I’m puzzled by Microsoft’s apparent confusion over the release date for Longhorn. Many stories over the last two weeks have discussed potential repercussions and conspiracy theories. The leading one being that they want to wait until the anti-trust consent order runs out so they can keep the document apis secret. I don’t buy that at all.Besides being inconsistent with the way MS operates, it would be bad business. And whatever you want to say about the guys and gals in Redmond, stupid they are not. Someone also floated the theory last week that the delay was due to Intel’s so far inability to produce a DX9 compatible chipset. But that seems even more far-fetched to me. Since when did MS delay a critical release for Intel? By the time Longhorn hits the market, DX9 parts will be everywhere. Intel’s ability to play ball is Intel’s problem.
Having a ship date is critical, making the ship date is not. Delays are to be expected. Even multi-year delays. The engineering task of new functionality + some security finally + backward compatibility + interoperability with existing software = a monstrous task. That’s without a completely new kind of file system and rendering architecture. So being 2 or 3 years late is to be expected. But the rhetoric has been puzzling. They had a date in 2004, then pushed it back to 2005, then almost immediately Gates himself said they didn’t know when it would ship. And that’s where we stand now. This uncertainty, combined with the apparently imminent developer release of the software and a scheduled beta test starting early next year don’t add up.
With many 3 year License 6 plans ticking away, a lot of customers will expect an upgrade long before Longhorn can be ready . Now, MS explicitly said that Software Assurance did not automatically guarantee upgrades. But a lot of customers still believed that’s what they were buying. And customers are less cowed than they used to be. So the next renewal cycle on Licensing 6 is likely to be fractious. This will be a big challenge for Ballmer. The sales people are not going to be happy pitching license renewals to customers that feel they have paid for an undelivered upgrade. And even then, a lot of the customers will have just gotten around to installing XP enterprise wide anyway. Expect a lot of pushing and shoving in the meeting rooms of Redmond. I’ve seen sales people in this kind of position, and they like to share their pain.
The problem with an interim (XP and a half?) is Windows ME. I don’t know how they view this internally at MS, but ME was a disaster. It did nothing to increase MS sales because most are via OEM installs and ME was never a serious contender at retail. Unlike 95 which was a big retail product. But it did introduce a host of bugs and all kinds of upgrade headaches. It also decisively removed early and automatic updating from the selection set of IT options at many enterprises. Many of these are the people still running 98 or 98SE. The very people MS needs to upgrade to XP. And the sooner the better, because every day that passes, the upgrade path from 98 to Linux looks more attractive. So the business need for an interim OS release is immense. But the technological rationale is thin, and the potential pitfalls serious. Like it or not, XP has been a tremendous success from a technology point of view. Apart, that is, from the security time-bombs going off weekly, but that’s another issue.
Soon, someone at MS is going to have to name a ship date, or announce a roadmap that includes an interim release. What MS plans to ship and when is a pretty important issue when 90% of the world is running Windows. Perhaps the current vagueness signals an internal debate. Remember the part about sales people sharing their pain. In any case, Ballmer is going to have to take a public stand at some point. I can understand why he would want to wait as long as possible before doing so. This sales/tech Ballmer/Gates showdown scenario is probably over-simplified, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate.
About the Author:
“John O’Sullivan does Sales and Marketing for HotSprings Inc, a Toronto based maker of internet software and open source development tools.”
I’d far rather see an OS delivered late than delivered with serious security bugs that then require patching.
I haven’t read about the details in Longhorn, but I assume they share a lot of code with previous Windows versions, and probably the same security faults. Mabye they are trying to make the OS more secure from the beginning, so that it doesn’t need so many patches?
Think about it this way: What Linux (the kernel, plus distros, plus desktop environments plus etc) has done is catch up with what MS has been doing since 1985. So when you are faced with a quickly approaching spear, what do you do?
Personally, I think MS is taking a step back and watching/guessing where Linux will be by end of 2004. Knowing that, it can then formulate a plan to compete directly with that. That may be an interim release. That may be a Longhorn minus some features. It could be a super service pack.
Whatever it does, I think MS is going to move in a way to blunt Linux’s attack with full force. I agree that they are not stupid.
Perhaps the reason XPSP2 has been delayed off until late 2004 is because they are planning a bit of a major update (in relation to a standard SP but not as big as a full release) because of the huge 4yr gap between releases.
I’m looking forward to Longhorn. I thought it couldn’t get any better than XP… but the improvements in graphics, IE, DRM and windows media player are astounding! I think all you Linux nuts don’t realize how important Microsoft was to computing. Without them, we’d still be all using command lines instead of enjoying digital media and e-commerce.
They always announce a product that is 4 or 5 years away and say it’s a year and a half away, then just keep pushing back that release date to keep their customers from migrating to solutions from other vendors that exist today. They have been doing this since the DOS days. How does this surprise any of you?
Flyboy may have been intending that as a troll (DRM?? lol), but I gotta agree that people take it for granted that we would be better off without Microsoft somehow. Though I may not have liked all their products, XP is the best desktop OS I’ve ever used.
“I think all you Linux nuts don’t realize how important Microsoft was to computing. Without them, we’d still be all using command lines instead of enjoying digital media and e-commerce.”
Although I agree with you that Linux die-hards tend to critisize MS a bit too often, and sometimes wihtout any sense, I don’t think it’s true what you say here. If Windows wouldn’t have existed, some other company would’ve done the trick. Maybe Apple, maybe a *nix. Maybe even BeOS (keep on dreamin’ Thom…)…
They are also now aware of the efforts of ReactOS and WINE. If ReactOS is ready by the time longhorn ships there wont be a need to move to another Windows. I want to see Linux+WINE+Mono and ReactOS+WINE+Mono ready before Longhorn ships. Flame all you want but ReactOS can run drivers and apps today. Not alot yet but more every day and they know this.
I think the biggest problem they face is if WE the open source people can get together and create a system that does Linux+ReactOS+WINE+Mono=”NO WINDOWS”. Want to help? Start porting Linux/BSD to Windows.
http://umlwin32.sourceforge.net
http://www.reactos.com
http://www.winehq.com
>> Without them [Microsoft], we’d still be all using command lines instead of enjoying digital media and e- commerce. <<
I think we should thank Xerox and Apple for this. Everything else, like an affordable platform, could and would have been possible without Microsoft. Would the computing world be different withou them? Certainly. Worse? Better? I don’t know.
Without them, we’d still be all using command lines instead of enjoying digital media and e-commerce.
Excuse me? We’ve had GUIs before Microsoft: the Lisa and the Mac were introduced before MS came up with Windows, IIRC. In any case, the GUI was a Xerox development. There were also GUIs for Amiga and Atari computers – heck, someone even developed a GUI for the C64!
Yes, but it was Microsoft’s Windows95 that kicked the GUI to most people and sold millions of PCs because of that. You like it or not, Win95 did change the landscape of computers and the market.
I am a bit wary of touching this hot potato around here, but personally I find it hard to imagine that a truly open hardware platform (x86) would have been likely without MSFT. Apple, Amiga, BeOS (BeBox) were all very proprietary hardware solutions, as aesthetically nice as they were. Even IBM tried to lock-in the burgeoning x86 platform with MCA (Micro-channel architecture bus) in the late ’80s and was stopped by MSFT and Compaq (EISA bus won).
Anyway, back on-topic, we will all get our first real look at Longhorn when the developer’s version is released at the MSFT Professional Developer’s Conference in Los Angeles late next month. This will be very interesting and should answer a lot of questions.
I guess the same could have been said of Hotline 2.0 as well!
>Many of these are the people still running 98 or 98SE. The very people MS needs to upgrade to XP. And the sooner the better, because every day that passes, the upgrade path from 98 to Linux looks more attractive
gnome is cool,
but it is with X11[*shudder*], i am always with windows family[TM].
PS: oh, i forgot to say this
i really love plan 9.
—
never X11, the MS money maker, f***.
My friends have said that the stagnant stock price (no real movement in four years) coupled with the conversion from options to shares is impacting employee morale. MS is just not minting millionaires anymore. The slip in Longhorn may simply be that no one is motivated to work on the code. People who got two million or more in compensation during the bubble don’t care a lot about working for a salary and some minor stock appreciation.
It is true that Win95 happened to accelerate the use of GUIs on Desktop. I don’t agree with the original poster that the GUI revolution wouldn’t have happened without Microsoft, however, for a simple reason: it was what people wanted/needed. If MS hadn’t provided a nice GUI on PCs (we’ll forget Windows version before 95…), someone else would have. The ideal to attain was there with the Mac. It was a matter of time before someone took it to the PC.
So I do agree with you that Win95 was an important part of the GUI revolution, but I don’t agree with Flyboy that this revolution wouldn’t have happened without Win95 – it still would have, because the time was right.
Nope, xerox labs created the Gui…
The MAC put it to work…
M$ had NOTHING to do with the GUI…
True…
X-Windows that is used on Linux and other Unixes came BEFORE and Version of M$ winblows….. As usual, M$ STOLE the techology….
GUI’s are not exactly a technology. DVD’s are a technology, gui’s no. Reason why is that gui’s are an idea. I’m sure you know what apple tried to do, patent the gui so that no one else could use it. Not the technology, but the look of it. In the end they lost. All because of MS refusing to lose and they won. If MS had lost, then if you wanted a computer with a gui, you’d have to buy a high priced mac. Now gui’s are in most OS’s including linux, so thank MS for that one.
The command line is there for a reason. SOMTIMES it’s easier and faster…
Faster? yes, easier? nope. Figure the command line to a written test while the gui is a multiple choice test. Which one sounds easier? The multiple choice test.
Yeah, it may be easy to set up a server with a gui…
Correct.
But if you need to set up 10,000 computers, it’s MUCH easier to set up a script and run it. And YOU can see what is happening better.
If you need to setup 10,000 computers urself, your IT budget is severly underfunded. I’ve never heard such a ridiculous claim. You’re either a mac zealot or a linux zealot.
“X-Windows that is used on Linux and other Unixes came BEFORE and Version of M$ winblows….. As usual, M$ STOLE the techology….”
After analyzing your beautiful prose – I come to the conclusion that you think that who created the GUI first matters at all. Really? Windows is much more responsive than XFree86 (the most common implementation of X11 on Linux) on equivalent hardware. There aren’t accelerated drivers available for common hardware, and it is general a slow user experience. Being available first doesn’t mean diddly squat.
If you need to setup 10,000 computers urself, your IT budget is severly…..
I don’t think he was implying that he had to do it himself. But even with a team of dozens of admins it can be daunting. Even with 20 you’d be looking at 500 systems a piece. I think his point is that command line has long offered a method to piece together fundamental functionality to create something much more advanced and complex. For example… I could come up with a command to take a look at /etc/fstab and format every windows partition as ext3 and then install linux to them (wouldn’t that be a fun line).
With a GUI system you don’t have such flexibility, you’re offered the method they chose to give you of doing it, and often times it doesn’t always go as far as your creativity can.
I’d also like to just note that aside from stealing the GUI from Xerox and Mac they also stole pretty much the entire Network functionality found in their modern system from Novell — Something I wasn’t aware of until I had a class on Novell. I’m really looking forward to what Novell may be able to do with Linux.
The real fact of the matter is that GUIs really don’t have much of a position in the server world… they don’t offer anything over CLI. And despite what you think it’s just as easy for me to config/edit a bind zone file in Linux as it is to spend 10 minutes going through the Microsoft DNS wizards.
In many cases CLI actually is faster. It tends to be a more direct route, and overall will give you more flexibility and control than you could ever hope for with a GUI unless you want to have to set thousands of options per dialogue.
RE: RE: M$ and GUIs By Gent (IP: —.ne.client2.attbi.com) – Posted on 2003-09-11 23:21:17
If you need to setup 10,000 computers urself, your IT budget is severly…..
Easy, (for Windows), it’s called RIS and SMS… (as long as your got bootable NIC’s your laughing).
“Without them, we’d still be all using command lines instead of enjoying digital media and e-commerce.”
You’ve gotta be kidding right? Apple had a GUI based OS long before MS did. MS was still using a command line OS (DOS) when Apple had a GUI based OS out.
“If MS hadn’t provided a nice GUI on PCs (we’ll forget Windows version before 95…), someone else would have.”
Don’t forget that IBM did with OS/2 Warp, which was released before win95 was. MS killed Warp though by threatening to pull IBM’s license for Windows if it offered support for 32 bit Windows apps.
I bought OS/2 before I biught win95 and it ran my then windows 16 bit programs very well on my old 486. Without being able to offer compatibility for 32 bit Windows software, OS/2 Warp dies a slow and painful death.
Just for fun recently, I went back and installed it on an old Pentium classic. It really was pretty cool.
/g
“You’ve gotta be kidding right? Apple had a GUI based OS long before MS did. MS was still using a command line OS (DOS) when Apple had a GUI based OS out.”
Let’s re-use “me” answer :
apple tried to patent the gui so that no one else could use it. Not the technology, but the look of it. In the end they lost. All because of MS refusing to lose and they won. If MS had lost, then if you wanted a computer with a gui, you’d have to buy a high priced mac. Now gui’s are in most OS’s including linux, so thank MS for that one.
So, long story short : no kidding here. Thanks to Microsoft. Ok, now we have a monopoly on power, but not on the weapons. They can still be fought with the weapons.
Apple tried to get a monopoly on the weapons, which is infinitely worst, as it crush even the HOPE of resistance.
A little off-topic – but the dotnet virtual execution environment is like a little OS on top of the OS – with loading, security, IO, memory GC services – not real efficent or lean. Does anybody know if they plan to embed all that back into their kernel?
Get ImageCast or Ghost. Do one fully configured image of your PC and the burn some CD or DVD and use them to install your 10,000 PC.
And if your farm of 10,000 PC are all diffrent brand, you need to plan better…
And why the hell do you need to install 10,000 PC at once? Computer replacement are done in bunch of 25% a year in most big enterprise… And when you buy those PC, you try to buy with the same brand and hardware spec…
Man, you need help in planning…
<fantasizing>
maybe they’re being honest for once, instead of stringing people along with false release dates
</fantasizing>
nah, I’m to pessimistic for that.
<sarcasm>they’re probably messing with our minds, as stage 2 of some diabolical plan to take over the world. for great lack of just-ness, perhaps</sarcasm>
whatever the reason, I imagine it’ll come out early enough to make a few billion.
Personally I believe that WinXP is the last Microsoft product that we will ever see.
Actually the GUI fight started back when I was working at SGI. Windows 95 was the gaming OS, but many games still ran just fine under DOS. Most games sucked because they were either fake 3D or couldn’t run at 640×480 at 30fps. 3DFX changed all of that with their GLIDE API. WinNT had OpenGL at the time, but it was slow and crappy, almost no graphics cards had drivers for it. So Microsoft decided they wanted a piece of the action and partnered with SGI to integrate OpenGL into their desktop, which I think eventually became DirectX, but MS and SGI broke that partnership. That was around the time SGI helped nVidia compete and eventually trample 3DFX, providing the modern geometry acceleration in all video cards.
It could be argued that Microsoft was as much as key player in all of this as IDsoftware and their release of Quake. But many other companies were hot on their tail. It would have happened with or without them.
“apple tried to patent the gui so that no one else could use it. Not the technology, but the look of it. In the end they lost. All because of MS refusing to lose and they won.”
This isn’t really true. Xerox stepped in as the maker of the “original” GUI and told them both to shut up and settle or they (Xerox) would make monkeys out of both of them. You can’t patent when there is prior art and Xerox has that prior art.
I hate MS windows all together. Ok, I take that back, windows 95 was ok for a season. But after experiencing Mac OS 9 and now OS X, it makes Windows nothing to me. Except a pain to use. So when I do buy my pc, it will run red hat or some Linux.
“Even with 20 you’d be looking at 500 systems a piece.”
Hmm… Since It took me on average about 2 Hours to do this,
your looking at 5.5 Months. Not that daunting really.
( most systems would take less than 1 man/hour for backup/clone/restore,
but a few could be really pesky )…
“With a GUI system you don’t have such flexibility,
you’re offered the method they chose to give you of doing it, and often times it doesn’t always go as far as your creativity can.”
I dont care what microsoft has offered, ( usually lame, but have yet to actually use the automated network install utility,
So: I just clone the damn systems, and delete the SIDs and have
the user do that part of the install…
“Easy, (for Windows), it’s called RIS and SMS… (as long as your got bootable NIC’s your laughing).
Oh yea…now I remember…Thanks. This makes the argument trivial, and the most important part of the process the initial hardware survey.
Ya figure if a double PHD MD or Microbiology could do it,
an average houseplant could do with the right instructions…
But this really boils down the IT budget into making users into numbers, and slamming them in tiny boxes. What would the individual departments think? How about the Powerusers?
“Man, you need help in planning…”
Oh ya!!!!!! and logistics too!
QUOTE
1994 Cairo Takes OLE to New Levels
http://www.byte.com/art/9411/sec9/art11.htm
The next version of Windows NT, code-named Cairo and targeted for release sometime in 1995, will be built around the concepts of objects and component software. It will have a native OFS (Object File System) and distributed system support.
1995 Signs to Cairo
http://www.byte.com/art/9511/sec6/art14.htm
Cairo, Microsoft’s object-oriented successor to Windows NT, will begin beta testing in early 1996 for release in 1997. Although Microsoft is not revealing the full details of Cairo yet, there are enough clues within current Microsoft OSes to yield a good idea of how it might work.
1996 Unearthing Cairo
http://www.byte.com/art/9611/sec10/art5.htm
At the first NT developers conference in 1992, Bill Gates announced that Cairo would arrive in three years and would incorporate object-oriented technologies, especially an object file system. Since then, we’ve seen Windows NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, and most recently NT 4.0. None is object oriented, none has an object file system, none is Cairo. It seems that Cairo is Microsoft’s sly way of promising the world. “Will we see Plug and Play in NT?” “Oh yes, of course, in Cairo.” “Will NT ever produce world peace and cheap antigravity?” “You bet — in Cairo.”
UNQUOTE
The so call Longhorn WinFS directory is just another rencarnation of the Cairo object orientated file system.
QUOTE
September 1, 2003 Eweek ‘Longhorn’ Rollout Slips
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1235502,00.asp
Microsoft Corp. has once again shifted the schedule for the release of “Longhorn,” the company’s next major version of Windows, leaving some users up in the air about an upgrade path.
Microsoft executives from Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates on down have long described Longhorn as the Redmond, Wash., company’s most revolutionary operating system to date. The product was originally expected to ship next year. Then in May of this year, officials pushed back the release date to 2005. But now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship.
“We do not yet know the time frame for Longhorn, but it will involve a lot of innovative and exciting work,” said Gates at a company financial analyst meeting this summer. Since then, other Microsoft officials have neither retracted nor clarified Gates’ statement.
UNQUOTE
If anything, Linux does not get contracts at Munich or tenders at Beijing simply because of features. It boils down simply to price. Microsoft wants something to kill Linux? Give away Windows free. Not sure how that would help their business, but it sure can kill Linux.
Anonymous is sort of right. Microsoft settled with Apple. Actually it was a huge Apple blunder. The agreement stated that only Windows 3.1 would not look like the Mac. So Win 95 was free and clear.
You missed the point of a “open” platform in MS eyes! The PC platform was never intended to be “open”. IBM created it for cheap from bits-n-pieces built by smaller companies, but controlled the specs and BIOS so you always had to pay a IBM tax for PC hardware. MS double-dealed on them and helped other players like Compaq “crack” the PC so MS could sell more software! As long as the “open” market kept any major HARDWARE vendors from gaining too much control, then MS could have it’s way with selling software to keep the PC market glued together.
OOPS, someone created Linux that runs on all this “common” hardware so people don’t have to pay MS! NOW open hardware is in the way of MS, so it’s now a “bad thing”. MS has to create a hardware lock without actually pissing off all the little makers and driving them away. Hence, “trusted” computing, palladium, etc.
So true, they were important…in the EXACT SAME WAY that linux is important now! MS allowed users to throw off hardware masters, now OSS allows users to throw off the Software masters as well. OOPS! turn about’s fair play!
Microsoft hasn’t been a innovator on the PC GUI front ever!!
The first really nice GUI for the PC was Gem in the mid 80’s. But Microsoft managed to kill them by spreading FUD. They went on and on about how their GUI is going to be so much better and would be released soon… They did this so people wouldn’t be as apt to develope software for Gem..
Sadly it worked…
And then there was OS/2, even in the early 1.x versions you had a nice windows 3.0 like GUI and could run DOS programs in a DOS box. By OS/2 2.0 came out you had a fully multi-tasking 32bit GUI based OS that could run Windows 3.0 apps, DOS apps, and of course native OS/2 apps. It was released in March of 1992!!!!
So no… Microsoft didn’t do a thing for GUIs on the PC, other than crushing the competition until finally Windows 95 killed them all off.
And I’m not a Microsoft hater, in fact I’m writing this on Windows XP right now.
I’m just pointing out that Microsoft has hurt the industry and innovation more than they have helped anything. The reason they are where they are today is because of crushing anyone or anything that’s a threat to them.
And personally I hope Linux steals a big chunk of the PC desktop market from them. It would be the best thing for the PC world!
I think a Workstation based on 2003 Server Web Edition would be an easy move, just turn on the desktop features on by default, tighten up the screws, speed it up, and release it. If they didn’t put the usual ten user limitation on it, I could see it being a hot ticket for low end personal servers. A Server Home Edition couldn’t hurt the product line. Once again use the web edition as a base and increase the amount of RAM it can access and uncripple the Active directory functions maybe dumb it down a bit too. Then sell it along side their hardware line. I think they should bundle the 64-bit edition with the 32-bit one.
Microsoft seems to dry run features. There is an equivalent or distant relative of the upcoming WinFS in the form of the indexing service on Win2000 and up. Another example is the remote desktop feature in XP. It used to be Netmeeting then it was folded into the OS.
Microsoft is filled with sharks. They know what they want. They are very focused and very willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want. In short they are a good business.
Love and flowers don’t win wars. “Throwing off the software masters”? Apple is the only company that can make money off hardware. The rest of the industry’s margins are bleeding they’re so thin. Watch for comoditization to become a buzzword in the future.
I am a bit wary of touching this hot potato around here, but personally I find it hard to imagine that a truly open hardware platform (x86) would have been likely without MSFT. Apple, Amiga, BeOS (BeBox) were all very proprietary hardware solutions, as aesthetically nice as they were. Even IBM tried to lock-in the burgeoning x86 platform with MCA (Micro-channel architecture bus) in the late ’80s and was stopped by MSFT and Compaq (EISA bus won).
IBM didn’t use it as a “lock-in”, infact, they were willing to license it, for a fee, however, when you weigh up EISA and MCA, was the licensing cost REALLY worth the difference between MCA?
Could you imagine if IBM submitted MCA to an open standard body? today the whole PnP debate would never had happened because MCA bought to the desktop what PCI eventually did years later.
Anyway, back on-topic, we will all get our first real look at Longhorn when the developer’s version is released at the MSFT Professional Developer’s Conference in Los Angeles late next month. This will be very interesting and should answer a lot of questions.
Even then I would be skeptical considering that when MacOS X 1.0 server was released, people assumed that the client would be a direct copy of it, however, they were later proven wrong when they found out that Quartz/Quartz Extreme and PDF would replace Postscipt display what was used in MacOS X 1.0 Server.
If you need to setup 10,000 computers urself, your IT budget is severly underfunded. I’ve never heard such a ridiculous claim. You’re either a mac zealot or a linux zealot.
Can be easily done either via:
1) Create a master image, Ghost it then put it onto a CD and let a hoard of pencil pushers install it.
2) Redhat Kickstart installation.
For updates, place in the startup script a automatic apt-get update install checker in which the PC automatically checks against a local intranet distro mirror, downloads the updates then automatically reboots once the installation has taken place.
Simply place the updates on the local server, request that the users reboot at the end of the day, and the user will have an automatically updated desktop then next day.
My friends have said that the stagnant stock price (no real movement in four years) coupled with the conversion from options to shares is impacting employee morale. MS is just not minting millionaires anymore. The slip in Longhorn may simply be that no one is motivated to work on the code. People who got two million or more in compensation during the bubble don’t care a lot about working for a salary and some minor stock appreciation.
Hence the reason why I am a big fan of profit sharing. Ring fence 10% of the yearly profit and allocate so that there is an incentive to all employees to work that extra bit harder, also, there needs to be a programme in place where by employees can feel confortable approaching management when they come up with new and innovative ideas. If all the ideas simply come from management, you will end up with the SUN effect. Great leadership with a very narrow vision.
It seems microsoft bit off a little more than they can chew this time. Instead of making new 32bit icons like they usually do they actually promised security. Boy do they wish they could take that back. They wouldnt know security if they were slapped on the back of the head with a nightstick. They cant possibly handle a new file system, security, and new dance numbers for clippy, in addition to their usual task of icon upgrades. But then again they always have idependent software code to steal.
apple tried to patent the gui so that no one else could use it. Not the technology, but the look of it. In the end they lost. All because of MS refusing to lose and they won. If MS had lost, then if you wanted a computer with a gui, you’d have to buy a high priced mac. Now gui’s are in most OS’s including linux, so thank MS for that one.
True, however, when Steve Jobs was bought on board, along with cost cutting, the first things was to stop all useless suites that didn’t have a dog show of winning. The net result? they settled. Microsoft now acknowledges Apple as an influence along with Xerox. IIRC, SUN does the same thing along with acknowledging contributions from the BSD community.
So, long story short : no kidding here. Thanks to Microsoft. Ok, now we have a monopoly on power, but not on the weapons. They can still be fought with the weapons.
Apple tried to get a monopoly on the weapons, which is infinitely worst, as it crush even the HOPE of resistance.
If Microsoft was truely interesting in improving the PC industry, there would be a push for a universal open standard so that all PC vendors could support then allow vendors to build on that. What we have now are PCs with 1000s of combinations, net result? it is almost next to impossible to create a stable and secure operating system. Even if Microsoft did a line by line code audit and fixed EVERY bug in Windows, there would still be people suffering from BSOD’s.
The simply fact of the problem is that the PC is the cause of all of Windows problems NOT Windows. I’ve seen Windows servers run for months only requiring downtime when installing system related patches, I have seen Windows workstations work for months without suffering from constant BSOD’s. Ultimately, it is time for the hardware businesses to take responsibility for the quality control instead of always passing the buck to Microsoft as if it was some sort of sacrificial lamb for everything that is wrong in the world.
There are an awful lot of seriously deluded people in this thread !
Linux, end of MS, vapourware…… get a life !
It’ll happen. It’ll probably be pretty good too.
“Without them, we’d still be all using command lines instead of enjoying digital media and e-commerce.”
Are u sure? Tell me, how old r u? :-):-)
Eugenia:
Yes, but it was Microsoft’s Windows95 that kicked the GUI to most people and sold millions of PCs because of that. You like it or not, Win95 did change the landscape of computers and the market.
No, that would have been Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0 was the first version to *really* “take off” and, arguably, bring a GUI system to the masses. Windows 95 was a massive, long-awaited, exceptionally popular upgrade, to be sure, but Windows 3.0 was where it all started.
xander:
And then there was OS/2, even in the early 1.x versions you had a nice windows 3.0 like GUI and could run DOS programs in a DOS box.
OS/2 didn’t have a GUI until version 2.0, where the WPS debuted – and it vastly superior to the Windows GUI (in some ways still is). Unfortunately, OS/2 2.0 was quite a dog – very slow on the hardware of the day. 2.1 was significantly faster, although still slower than Windows 3.x (much more stable and better multitasking though, of course). The WPS has always been an excellent environment (ignoring the ridiculous shortcut keys).
So no… Microsoft didn’t do a thing for GUIs on the PC, other than crushing the competition until finally Windows 95 killed them all off.
Rubbish. Windows 3.0 changed the perception of GUIs to “mainstream” from “toys” in the PC world. While it’s arguable as to whether or not the PC world would have been a better place if Microsoft had stuck with OS/2 instead of writing Windows 3.0, no honest historian would deny the massive impact Windows 3.0 had. To say they did “nothing other than crushing the competition” is either simple ignorance or wilful deception.
OS/2 was pretty much dying from that point on. It fought valiantly and until the release of Windows 95 had significant advantages in terms of stability and multitasking. After that those advantages were less clear, and NT4 was basically the final nail in the coffin (certainly it was for me and all the other OS/2 holdouts I knew).
I’m just pointing out that Microsoft has hurt the industry and innovation more than they have helped anything.
Bullshit. Like it or not, they had a *massive* impact on the computing world, and are probably the single biggest reason you can go out and buy a brand new super-fast PC for $500 with a nice, easy to use GUI.
Now, you may argue that some other company may have done it differently, or better, or worse (although there’s little to suggest either of those last two options would apply). But the fact remains that in our timeline, Microsoft was the company that was there and that’s not going to change.
You can sit there and say “but, what if […]” for as long as you want, but it’s never going to make any difference to the things that have already happened.
Maybe Commodore’s Amiga would have ruled the world.
Maybe Apple would have licenced their OS and we’d be paying $5,000 for a 180Mhz G3 running MacOS 9.5 and still waiting for Rhapsody.
Maybe Microsoft and IBM had never split and we’d be paying $5,000 for Pentium Pro 200Mhz machines with MCA2 slots running OS/2 XP.
Etc.
The reason they are where they are today is because of crushing anyone or anything that’s a threat to them.
The reason they are where they are today is because they were quicker, smarter, luckier and more ruthless than everyone else. Same way every other company that’s on top of its respective heap got there. Don’t kid yourself that other companies haven’t been – or tried to be – just as bad (Apple, IBM) or would have been any nicer given the same chances.
Misc:
There’s a whole bunch of people who obviously didn’t pay much attention to what was going on in computing in the 80s and 90s (or weren’t old enough to do so). Get down to a library and spend a few days reading through old industry mags like Byte. It tends to be equal parts enlightening, frightening, and frustrating.
If Microsoft was truely interesting in improving the PC industry, there would be a push for a universal open standard so that all PC vendors could support then allow vendors to build on that.
They tried several times, but the demand for legacy support was too high.
Microsoft tried numerous times to define standards that dropped troublesome and obselete hardware like the ISA bus, parallel ports, floppy drives, etc (and software, too) but no-one was interested in buying it. Incidentally, they got blasted from all sides for trying to “take over the hardware” as well. Unfortunately, since Microsoft aren’t in the same position, say, Apple are to just cut off hardware support and tell its customer to upgrade (at least not for a lot longer), they have to continue kludging around broken hardware and software because that’s what they customers want.
Rubbish. Windows 3.0 changed the perception of GUIs to “mainstream” from “toys” in the PC world. While it’s arguable as to whether or not the PC world would have been a better place if Microsoft had stuck with OS/2 instead of writing Windows 3.0, no honest historian would deny the massive impact Windows 3.0 had. To say they did “nothing other than crushing the competition” is either simple ignorance or wilful deception.
I agree that Microsoft did more than just crushing their competitors. By an aggressive marketing and doubtful partnerships with companies like IBM, Microsoft was able to bring their OS and technologies to the desktop of end-users.
That’s one thing. But stating that Windows 3.0 was an important player in the early games of graphical user interfaces is a major mistake. Developers actually laughed at this simple program, built on top of MS-DOS. The only reason why Windows 3.x became popular was because of Microsoft’s older MS-DOS operating system – it was already running on top of hundreds of thousands computers in the late 80’ies and early 90’ies. Windows 3.0 made it easy for the user to get a simple GUI for the computer with out buying a new product like OS/2. And you were still able to run your favourite programs and applications.
Stating that Windows 3.0 was the major succes behind the great software company from Redmond is wrong. The main power was MS-DOS. And it’s still floating around in the binary depths of many old hard drives around the world.
Don’t forget your OS roots – wether you like it or not. Personally, I didn’t like MS-DOS, neither Windows. But becaude of the many programs, applications, tight integration with the Internet and multimedia possibilities, I’m using it.
That’s one thing. But stating that Windows 3.0 was an important player in the early games of graphical user interfaces is a major mistake.
But it was. The Windows 3.x series, starting with 3.0, was the first “real” Windows GUI. Prior versions – which I think you are remembering – were primitive programs that couldn’t even have overlapping windows.
Windows 3.0 was *huge*. Proportionally (relative to the customer base), it was probably the single most popular Windows product ever sold.
The only reason why Windows 3.x became popular was because of Microsoft’s older MS-DOS operating system – it was already running on top of hundreds of thousands computers in the late 80’ies and early 90’ies.
No, 3.x became popular because it was from Microsoft, available, ran acceptably on the hardware of the day and actually started offering real, tangible advantages.
Stating that Windows 3.0 was the major succes behind the great software company from Redmond is wrong.
That’s not what I said at all. Although Windows 3.x was certainly the final pillar of the Microsoft empire, it wasn’t the software that made them a name (at least, if you can remember computing before 1990).
Some companies were still *installing* Windows 3.x based systems as late as *1998*. It was a phenomenally popular piece of software, particularly given the much smaller market of the early to mid 90s.
Don’t forget your OS roots – wether you like it or not.
Er, not quite sure what that’s meant to mean. No-one could seriously deny all non-NT versions of Windows have their roots in MS-DOS.
Of course “having roots in” is a long way from “is the same as”, which is what all the Windows-is-just-a-GUI-on-DOS crowd try to say.
Ever read about the rumors saying XP is Cairo? Some people proved it with greek letters, where “X” is Chi (pronounced Cai) and “P” is Rho…
Draw your own conclusions, this is just all the rope you want…
[/i]”I’m looking forward to Longhorn. I thought it couldn’t get any better than XP… but the improvements in graphics, IE, DRM and windows media player are astounding! I think all you Linux nuts don’t realize how important Microsoft was to computing. Without them, we’d still be all using command lines instead of enjoying digital media and e-commerce.”,/i>
Listen Sonny – when I was a grad student 14 years ago (this was befor Linux even existed), I was working on Sun 3 workstation with with a windowing GUI that was way better than anything MS could offer in Windows at the time. Unix is not all command lines and hasn’t been ever since the development of X. The Mac people would object even more to your distortion of history
Without Tim Berners-Lee and CERN there would be no Web and without Mosaic and Netscape there would be no graphics enabled (let alone multimedia) browsers and NO IE. MS ignored the web untill it thought it was being threatened.
MS does not innovate it copies, steals and buys up new technology.
Maybe that they can’t decide when to release Longhorn because they can’t find anything new to steal for it 😉
“If you need to setup 10,000 computers urself, your IT budget is severly underfunded. I’ve never heard such a ridiculous claim. You’re either a mac zealot or a linux zealot.”
Or you work for Google 😉
I recently downloaded an old mac emulator and installed … wait for it…. mac OS 1.0 … almost 20 years old now. The GUI in that is awesome in its own now-utterly-useless way.
XP is by far the best os MS has ever produced. Still not good enough though. And every single version of windows crashes on me (but then the PC might know that I preffer macs and therefore does it intentionally to annoy me)
and going further off topic, By far the most stable OS I have ever used was mac OS 8.6 (it simply never crashed). 10.2 comes a close second (with one crash since I bought it). Redhat would be third but I screwed around with sysconfig files a bit to much and now its not talking to me anymore.
-reading these comments is hilarious, it takes me back to when I was an active mac fanatic. The enemy in those days were ofcourse amiga users and PC’s were nothing to us.
last note: does anyone else think “longhorn” sounds like something guys sometimes wake up with in the morning.
“< sorry I dont have a cool quote thing > “
longhorn, yep that is indeed what it will be
a longhorn to shaft everyone who buys it….
I don’t “really” mean to troll, but,
windows server 2003 will be including RMS, I think this is a very bad idea both for the users and for Microsoft. The users will be tied into using server 2003 along with the latest version of office. Others will be unable to view their documents unless they are using the same…. Users MUST upgrade, bad for users.
If they are taken to court again over bad business practices or monopolising, the judge only has to mention that RMS is locking down customers to Microsoft that they are instantly guilty.
Microsoft will have no problem introducing RMD into longhorn as they will say their customers on Windows Server 2003 love it and would not be able to live without it, etc etc
… is that people complain about the “2 year upgrade cycle”, but now it is a “4 year, maybe more” upgrade cycle those same people really seem to care!
Of course I think MS are realising that a 4 year upgrade cycle might not be so good for them since the competition (Linux, Apple) get time to out-innovate them.
I fully expect some interim release, or other mischief so that MS brand awareness is kept as high as it always has been.
Of course, they have OEMs by the nuts so they are guaranteed income – but, that income shrinks with the declining PC market.
With the (to date) failure of the ‘tablet PC’ (oh, those poor corridor warriors, they have to use a laptop or – shock – a notepad and shorthand) and with XP MediaCenter looking very dull, Longhorn really is all MS has got to keep people interested. It is ‘mysterious’ and is full of promise, unlike, say, the recent release of Office 2003 (yawn – now you need a back-end server to type your letter)
If MS is to go the way of IBM (ie not so much dominant player), then it will surely be over the next couple of years. If the MS brand survives that then they will probably survive easily as they are for another 30 years before the next generation of kids discover how much better *nix really is …
Hopefully I’ll have grown old and left the politics of computing long behind by then …
Re: What amuses me…
I was thinking that exact same thing – you can’t please anyone.
If you’re a kid or newer hobbyist, upgrading all the time is fine. But if you have work to do, or you’re past all the customizing garbage in your hobbyist evolution the old 2 year upgrade cycle was horse*&^%.
Enterprises were complaining about the 2 year upgrade cycle as well and the vast majority were skipping a version between upgrades. Now we have 1 release (XP) lasting for 4 years. Aside from morons who bought the upgade licenses, for most other people, it works well. Win98 lasted almost 4 years since 2K was mostly geared toward the enterprise. By the time XP came out, 98 had most of the bugs worked out, games and app developers could build upon each other’s code and experience and many of the applications were mature. The web-wide knowledge base (the corporate knowledge of all users, not the MS KB) on 98 was enormous. 98 didn’t lose share, it solidified it.
By the time Longhorn comes out, XP won’t be falling back, but even more entrenched than 98 was. XP doesn’t steal Apple or Linux % points – it steals previous versions of Windows share. I love Apple, but I’m a realist.
MS doesn’t have anything to worry about, except that its licensing scheme will lose a lot of steam or need to be seriously restructured. And of course since MS is a business, everyone who bought licenses will rise up in a fury and demand the upgrade and get it.
OS/2 is still alive! eCS is a “distribution” of it and IBM still sell it . Longhorne is ment to have an object orientated(by incorporated Stardock’s Object desktop) Gui-Well Done MS it’s what 12 years to catch up
.
Emo wrote
“think a Workstation based on 2003 Server Web Edition would be an easy move, just turn on the desktop features on by default, tighten up the screws, speed it up, and release it. If they didn’t put the usual ten user limitation on it, I could see it being a hot ticket for low end personal servers. A Server Home Edition couldn’t hurt the product line. Once again use the web edition as a base and increase the amount of RAM it can access and uncripple the Active directory functions maybe dumb it down a bit too. Then sell it along side their hardware line. I think they should bundle the 64-bit edition with the 32-bit one.”
While I agree this would be a good idea, to refer to this process as an “easy move” is being a bit hard on Microsoft! You’re talking about an entirely different product based on the same core functionality. Sortof more a cutdown version of SBS2003 (It has the nice and simple user wizards for configuration you seem to be asking for) but even with that I don’t think the task is trivial or even close.
Also:
“Microsoft seems to dry run features… Another example is the remote desktop feature in XP. It used to be Netmeeting then it was folded into the OS.”
Netmeeting is an entirely different product (still available buried in XP…).
Remote Desktop was Terminal Services which was I believe licenced technology from Citrix.
Am I in a minority here? XP’s interface is clunky and garish and immediately turned back to the “classic” desktop. The “handy features” (hide inactive icons, clear desktop) are turned off as intrusive. The new start menu a thrown together mess. If I use it it has to be turned back to look more like the simpler and more elegant 2k desktop.
That apart, while some of the ideas are nice (system restore is a winner IMO) they’ve flubbed too much at it and XP is far more unreliable for me than 2000. Far more prone to freezes, far more prone to blue screen even (if enabled, rather than just auto-reboot).
Mark: Do you have any clue at all?
Andrew: I would suggest finding some driver replacements and such, or perhaps checking out your RAM, and even looking up the error codes in your BSOD to find out what is actually causing the problem.
Also, just because you can’t cope well with UI change doesn’t mean it’s a bad UI. The new Start Menu is flat out great in terms of UI design, it brings your most recently used apps right to your fingertips, as well as settings and such, and keeps all your regular apps in the same exact location, not taking any amount of extra effort to get to.
Some other stuff is only good if you are a newbie, but still good overall as it can be turned off if you wish, however it is non-intrusive