Longhorn Server Scrapped 471
punkass writes "Microsoft announced Tuesday that plans for .Net Server, aka "Longhorn" have been scrapped and they will instead focus on the the release after that, code-named Blackcomb. NT4 came out in 96, 2k in 2000, and Longhorn was due out in 2005-06...Blackcomb seems to be a long time between releases."
scraped? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:scraped? (Score:5, Funny)
That would make it a planed release, wouldn't it?
Actually it makes sense. Remember Gattaca [imdb.com]? They were probably just scraping off the Windows DNA [microsoft.com] to hide its defective genetic code.
Re:scraped? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's when they start erasing the evidence of flaws in previous versions of Windows that I'll be scared, though...
Re:scraped? (Score:5, Funny)
it is scheduled for open source release just after hell freezes over. don't ask stupid questions.
Re:scraped? (Score:3, Funny)
You mean Windows is going source at the same time as Duke Nukem Forever is released?
This is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is good. (Score:5, Insightful)
So - I really have to wonder what crack Microsoft is smoking. They seem to be desperately out of tune with their users in the server market, and the Linux acceptance is proof. Professional users like backwards compatibility, and incremental changes. That is something UNIX and Linux provides.
Look at OSX, too. After their initial release, they've been spewing out evolutionary releases and bug fixes.
So, by having such large new server releases, they are raising the stakes for everyone - both themselves and the corporate users.
Oh well. I don't mind if Microsoft loses power and influence..
Re:This is good. (Score:2)
Re:This is good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention accumulating cruft in the exsting releases.
Anyone here have to put up with NT4.0? Between option packs and service packs and patch rollups and old 4x CD-ROMs, correctly installing an NT4-based IIS server was basically an all-day affair. Not to mention numerious things that could be screwed up, leaving goatse-sized security holes. Not even MS could keep the hotfixes straight.
Then Windows 2000 comes, which is great, but requires an order of magnitude more network planning for Active Directory. Many places still haven't bothered.
The key bit is the next server release after 2003 is when MS will scrap classic LanMan/NT4-style networking. At that point many customer networks are going to break, and they might just as well switch to something cheaper (Linux). MS might have wised up and chose to push that date out as far as possible.
It's a dual-edged sword -- MS got into the server market for being simple, cheap, and partially autoconfiguring. Then big customers start demanding lots of complexity, and you end up with expensive, complex, and requiring good admins. Novell never quite survived the introduction of NDS -- it will be interesting if MS does better with AD.
Re:This is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
They seem to be desperately out of tune with their users in the server market
It's because they don't compete in a normal market anymore.
When you essentially own a marketplace, such as they do with desktop PC operating systems, then you can make a lot more decisions that your customers don't like but have to accept because the alternatives have disappeared or are considered too drastic (MacOS, Linux, etc.).
Actually, the competition they seem to be desperately out of tune with their users in the server markethey've endured trying to enter the server market has been good for them and their customers: each revision of NT was compared with UNIX. Early revs were laughable, but MS had a target to aim towards in terms of reliability and scalability. Finally, with Win2K they have something where they don't get laughed out of the room anymore. I doubt whether it would have been as a good product as it is without the competition.
They face a more serious threat in the future with their server operating systems. If they strongly leverage their desktop dominance in Windows and Office, then they can insure their servers are the only brand that works in a networked environment.
But if services are standardized and commoditized, which is what customers really like for their effects on price and quality (as in the PC hardware market), then open source flavors of UNIX will have already eaten their server marketplace for breakfast when they finally trot out some shiny chrome-plated Blackcomb .NET product that "does everything and more".
Re:This is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously not as potent as the stuff you're smoking. Here are the facts as I see them. Please feel free to disagree.
Simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is good. (Score:3, Insightful)
This way Microsoft can more easily guarantee good sales. Instead of a portion of the users upgrading and the rest staying with 'good enough', they get everyone upgrading for something that is significantly different (and hopefully better given the development period...)
Re:This is good. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is good. (Score:4, Insightful)
The same thing goes for Windows releases. MS isn't just going to twiddle their thumbs for the extra year.
Re:This is good. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll give you one reason why they did it (Score:3, Interesting)
The two big features touted for Longhorn (Microsoft's new DESKTOP OS, !=
Long story short, all the hype Microsoft had left for Longhorn has been done already by Apple. What's the use of developing to a feature set that will be 3-4 years behind the nearest competitor?
Microsoft feels Apple's breath on the back of their necks.
Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess that makes sense since the market has not yet adopted XP servers or in many cases eve not 2000. No point in releasing new server versions when noone has the time to migrate to the platforms.
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:5, Informative)
Windows
Windows XP (Pro) is the followup to Windows 2000 Workstation.
And Windows XP Home (finally!) 'replaces' Windows 9x.
JB
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:3, Informative)
Just to nitpick your nitpick, there never was a Windows 2000 "Workstation". That was Windows 2000 Pro, the successor to NT4 Workstation, the last of the Windows line to use the "Workstation" moniker.
Oh, yeah, and to be even more picky, you should say "Windows .NET Server family" and "Windows 2000 Server family", otherwise you'll be ignoring Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows 2000 Data Center, as well as the various versions .NET Server will have.
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:5, Informative)
Longhorn is the next OS. So MS is going forward with the deskto version for 2004, but is pushing the server version back.
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:4, Funny)
writing a book about
Well, maybe only "dot nuts"
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:4, Informative)
Incidentally, Whistler and Blackcomb are two mountains near the village of Whistler, British Columbia, with rather decent skiing. Even better is the beer at the Longhorn Saloon, location between Whistler and Blackcomb mountains... See, Microsoft does have a sense of humour.
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:5, Informative)
He said it's a "bet the company" project he's leading for a new easier to use desktop OS where all of the applications have the same easier to use user interface.
The idea is for example, viewing a picture would use the same user interface as listening to a music source.
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, kinda like WMP8 then. A horrible interface that takes up 200% of the screen real estate as the media that you're viewing, with built-in software to "protect the user" from copying images from one medium to another all the while promoting Microsoft-patented media formats on the net.
I can't wait!
Good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
That way, when I need to figure out how to zoom in on the picture I'm viewing, I'll remember the UI from zooming in on the music... er, no...
Well, anyway, when I need to know how to pause the music I'm listening to, it will be the same as pausing the picture... no, that can't be right either...
Well, at least it will simplify the needlessly complex interface of current music players and picture viewers, which make it very hard for new users to... er...
Why was this a good idea again?
Re:Longhorn isn't .NET server (Score:3, Informative)
Longhorn for the desktop (NT 5.2?) is in early alpha right now, due out I think sometime in 2004. They just scrapped the Server version of Longhorn.
Blackcomb (most likely NT 6.0) is the first version that will have the native SQL filesystem. It's due in client and server versions sometime around 2006-2007ish.
Take all the dates with a grain of salt, because none are set in stone yet.
yup (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yup (Score:2, Funny)
Re:yup (Score:4, Funny)
Re:yup (Score:5, Funny)
>>Server, aka "Longhorn" have been scraped and they
>>will instead focus on the the release after that,
>>code-named "Foghorn".
>Foghorn Langhorn? Now boy
>wrong!
Ah say, them boys are about as sharp as a bag full o' wet mice.
Re:yup (Score:2)
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying:
"Fortunately, ah keep mah feathers numbered, for just such an ahmergency."
re: yup (Score:3, Funny)
Same old, same old (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, now with the new licensing plan, I suppose we (or rather, you) should be lucky you're getting a new release at all.
Is this right? (Score:2)
That cannot be right, surely.. unless Longhorn is the one AFTER the first Windows.NET server releases..
Re:Is this right? (Score:2)
UT Austin sigh of relief (Score:2, Funny)
evil.
Longhorn is *not* .NET Server (Score:4, Informative)
Windows
Re:Longhorn is *not* .NET Server (Score:2)
Basically they saw that after
Hell ... (Score:5, Funny)
Not .NET Server... (Score:5, Informative)
<ob_editor_bitching>How about a little fact checking, eh?</ob_editor_bitching>
Not surprising, in the context of MS's new licensi (Score:4, Interesting)
1. MS Puts back the release of its latest Server OS.
2. MS is pushing a new licensing model where companies pay annual fees regardless of upgrades, but then get "discounts" on future upgrades.
So, does the new licensing plan allow them to basically, delay new technologies? It seems that, with their latest scheme, it reduces their motivation to release newer/better products.
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2)
You think that removing MS's "release it now" catch is a BAD thing?
Whatever happened to "it's done when it's done"?
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2)
It got overcooked.
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:4, Insightful)
I might agree with you, but remember the biggest complaint in the previous scheme was unecessary upgrades? MS can't seem to win, first they catch fire for too many upgrades with little value, now they are critized for not upgrading.
I bet there are a lot of sysadmins out there who would prefer to pay MS not to release "upgrades."
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2)
There are people who want a new OS every two years or so. By skipping this release, they're screwing those people who paid for a subscription, as they don't get anything out of it
There are people who want to keep using an OS as long as it suits their needs. But since the new Office won't run on legacy systems, and the old Office won't read the new Office's documents, these people have no choice but to upgrade.
The right thing to do is to release a new OS every two years or so, but continue supporting legacy systems.
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it, with a guaranteed upgrade revenue stream, the pressure is off of them to release a new version every other year to keep profits up. It might actually allow them to focus on quality (yeah right) and actually put features in the OS people really want.
Of course, pigs could fly too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2)
Actually, having a monopoly reduces their motivation to release new/better products even more. This is just a symptom.
Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2, Insightful)
It does, but I'm not sure that is what's happening here. I'm certainly no big Microsoft fan, but I suspect it's more likely that there are other forces at work here.
- There are some serious changes promised in Longhorn. They may be taking longer to work some of the kinks out.
- Court approval of the settlement with DOJ may give them incentive to retool their business plan to find ways around the contraints, or achieve their goals while working within those constraints.
- EU pressure may be giving them pause to consider just what they will be releases in the next version. If I recall, the EU investigation was more concerned with the server side of things.
- Security and stability -- maybe after getting slapped around so much lately about security and stability, they are taking the time to nail down some of the problems. I think given the current security-frenzy that the United States is going through that security holes will matter much more in the next release than it has in the past.
- Linux -- it's entirely possible that Microsoft is taking the time to make roll out something that has a better chance of removing this thorn in their side.
Or, I could just be grasping at straws.Re:Not surprising, in the context of MS's new lice (Score:2)
1. MS Puts back the release of its latest Server OS.
If you want to look at facts, then post facts. MS is pushing back the successor to their latest Server OS. Their latest server OS is in RC1 and should be out by Q1 of next year.
Oh great (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh great (Score:2)
Puttink into microwave. CD is pretty now, da?
good news for digital rights (Score:2)
.Net server is not Longhorn.... (Score:5, Informative)
Longhorn refers to the next version of the Windows Server OS. I sometimes wonder whether the editors do any fact checking or even read the articles...
Can you blame them? (Score:2)
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:2)
Windows 2000 Server is the current server version of Windows
Windows .Net Server is the next server version of Windows
Now, that wasn't very hard, was it? Did it take 40 minutes?
Who Needs a Whole NEW Microsoft OS? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't life great, MCSEs? No more staying up all night reconstructing servers, praying that the tape backups were current, etc.
I wouldn't know, though. I changed my systems over to Red Hat, and keep up with the errata, and amuse myself by opening a sessions and typing in "uptime"
Re:Who Needs a Whole NEW Microsoft OS? (Score:2)
Now, while I'm a mac os 10.2 user, I do have a computer running linux and another running nt 4.0sp6 at my desk.
the redhat computer and the windows computer have both been up for over 5 months without crashing, and both do about the same amount of work.
the trick? i don't run programs that I know are going to be problematic. i don't run IE.
Hum drum (Score:3, Insightful)
The beginning of the end? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The beginning of the end? (Score:4, Insightful)
Kindly name me one major innovation from the past ten years that I can take home to my Linux install that isn't a copy of a MS innovation.
OSS definitly gets better qualitity--but I have yet to see an example or hear a theory that gives OSS an innovative edge over closed-source.
Please feel free to correct me if you can.
Re:The beginning of the end? (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing about innovation is that it happens everywhere. Take the upcoming version of MS Office which touts two technologies that have debuted in Free Software first. The XML formats for Office are nothing more than a ripoff of OpenOffice's XML formats, and Outlook's new virtual folders are lifted directly from Evolution and it's VFolders.
There is no question that Free Software is doing a lot of mimicking of commercial products, but that is simply because Free Software hackers are building a desktop from scratch. It's pretty tricky to build a word processor that doesn't look like MS Word, or a spreadsheet that doesn't resemble Excel. Especially considering that one of the major goals of these projects is to get people to switch to the Free Software products. Part of convincing people to switch is making the transition as easy as possible.
When you get outside of the desktop, where Free Software has to copy Microsoft to even be considered, then it is clear that Free Software has done quite a bit of innovation. The reason for this is simple, with Free Software you don't have to start from scratch each time you have an idea. Instead you can add a bit on to an already existing product.
.NET Server is still coming next year (Score:4, Informative)
Makes sense if you think about it. And sounds familiar: Cairo never made it to the light of day, so some of those "killer" technologies such as a database-as-filesystem in Longhorn and later in Blackcomb may not make it to the market either.
.Net Server hasn't been scrapped (Score:5, Informative)
Now, MS is just going to skip the Longhorn release in 2004 and instead go to the Blackcomb release.
Some people are screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not enough people signed up?
Means essentially: nobody would buy one, anyway. (Score:4, Interesting)
Analysts expect the company's upcoming server software,
And that about covers my experience, too. Server overhauls take much longer intervals then changes in the desktop segment, where they install a new Windows every 3 years or so (doesn't matter, they are largely compatible versions, anyway... no admins, don't kill me, aaarrrghh).
So it actually makes sense to come out with a new server only if the changes are really signifcant and if the interval since the last major roll-out was more than, say, 5-6 years ago. Besides, nobody has money to throw at a new unproven technology right now (and in 2 years all the same), anyway.
Release intervals and licensing plans (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Release intervals and licensing plans (Score:3, Insightful)
Pay for a three year subscription, and you get all the updates during those years, free! Well, great deal... if there are any updates released during those years. Otherwise, you basically paid the same amount you would have for an upgrade version, but never got one. It's completely to Microsoft's advantage to scale back on their release cycle with the new licensing model. It used to behoove them to get version upgrades out as soon as possible, to reap the rewards of the release. Now, they are getting everyone to pay for the new versions before they are released, and there's not much pressure to roll them out.
No Longhorn Server On Tap (Score:2, Informative)
It seems that Microsoft may be seeing that making a sound, secure server take more than just slapping a fresh GUI on top of a very tired, 8 year old foundation.
Since RC2 has not even shipped yet, they are even talking about pushing the
Nice excuse for bad software engineering (Score:5, Funny)
I want to have customers like that..
Re:Nice excuse for bad software engineering (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Microsoft,
Could you please skip meaningless releases of your software? We'd only like to pay for your 'upgrades' if they contain features that are actually useful. Thanks.
Makes perfect sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... (Score:2)
Let's skip them, and do it ourselves. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's build a virtual folder driver for Windows 98 and upward, to allow APPLICATIONS to virtualize the information they manage. It would be nice to have an email manager than presents emails as a list of files, or folders. Sending could be as easy as copying files to a folder, and then specifying an address. (To.txt?)
A virtualized database would present a list of folders in place of a table, with the fields being individual files, some read only (sequence numbers, keys, etc). To update the data, you just write to the file containing the appopriate field. If you wanted to add a field, you just copy a new file into the folder.
There is great power in letting an APPLICATION control the virutalization of the OS, this is why the idea of GNU/HURD is important for the future.
If APPLICATIONS can virtualize, then you get a freedom to innovate that would give Bill nightmares.
Virtualizing the address space for existing millions of users and applications could do more to help freedom to innovate than pretty much anything it's going to take Microsoft years to come up with.
Who's with me?
--Mike--
Microsoft just can't win! (Score:2)
Then they announce the next server release after this year's
Microsoft just can't win!
What's that you say, they dominate the desktop OS market and have a large portion of the server market as well?
OK, maybe they can win. Nevermind.
I don't know, this makes sense to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think Microsoft should maintain a 4 year release cycle on their server OS, and a 2 year cycle on the desktop OS/productivity suite. Anything shorter and you are going to outrun your customers. I mean, if you are running a big, multisite network with 2000+ users, do you really want to deploy an OS upgrade every year or two? Hell, I know of at least one large, multinational company that is still standardized on NT 4.0 Server and Windows 95 (and as far as I know, they are going to milk it as long as they can). Besides, a 4/2 cycle is pretty close to your average lease times on hardware, which simplifies deployment since you can time your OS upgrades with your hardware upgrades (at least, on the desktop).
The only thing Microsoft gets by releasing a new OS every year is a lot of people skipping versions. Maybe they finally clued in to that fact?
What Kind Of Name Is "Blackcomb"? (Score:5, Funny)
"Blackcomb"?
Marketroid #1: "Ooo! Bob! I have it! We'll combine the word 'black' -- dark and insidious -- with the word 'comb,' which is something that most of the people using our services pine longingly for the use of!"
Marketroid #2: "Jesus, Tim, you're a !@#$ing genius! I love you!"
Re:What Kind Of Name Is "Blackcomb"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What Kind Of Name Is "Blackcomb"? (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunate (Score:2)
Longhorn was the first Microsoft product ever (at least that I've heard of) that was rumored to include a useful innovation. The innovation in question wasn't invented by Microsoft, of course, but Microsoft would have "mainstreamed" it, so that other parties (ahem) who play the penis-size-comparison game with them, would have had to jump on the bandwagon.
Now that Longhorn's delayed, it will be that much longer before Linux gets a modern Beos-like approach to filesystems. Oh well.
Editors, Correction Please! (Score:2)
Can we please get a correction for this article?
They Don't Get It..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Have business needs changed remarkably in the past four years to necessitate changing something as fundamental as your server/desktop OS? No. If anything, my business needs for cheaper, more open software are greater because of the cash crunch brought on by the tech sector. Why do I want to feed them any more cash?
I just don't get it.
Somewhat unrelated... my needs for at home are simple...
- Home budgeting/accounts - Kapital/GnuCash...
- CD Burning software - K has this.
- Browsing capability - Mozilla/Opera/Konqueror..
- Program development - Python + Qt (or any number of desktop managers and languages).
- Gaming - The big ones are available in Linux - Wine works for some other ones.
Put another way....
When I was in college in '91, I was eying buying a computer and SimCity 2000 was out. I still play that game. Anyhow, I had no money for it. I bought the game. I even bought a mouse pad. The girlfriend at the time knew it was a matter of time before I'd buy the box to run it. She was right, naturally. I put the buggy in front of the horse to buy what I eventually wanted.
I refuse to do that if my needs (business or consumer) are already satisfied with a more affordable, customizable, nonlicensed alternative. If I want to purchase a quality product for Linux, I am more than willing to...
I purchased Kapital, Komodo, and still buy open source books for programming even though they are available to help the cause.
MS cannot create demand that does not exist in perpetuity. They also can't screw people over forever. I have VB5/6 standard at home and a paid version of Office on my own which runs on Windows 98. My setup has done me well for years and my needs have not changed. Why should I be forced to upgrade if what I'm using my PC for does not change.
I shouldn't. Businesses realize this and if users didn't go around chasing butterflies all day, they'd see through the haze and either not buy (which I suspect might happen if OEM's exercise their options in the settlement) or abandon.
I'm off the soap box now.
Subscriptions (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Real Reason Longhorn Was Scrapped. (Score:3, Funny)
Bill Gates didn't know about the McMainerberry whupin'.
Has everyone missed this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Code name (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a list of MS's codenames [betatester.tin.it]
Re:Code name (Score:2)
Re:Code name (Score:2)
Blahblahblah="$CHICAGO"
Or something like that. Well, it's not a real *problem*, but it's a little odd when you're trying to force drivers that worked with 2k and NT into XP, which is what I think I was trying to do at the time.
Windows NT corrections (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure what OS you're talking about, but it wasn't Windows NT.
I won't even begin to get into the fact that longhorn was supposed to be a point release and not a new revision. (This would be Windows NT 5.2 if MS marketing didn't ruin a perfectly good version numbering scheme) (BTW,
Re:Windows NT corrections (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3714]
Re:Analyst kisses up to MSFT, Film at 11 (Score:2)
It's only bizarre if you lack objectivity. A 2004 release of Longhorn Server is a bad thing, and MS realized that a late 2005 or early 2006 release would be much better. Windows
Re:Analyst kisses up to MSFT, Film at 11 (Score:5, Funny)
That is because Microsoft trademarked the word "Hailstorm".
Look for these other upcoming releases:
"Insecure (tm)"
"Monkey-manageable (tm)"
"Vulnerable(tm)"
"Bloated(tm)"
"Unstable(tm)
"Internet(tm)"
Re:Analyst kisses up to MSFT, Film at 11 (Score:3, Funny)
Sounded like a fairly neutral sound bite to me. Any angular momentum imparted on it was your own.
What major release? Longhorn Server was vaporware with a code name. It was the successor to .Net Server, which is still in the Release Candidate stage. They could have slapped the Longhorn name on Blackcomb Server, and I doubt anybody would notice or care.
<snl accent="scottish">Welcome to All Things Linux. If it's not Linux, it's crrrrap!</snl> Get your facts straight. NT 3.1 was Posix compliant, and supported SMP on four different CPU architectures. Just another zealot. Move along. Nothing to see here.