Will Longhorn delays trigger Windows version creep?
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 04 September 2003 - 12:35 · 40 comments & 1050 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by xStainDx on 04 Sep 2003 - 12:50
- an XP Refresh wouldn't be so bad, but it would squash the "Thrill-Factor" for Longhorn itself. A refresh of XP wouldn't be a decable this time (hopfeully) because its not the 9x Kernel that we're toying with. I'd welcome it.
Downside, if you release an interim update to XP now, you will have less people likey to go to Longhonr Later.
You have to have a center point and balance out each side of the scale.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by AfmomasTER on 04 Sep 2003 - 12:57
- XPSe?
remeber that rumor?
-
#3 Posted by kljs on 04 Sep 2003 - 13:04
- Windows XP version 2 perhaps?
-
#4 Posted by theh0g on 04 Sep 2003 - 13:16
- Windows 2003 will have to do until then I guess. Microsoft might miss a lot in between, Linux is on the rise and will most deffinetely take some share (no flames please), some new players might also come in the game and use the features, Microsoft already announced to be in next Windows. I also think it's dumb to spend such a long time to develop a completely new version of Windows (without some versions in between) cuz no one know what the situation will be like in 2006, what customers demands will be and what might happen until then. It also means no new IE until then, which is REALLY dumb, since they didn't add much to IE since 4.0 and Gecko based browsers are better already and they will get even better. On the bright side, there might be a good competition by the time Longhorn comes out which will maybe make Microsoft make their products even better, not just add some useless crap to ie. Office and call it a "new and improved version".
-
#5 Posted by nowimnothing on 04 Sep 2003 - 13:19
- There was never an expected release date for Longhorn, so i don't know why people keep calling its release delayed.
I for one will just be happy with them releasing XP SP2 sometime soon and getting that slipstreamed into my install discs so i don't have to download so many updates from WU. That would last me at least another year or too.
Plus i've got Server 2003 and SBS 2003 (shortly) to play with now, so i'm perfectly content to wait for longhorn.
And you know we'll all be running the betas of it once it becomes available - long before whatever "ship date" everyone says it has slipped to.
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by Jason on 04 Sep 2003 - 13:21
- How about just release SP2 for XP this year followed by SP3 next etc...
-
#6.1 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 04 Sep 2003 - 14:43
- SP2 was delayed till next year
-
#7 Posted by SimplyPotatoes on 04 Sep 2003 - 13:21
- y don they just release a fully customizable GUI an then i'd be hapy
-
#8 Posted by Spectre on 04 Sep 2003 - 13:24
QUOTE WITH LONGHORN apparently now delayed indefinitely
wait, when did that happen? good reliable inquirer. maybe you should read "A Longhorn Delay? Not Quite!" instead:
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=40039
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by Neobond on 04 Sep 2003 - 13:31
- Delay appears to be a word more and more interconnected with Microsoft. Bill Gates himself said once he would like a OS upgrade every year and a major one every 2 or 3 years. What with Microsoft now delaying even the Service Pack 2 for Windows XP I hold little hope of a new Windows version anytime soon.
I do agree its worth waiting for a better version than a rushed POS like Windows ME was. but then again Microsoft did alot of work for Windows 2000 and XP and they were crippled by exploits already out of the box.
As long as MS keeps reaching for that dream of a "good, secure OS" like Windows Server 2003 is on track to deliver I will be happy. -
#9.1 Posted by macrosslover on 04 Sep 2003 - 19:40
- but after the patches and service packs, 200 and XP are damn good operating systems. true, no MS os is perfect out of the gate, but once they start fixing it up, it gets much better.
plus i think they are taking their time with this to avoid the problems you just stated. frankly i don't understand why people are in such a rush, there's nothing wrong with Windows XP. it does everything need for consumers and some businesses just fine. it supports all the current technologies, and can support more thanks to a service pack.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by neostyle on 04 Sep 2003 - 13:54
- whats wrong with
2004 winxp sp2
2004 win 2k3 sp1
2004 xp mediacenteredition 2
2004 longhorn beta 1,2
2005 longhorn -
#10.2 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Sep 2003 - 23:51
- Sure you can, Microsoft does this quite often. They call them "Customer Previews" though.
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by SimplyPotatoes on 04 Sep 2003 - 14:01
- actually 50years from now windows xp willbe compeletly secure as all exploits will hav been found
-
(9 replies)
#12 Posted by C_Guy on 04 Sep 2003 - 14:50
- This journalsit seems to be confused.
Windows Millennium Edition (Windows ME) was not an interim product. It offered a vast improvement in stability, speed, and performance as compared to Windows 98. Windows ME was never intended to perform like Windows 2000. Windows ME was designed primarily for home Users who wanted the best digital media and legacy support. Windows ME was designed to be capable of running any DOS, Windows 3, or Windows 9x program whereas Windows 2000 was designed for businesses who cared less about legacy compatibility and more about security and connectivity.
As far as Longhorn is concerned, what's the rush? I work for a multi-national corporation running Windows 2000. Our US devision is currently upgrading to Windows XP and our Canadian division will follow if Longhorn isn't released by 2005. In fact, because we have so many applications to test in Canada, we are still working on getting Windows 2000 upgraded to SP3 (Yes, 3!) -
#12.1 Posted by theh0g on 04 Sep 2003 - 14:56
QUOTE (#12.0) Windows Millennium Edition (Windows ME) was not an interim product. It offered a vast improvement in stability, speed, and performance as compared to Windows 98. Windows ME was never intended to perform like Windows 2000. Windows ME was designed primarily for home Users who wanted the best digital media and legacy support. Windows ME was designed to be capable of running any DOS, Windows 3, or Windows 9x program whereas Windows 2000 was designed for businesses who cared less about legacy compatibility and more about security and connectivity.
Dude, you don't have a clue. Windows ME was the worst Windows version ever released, it was supposed to be a 9x version with a Win2000 GUI and stability. But it was a disaster, there was horrible stability, GUI was close to Win2000, the only good thing about it was speed (I guess so you can reinstall it fast enough). I guess you never used that version, either that you only used it for reading emails and IRC.-
#12.2 Posted by Tom Servo on 04 Sep 2003 - 14:59
- 1) WinME was the worst POS evar.
2) What rush? They never planned to release it before end 2004 anyway. -
#12.3 Posted by Jason on 04 Sep 2003 - 16:12
- The only 9x OS that was a major upgrade was Windows 95 all the reset were minor updates.
-
#12.4 Posted by C_Guy on 04 Sep 2003 - 16:20
- Actually, I do research my comments before I open my mouth and I do know what I am talking about. I got Windows ME the day it came out and used it up until a few months ago when I got XP Pro. ME was great, it was more stable, faster, and had excellent support for all my old DOS games and new digital media. (And yes, I can make the comparison because I was using 98 before ME was released) It's the best version of Windows that is not based on NT technology.
And since you asked, I used it for everything, e-Mail, Internet, DOS games, Windows games, school, work, desktop publishing, multimedia, audio and video editing (yeah, and I went beyond Windows Movie Maker
) and publishing, financial management...
Windows ME has a bad rap because end Users were trying to install it on top of Windows 9x* or because they were expecting it to do things it wasn't designed to do. For example, because it is based on the FAT or FAT32 file system, it was never intended to mimick Windows 2000-level security.
*This is a function supported by Windows ME but as any technical professional knows, an Operating System will always perform better when installed clean on a hard drive rather than overtop of an exisitng one. -
#12.5 Posted by brew crew on 04 Sep 2003 - 17:16
QUOTE ME was great, it was more stable
Windows ME has a know memory leak that has never been patched, there is no way in hell that is it more stable then win98se
-
#12.6 Posted by JaggedFlame on 05 Sep 2003 - 02:37
- It was more stable for me. I never ran into any of the problems everyone else had with it.
-
#12.7 Posted by theh0g on 05 Sep 2003 - 08:41
- Jagged must be one very lucky guy, all Microsoft software always works for him, no bugs ever, even Windows ME which eventualy crashed on ALL computers and was a disaster, worked fine on his machine. Did you ever turned that pc ON?
-
#12.8 Posted by RangerLG on 05 Sep 2003 - 14:32
- I thought Win ME was better than 98se. I once had ME running 5 straight days with no errors. I liked the way it operated better than 98. I had far fewer lockups with ME than 98. It was important that all of my device drivers were ME compaitble because the 98 drivers were real flaky with ME. I still prefer XP though
-
#12.9 Posted by chuayw2000 on 05 Sep 2003 - 16:26
- ME was a horror for me
, I always had sutdown problems, like crashing when shutting down etc. Windows XP is MUCH MUCH better.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by rob.derosa on 04 Sep 2003 - 15:08
- Why dont they just extend the agreement for a few more years?
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by leebobs on 04 Sep 2003 - 16:00
- Windows XP + SP2 + Direct 9c + Media Player 9 + Windows Movie Maker 2 + Windows Messenger 5 + Random Bloat Ware Stuff
=
WINDOWS XP SE
-
(5 replies)
#15 Posted by ike on 04 Sep 2003 - 17:24
- i think it'd be a lot of wasted effort to create an XP that "looked like" longhorn (re: windows ME "looking like" 2000)
all it would be is XP with extra visual fun. well, that is partially what XP is to windows 2000. XP does have much new functionality but it's hardly revolutionary compared to what windows 2000 was to NT4.
and then, when longhorn did come out in 2004 or 2005 or whatever, there would be plenty of home users that wouldn't want to upgrade because "it looks just like what i already have"
not just home users. last year i had a professor teaching programming who said the only difference between 98 and XP was that they redesigned the start menu.
i think microsoft has jumped too far into longhorn to go back and still make it worthwhile. extend the dates, i say! -
#15.2 Posted by gameguy on 04 Sep 2003 - 18:04
QUOTE (#15.1) Your Professor is an idiot
to say the least!
-
#15.3 Posted by xStainDx on 04 Sep 2003 - 19:37
- Yup the made the Start menu green instead of grey and boxed it up and put it out for sale.
-
#15.4 Posted by mimeryme on 04 Sep 2003 - 23:09
- You've got to report that professor to the department chair for ignorance.
-
#15.5 Posted by roadwarrior on 05 Sep 2003 - 00:02
QUOTE (#15.0) i think it'd be a lot of wasted effort to create an XP that "looked like" longhorn (re: windows ME "looking like" 2000)
This would take all of about 15 minutes of work with software that is already available. Use StyleXP or WindowBlinds with the Plex theme and one of the third party copies of the Sidebar and you have a nearly perfect visual copy of Longhorn.
-
#16 Posted by Coolme on 04 Sep 2003 - 18:41
QUOTE release an interim version of Windows (and risk a Windows ME like debacle)
PLEASE FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T DO THAT. When Win ME was released, it was like Win 98 SE 2 and it was all sh!@#y and stuff and one year later win XP came out which is by far the best Win OS.
-
#17 Posted by Quick Reply on 05 Sep 2003 - 03:29
QUOTE Windows ME (which was always known to be nothing but an interim product)
How can Windows ME be an interim product if it was released AFTER windows 2000?
Microsoft basically has three choices — release an interim version of Windows (and risk a Windows ME like debacle), simply take a long dry spell in the OS market until Longhorn is finally ready to go, or attempt to branch Windows into other markets and divisions, such as Tablet PC and Media Center PC. Before long we'll also have Windows 64-bit edition (AMD64), which gives the company another niche market to sell into. It could even do combinations — 64-bit Media Center, and so on.
Releasing an interim "new" version of Windows might offer the best short-term profit, but probably has the weakest long-term gain. After the fiasco of Windows ME (which was always known to be nothing but an interim product) customers may be less likely to upgrade to Microsoft's latest-and-greatest knowing that there's a completely different product around the corner. Like ME, any interim release would probably retain the GUI look / feel of Longhorn, but lack the substantive underpinnings that made the OS what it is (just as ME looked like, but didn't act like, Windows 2000).
What's New in This Release:
· The WBZ/WBC support has been removed! (At request of www.webshots.com)
· Support for Adobe 8BF filters: Image->Effects menu (PlugIn)
· Support for JPM format (JPEG2000/Part6, LuraDocument.jpm, PlugIn)
· Support for DDS format (Direct Draw Surface) (Formats PlugIn)
· Support for DXF format. PlugIn from: http://www.cadsofttools.com (Shareware)
· Support for DWG format (AutoCAD 13 or later, preview only)
· Simple saturation option added (Image->Enhance Colors and Batch mode)
· New options for GIF/ICO transparent saving (save dialog options)
· New edit menu: Create custom selection
· New advanced batch option: Add overlay text
· New batch scan option: Skip existing files
· The image selection can be moved using the right mouse button
· Expanded Copy/Move dialog (more folders)
· Option to set JPG Comment/IPTC for multiple files (from Thumbnails window)
· Option to set the cut color (Properties->Misc 3)
· Option to sort files in "Create multipage TIF" dialog
· Option to set the start image index in the slideshow dialog (double click)
· Option to enable/disable dithering for color reduction
· New option: "Properties->Misc. 1->Show TGA alpha color"
· Improved JPG lossless operations: Use as JPG cleaner possible
· New options for HTML export
· Change: PSP, CAM, SFW formats moved to FORMATS PlugIn
· Wallpaper save location changed (Folder: "Application data")
· Slideshow movement in now possible in automatic mode too (space/backspace ...)
· Improved SGI, TIF reading
· Improved command line option: /slideshow; Examples:
i_view32.exe /slideshow=folder
i_view32.exe /slideshow=folder*.jpg
· New command option: /aspectratio; Enable aspect ratio for /resize and /resample
· New command line option: /info=txtfile; Write image infos to text file
Example: i_view32 c:test.jpg /info=test.txt
Example: i_view32 c:*.jpg /info=jpgs.txt
· Most PlugIns are changed/updated, please install the newest versions
· Some minor bugs/features fixed/added (Filter Factory, RAW)