“The product name Microsoft(R) Windows(R) .NET Server 2003 will be changing to Windows Server 2003. Microsoft is making an effort to clarify the naming and branding strategy for .NET.” Read the report at PocketPCThoughts.
MS Renames ‘Windows .NET Server’ to ‘Windows Server 2003’
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The main reason for the change in nomenclature is that people associate nets with
entangled fish (O;))) & Microsoft doesn’t want people to be anywhere near the truth of
their predicament. Now all of you Linux/Mac/BeOS officianados will have to think
of something more original to say.
Jim Steichen, Author of AmigaTalk
they just realized that the trusty old OS naming with a year is better, because it has a decent reputation, unlike .NET naming, which is completely new and untrusted
Too many people are confused over what ‘.NET’ does and doesn’t mean.
You can see it every time an article about the Mono project comes up. People think the .NET Framework means the same as .NET Server which means the same as MS Passport.
They’re all different things. I think the whole ‘.NET’ naming was poor from the beggining. I think they were TRYING to make things clearer, but instead just muddied the waters.
Maybe this means people will stop complaining about Mono and C# and realize that programming in languages like C# has nothing to do with .NET server and Passport.
Sorry Microsoft, that waters have already been tainted… Your ill will towards the computing community can’t be remedied by simply changing the name of the product for which so many have already discovered your hidden agenda.
Someone once said,
A rose by any other name is still a rose!
If this ( http://news.com.com/2100-1001-979878.html?tag=lh ) CNet article is right, this product had his name changed 4 times AND had been delayed 3. Bizarre to say the least.
I don’t think ‘Windows Server 2003’ makes think clearer. To be consistent, a “Windows XP Server” name would have make more sense in my opinion (Windows 2000 Pro => Windows 2000 Server).
Think this one will have a lifetime of free updates, bug fixes, and new features like some of its competition? Don’t worry, they’ll get it right one of these days.
Hmm.. Free updates? You can’t be talking about OS X ..
New features? Can’t be talking about Linux… (still catching up, but getting there slowly but surely)
What mythical OS are you talking about?
“Someone once said,
A rose by any other name is still a rose!”
Actually, Shakespeare wrote: “That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet”. He never claimed it would sell as well, though.
So to clarify that it is part of .NET, they take the word .NET out of its name… WTF?!
should have just stuck to numbers
nt 3.51 workstation / nt 3.51 server
nt 4.0 workstation / nt 4.0 server
nt 5.0 workstation / nt 5.0 server (2k)
nt 5.1 workstation / nt 5.1 server (xp)
nt 6.0 workstation / nt 6.0 server (longhorn)
some people think that xp is nt 6.0….and if it is…i say we got ripped off.
and you have to love that “windows 2000 built on NT technology” logo….ummm…doesn’t NT stand for “new technology”?
so that would be “windows 2000 built on ‘new technology’ technology”
somebody needs to fired at ms.
“so that would be “windows 2000 built on ‘new technology’ technology”
actually, it would be “windows 2000 built on (new) new technology” since the technology isn’t changing, just adding a “new”
hmmm new new technology… N2T or maybe N^2T… I should be in PR
How many renames till we finally know the final name? 🙂
Actually, Windows 2000 Server uses the same core as Windows 2000 Pro. But IIRC, for Windows XP, it is Windows NT 5.1. Windows Server 2003, it is 5.2. For both Win2k Server and Pro, it is 5.0..
Personally, I believe Microsoft should have called Windows XP as Windows 2002… well, but then again, I’m no advertising expert.
Your mention of Microsoft’s tagline for Windows 2000 brings to mind a potential solution to the Linux vs GNU/Linux flamefest. I’ve thought for some time that the reason “GNU/Linux” sticks in my throat (asside from a general disdain for recursive acronyms) is that the term violates established customs for delineating brand identifications.
consider:
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes
Ford Explorer
BBC News
GNU Linux ?!?!?
A better approach (IMHO) would be:
Red Hat Linux
Based on GNU Technology
Mandrake Linux
Based on GNU Technology
Lycoris Desktop LX
Based on GNU Technology
Slackware
Based on GNU Technology
SuSE Linux
Based on GNU Technology
Debian Linux
Based on GNU Technology
Each distro gets top billing on their product, yet the broad and essential influence of the GNU project would be shown by the ubiquity of the tagline “Based on GNU Technology.”
Think of it like the credits of a movie with an all star cast. Clearly, not everyone can get top billing. Hollywood found a solution to this dilemma years ago.
consider:
“This Wonderful Movie Title”
Staring………………………..Big Name Actor
with…………………………..Lesser Actor
and……………………………Actor
………………………………Actor
………………………………Actor
………………………………Actor
………………………………Actor
………………………………Actor
And Featuring…
Other Big Named Actor
(who, if they did not receive SOME form of special treatment on the playbill listing, would have WALKED thus jeopardizing the WHOLE PROJECT… don’t get me started… some people’s egos… dear GOD….. I need a Valium…)
As a side benefit, the tagline begs the question “What is this ‘GNU Technology’ anyway?” This presents the conscientious Linux advocate with a convenient opportunity to discuss the GNU project, the GNU tools, the GPL, Free Software, GCC etc. with the inquisitive newbie.
Given the success that the MS marketing department has demonstrated in selling (and reselling) such complete s**t, it may be worth considering some of their strategies in product naming, placement and presentation.
Immitation is after all the most sincere form of flattery.
remove the CAPS to email me
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows 2003…
Damn, I wish I could come up with creative names like that.
Let’s start a name voting thing, just like they did with OpenBeOS once and then present MS with a list of 15 crappy names from which they’ll have to choose.
(Or maybe they can have the leftovers after the voting-fest in OpenBeOS finally comes to an end…)
I like that
Red Hat 8.0
Built on GNU techology
2 days later lawsuit from M$
Why would MS sue Red Hat? The didn’t trademark the “Based on blah blah blah” tagline…