Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 28th May 2007 21:07 UTC
"There are a myriad of both subtle and fundamental differences in the basic architecture of Windows Server 2008, which could dramatically change not only the way it's used in the enterprise, but also the logical and physical structure of networks where it's the dominant OS. The abilities to consolidate servers, to manage hardware more effectively, to remotely manage hardware without the graphical traffic, and to radically alter the system security model, could present a more compelling argument for customers to plan their WS2K8 migrations now, than the arguments for moving from Windows 2000 to Server 2003."
Thread beginning with comment 243745
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
It does beg the question as to what will eventually be delivered, doesn't it? Vista is an excellent example of over promising and under delivering, at least in terms of bullet list features.
Depends on how you define as 'lack of delivery'. The problem is that Microsoft went too far into detail about what they wanted to deliver, and they said it too early. They talked about the specifics of the project which then built up hype. The hype was like a snow ball, it bought on a life of its own.
For example, the searching capabilities should have been kept to something simple as "Windows Vista will improve the speed and accuracy of searching" - and then, as parts were actually finalised and merged into Windows Vista, announce that a certain feature will be made available. In otherwords, making sure that what you say has actually been done before announcing it.
As for the rest of the post; lets remember, for all the trashing and bashing of Microsoft, they actually do a pretty damn good job. What other operating system out there has the same depth and bredth of software support as Windows? what other operating system has the same level of not only out of the box hardware support, but the number of ISV's who create drivers.
Until there is an operating system that reaches the same level of Windows Vista, both in software availablility and hardware support, I find it very rich when I hear people on this forum bash Microsoft senselessly whilst ignoring the flaws in their operating system of choice.
Member since:2006-03-23
Member since:2005-11-21
Depends on how you define as 'lack of delivery'. The problem is that Microsoft went too far into detail about what they wanted to deliver, and they said it too early. They talked about the specifics of the project which then built up hype. The hype was like a snow ball, it bought on a life of its own.
For example, the searching capabilities should have been kept to something simple as "Windows Vista will improve the speed and accuracy of searching" - and then, as parts were actually finalised and merged into Windows Vista, announce that a certain feature will be made available. In otherwords, making sure that what you say has actually been done before announcing it.
For example, the searching capabilities should have been kept to something simple as "Windows Vista will improve the speed and accuracy of searching" - and then, as parts were actually finalised and merged into Windows Vista, announce that a certain feature will be made available. In otherwords, making sure that what you say has actually been done before announcing it.
But why is that a "problem"? That's the part no one can really explain. The only "problem" it caused was the massive amount of bad press they recieved. Truthfully, 99% of that bad press is from sources aimed at geeks and techies (i.e. the slashdot-arstechnica-osnews-toms hardware crowd) not at the real developers, hardware makers, or corporate customers. That's who Microsoft published that information for... that's who WinHec and the PDC are for.
By revealing their plans early they were able to get tons of feedback and make numerous design changes that developers requested. Anyone REALLY following the situation knows that. WinFS when it was first introduced was a Windows Client-only product that used completely different API's than all of Microsoft's other server products. Moving WinFS into their server/office products (think Exchange, Sharepoint, SQL Server) and unifying the API's and technology with SQL Server completely changed the scope of the project but nonetheless WinFS would suck without those changes.
To say it would have been better if MS had just pulled "an Apple" and just released it without giving time to make changes and recieve feedback is stupid.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-12-15
It does beg the question as to what will eventually be delivered, doesn't it? Vista is an excellent example of over promising and under delivering, at least in terms of bullet list features.
That said, I don't think we should be casting Microsoft with such a negative stroke of the brush.. just yet. These announcements are very much public and expectations are beginning to be set. These additions, whilst existing in other operating systems, do push Windows in the right direction. This is something we all need.
Speculation at this point that they wont deliver is about as reliable as speculating that they will deliver. They'll have learnt some big lessons from the Vista experience I'd imagine.
Probably best to wait and see and reserve judgement for a while.
Edited 2007-05-28 22:33