makes no guarantees, even to Licensing 6.0 customers, this could turn into a headache. You pony up the $$$ for SA and it turns out they slide the release date out past your SA end date. So sorry, want to renew?

      While Microsoft intends to continue to upgrade and enhance its products, Microsoft does not guarantee that a new version of any particular product will be released within any specific period of time.
      -> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/sa d efined.asp
    • It's fun to snipe, of course, and it's nice to feel some kind of safety/security in the fact that they've been very late on many things and/or delivered with bugs.

      Sorry, I didn't read the article and just skimmed the headline. Could someone tell me if the story is supposed to be about this [eweek.com] or this? [gnu.org]

  • Yeah, we know.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by M.C. Hampster ( 541262 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {retspmaHehT.C.M}> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:54PM (#5903633) Journal
    And of course, we all know tha Microsoft release dates never slip...

    Yes, just like we know that Slashdot submissions never have typos.

  • In my day... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:55PM (#5903640)
    Slashdot editors amended story titles and corrected blatent typos.

    WinFS replaces the NTFS and FAT32 file systems used in current Windows versions.
    Does anyone here know if FAT32 support will be maintained, as keeping write support from linux for many people will be important.

  • strange (Score:3, Insightful)

    by minus_273 ( 174041 ) <aaaaa@NOspam.SPAM.yahoo.com> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:55PM (#5903643) Journal
    Given XP came out in 2002,
    this is probably the biggest gap between releases of windows since win 3.1.1 and win 95 ..
    It will be interesting to see if this is infact as big a jump from win xp as win 95 was.

    • Re:strange (Score:3, Informative)

      by Quill_28 ( 553921 )
      I would disagree look at the years between NT 4.0 and NT 5.0.

      On that note back when I was working on NT 4.0 servers, I was reading some MS documentation circa 1997 that said NT 5.0 should be out early next year.
    • Remember that between Win 3.11 and Win 95, was NT 3.5 and so on, so it went.
      Win 3.11
      NT 3.5
      Win 95 - Aug 1995
      NT 4.0 - July 1996
      98 - June 1998
      98SE - June 1999
      2000 - March 2000
      ME - December 2000
      XP - December 2001
      2003 - April 2003

      2005 isn't all that far off. And that doesn't mean that they may not release another home version in there too.
    • 1) Microsoft has stated their release cycle is 3 years - they've determined that's the optimal time to garner maximum purchases of new releases of their software (i.e. marketing leading "technology")
      2) Windows Server 2003 came out in... 2003, and is considered part of the same Windows product line.

  • Longhorn Code Complete! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:55PM (#5903646)
    Actually, the code is complete. It'll take the lawyers until 2005 to write the EULA that you have to agree to before installation.

  • Competition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phroggy ( 441 ) * <slashdot3@NOsPaM.phroggy.com> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:57PM (#5903681) Homepage
    What kinds of features can we expect in Longhorn that Apple won't already have had for awhile by the time it ships?

    Apple should be shipping Mac OS X 10.3 (or whatever they call it - codename Panther) running on 64-bit PowerMac G5 systems in September 2003. Two years after that, they'll have had another major release of OSX, and even the iBook should be G5-based.

    How does Longhorn compare to XP and OSX for home users?
    • What kind of features can we expect in Windows 95 that Apple won't already have had for awhile by the time it ships?

      Apple should be shipping Mac OS 8.1 (or whatever they call it) running on 32-bit 608060 systems in September 1994. Two years after that, they'll have had another major release of 8.5, and even the Quadra should be 6086 based.

      How does Windows 95 compare to Windows 3.1 and OS 8 for home users?

      OK, numbers and dates are probably not perfect there, but you get the idea.

  • Where's the beef? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sssmashy ( 612587 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:57PM (#5903682)

    Does anyone know why MS chose the name Longhorn for the Windows XP successor? In Texas and Alberta, "Longhorn" is instantly recognizable as a well-known breed of cattle.

    I predict that "Where's the Beef?" jokes (currently in hibernation since the 80's) will reappear on the cultural landscape in 2005, as the Longhorn release date is inevitably delayed by Microsoft...

    • Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Funny)

      by pair-a-noyd ( 594371 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:04PM (#5903766)
      Uh, maybe it means that you're going to get gored in the arse, just like when you mess with a bull.
    • I read somewhere that it's a bar near Whistler or Blackcomb, and fit in with the mountain code names they have been using for a while.

      • Re:Where's the beef? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by atlasheavy ( 169115 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:23PM (#5904013) Homepage
        That's almost correct.

        It's actually a bar halfway between the Whistler and Blackcomb mountains in British Columbia. You may recall that Windows XP's codename was Whistler. The version of Windows after XP was supposed to be Blackcomb, but it grew far too large, so MS slapped an interim release (Longhorn) in there. In other words, Longhorn is right between Whistler (XP) and Blackcomb (Probably Windows 2009).

        Fun fact: the Windows group spent a while in the 90s naming everything after cities in Illinois. Chicago, Cairo, etc.

        Fun fact 2: Last summer, you could see guys wandering around Redmond wearing Don't Mess With Texas t-shirts given out by their product group.
    • i'm pretty sure ms uses names of local downhill ski runs as codenames. i'd give you a link, but i'm too lazy.

      • Re:Where's the beef? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by misterhaan ( 613272 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:23PM (#5904015) Homepage Journal
        okay not as lazy as i said:

        Longhorn
        The code name Longhorn is a reference to a rowdy bar at the Whistler ski area in British Columbia. The bar lies between two peaks, Whistler and Blackcomb. Whistler was the code name for Windows XP, the operating system launched in 2001, and Blackcomb is the code name for the operating system that will come after Longhorn.

        source [nwsource.com]

    • Cow metaphor? (Score:3, Funny)

      by zCyl ( 14362 )
      "Longhorn" is instantly recognizable as a well-known breed of cattle.

      To understand the choice of "Longhorn" as the product for the next version of Windows, let's consider a few well-known properties of cattle:

      1. Cattle are unintelligent.
      2. Cattle move slowly, and just look at you blankly when you tell them to move.
      3. Cattle are huge, consisting mostly of fat.
      4. From the perspective of cattle, the grass is always greener on the other side, so it's always worth upgrading to the next field. Although a

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @04:17PM (#5905201)
      Whistler (Windows XP) is a ski resort in British Columbia (just north of Redmond). Longhorn is a bar/pub at the base of Whistler mountain.

  • Cheap Shot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Flamesplash ( 469287 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:57PM (#5903683) Homepage Journal
    And of course, we all know tha Microsoft release dates never slip...

    Can anyone name a company as old as MS that hasn't ever slipped on a release date? A company that has released as many products as MS that hasn't ever slipped on a release date?

    If you're gonna take a shot, make it a good one.
    • 3DRealms. No, wait...

    • Re:Cheap Shot (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Enry ( 630 ) <enry@@@wayga...net> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:36PM (#5904190) Journal
      MSFT was using release dates and pre-announcements like this for a while to harm their competitors.

      Company A would come up with some new feature and announce it. MFST announces that the will also include the new feature in 6 months. Company A's sales go down the toilet as users wait for MSFT to release their product. Company A goes out of business. MSFT finally implements it 2 years later. Poorly.

      Besides, MSFT has almost never been on time with their releases.

  • Nice marketing ploy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Emonair ( 469172 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @01:59PM (#5903703)
    That places the release just after software assurance expiration.
  • In the words of Comic Book Store Guy: 'Worst name ever.'
  • Text of the article:

    Microsoft today confirmed that it's follow up version to windows XP, codename Longhorn, will be released in 2005.

    Information Minister Mohommed Saeed al-Sahaf said "Today is a great day for the nation of Microsoft. Our enemies call us the Beast of Redmond. Laugh now supplicants! Soon the Beast will impale you His Longhorn! The Sons of Bill rejoice, knowing the Penguin is too far from reality, with thier stomachs roasting and their processes committing suicide at the Gates of Redmond

  • Subscription Advantage (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eric2hill ( 33085 ) <{eric} {at} {ijack.net}> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:04PM (#5903765) Homepage
    Too bad my subscription advantage license runs out after two years. They'll release it just in time for me to purchase another license, which should be just slightly more than the price of a version upgrade.

    Ass holes.

  • Windows OS Life Cycles Chart (Score:5, Informative)

    by AbdullahHaydar ( 147260 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:04PM (#5903771) Homepage
    Windows OS Life Cycles Chart [computerworld.com]

    The chart combines MS announcements as of a few months ago with Gartner estimates. Very informative...
  • They're just a bunch of bull.
  • A big change in Longhorn will be the new Windows Future Storage (WinFS) file system, based on SQL Server database technology and designed to give users a direct route to data, making the physical location of a file irrelevant. WinFS replaces the NTFS and FAT32 file systems used in current Windows versions.

    Ok, so I know they've developed this for Unix already, but making this the standard is actually a pretty big improvement. Blah blah Microsoft sucks blah blah, but maybe we do have some things to look fo

  • It's sad. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Khomar ( 529552 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:07PM (#5903808) Journal

    It's really rather sad the way I have begun to look at Microsoft releases. I used to actually look forward to them because generally they were a great improvement over their predessors. Windows 98 was a great upgrade from 95. From a purely technological point of view, Windows XP had a lot to say for its stability. The licensing scheme, however, was disturbing.

    As Microsoft tightens down more and more on their licensing, I begin to dread anything that comes out of Redmond. I would embrace the improvements and innovations if it weren't for that tightening sensation of the noose around my neck. I will likely not even touch Longhorn unless I absolutely must. The cost and licensing look to be far too prohibitive, and I fear to give too much control to Microsoft lest I find all of my creations suddenly removed from my control.

    At current rate, Microsoft is quickly digging their own grave. My company, formerly a very Windows centric shop, is starting to talk more and more about moving to UNIX due to the cost of upgrades. Longhorn may actually prove to be the breaking point at which, due to overly restrictive licensing, the corporate world starts seeking a cheaper solution.

    It is sad that we must fear technological innovation because of the abuses that seem to abound as a result, and Microsoft is doing very little to help in this regard.

  • What are they going to do with bugs now? Before they could just punt it to Longhorn [slashdot.org], and now what are they going to do? Fix bugs?

  • A big change in Longhorn will be the new Windows Future Storage (WinFS) file system, based on SQL Server database technology and designed to give users a direct route to data, making the physical location of a file irrelevant. WinFS replaces the NTFS and FAT32 file systems used in current Windows versions.

    Next thing you know they'll use JCL.... Is anybody else disturbed by this? One of their shittiest technologies (SQL Server -- I think my Rolodex benchmarks better and a bank vault in Baghdad is more sec

  • Licensing 6.0 sure will work well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WebMasterJoe ( 253077 ) <joe.joestoner@com> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:22PM (#5904000) Homepage Journal
    All those poor people who bought the Licensing 6.0 crap sure will be disappointed. Anybody who paid for that 3 year license back in 2001 (up to July of 2002 actually) will be entitled to all upgrades until, um, 2004. Or July of 2005. Nice to see that MS won't be releasing their next desktop OS until after the 3-year license expires.

    Congratulations! You just paid MS for three years of nothing! (Well, the servers are entitled to Windows Server 2003, but that still doesn't justify the cost of the licenses for all the desktops.)

  • So tell me... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Iamthefallen ( 523816 ) <Gmail name: Iamthefallen> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:28PM (#5904065) Homepage Journal
    "And of course, we all know tha Microsoft release dates never slip..."

    How's the HURD doing again?

  • Meanwhile in the Real World ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bryanp ( 160522 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @02:28PM (#5904078)
    Lots of companies (including my employer) don't set their upgrade watch by Microsoft. We (a PrettyBigCompany I won't name) stayed with Windows 3.1 until 1998 when we transitioned to NT4 on the desktop. We will most likely switch to XP sometime this fall. I can pretty much guarantee you that we won't be moving away from XP until 2008 or so.

    Of course we're just now finishing switching from Token Ring to Ethernet and from Netware 4.11 on Pentium Pro 200's to Netware 5.1 on dual Xeon's across the company (over 300 facilities nationwide). Yeah, if you're a tech company staying up to date is a cool thing. When your company makes and sells Stuff then you don't upgrade just for the heck of it.

    (oh, and if anyone knows someone at Cisco in charge of their 3500 series ethernet switches, do me a favor and smack them around - they fail regularly whereas my old token ring concentrators Just Worked)

  • when its done (Score:3, Funny)

    by t0ny ( 590331 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @03:17PM (#5904610)
    And of course, we all know tha Microsoft release dates never slip...

    And the next linux kernel is due out when?

  • release dates (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nuintari ( 47926 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @03:18PM (#5904620) Homepage
    I know this is slashdot, and this will get me modded down for defending the uglies over in Redmond, but....

    A lot of companies other than microsoft let their release dates slip on a frequent basis, because, quite frankly, software development, even lousy stuff with a poor security record, takes a long time. You can project a release date, but that is mostly an optimistic guess to appease the investors. You can threaten your techies all ya want, they will not code much faster, and if they do, they will make more mistakes, shit, even microsoft knows that.... least I hope they do.

  • Regarding release date slips (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @04:59PM (#5905595) Journal
    And of course, we all know tha Microsoft release dates never slip...

    1. It has already slipped from late 2004 which was a previous ETA.

    2. If it slips, it slips. That's better than thinking the release date matters more than the quality.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close