Microsoft has recommitted to releasing Longhorn, its next-generation Windows client and server, into beta testing in 2005 even though its chairman acknowledged that security concerns threaten his dream of enabling seamless connectivity and Web services. Here is the transcript of Gates’ speech yesterday and here is Jim Allchin’s. Also, Microsoft combined the Windows CE, Windows Mobile departments.
Gates Promises Longhorn Beta In 2005; Speech Transcripts
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
29 Comments
2004-05-06 4:28 am
2004-05-06 4:28 pm
Microsoft has done this as long as I’ve been following the industry, relentlessly hyping products that are so far down the pipe they’re just a spec on the horizon while shoving back release dates further and further. I highly doubt Microsoft every actually thought Longhorn would be ready in 2003 or 2004, they just said that to keep everybody in the industry salivating over what was “just around the corner”, just like they did with Xenix, DOS, and Windows 95. This keeps people from migrating to other technologies that offer today what Microsoft promises to deliver tomorrow. The fact that is works time and again is the most amazing thing about it.
I remember reading about how “Windows Chicago” didn’t run on top of DOS. This was so competitors would exit the DOS market and leave MS-DOS as the only DOS around. And you know what? It worked. And you know what else? It was obvious to everyone with any knowledge of DOS and Windows 3.1 immediately upon bootup that DOS was still under the hood. All MS had done was weld that hood shut. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. This time I’m not going to believe anything their PR department spews out until I see an actual product, because they are not above exaggerating and outright lying about what features their product will have and how it will work in order to keep everyone obediently waiting for their next “extra super duper secure” Windows version, just like what they promised Windows XP would be.
I totally agree!!!
Couldn’t of said it better myself.
If I were Gates, I’d stop for a moment the Longhorn hype and thus minimising delivery date expectations, and I’d focus on delivering a secure os, doesn’t matter the date. As long as it takes to do that, they should do it.
It seems that they are going to release Yet Another Unsecure Os. Same story all over again…
it is going to be great, a new version of windows. you will all be able to buy that new pc you have been promising yourself, you know the one? top of the range in everything, but so far you told yourself you just cannot justify it. Well, longhorn will be your excuse. your own machine will run like a dog, ( a sick dog, with a broken leg, in treacle), so you need to get that new machine…..
Then, when you try to use it, you will start to notice that it is just as unstable and just as insecure as all over versions of windows…. but at least it is on a fast machine.
So you tell all your windows loving mates, about having to get a new pc and the problems with crashes etc, and they go out and get themselves a copy too, just because Microsoft wrote it, and after all, they INVENTED computers…
So I go in and tell my boss about longhorn. he upgrades all the pcs in our workplace, about 1200 of them, and pays for a longhorn license for all of them, and installs it on them all. downtime a couple of days, so what ? this new system will make his staff more efficent, more productive, it will pay for itself in a matters of hours… guess what ? just the same old story.
you WILL all go out and buy it, I do not know why, there is other options for you all out there, but you people always make the same old excuses. you will not try linux because you dont want to learn a new system, even though that is what you will be doing with longhorn.
You do not want to use apps which are not compatible with everyone else…. have you actually tried ?
you do not want to use a system that will not support a pice of hardware you have… emm can you elaborate on that ?
with the release of longhorn, you will be at a fork in the road, do you take the microsoft route once again, or do you break free and take the OTHER route?
‘Microsoft is expected to recommend that the ‘average’ Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.’
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1581842,00.asp
…
‘Microsoft is expected to recommend that the ‘average’ Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.’
ouch!! what did they do, re-write the OS in Java
Actually, by the time this is scheduled to come out that seems like it would be a common place setup as far as PCs go.
4 – 6GHz, by Moore’s Law, what is that, sometime next year
2 GB RAM – most basic machines today are packed with 512MB+, so this isn’t too outlandish.
1 TB Storage >> 120GB, that’s a pretty common harddrive today
Graphics processor 3 – 4 times faster than today, that’s probably about 20 – 24 months away.
Besides, it says “Microsoft is expected to recommend”, and “from sources close to the development” — none of that is confirmed; and from past articles I’ve seen by Mary Jo Foley, I’d take it with a grain of salt.
microsoft will always have recommended hardware that their os will run on, however, they mean that it will run… not that it will run at a decent speed.
take a look at the recommended hardware for xp and install it on a machine like that. almost unusable.
i dont think it will be any different for longhorn… double the microsoft recommendation
Does anyone know what the system requirements will be for Longhorn?
from the site dpi said up there ^^^^^^^^^^
”
The company also is expected to unveil the system and driver requirements for Longhorn during the conference.
Microsoft is expected to recommend that the “average” Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.
“
Raver31,
Sorry, I didn’t get my morning coffee fix yet
As for the specs those are insane. Definately another bloat OS produced by Microsoft trying to force consumers to upgrade to what now seems is an entire system. Think of the cost for not only a home consumer but also for companies running Windows across a network. If they want Longhorn then most likely they will be forced to purchase a turnkey solution very similar to Apple’s way of locking in the consumer. Any OS requiring 2 GB of RAM and a dual CPU over 4 GHz is a waist of money and only proves the R & D working on this are idiots. It’s best to either stick with WinXP (if they ever release SP2) or switch to another OS such as SUSE LINUX, etc.
First of all Longhorn build 4074 thows out Slate theme. For all you saying windows is built on dos.The Windows Kernal Version 5 aka Windows 2000, 5.1 AKA Whisler AKA Windows XP and 5.2 AKa Windows 2003 is not build on any dos code. The Windows 5 kernal was 100% rewritten and contains no dos code. The NT 6 Kernal AKA “Lonhorn” is again rebuilt in XAML NO DOS. IT has dos command line emulation but no real dos. That is why you cant install any of the above useinf a windows 98 or me boot disk no kernal dos code.
Longhorn look promising minus the new jade theme (that will not last long.) 4074 even in alpha has a new hardware manager, is gaining some driver support as 4051 and earlier really had none. It looks promising.
I really cannot test this now, I am using a win2k machine at work, but my user account will not let me look at the properties of any executable file.
have a look at the properties of all the .exe files in the system32 directory, and tell me if they are all win32… isnt there one or maybe loads of 16bit dos code loads of executables there made of 16bit code ?
please do not tell me they are all win32, I have win2k and winxp machines at home and will be checking for myself
that last post is a little hard to read…… it should read..
I really cannot test this now, I am using a win2k machine at work, but my user account will not let me look at the properties of any executable file.
have a look at the properties of all the .exe files in the system32 directory, and tell me if they are all win32… isnt there loads of executables there made of 16bit code ?
please do not tell me they are all win32, I have win2k and winxp machines at home and will be checking for myself
Haven’t they “recomitted” like 5 times within this month? We already knew Longhorn beta was coming in 2005 didn’t we? Well I did, I could have told you yesterday.
I can tell you why they hype it. Longhorn has a lot of features that look very good. So when your OS X buddy comes up and says: “my gui used my gpu”; you can say “mine will in the upcoming release” instead of “oh I know I so desire a Macintosh!” Then you can say “and mine will have winFS so I can do really complicated searches on the files I disorganized!” Then you can brag about c# and .net and how people will be able to instantly send you programs to work with their file types!
The Microsoft hype I imagine is helping them. I’d personally like to hear more about what will be included in it. In 5 years I would expect a LOT of improvement. I mean it’s gotta be better than OS 10.5 will be, and right now it sounds kinda similar.
If any M$ guys are reading this: Save the pixels, please no pixel wasting themes. You can have a nice theme that doesn’t waste space! (this is in reference to that black longhorn theme I saw and what it did to IE).
Those system specs will be a low-end pc by the time Windows Longhorn is released, especially the video…
PCI-Express and BTX cases/mobos/setups will be the standard in about a year, PCI-Express’s graphics slot(will replace AGP) is 16x faster than AGP8x… once this is out, nvidia,ati, etc.. will be making cards like 12x better than the ones we have now-a-days.
CPU Speed… 32-bit processors by that time(if still being developed) will be like 12Ghz… Hopefully by then we’ll all be on/moving to 64-bit anyways, which will hbe just a few Ghz behind.
Spec concerns shouldnt be concerns with all the new technologies being introduced this year
good nick !
but as to your post……
I will wait to see these machines, I want one !
however, as I said in an earlier post, microsofts recommended specifications are always well underestimated
there is a different between standard for geeks, and standard for everyone else. would you say XP is standard now? far from it, 98 SE and NT4 are still installed on faaaaaaaaaaar more computers then XP. now look at graphics cards. i would say an onboard 32-bit gpu is standard now, and wont change even by the time longhorn comes out. what is the point of a graphics card when you use your computer for word or excel? sure, PCI-Express and BTX boards look nice and juicy, but i would say that only in the last year or so has AGP even become a standard thing to find on a mobo (remember, we arnt talking about geeks/gamers, we are talking about aunt tillie) The majority of people who have windows installed will have lowend hardware, not highend, or even mid range. and the whole “everyone will be using widescreen monitors” really makes me laugh, considering the standard is still a 15″ CRT.
The standard setup is alwas well behind the current tech. people upgrade their computers once every few years (not including ram), and that is not something that will change. I agree that the hardware listed here will be common, even affordable, but not standard.
You mean it won’t run on a 486 and 16 meg of ram?
Stuff that, I’l wait till 2009 when I can get a P4 board at the local swap meet for 20 bucks and by then, product activtion will have truely been hacked (:
—
Till
“microsoft will always have recommended hardware that their os will run on, however, they mean that it will run… not that it will run at a decent speed.
take a look at the recommended hardware for xp and install it on a machine like that. almost unusable.
i dont think it will be any different for longhorn… double the microsoft recommendation”
what are you talking about, MS says PII 400 for WinXP, I ran XP on such a box and it was fine. Sure after I went to a 1.8ghz box and then went back to it, it felt slow. But thats not what the mins are about, XP does run on such computes and runs fine, just a bit slow, plenty usuable, unless for the year or so I was doing that I wasn’t using XP. Same goes for ram, sure 256 is nice for XP but it will run with 96-128 ok, just a bit slow, still not the end of the world.
Also considering in the 1.5 years or so till longhorn, most people will then have computers in the 2 ghz and up range it shouldn’t be a problem at all. Also same as with win98 being out there, most people just go and buy a new computer every few years and thats when they get a new OS, so when they go to longhorn they will most likely be running it on a new computer anyways. People upgrading just the OS will be far fewer, mainly those who have pretty fast computers. By longlorns time we will be pretty much looking at anything PIII and down like we look at PIs and down today. That is paper weights that arn’t worth it for the electricity they suck for the computing you get out of them.
On a differant note, any idea what the name will be for longhorn. I’d like it to just be Windows 6.0 but probably not going to happen. At the very least it would be nice if they went to windows 2006. I never liked the XP name since it neither told you it’s true version to get a feel for it’s progression, nor did it let you know when it came out to give it a place in time.
Microsoft’s recommended hardware for Windows 95 was a 486DX2/66 with 4MB RAM. That was exactly the system I had at the time and you couldn’t even open the start menu in under a minute without 12MB RAM.
I really cannot test this now, I am using a win2k machine at work, but my user account will not let me look at the properties of any executable file.
have a look at the properties of all the .exe files in the system32 directory, and tell me if they are all win32… isnt there one or maybe loads of 16bit dos code loads of executables there made of 16bit code ?
please do not tell me they are all win32, I have win2k and winxp machines at home and will be checking for myself
There is a 16-bit subsystem for compatability just as there is an OS/2 subsystem for OS/2 compatability but the OS itself is a full 32-bit kernel that isn’t a carry over from DOS.
Windows ME was the last MS OS built on DOS.
>>As for the specs those are insane.
Hell yes those are insane. An Operating System that requires 2GB RAM to run? That’s scary.
It will be interesting to see what sort of mobile devices use longhorn, as laptops “state of the art” tends to lag a year or more..
I personally use my palm/sidekick/laptop way more than more powerful desktop.
Will desktops even matter outside the corp anymore? If so, why?
>> Windows ME was the last MS OS built on DOS.
Yeah but Crawling Musrhoom’s point was that Microsoft’s hype machine said Windows 95 wouldn’t run on DOS. It was an outright lie. Hence the skepticism with what they say Longhorn will do.
Yeah but Crawling Musrhoom’s point was that Microsoft’s hype machine said Windows 95 wouldn’t run on DOS. It was an outright lie. Hence the skepticism with what they say Longhorn will do.
I was paying attention to the news on Win95 back then and I don’t remember any marketing material claiming DOS was not a part of Windows 95. I remember claims of backwards compatability and a message that DOS was dead as applications were going Win32.
I also remember consumers being confused on whether or not Win95 had DOS but I don’t recall MS themselves ever saying that Windows 95 was totally DOS free.
They said it for years, they were even taken to court over it later in the 90s to prove it wasn’t true, a judge had to finally declare that Windows 95 was just the Windows 4.0 explorer.exe shell running on DOS 7.0. Here are some links to jog your memory. (I guess you weren’t paying too much attention to the Win95 news back then after all.)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/win95_is_it_just_dos/
http://www.tavi.co.uk/ps2pages/ohland/evil.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/08/18/special_report_trial_truth_…
“The story that “the role of MS-DOS [in Windows 3.0] was reduced essentially to providing the file system and certain device drivers, and the most basic operating system functionality migrated into Windows” is untrue. Windows was just a GUI application to MS-DOS 5.0, and its role was not “reduced”. This falsehood is continued when Microsoft tries to claim that Windows 95 “had the same sort of integrated design as the Mac OS”. Microsoft falsely described “Windows” as an “operating system” in its SEC filings at the time. Only NT was and is a Windows operating system.”
And here’s an oldie from Google’s cache:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:bDJL7Wt6KNsJ:blackadder.eng.mona…
Here is the best, most concise one to prove my point that MS lied about what Windows Chicago/95 was. It’s an actual court document. I had to use the wayback machine to get the page. It’s sad that this chapter in history is being forgotten and Microsoft is getting away with it again.
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/techtiebrief.html“ rel=”nofollow”>http://web.archive.org/web/20000823134549/