Microsoft is clearing the fog around its move into 64-bit computing. At the Windows .Net Server DevCon conference here this week, Microsoft devoted much of its time to a new 64-bit Windows release and accompanying applications, which are due to reach customers early next year.Yesterday, a Microsoft executive touted the company’s planned next-generation release of Windows, codenamed “Longhorn,” which will not appear until the 2004 timeframe. Microsoft wants developers to push the limits of the Windows server platform, he stressed.
Elsewhere, Brian Valentine, senior vice-president in charge of Microsoft’s Windows development, has made a grim admission to the Microsoft Windows Server .net developer conference in Seattle, USA:
“I’m not proud,” he told delegates on 5th of September. “We really haven’t done everything we could to protect our customers. Our products just aren’t engineered for security,” admitted Valentine, who since 1998 has headed Microsoft’s Windows division.
Reding most of the Longhorn article it is all marketing dribble.
In the area of security, Microsoft’s Palladium project will secure machine integrity, Allchin said.
To improve “network intelligence,” Microsoft will drive adoption of IPV6.
Allchin panned Linux, comparing it to a puppy that is cute upon arrival, but then the owner suddenly realizes he must bear the burden of housetraining, feeding, and walking the animal.
Microsoft would be much better off if it shut up and created better products instead. They can do it, but they would rather make money.
“They can do it, but they would rather make money.”
I don’t know about that
Well thats a yes and a no. I believe yes of course they wonna make money so that’s why their product prices such as the MS Office suite and Windows XP (full edition) are over the roof which is silly.
Microsoft always puts the user first so in my opinion, they can do it, they just need more time.
Talking about time, argh…here comes the time issue. Someone else will do it before them so what? They will take over it anyway so no need to rush
Prices? You charge a lot of money for the product, then take your time and make it better! Bug free…I know it’s difficult the create a crash-proof, bug free products, I am a programmer my self so I know how it is, but it is not impossible, all you need is time
“Someone else will do it before them so what?”
Oops
Does that mean someone else is better then them? lol 
“They will take over it anyway so no need to rush
”
Nope I don’t think so
So the MS version is better? Umm may be yeah
Ummm, cough…cough good…marketing…cough..cough..
I’ve previously mentioned in these forums of the tens-of-seconds-long-lags I’ve eXPerieced, and after trying the beta 32bit version of Windows .NET Server I can say that the problems haven’t gone away. Click the shutdown button and the confirmation dialog takes up to a minute to come up. The system just locks up again and again. The codebase is getting sick.
Windows 2000 was good, this ain’t.
//
As for the quote about security in Windows, well, I wonder what will happen to the guy?
before moving to 64 bits Microsoft should firts cleanly finish its move to 32 bits.
Anyone launched edit in a cmd.exe ? this will, launch the complete 16 bits environment and use way much memory ….
—
http://homepage.mac.com/softkid/
Wow, how wonderful all your new bits, are, your excellency.
We love your hacked 32/64 bit coding model.
Microsoft is incapable of making Windows XP work without bloat, incompatibility, memory corruption, speed decrease, memory increase, and tons and tons of paint bugs.
Why would someone move to .NET server? For more bugs? For a 30MB semi-interpreted .NYET API that doesn’t work?
Nothing like a good old-fashioned monopoly to improve performance and lower prices, eh?
You don’t want to waste that RAM? Don’t run 16-bit programs. Same thing with Classic in MacOS X.
Would you prefer Windows still _be_ a 16-bit environment (as parts of the Win9x “kernel” are)?
“Microsoft always puts the user first so in my opinion, they can do it, they just need more time.”
I’m still laughing … thanks. You made my morning. “…puts the user first …” Wow … I’m just trying to picture what it’d be like if they DIDN’T put the user first, then …
Saying that Microsoft’s pricing/licensing is “silly” is a disservice to users everywhere. It’s not silly, it’s just plain wrong. But then, they are a monopoly, after all. And we all know they have nothing but OUR best interests at heart …
Alex: They can do it, but they would rather make money.
They aren’t a non-profit organization. they want to make money.
Alex: I believe yes of course they wonna make money so that’s why their product prices such as the MS Office suite and Windows XP (full edition) are over the roof which is silly.
Tell me a competitor to Office and Windows that are making money selling their products are prices way lower than Microsoft’s. Who?
Another matthew: As for the quote about security in Windows, well, I wonder what will happen to the guy?
Nothing. Firing him would cause a even bigger PR problem. Besides, acknolegding one’s problem is quite a good PR – at least potental customers knows that Microsoft is trying to improve the situation.
Longtime Windows Developer: We love your hacked 32/64 bit coding model.
Windows NT is portable code. Windows .NET Server’s port to 64-bit processors is as good as a port of Linux to 64-bit processors.
Longtime Windows Developer: and tons and tons of paint bugs.
I really wonder how paint bugs would hamper use in servers?
Rob: It’s not silly, it’s just plain wrong. But then, they are a monopoly, after all.
Plain wrong? I dare you to find someone else that is making money selling something cheaper.
Besides, Microsoft doesn’t have a monopoly in the server arena. It has a monopoly in the x86 desktop arena, but most sales of Windows are OEM version selling at less than $40.
Why does everyone here have to bring up Windows XP? Windows .NET Server may be related to Windows XP, but
a) it isn’t Windows XP
b) It doesn’t have a monopoly
c) I bet most of you don’t know its price, but are complaining about Windows XP’s price.
“Tell me a competitor to Office and Windows that are making money selling their products are prices way lower than Microsoft’s. Who?”
StarOffice, GobeProductive, Lotus
I forgot to mention Red Hat Linux
“I’m still laughing … thanks. You made my morning. ”
Yeah anytime no problem
“It’s not silly, it’s just plain wrong.
I would agree with that.
Microsoft can make good products and make money at the same time. But most of the time they would rather push something bad through and make more money and try and clean up later.
Why did they push NT through instead of OS/2?
Why hasn’t their scripting been redesigned for security?
They are not an engineering company they are a marketing one.
I really wonder how paint bugs would hamper use in servers?
Yeah, graphic bugs haven’t downed a server since the days of NT4
Tell me a competitor to Office and Windows that are making money selling their products are prices way lower than Microsoft’s. Who?
Oh you’re encouraging topic drift with that one. Every alternative Office is cheaper than Windows these days. As for operating systems, well, if you can get the staff there are many cheaper alternatives. If you can avoid Windows it’ll continue paying itself off as more and more addons are available free or cheap on the alternatives.
//
Microsoft haven’t had my interests in mind since they released that awful Media Player 7 (6.4 was great). Since 2000/2001 they haven’t impressed me.
I see Microsoft still has not mentioned any upcoming version of Windows XP, or any other version for Windows to support AMD’s x86-64 archetecture though.
What gives?
“StarOffice, GobeProductive, Lotus”
He said “making money”. Try again.
-G
Alex: StarOffice, GobeProductive, Lotus
Sun doesn’t make money on StarOffice, only losses. GobeProductive sales is that bad that Gobe is going down. Lotus is practically dead, only IBM pushes SmartSuite *a little*.
I said *profitable* companies.
Richard: Why did they push NT through instead of OS/2?
Of all the stories I have read about it, it was because of IBM. IBM wanted to make OS/2 IBM-only. Microsoft disagree. Microsoft-IBM marriage dies. Microsoft hires pissed-off VMS engineers.
Another matthew: Oh you’re encouraging topic drift with that one. Every alternative Office is cheaper than Windows these days. As for operating systems, well, if you can get the staff there are many cheaper alternatives.
Are any of the companies behind it profitable?
(BTW, I didn’t start the topic drift).
Dennis: I see Microsoft still has not mentioned any upcoming version of Windows XP, or any other version for Windows to support AMD’s x86-64 archetecture though.
I was about to ask that, but I started replying to all these bashings I forgot. Yeah, why was x86-64 excluded? It is the easiest port of the lot.
Ok, so Sun, GobeProductive and Lotus may not be making money by selling their office suits cheaply. I would assume your point is, the “making money” thing, so by having cheaper products they won’t be making any money.
I agree and that is Ok but still Microsoft’s pricing of their product is WAY too high. It’s ridiculous.
I am sure if MS wipes out a few hundred $$$ they would still be making money.
Are any of the companies behind it profitable?
Well, for operating systems, Redhat have been profitable for a year now http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2002/press_Q4-2002.html ; QNX have been profitable every year of its business. I guess Apple have been – I’m not sure about that one!
So far as office suites go, Lotus was profitable a while ago, but yeah – the companies trying to sell suites are doomed in the face of MS Office. The point that you were responding to though was whether MS Office was overpriced, and you responded wanting to know any company that was charging and that was still in business. It’s broken logic.
//
Where do you get the idea that Windows NT is portable code?
Ohh, what was that………
Was it me, or did I just see the green eyed monster within the company of the Microsoft executives.
Microsoft, I said it 12 years ago, and I’ll say it again. Stick to the desktop, that is what you are alright at. Don’t try to mix with the big boys like IBM, because you’ll always come out second best.
Even to a brain dead CEO, mention UNIX and RISC, what happens? memories of reliability, scaliability and integrity rush back, unfortunately NT doesn’t have that name recognition. Most remember it as the little OS keeps trying, but never gets there.
I was about to ask that, but I started replying to all these bashings I forgot. Yeah, why was x86-64 excluded? It is the easiest port of the lot.
—
Because it would put it head to head with Linux. Add this up:
AMD x86-64 + Kernel 2.6 + Apache 2.0.40 = One really mean little server at a nice price
It is the same reason why Microsoft doesn’t allow Office XP to be installed on any other OS except Windows. Microsft smelt wine coming close to compability, and thus, to avoid a head on Windows vs. Linux war, they threw that license clause in the end of the Office XP EULA. They didn’t change the license for 97 and 2000 which wine support because it would cause a PR issue larger than the Enron collapse.
Microsoft is avoiding addressing the “Linux Issue” for as long as they can. Eventually, they will run out of spin and have to take Linux head on once and for all.
Another matthew: “Where do you get the idea that Windows NT is portable code?”
—
In theory it is, with the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer), in theory is meant to provide maximum portability with minimum pain, however, what it doesn’t take in account is the fact that many architectures are considerably different and thus, if one were to get reasonable performance, one would still need to heavily tweak the applications floating about the HAL.
Another matthew: “Where do you get the idea that Windows NT is portable code?”
—
Because NT4 ran on x86 (IA-32), Alpha, and AFAIK MIPS and PPC (haven’t actually seen it though, so may be wrong). Win2K was slated to be x86 and Alpha (w/ decent OpenGL accelerator), but ended up being x86 only. This is easily done, because of the HAL…
Also WinXP runs on both x86 and IA-64, so the trend has continued with WinNT. Shouldn’t take much to convert WinXP to x86-64 or PPC, is this enough of an example that NT is portable…
Chewy509…
Why would one want to run NT on Alpha in 32bit compatibility mode? then a code morphing software ontop so that you can run Office on an Alpha machine. With all these compromises, why even bother running an Alpha in the first place?
If you’re going to have an Alpha, for godsake, use OpenVMS or Digital UNIX. Atleast something that atleast harnesses the full grunt of the 64bit Alpha Chip.
Regarding HAL, there is an overhead, and as I have said previously. No matter how much you would like a simple port, compile and wow new platform supported, it will never happen.
Another matthew: Well, for operating systems, Redhat have been profitable for a year now http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2002/press_Q4-2002.html ; QNX have been profitable every year of its business. I guess Apple have been – I’m not sure about that one!
Red Hat makes NO real profit from Linux on the desktop in the last few quarters. QNX isn’t a competitor to Windows XP Home/Pro and Office XP. Apple makes bulk of its money from hardware. It makes little money from retail sales of Mac OS which is only $75 cheaper than Windows XP full.
The point that you were responding to though was whether MS Office was overpriced, and you responded wanting to know any company that was charging and that was still in business. It’s broken logic.
My point was how does one call a product overprice without comparing with a company that makes money from it. Sun has a lot of potential, yet it has only 2 people on reverse engineering Office’s filters, for example. And they still don’t have all the features Office has.
I can say Macs are overpriced, and I would be very true, I could get a PC for much cheaper price. From profitable companies.
Where do you get the idea that Windows NT is portable code?
In Windows NT history, there are ports to PPC, Alpha, Itanium, etc.
Matthew Gardiner: Because it would put it head to head with Linux. Add this up:
1) Linux already runs perfectly (in fact better than Windows) on Itanium. Why did they support Itanium?
2) 2.6 wouldn’t be stable until approx 2005. It is 2.2 until 2.4 gets stable. And 2.4 until 2.6 gets stable.
Matthew Gardiner: It is the same reason why Microsoft doesn’t allow Office XP to be installed on any other OS except Windows. […]
WINE couldn’t run Office 2000 properly, if Microsoft did that out of fear, it is misplaced fear.
Matthew Gardiner: They didn’t change the license for 97 and 2000 which wine support because it would cause a PR issue larger than the Enron collapse.
Besides a bunch of Linux guys who didn’t mind unstable software and lots of bugs, who is already angry at Microsoft, in what ways would this create a PR blunder?
Matthew Gardiner: Why would one want to run NT on Alpha in 32bit compatibility mode? then a code morphing software ontop so that you can run Office on an Alpha machine.
The Alpha version was mainly Windows 2000 Server, not really an ideal candidate to run Office.
Besides, the point wasn’t that Windows 2000 was great for Alpha or not, but to prove that Windows NT is portable.
There is (was) a reason for creating an Alpha version of NT, and it was not to run Office. Both NT and SQL Server were ported to Alpha for use as an Alpha-based database server. http://www.terraserver.com , a massive website project that displays a library of satallite photography, runs NT Alpha with SQL Server on SMP Compaq Alpha boxes. It is arguably one of the largest databases on the web, after IBM’s online patent database.
You can argue that OpenVMS or Tru64 Unix would have been better choices overall, but NT Alpha was fast and also [B}scaled (SMP) when pared with SQL Server, which Microsoft was trying to prove with this project.
So to sum up these comments Microsoft wins because they have portable code, are not overpriced and love to play well with customers. I don’t know about you, but Windows XP is looking better and better every day. Care to compare OSX to XP’s price/performance ratio, stability, security and of course we must not forget beauty. I’m sorry, but *nix has clearly lost this war. Personally I think Microsoft should accept credit card numbers for automated billing/shipment of their superior products to every American’s home.
I am assuming you’re being sarcastic.