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 243774
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:2006-03-23
Member since:2006-02-05
err, how is microsnot doing a good job because there exists third party stuff?
MS bends over backwards to give the best tools, APIs, and environment for commercial application development.
besides, linux supports more hardware devices than vista does, third party drivers included...
Linux may support more legacy hardware, but I call BS on third party drivers. Supporting closed source driver development on linux is pure hell, it requires a re-release for every minor release of the kernel (even bug fixes can break the ABI).
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.
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
True, but at the same time, I would love to know where the move went freom 'these are ideas' to "this is going to definately appear in Windows Vista" - because if that was the case, why wasn't Microsoft coming out ahd saying, "hey, what was said at the symposium were mearly ideas, they're not concrete!"
With that being said, I could never really understand why people thought it was a dud; Microsoft never said it was going to spur computer growth; infact the only people who said all the crap surrounding so-called 'Vista explosion' were those half-witt day trading analysts who have less honesty than a second hand car dealers and know as much about the future as the local tarror card reader and 0900 phone up psychic.
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.
True, but who announced that it was part of Windows? why did they announce it when they ended up having to change things? why not simply say, "we're working on this, but there is no assurance it'll get into Windows Vista" - no one is let down.
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.
Who said that? making sure something actually works is not an 'apple thing'. Make sure you've actually got the bloody code in the tree and internally tested before you open your big mouth to promote it. Its pretty damn logical. You don't promote a concert till you know that the singer will actually turn up. Same goes for software, don't promote it till it is actually in there in a state where you can confidently say that when when the product ships, that feature will be in there too.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
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.