Home > Windows > Microsoft Pushes Back Server OS PlansMicrosoft Pushes Back Server OS Plans Submitted by Joseph Childrose 2002-11-13 Windows 31 CommentsMicrosoft has scratched plans for a major overhaul to an upcoming version of its Windows operating system for servers, the company confirmed Tuesday.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 31 Comments 2002-11-14 1:51 am If I understand correctly …Windows .NET server in 2003Longhorn in (late?) 2004Longhorn server in late 2005/2006? 2002-11-14 3:34 am The point is that there will be no longhorn server at all. In 2005/2006, MS will release Blackcomb server and client, at the same time. Windows .Net server is basically the server version of XP. The next server will be blackcomb, skipping longhorn entirely in the server market. 2002-11-14 5:15 am So they’re going to release Longhorn (client) in 2004 and then release Blackcomb (client) about 1 to 1.5 years later?It really makes sense to me to hold off on the Longhorn server bit, but the client stuff doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If they were going to insist on an updated client before Blackcomb was ready, seems like it would make more sense to release something like WinXP SE in late 2003 just to stretch out the release time between client releases. 2002-11-14 5:24 am Good thing all those people forked out the cash for the Upgrade Advantage License scam. I knew M$ would suck all their existing customers in the new license program to screw them all over. 2002-11-14 7:26 am I am the last person on earth who would say something favourable about Microsoft, but for goodness sake, can people actually stick with reality?People posting rubbish like:“Good thing all those people forked out the cash for the Upgrade Advantage License scam. I knew M$ would suck all their existing customers in the new license program to screw them all over.”by a person who doesn’t have the balls to use their real name or real email address, and funny enough, uses broadband. It seems the two go hand in hand, trolls and broadband. People like that should not be allowed to even post on this site, or in fact, any online forum. If they can’t back up what they say with a real name and real email address, they shouldn’t even both contributing to the discussion because obviously they don’t stand behind what they say, thus, making them nothing more than a troll.Microsoft has pushed back the release of Windows .NET and its future release, not because it wants to “screw customers”, it is because they’re up a against strong competition in the form of Linux. They now have to deliver a quality product, first time up. They can’t simply turn around now and say, “oh well, thats alright, we’ll get it right the next time around” or “oh, thats alright, we’ll try to fix it in a future service pack”.Right now, I am Windows .NET Enterprise Server RC1, and it is rock solid. No crashes, ifs or any problems. All hardware is supported. Boot times are very fast. Java runs great, in fact, better on Windows .NET than on Windows 2000 Server with SP3.The release of Windows .NET will be probably be at the beginning to March/April of next year. With the added bugtesting and reliability checks, Windows .NET will be a vast improvement over any previous Windows Server releases. 2002-11-14 7:49 am > People posting rubbish like:>> “Good thing all those people forked out the cash for the> Upgrade Advantage License scam. I knew M$ would suck all> their existing customers in the new license program to> screw them all over.”Well, it was meant as rubbish but it has a ring of truth to it. Microsoft strong-armed a lot of companies into paying a subscription service on the promise of regular releases. Now these releases are being pushed back. A lot of business’s just paid a lot of money they DID NOT need to.> Boot times are very fastOh wow, had that for years.and look my name is at the top, I even have broadband.David 2002-11-14 11:14 am > Microsoft has pushed back the release of Windows .NET and> its future release, not because it wants to “screw> customers”, it is because they’re up a against strong> competition in the form of Linux. They now have to> deliver a quality product, first time up. They can’t> simply turn around now and say, “oh well, thats alright,> we’ll get it right the next time around” or “oh, thats> alright, we’ll try to fix it in a future service pack”.Hey, man, haven’t you seen such kind of promises (‘Our next release will be stable as rock!’) from Microsoft earlier?What you seen those times? Patches, smatches, hotfixes, coldfixes, service packs, service unpacks, etc. I DO NOT believe Microsoft can actually fight with ANY opensource OS/kernel in the security/stability field, even with Linux (I personally do not like Linux, I do like FreeBSD).And, do you remember, what Bill Gates said once? “If sources of Windows will be released, it could cause very big National Security problem.”. I think you understand why is that.P.S. Haven’t tried to troll, just my impression on all that.P.P.S. I would be glad if Microsoft could ACTUALLY make a real secure and stable OS. 2002-11-14 11:15 am Well, it was meant as rubbish but it has a ring of truth to it. Microsoft strong-armed a lot of companies into paying a subscription service on the promise of regular releases. Now these releases are being pushed back. A lot of business’s just paid a lot of money they DID NOT need to.—Do you know what regular releases are? did you ever actually read the fine print of the contract?The fact remains that have realised that if they want to give their customer value for money, give them a quality release every 2-3 three years.Obviously you don’t work in an IT, or otherwise you would realise that upgrading servers isn’t a fun thing. Most Admins would rather NOT do it. Simple as that. If Microsoft has increase the gaps between releases, who gives a toss?The complaints you give, you are the same type of person who would whindge if Microsoft rushed releases out once every 12-18months. 2002-11-14 11:58 am Some comments…David McPaul wrote:> Well, it was meant as rubbish but it has a ring of truth to it. Microsoft strong-armed a lot of companies into paying a subscription service on the promise of regular releases. Now these releases are being pushed back. A lot of business’s just paid a lot of money they DID NOT need to.They believed in Microsoft – when they bought the services from Redmond Empire, Longhorn would be released in 2004/5.If someone is dissatisfied, hey, there’s always a lawyer near you and Matthew Gardiner wrote:> The fact remains that have realised that if they want to give their customer value for money, give them a quality release every 2-3 three years.It’s what ALL vendors are doing nowadays – even RedHat with its Advanced Server. 2002-11-14 2:10 pm Matthew Gardiner :“Right now, I am Windows .NET Enterprise Server RC1, and it is rock solid. No crashes, ifs or any problems. All hardware is supported. Boot times are very fast. Java runs great, in fact, better on Windows .NET than on Windows 2000 Server with SP3.”I am very surprised on two points :– First, i have understood that .net is today an add-on layer over w2k, sp3 or not. I must say that i try to avoid .net ( i am using w2k as a “primary” os because i feel it is far superior to linux as a basic controller for the hardware and disk managment, but i am replacing every other stuff by open-source, and free, programs : java/j2ee, bind, netscape-sun/ldap server, snort, postgresql/cygwin and so on ), but potentially i will be interested to give it a try. Do you mean that .net is no more installable over a standard w2k server ?– Second, i am really curious to know what do you mean by “java is working better on .net than on w2k” ? If you have some time, please could you describe technicaly why this strange thing could happen.Thank you 2002-11-14 2:45 pm Are you sleeping with Bill. Come on you can tell us. 2002-11-14 3:11 pm Yeah, sure, what ever makes you happy.Heck, there is Me, Bill, Balmer and a blow up sheep just for extra company. It is an all out orgie!Anonymous (IP: —.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net), get a life you sad and pathetic little man. Go back to your nice little world of make believe, of Dungen and Dragons, Lord of the Rings and running around in Star Trek dress up clothes and allow the adults of the world to comment.Thats alright. Go back down to your basement and continue living out your little fantasy world. 2002-11-14 4:33 pm ‘Heck, there is Me, Bill, Balmer and a blow up sheep just for extra company. It is an all out orgie!’You said it not me. Explains allot.Dont take things so seriously. 2002-11-14 5:06 pm Oh, you are just another troll.MS’s all server releases had contain lots of security bugs, and were not solid. .NET server’s RC1 released after a year lag. I have system admin friends, who think that it is crashing more seldom, but it is still crashing. It is certainly not ROCK SOLID.It is interesting to see “quality” and “MS” together in the same sentence as usual.Billy the McCarty started trustworthy computing. If it was as easy as that he could say it in the beginning. 2002-11-14 5:18 pm Do you mean that .net is no more installable over a standard w2k server ?– Second, i am really curious to know what do you mean by “java is working better on .net than on w2k” ? If you have some time, please could you describe technicaly why this strange thing could happen.Windows .Net is the next release of the Windows Server (Windows XP Server if you like). Windows .Net will have the .Net framework installed by default (and most likely integrated, I have Windows .Net RC1, but I haven’t had a system or time available to install and run it yet). The statement ‘java is working better on .Net than 2k’ simply means that Java is running better on Windows .Net RC1 than on Windows 2k SP3, which I personally can’t validate but probably wouldn’t doubt, since they have more room to mess with the JVM on a release candidate than they do in a shipped product (because of the settlement with Sun and because an RC product doesn’t have to be stable, though it should be), so it’s probably running a better-optimized JVM than the released version.They probably wouldn’t be allowed to (again under the settlement) write a JVM that simply translates the calls to the .Net framework, although if the .Net Framework is to replace Win32 in the long run someone may eventually have to do it, or the JVM will be running under legacy support. Other than that, you can run Java code on the .Net framework with little modification, you just have to compile it with the J# compiler. 2002-11-14 5:23 pm MS’s all server releases had contain lots of security bugs, and were not solid. .NET server’s RC1 released after a year lag.A year lag from when? Beta 3 was released 5 months before RC1, not a year. It may have been that far behind some schedule that had XP and .Net synchronized in releases, but XP didn’t even ship with the .Net runtime, and would’ve had to be delayed as well to do so. 2002-11-14 5:52 pm How about WAITING until it actually has been released, then make your comments.Maybe I should start commenting about Linux 2.5? no, because it is a stupid idea as it is still in beta.As for 2.4, it only started to become stable at around 2.4.15 after the IDE and VM saga. I’ve run Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD and all of them have their quirks.As for the Windows 2000 Server crashes I HAVE WITNESSED, they have been due to two things, Firstly, the server under powered, over utilised server, aka, running out of resources. Secondly, the server had either faulty memory or something wrong with the hardware. Having put together servers using Serverworks Chipset motherboards, Xeon Processors and namebrand ECC memory, stability is not an issue. It is true to say that Linux is less fussy about hardware, however, the result is still the same. Something is always going to go funny when there are stuffed up components.As for Anonymous (IP: —.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net), it was sarcasm deary, sarcasm.Anonymous (IP: —.easynet.fr), regarding my comments with Java. Less CPU utilisation, more responsive. It seems that Microsoft has tuned their kernel quite well for things that require it, aka, bytecode based languages such as Java and .NET. As for Windows.NET, that is the next version of Windows. From what I have seen, it takes the Windows XP kernel changes, takes the eye candy out, .NET framework is installed with the OS by default and a number of configuration applications are running in managemode such as mmc.exe for example. A better explaination of the low level kernel changes in the XP kernel is available in a past edition of MSDN Developer. 2002-11-14 8:02 pm I will give a serious look to the msdn documentation on the kernel topic.Anyway your remark put me in a trouble. XP was my breaking point with Microsoft.Just knowing Microsoft, i will be very surprised if that optimization may really be usefull for a Sun or IBM jvm. I remember the way they definitely put WordPerfect out of the market, by modifying the standard heap of W32. Very curiously, only WP6 was affected 😉 Ho yes, Microsoft had provided ( with the sp3 patch for visualstudio c++ ! Too obvious for a standard user to find this, and if he finds this, just another licence to pay… ), and obviously several month later, a correction. Which was working only for NT. For w2k the unfortunate user had to wait one year more for ( again a visualstudio patch… ) the sp5 of C++. But this is certainly an effect of some kind of bad chance, who can imagine another answer ? Of course this story is not intented for people persuaded that the main battle is centered on the operating system.Back to technical consideration, kernel optimization for bytecode is a clear explanation, thank for it. 2002-11-14 11:09 pm >Obviously you don’t work in an IT, or otherwise you would>realise that upgrading servers isn’t a fun thing. Most>Admins would rather NOT do it. Simple as that. If>Microsoft has increase the gaps between releases, who>gives a toss?I DO work in IT, far longer than you I expect. The POINT of the matter is that Microsoft forced a lot of vendors to a subscription model THAT only made things cheaper for them if they upgraded to a new release every 2 years. Well, they PAID but they are not going to get their money’s worth.Sounds like the only IT you work in is your local yum cha PC shop. 2002-11-15 1:10 am See someone has a clue…..Matthew Gardiner probably is just a student how thinks he knows everything.Also…>Obviously you don’t work in an IT, or otherwise you would>realise that upgrading servers isn’t a fun thing. Most>Admins would rather NOT do it. Simple as that. If>Microsoft has increase the gaps between releases, who>gives a toss?Upgrading anthing usualy isn’t a fun thing but it has to be done…….I bet you are still running windoze for workgroups….just a guess…..or your a gateway store employee? 2002-11-15 4:45 am Regarding backwards compatibility. I would much rather see things fixed now, and cause some problems, rather than later on down the track where by fixing up Windows problems will become more complex.I’ve read a piece from the Windows manager, at from what is sounds, they’ve finally, THANK GOD! said they’re going to put stability and security in front of backwards compatibility.As for people who whindge, UPGRADE! its amazing that yes, you do occasionally have to upgrade that 20year old piece of software, or obsolete system tool. Yes, that pathetic, worthless POS Win16 application will no longer run, and no, don’t expect to live in a little hovel for 20years without expecting to upgrade.I certainly don’t have any problems with Microsoft prioritising things in that order. If the long term gain out weighs the short term pain, then I am all for it. 2002-11-15 4:50 am Stop being such a bloody dimwit, if you too stupid not to read the fine print in the contract, then tough luck. It explicitly states that they cannot PROMISE that new releases will come out in a timely manor. THAT is when you should have weighed up either keeping to Microsoft or moving to an alternative.You MADE THAT CHOICE to suck-up to Microsoft and go on their lovely ride of hype and BS, so handle it. Suck your bottom lip in and take it like a man, or are you going to cry and boo hoo the whole day? 2002-11-15 4:55 am Compared to you who whindges because you got sucked into the License 6? You had the decision. You chose to stick with Microsoft, now handle it!And Dave, if you work for iPrimus, you’re doing a really crap job. Constant outages, slow connections. Momentary times when no data is being sent or received. If this is what you regard as “quality IT professionalism”, god help you. 2002-11-15 5:11 am Before this, Microsoft never loose sleep over security problems. But right now, they are really trying to make their offerings secure. When Microsoft wants to do something, they would accomplish it, even if their initial tries don’t work out very well.I predict this .NET Server would be much more secure and realiable than other server releases, but still would be behind Linux and other OSS solutions. But I also predict by the end of this decade, they would have something comparable in security with Linux and other OSS solutions. 2002-11-15 5:52 am I agree. Also, I think people need to remember that no piece of software is secure. Now, if Microsoft is “trying to be secure”, then wait until their product has hit the streets, then decide whether to praise or stone Bill Gates.With that being said, there are still grave fundamental issues with Windows on the server. They still include features in .NET that should never be there. Sure, they are disabled, but they should be there is the first place.For example, the theme server, why is that there? why does a server or a terminal server require theming? its a frigging business OS, why does Joe and Jane need themes? they’re there to WORK not express their Feng Sui through themes and colours on the terminal.Another one would be the lack of Microsoft embracing their .NET framework for their OWN APPLICATIONS! if you want someone to use your technology, how about YOU embrace it first. Where is a pure .NET Office Suite? a pure .NET Mediaplayer? a pure .NET Internet Explorer? What does this tell me about the .NET framework? “oh, we’ve developed, but we won’t touch it with a 40foot poll until some other sucker has”.The continuous insistance of pushing GDI+/GDI into ring 0. THERE IS NO BLOODY REASON to put it in there. It isn’t a workstation! graphic responsiveness isn’t important! 2002-11-15 8:54 am >Compared to you who whindges because you got sucked into>the License 6? You had the decision. You chose to stick >with Microsoft, now handle it!Some would say what choice did they have.>And Dave, if you work for iPrimus, you’re doing a really>crap job. Constant outages, slow connections. Momentary>times when no data is being sent or received. If this is>what you regard as “quality IT professionalism”, god help>youI certainly don’t work for primus, I was smart enough to leave them because of the above problems. Now I just use the mailbox to trap all the SPAM these postings generate. What is your excuse for staying? 2002-11-15 10:40 am David McPaul said: “Some would say what choice did they have”.—Like what? there are replacements for every aspect of Microsoft in the server space.Name something that isn’t available on Linux or any of the other alternative server operating systems.People who stick with Microsoft, want to stick with them, because according to normal human logic. If something is so bad, they would move. Obviously Microsoft hasn’t kicked them hard enough. 2002-11-15 12:48 pm ‘Name something that isn’t available on Linux or any of the other alternative server operating systems’Citrix Metaframe>Compared to you who whindges because you got sucked into>the License 6? You had the decision. You chose to stick >with Microsoft, now handle it!’When Microsoft give people a timeline before they purchase the license and change it after the fact is not right. Also its not me who got sucked in to the license program but working as a consultant I see plenty of small companies pissed about the whole situation. But like I said before…..I can only imagine you work at a gateway store so you probably would not know much of anything.Also to have an alternative to MS for the server….its just not a reality for companies that have maybe 1 or not even any IT staff. 2002-11-15 3:40 pm ‘Name something that isn’t available on Linux or any of the other alternative server operating systems’Citrix Metaframe—X-Server – http://www.x.org/ for more information.Tarantella – http://www.tarantella.com/The above are two replacements for Citrix Metaframe. Both are available on a number of UNIX’s. 2002-11-15 4:11 pm OK…now your just a complete idiot. Do you know what money is? Lets say an organization implemented a Exchange box for email, a Application box, a Citrix box on Windoze 2000, and a ISA Firewall a couple months month before the new license scam. Do you really think any business just has the money to either dump all the winodze products and switch….I dont think so.As I stated before alot of small companies cannot afford to make drastic changes as you are suggesting. For example for most companies to have someone do it they are looking at $100+ per hour just for the tech to do the work let alone purchasing the new software.Your lack of knowledge on how the real world work is not very good…..unless you like to make companies go broke……get a clue. 2002-11-15 4:25 pm Also on your 2 suggestions…if they run on unix then companies usingGreat PlainsMacolaGoldmineOfficeCrystal ReportsVisual StudioOncore….should I go on….Those packages would have to be changed to…..your the one who stated ‘Upgrading is not a task people want to do….but your stupied suggestion would require changed the whole friggin system…wake up and smell the coffee my gateway store friend.