“Microsoft Corp. today announced at the company’s .NET Briefing Day that its upcoming Windows .NET Server operating system has reached the RC1 milestone. Release candidate 1 (RC1) is an important step leading up to the product’s final delivery, signifying that engineering, development and beta testing have been completed and that the server code is entering the final phases of testing and completion work prior to its release to manufacturing. Microsoft Windows .NET Server RC1 code will be available for third-party testers to download beginning tomorrow and will be available for customers to begin previewing next week.” Read the rest of the press release at Microsoft.com.
Windows .NET Server Achieves Major Milestone; RC1 Delivered
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Wait so… what was going on 2 articles ago?
What was going on? “.NET” and “Windows .NET Server” is not the same thing.
The first one is a framework, development platform and API and the second one is an operating system, the server version of WindowsXP to be more precise.
If this is just like Windows 2000, all you should expect really is Windows XP Pro with a few utilities added and some limits removed (more than two CPU), all this for an incredibly high price (+fee for client licenses of course).
Actually I’m pretty sure you could get all the fonctionnality of Windows .NET Server (minus the few extra utilities) by tweaking the registry of Windows XP Home edition (99 USD in every computer shop).
Betcour:
I’m afraid you are terribly mistaken.
You are terribly mistaken indeed. Windows .NET Server is also the first version of Windows that “understands” .NET and includes many new tools. It took 1 additional year to a large number of developers to bring Windows .NET Server to RC1. If it was just a WinXP with some changes here and there, it would have been out 2 months later.
IDC analyst Al Gillen estimates that about 5 to 10 percent of the code in Windows .Net Server is new. That translates to many-many thousands of lines of code. And we should not forget that Microsoft did some “clean-up” on their code on February (the story was on slashdot). These clean-ups will be present on .NET Server. More here:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2875444…
Eugenia: That translates to many-many thousands of lines of code
Actually, it is probably closer to the neighborhood of millions
Win2K Pro had ~70M LOC. They just keep getting bigger as they progress, and since server has many more tools, I wouldn’t be suprised to hear that Win.NET Server has 100M LOC.
Personally, the only interest I have to see this is for the fact that we will see Corona.
Can’t wait ’till the .NET Server H.O.T. Kit is released !!!!
Well let’s see, Win2k was, what, 60million lines of code, and that was for professional, I don’t know about server (or maybe it is for server, either way) 5% of 60million is 3million.
I think it’s very interesting to note the similarity of timing of the .Net Server RC1 and XP SP-1 build 10XX when considering the effect of a little utility called NTSwitch. When you run NTSwitch on NT 4 Workstation it transforms, by making a couple changes in the registry, into NT Server. When you run NTSwitch on Windows 2000 Professional, it transforms into Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The reverse transformations are also possible. Lastly, when you run NT Switch on .Net Server build XXXX, it transforms into Windows XP Professional SP-1. NtSwitch is a controversial utility which has become hard to find since Microsoft found out about it.
“When you run NTSwitch on NT 4 Workstation it transforms, by making a couple changes in the registry, into NT Server…etc., etc.”
No. What NTSwitch does is change a registry setting that tricks the OS into thinking that it is now NT Server.
The OS is still NT Workstation, I guarantee you. If you don’t believe me, try doing something like clustering or setting up routing services or any of several hundred things that are exclusive to the Server version and see what you get. Using NTSwitch is dangerous and foolish.
This should be obvious. I can’t believe that people are actually confused on this point.
I can believe it….
If you look into the history of NTSwitch and the related NTtune (from Winternals) as well as Microsoft’s response to each, you might be convinced that Microsoft is playing a shell game. I’ll concede that “transforms” is inaccurate. “partially transforms” is what I believe actually occurs. 03am labs called it “A quick and dirty hack.” There is reason to believe that NTtune provided a complete transformation. Microsoft has admitted that the kernels of the workstation and server are identical to ease testing. I think the fact that NTSwitch does anything at all is evidence of Microsoft smoke and mirror tricks. Considering Microsoft’s reputation, it’s hard for me to believe that it’s not the same garbage in a different package.
You just don’t get it Bayerwerke (doesn’t suprise me).
Not everything is included in the kernel, only base OS functions, the services aren’t there, period, that’s it.
Where is “there” CPUGuy, out in the ether or down in the bit bucket?
You are taking my comments “hyperliterally”, just as Microsoft did when they told the court that removing multimedia middleware would mean that the operating system could have no user interface.
I am not saying the difference between workstation and server is the CD label and serial number.
Hopefully the Microsoft marketing department has not clouded your mind so heavily as to be unable to fathom the concept I am putting forth. However, I am doubtful. >> Microsoft is repackaging the core of a (occaisionally adequate) monolithic, single user, desktop operating system, putting a “Server” label on it, then calling it the greatest thing since the synchronous chip. In order to perform whatever functionality some manager has decided is important, they just hang another bag on the side.
I keep waiting (even hoping) to see something new and better come from the company, but haven’t for about seven years. This is what happens when the evolution of code is driven by marketing managers rather than developers.
No, they are making a kernel is built upon the same foundation, then tuning one to be for dekstop/workstation and tuning the other to be low to high end servers.
You seem to think that because I am, at least somewhat, I suppose, defending Microsoft here, that I am a product of their marketing, which shows that you can’t have an inteligent conversation.
Basically you are saying that everything produced by Microsoft over the past 7 years is crap? You really do have no clue.
The basis of my assumption that you are a product of Microsoft marketing is due to your apparent inability to compose an intelligent or insightful response and general veneration of Windows.NET without doing anything more than echoing marketing verbage.
“You really do have no clue.”
“You just don’t get it.”
Wow, you are one sharp cookie CPUGuy.
“Basically you are saying that everything produced by Microsoft over the past 7 years is crap?”
I think Motocross Madness is really good. I think Win2K and Win 98 offer some improvements over the products before them but with penalties that make choosing them about an even trade-off. I know someone that has a WebTV, it has never crashed, that’s pretty impressive.
Overall, you’ve hit the nail on the head however. Microsoft products are generally poor quality. I’ve used most of them since the time I switched from CP/M to MS-DOS 2.1 on my personal computer. Since that time, I’ve been using other products as well, such as System V, NeXTSTEP and Solaris, for example. I COMPARE Microsoft products to the products of other companies.
Have you ever used any non-Microsoft product CPUGuy? Let me guess, you’ve got your A+ and MCSE Certification right? Maybe even an MSDN subscription? Is that how you KNOW Microsoft products are so good?