Microsoft has told firms to wait until next month for clarification of its roadmap for Windows, after the latest delays to the next release left firms unable to plan for the future.
Windows Plans Put on Hold
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
if it is something like they are rewriting it in managed code using .NET, then they should say so.
of course if it is for some other reason, perhaps they just don’t want people to know.
It is life in Corporate America, we all live in it day to day, I do. Change will occur and this offsets the road map, it happens daily in IT.
They will work it out, with all the present advances in technology it is tough to stay on track.
My guess is they are trying to decide what exactly will go into Longhorn and what will be put off into Blackcomb.
This on top of figuring out what to do with the Software Assurance customers who’s three year contract will be up before Longhron gets out. Saving face, if you will.
This could in part be dependent on the Eolas patent case and whether or not they need to re-write internet explorer and other offending plugin type systems to avoid further lawsuits.
IIRC there is also another lawsuit pending regarding the streaming sound and video used in Windows Media formats that some company claims was stolen by Microsoft – if proven to be true this could be another ‘bump’ that will need fixing on the Windows road.
All in all this is good from an alternate OS point of view as they can stop playing catch-up and do some innovation that is apparent to the end-user (not just the power users / geeks) and increase market share to become viable alternatives for your average bob.
OSX already has features that they are trying to add.
OSX already has features that they are trying to add.
Ah, and how long did Mac OS not have protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, security, etc that were in windows NT, hmm? Now that Mac OS is somewhat caught up to windows, doing the reverse is somehow wrong..
Firms that have already standardised on Windows 2000 are unlikely to be pleased at the prospect of having to roll out Windows XP as a stepping stone to Longhorn. Cost considerations aside, Windows XP has many consumer-oriented features, such as Microsoft’s DirectX graphics subsystem for 3D games, that are unnecessary in a corporate environment.
I really don’t see how Windows XP Professional is any more “consumer-oriented” than 2000 besides the default look. The article’s author apparently doesn’t realize that Windows 2000 ships with DirectX as well. The only other notable “consumer-oriented” feature I can think of would be the animated character as part of the search feature, but that can easily be reverted to the 2k look using TweakUI. 2k-style user management is still accessable by running “control userpasswords2”, and of course MMC is still present.
We’ve been deploying Windows XP instead of 2000 here. The systems have been installed with the Classic theme and start menu, and operate much like Windows 2000 systems. XP’s installation is simpler as there are currently fewer patches to apply to bring a system up-to-date. Meanwhile, on our lingering 2k systems SP4 fails to apply on the majority of them, which is especially annoying on pre-SP2 systems as the DCOM RPC patches require at least an SP2 system.
Descriptions of the Sessions at the upcoming PDC:
http://mymsevents.com/MyMSEvents/search.aspx?s=1&keywords=&keywordt…
Search for things like “Avalon”, “WinFS”, and “Indigo”.
OSX already has features that they are trying to add.
Ah, and how long did Mac OS not have protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, security, etc that were in windows NT, hmm?
I’d say no protected memory and no pre-emptive multitasking is better than window’s broken implimentation. Who cares if you have “protected memory” of the os blows chunks at every whim!
I’ve just upgraded an entire corporation to SP4 using the network installer. Most of the machines were Dell Dimension P2-333’s on SP1/2 with 3 year old installations, used daily throughout that time
Only one machine failed to install first time, and that turned out to have a bad stick of RAM in it.
There are a few reasons I can think of for the delay. First, Microsoft could be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Longhorn is supposed to be a radical rewrite of Windows therefore the new OS has gotten completely out of hand. Think of Apple with it’s Rhapsody fiasco. They threw in the towel and bought NeXT OS. As it is, the windows core is massive and bloated. Microsoft would go a long way in just trying to cut out the fat in core system. MS’s idea of “new features” mostly corresponds to more useless code that further bloats the OS. Pretty soon, you will have to have 2 GB of RAM with a 8 GHz processor at a minimum! Yes this is exaggeration, but seriously, MS is masterful at really ramping up the requirements to run their new OSes as they roll out.
Another theory out there is that they are waiting for the judgement period agreement with the DOJ to run out. After that, they can pretty much go back to their completely monopolistic ways without the DOJ hounding them. I personally don’t subscribe to this theory because with the announcement of them stopping free standing versions of IE is just more fuel for the monopoly fire, right in the face of the DOJ.
The patent issue could be playing a role but I can’t believe it would cause a three year delay because the issuance of the ruling was just a last month (or was it the month before that?). Granted, I believe MS infringes on a tremendous number of patents and haven’t been caught, this theory seems a bit of a stretch.
I personally believe the first one. Just my gut feeling. As a result, I feel sorry for the people “forced” into the software assurance program. They are about to be really taken for a ride on this one. It would not surprise me if MS tells those in the program that they can get free upgrades from Win2K to XP. If someone gets XP, they can get coupons for the future release of Longhorn. Imagine the outrage over that one. Kind of silly guessing here, but again, this is MS we are talking about. Don’t put it past them!
Umm… Correct me if I’m wrong, and I don’t think I am, but Win2003 Server has lower requirements then Win2K Server, processor wise anyway. The argument that Microsoft ramps up bloat for Intel to sell more processors just doesn’t hold.
“Look at Windows itself. It is a copy of ….”
Look at KDE… GNOME… etc.. copy of windows
“the MacOS, which is was blatantly stolen from XEROX”
err you mean..
the MacOS, which is was blatantly LICENSED BY APPLE from XEROX
I’d say no protected memory and no pre-emptive multitasking is better than window’s broken implimentation. Who cares if you have “protected memory” of the os blows chunks at every whim!
NT’s multitasking and protected memory aren’t broken, and it’s Mac OS that blows chunks. At least MS doesn’t have to cry to the government to compete..
the MacOS, which is was blatantly LICENSED BY APPLE from XEROX
What difference does it make, xerox didn’t invent the mouse or GUI either. And if MS is guilty of theft, aren’t KDE, gnome, etc also guilty? The market place has rejected Mac OS, get over it.
At least MS doesn’t have to cry to the government to compete..
“Those in favour of breaking up Microsoft have become especially concerned about a pro-Microsoft appeals decision in recent weeks as Microsoft executives have boosted their lobbying forces and forged alliances in Washington, DC.”
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/emergingtech/0,39020357,2089567,00…
No, both Xerox vs Apple and Apple vs Microsoft GUI look and feel cases were thrown out of court. Google for it. Also google for Microsoft’s theft by actually stealing Apple’s API’s by never paying their licenses, all while creating their Windows and Windows applications based on those very API’s.
I suspect given all the security issues as well as the delay in Longhorn that there will be a interim Windows released based on Windows XP.
no more growth in stock price
no more market boom with PC sale
Lot more competition than before
no will to be “innovative”
no will to reduce the company size
They are in their Biggest fiasco in Japan ever
Most PC user are happy whith what they have (probably the fist time ever)
They are under security flaw like never before.
The peripheral industry is starting to be a very united block.
The Mobo industry is going to be next and M$ will have little grip on them after this.
IBM and asia are another menaces.
Their code is bloated and that need talent to solve (not money and man/hour).
User start to hear more and more about “hobby” OS and ask WTF do we have to pay that much for windows.
Develloper now see not very far about M$ plan and start to fear a console licence fee (will be pretexed for security first) and user fear the renting and not owning even their PC!
M$ is going nowere, this is worst than not going down, going down make you make big change, company like apple, sega, and palm did it and it paid big time (even if some need to do it again: apple
). In the current time line i see M$ is going to disapear without a trace in a 2 year time space in the near future. Arogance from a company is worst than user resistance to change.
Yeah, couldn’t agree more. I really don’t see them going anywhere these days.
Just from the fact that Microsoft has enough money in the bank alone to run fully operational w/o any revenue for an entire year makes your ‘gone in 2 year’ theory completely obsurd, as if it wasn’t obsurd enough to begin with.
Have you seen the code? Do you know what kind of talent Microsoft has at their disposal? No to both questions? Well I’ll be darned.
What is it that makes you think they are acting ignorant? They have teamed up with IBM on web services. They have admitted their security flaws and have been patching each one with plent of time spare before an attack. They have, according to the press, ‘accepted Linux as a competitor’. They are vastly improving their two cashcows, Windows and Office…. how are these things contributing to being ignorant?
What stock is going up? There aren’t any. Only minor gains here and there, and then minor drops, especially in the tech industry.
“Revenue rose 6 percent in the quarter to $28.8 million from last quarter’s $27.2 million, and was up 36 percent year-over-year.”
*36%* Which is still small potatoes compared to Microsoft, but it’s still up *36%* none the less.
Red Hat Reports Its Best Results Yet –
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1273788,00.asp
One small nitpick. Rhapsody was the OS Apple worked on after buying out NeXT, and it succeeded at what it set out to do. What it did just wasn’t exactly what the market wanted, so Mac OS X Server (and eventually the Mac OS X we know and love) was built on its foundations.
Perhaps you’re thining of Copland?
Microsoft does have a lot of talent at its disposal. That hasn’t stopped them from making some crappy products. As the entire Win 9x series proved, and the gaping security problems continue to prove, the problem at Microsoft is not a lack of talent, or a lack of programmers, but a corporate culture that does not care about the quality of the product. Microsoft may have some very smart people working for them (and they do) but if they can do nothing against a culture that encourages half-assed solutions and a code-base that they must fight against every day.
PS> There are some examples of a good turn in MS corporate culture making a significant difference in product quality. NT 3.x, for example, was designed by a small team of very smart people that were essentially given free reign to create a high quality OS. As a result, the NT core architecture has survived successive Microsoft efforts to suckify it. Also, when Herb Sutter, a C++ guru, was hired by Microsoft, he forced their compiler team to put product quality first. As a result, the 7.x series of Visual C++ is an actual C++ compiler, than the pseudo-C++ POS that the 6.x series was. If Microsoft made these kinds of culture changes company-wide, they would start putting out some quality products. Unfortunately, they’re stuck to their previous business model, of profit through complete control, and can’t seem to make this transition.
MS rakes in $8B a year in profit. Who gives a rat’s ass how much they grow?!? With those kinds of profits, they will own Canada soon.
CPUGuy (IP: 24.92.223.—) – Posted on 2003-09-23 01:56:45
What stock is going up? There aren’t any. Only minor gains here and there, and then minor drops, especially in the tech industry.
This is a very rare occasion, however, the blue chip tech stocks on the NASDAQ are pretty static across the board. Microsoft is now another IBM, they’ll grow but at more of a mature pace. Hopefully, the dividend payments will increase and instead of being the once “hip cool groovy” company, it will be a reliable cash cow for investors.
Rayiner Hashem (IP: —.res.gatech.edu) – Posted on 2003-09-23 03:44:34
Microsoft does have a lot of talent at its disposal. That hasn’t stopped them from making some crappy products. As the entire Win 9x series proved, and the gaping security problems continue to prove, the problem at Microsoft is not a lack of talent, or a lack of programmers, but a corporate culture that does not care about the quality of the product. Microsoft may have some very smart people working for them (and they do) but if they can do nothing against a culture that encourages half-assed solutions and a code-base that they must fight against every day.
Windows 9x was never meant to be a long term product. It was there are a win16-win32 transition tool so that one day, once the majority of the software world had moved to win32, Microsoft could then offer a NT based operating system.
PS> There are some examples of a good turn in MS corporate culture making a significant difference in product quality. NT 3.x, for example, was designed by a small team of very smart people that were essentially given free reign to create a high quality OS. As a result, the NT core architecture has survived successive Microsoft efforts to suckify it. Also, when Herb Sutter, a C++ guru, was hired by Microsoft, he forced their compiler team to put product quality first. As a result, the 7.x series of Visual C++ is an actual C++ compiler, than the pseudo-C++ POS that the 6.x series was. If Microsoft made these kinds of culture changes company-wide, they would start putting out some quality products. Unfortunately, they’re stuck to their previous business model, of profit through complete control, and can’t seem to make this transition.
Microsoft isn’t unique in that situation, however, unfortunately their corporate structure is more “dog eat dog”. In some cases there are benefits but in a large number there is a price. Had they kept with the original vision of NT, today we would have a very efficient, modular, openstandards based operating system, however, as you have pointed out, Microsoft had to screw a good thing.
I wonder how many of the original NT developers now regret leaving DEC, who PRAISED EXCELLENCE to a company who prized buzz words, hype and BS above creating a top quality product based on the most technologically advanced concepts.
My supposition is that they are trying to figure out how to win the next upgrade cycle.
To do so, I think they are trying to determine what components and features the next OS they deliver will need to have in order to represent a compelling alternative to Linux/BSD-Gnome/KDE (as they will be 2 years from now). They may or may not succeed in this effort (either the concept phase or the execution phase), but I think their goal is to have customers say, “Wow, this is so much better than the alternative.”
One problem for them is that ideas, look and feel of a functional system, etc. do not constitute protectable intellectual property (partly as a result of MS’s own legal efforts to defend itself against Apple’s earlier infringement claims). So anything they come up with can be implemented in open source, eventually. They are probably trying to find patentable inventions they can use and trying to go so far beyond what is currently achievable that the open source community will need years of programming effort to catch up.
My belief is that MS will have some success (I don’t think they’ll implode like IBM’s old business model did), but I do believe that non-MS operating systems will make substantial gains in share of installed base. I think such a change would be good for the IT industry and for businesses and consumers generally.
Regards,
Mark Wilson
P.S. I use Mac OS X, the best general purpose operating system in existence. And soon to get much better, and faster.
Also google for Microsoft’s theft by actually stealing Apple’s API’s by never paying their licenses, all while creating their Windows and Windows applications based on those very API’s.
I googled and didn’t find anything but the typical “ms stole the gui waaah” BS, where do I look to find the API theft? Even if they did, why would apple care, MS “stealing” (called “implementing” when anyone else does it) the API would make it easier for developers to port to Mac OS, so apple would be pleased by such a ‘theft.’ Did apple sue? Why didn’t they win? No info here, just empty buzzwords to instill hate in noobs who don’t know better (“OMG MS STOLE TEH API!!!@#”). Typical ABMer tactic.
Then you didn’t actually look. “Typical ABMer tactic.” followed by the typical NBM’er tactic of “I couldn’t find it, WAAH”
Ah, and how long did Mac OS not have protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, security, etc that were in windows NT, hmm? Now that Mac OS is somewhat caught up to windows, doing the reverse is somehow wrong…
Well, considering the former incarnation of Apple was crawling on it’s crippled knees during that time period I don’t see the point. They were obviously trying to accomplish a rewrite of the OS. Anyway, all that aside, Microsoft has considerably better resources in which to make an OS rewrite happen. This shouldn’t be such a problem for them (So, why is it?).
Still, I can’t wait to see what this future MS OS will become. What, are they just going to keep plugging the existing Longhorn project with new features as they see what alternative OSes are doing? It’ll be bloated again before it hits the shelves.
I think a better comparision would be the fact that in a space of four years (when Steve was brought on board) we had an operating system that was ported from one platform to another, GUI completely redesigned from the ground up, backwards compatibility created (Classic), an existing API enhanced enormously (Cocoa) and a good API that can be used to port existing applications to the new platform with minimum re-write (Carbon), enhanced development tools, a top-noch Java implementation TO THE SPECIFICATIONS (Unlike Microsoft) and to top it all off, rock solid stability.
It took Microsoft from NT4 to Windows XP, seven years to deliver something that took Apple only four years to bring to market. When you take into account that Microsoft has fourty BILLION DOLLARS in cash, I can’t see why it too so long for them to deliver.
Well put indeed.
Then you didn’t actually look. “Typical ABMer tactic.” followed by the typical NBM’er tactic of “I couldn’t find it, WAAH”
Riiight. Guess you can’t find one either then.
Anyway sounds like great lawsuit material, when does apple plan to sue over this great injustice?
And, a rhetorical question if you will: Are you as upset over the WINE people ‘stealing’ the win32 API, and mono ‘stealing’ the .net api?
Let me begin your post for you: “No that’s different because…” and you can fill in the BS, err I mean ‘rest.’
Good points made.
But I think the real issue here is- the bulk of the delay is most likely a result of the implementation of TPCA and Palladium. MS is busy trying to build the next-gen OS which will empower it to rape the industry into submission.
I find it hard to fathom why people are actually eager for the release of this cancerous OS. The world of computing will soon be on remote control by the corporate giants at MS – and people are sitting around discussing the GUI?
There is only one thing to discuss on the topic of Longhorn- the rejection of the new Windows incarnation, and awareness needs to be made to the general public as to a world without Windows.
Nevertheless, all parties involved acknowledge the confounding complexity of the issue, and even Microsoft doesn’t know where it will end up.
“We can speak to what we intend to have happen,” said Mario Juarez, another product manager for Palladium, but added, “there are so many unanswered questions at this point.”
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2125598,00.htm
” It took Microsoft from NT4 to Windows XP, seven years todeliver something that took Apple only four years to bring to market. When you take into account that Microsoft has fourty BILLION DOLLARS in cash, I can’t see why it too so long for them to deliver.”
And consider further: Microsoft STILL hasn’t made the transition to UNIX– and it doesn’t even seem to be on the drawing board out to 2006. Nor do they seem to have a coherent RISC plan. Nor a coherent 64 bit plan.
MSFT basically believes that all they need to do is to use their franchise and bride the govt to ignore their illegal monopoly instead of actually DOING stuff for their customers.
>Riiight. Guess you can’t find one either then.
Lemme get you started..
Start by searching for: “35 F.3d 1435”
>Anyway sounds like great lawsuit material, when does apple plan to sue over this great injustice?
They did, they attempted to add breach of contract to their lawsuit and the motion was denied.
>And, a rhetorical question if you will: Are you as upset over the WINE people ‘stealing’ the
>win32 API, and mono ‘stealing’ the .net api?
Why would I? Are you a complete moron? WINE’s win32 is whiteroom. Mono’s .net api is whiteroom.
>Let me begin your post for you: “No that’s different because…” and you can fill in the BS, err
>I mean ‘rest.’
Grow up.
> Green suspects that Microsoft wants to use Palladium to
> enforce software licenses. He claims the day after
> attending the USENIX Security Conference, he contacted
> an attorney and filed two patents on ways that Palladium-
> like systems could be used for such enforcement. While
> Green won’t discuss his intentions, many believe he is
> trying to preempt companies from using the technology
> for this purpose.
Finally, someone’s using the ridiculous US patent system for something good.
Poor Richard: Well, actually 2000 was, and still is a great OS. From a business standpoint, there is no point to even switching to XP if you already have 2000.
Why would Microsft ‘make the transition to Unix’? They have a solid foundation of an OS, they have built up something that would take probably a decade or so to recreate in Unix. The reason Apple did it was because even up to OS9, the base sucked. It had no real mutli-tasking, no SMP, no <insert buzz word here>.
How does Microsoft have no ‘coherent’ 64bit plan? They already have XP for IA64, they just released beta 1 for x86-64 today, they’ve been testing Win2003 for IA64… how is this incoherant?
All in all, you’ve made NO valid points and are just spreading FUD.
Yes, console over IP alone is worth the upgrade. I have KVM over IP, and it doesn’t come close to RDP.
“Why would Microsft ‘make the transition to Unix’?”
Well, Bill Gates did say that Windows NT would be a better Unix than Unix, and has yet to deliver. (Win2003 gets closer)
It took Microsoft from NT4 to Windows XP, seven years to deliver something that took Apple only four years to bring to market. When you take into account that Microsoft has fourty BILLION DOLLARS in cash, I can’t see why it too so long for them to deliver.
Because you’re comparing different things. You need to go back to the late 80s, when Microsoft went from nothing (in 1988) to NT 3.1 (1992), 3.5 (1993) and 3.51 (1994).
NT is in a maturing, evolutionary stage of development. OS X is just ramping up (and since it’s still bloody slow and unresponsive, has a ways to go yet).
As the entire Win 9x series proved […]
The suckiness of the Win9x series existed purely because of the backwards compatibility demands made by *customers*. Win95 was never meant to be anything more than a short-lived stepping stone product to NT. Originally, there was never meant to be a Win98 and certainly not a WinME.
And consider further: Microsoft STILL hasn’t made the transition to UNIX– and it doesn’t even seem to be on the drawing board out to 2006.
Why would they want to ?
Nor do they seem to have a coherent RISC plan.
They’ve got a portable OS and significant experience in porting it between RISC and CISC platforms. How much of a “plan” do you want ?
Nor a coherent 64 bit plan.
A beta of 64bit XP was released today. Again, how much of a “plan” do you want ?
??? I’ve had an OEM Windows XP 64bit Itanium build for MONTHS now! You mean an AMD64 XP beta?
And consider further: Microsoft STILL hasn’t made the transition to UNIX– and it doesn’t even seem to be on the drawing board out to 2006.
Why would they want to ?
Ummm– because multitasking under NT sucks? I’d be worried about that if I were running MSFT. Don’t get me started on OS stability under Windows.
Nor do they seem to have a coherent RISC plan.
They’ve got a portable OS and significant experience in porting it between RISC and CISC platforms. How much of a “plan” do you want ?
They need to migrate off INTEL, obviously. I can’t believe you cite Pocket PC as an example of anything except a dead-end.
Nor a coherent 64 bit plan.
A beta of 64bit XP was released today. Again, how much of a “plan” do you want ?
So– what are they gonna run it on– “Itanic”? AMD? I don’t think there’s a serious X86 64 bit chip ready to go yet.
There is nothing wrong with multitasking under NT nor is there with stability, quit spreading pure lies.
Why do they need to migrate off of ‘Intel’? X-86 is still alive and kicking, especially with x86-64. They have ported the OS to IA64, which despite a rocky start, is getting much better.
It is a highly portable OS. In fact, the only thing they have to change in order to move the base OS across is the HAL.
AMD just launched their Athlon64 chips, and has had the Opteron out for some time now. The beta that was released today is for x86-64, not the Itanium.
Do you have any clue at all?
“is getting much better”
Having personally had my hands on multiple Itanium systems for weeks on end running multiple OS’s (Win 2003 which never installed, WinXP, Linux, and HPUX) I must STRONGLY disagree, though I really wish I could agree with you.. HPUX was especially PAINFUL sam was unstable, as was Veritas storage manager (being a Java app didn’t help..) and who wants to use a web browser to compile a kernel? Then there’s XP.. XP ran like XP, except that when you drug a window you waited a good 3 minutes for the window to move (Not XP’s fault mind you, we were using the latest quadro driver at the time though) It didn’t seem very stable either though that could be the fault of the hardware, and not the OS. Linux ran fine, though I never attempted to start a GUI on one of them (I was testing server software some of which didn’t have 64bit versions available.). If I had to make a choice (which I did) I would not have chosen ANY of the OS’s that I had tested. We ended up settling for Intel and PA-RISC solutions instead (which now co-exist with the rest of our PA/Intel environment.), it just made more sense.