Longhorn not until 2008?
A friend just linked me to this article on The Register:
http://www.theregister.com/content/4/34500.html
Imagine if that actually happened! Not 2005, not 2006, but 2007 or 2008 is a distinct possibility!
My thought was that MS would have to somehow develop a scheme to keep people buying new computers. Since the OS isn't being updated, they have to think of other ways to motivate people to buy new hardware. My idea: rental computers. Instead of buying a computer, you MUST rent a computer from MS. Every year, you have to turn in your old computer and transfer the data to a new computer (that is, after the data has been thoroughly scrutinized in the interest of national security). Hehe. Knowing MS, they'd be the first to try it.
http://www.theregister.com/content/4/34500.html
Quote:
Longhorn in 2005 seems definitely off the agenda, and while it might ship in 2006, it could be delayed until 2008 or 2009, according to Gartner. According to a report of the Gartner Data Center Conference in Information Week,Gartner research VP Tom Bittman puts the likely release window between late 2006 and mid-2008.
The prediction isn't exactly as far out as it might appear on the surface, because he's talking (in Gartner's irritating probability-speak) of a 50 per cent probability of 2006, 40 per cent 2007 and 2008-2009 as outside chances. Major Microsoft projects do tend to slip pretty spectacularly, so history tells us none of these dates is entirely bonkers.
But we at The Register are becoming intrigued by what happens in the ever-stretching period between the shipment of Windows XP and the shipment of Longhorn. This gap isunprecedented, because in the past Microsoft has always had something half-credible to throw into the marketplace to keep interest alive and to keep the customers upgrading. Not having such a thing could have a pretty immediate adverse effect on consumer revenues, and there are more specific reasons why it could hurt in the corporate market.
Think yourself into the part - you're a business running Win2k or earlier clients, you've got the Microsoft sales people talking to you about upgrading to WinXP and Server 2003, and you've got the public prints and (cough) Microsoft's senior executives telling you Longhorn is the big deal upgrade. But what is it, when is it, and how feasible is it to wait for it? The Microsoft sales people can try to sell you .NET as here, and where it's at, but you surely have the growing impression that it's not quite where it's really at, because that's all about Longhorn.
Just a thought, people. Microsoft could be maiming its sales teams by sending them out without credible roadmaps, and talking up something it can't ship for years, just when Sun is starting to look dangerous on Microsoft's home turf, too. We think that if Microsoft can't nail Longhorn down absolutely to 2006 pretty soon, it's going to have to come up with some interim ideas to hold the fort.
Longhorn in 2005 seems definitely off the agenda, and while it might ship in 2006, it could be delayed until 2008 or 2009, according to Gartner. According to a report of the Gartner Data Center Conference in Information Week,Gartner research VP Tom Bittman puts the likely release window between late 2006 and mid-2008.
The prediction isn't exactly as far out as it might appear on the surface, because he's talking (in Gartner's irritating probability-speak) of a 50 per cent probability of 2006, 40 per cent 2007 and 2008-2009 as outside chances. Major Microsoft projects do tend to slip pretty spectacularly, so history tells us none of these dates is entirely bonkers.
But we at The Register are becoming intrigued by what happens in the ever-stretching period between the shipment of Windows XP and the shipment of Longhorn. This gap isunprecedented, because in the past Microsoft has always had something half-credible to throw into the marketplace to keep interest alive and to keep the customers upgrading. Not having such a thing could have a pretty immediate adverse effect on consumer revenues, and there are more specific reasons why it could hurt in the corporate market.
Think yourself into the part - you're a business running Win2k or earlier clients, you've got the Microsoft sales people talking to you about upgrading to WinXP and Server 2003, and you've got the public prints and (cough) Microsoft's senior executives telling you Longhorn is the big deal upgrade. But what is it, when is it, and how feasible is it to wait for it? The Microsoft sales people can try to sell you .NET as here, and where it's at, but you surely have the growing impression that it's not quite where it's really at, because that's all about Longhorn.
Just a thought, people. Microsoft could be maiming its sales teams by sending them out without credible roadmaps, and talking up something it can't ship for years, just when Sun is starting to look dangerous on Microsoft's home turf, too. We think that if Microsoft can't nail Longhorn down absolutely to 2006 pretty soon, it's going to have to come up with some interim ideas to hold the fort.
Imagine if that actually happened! Not 2005, not 2006, but 2007 or 2008 is a distinct possibility!
My thought was that MS would have to somehow develop a scheme to keep people buying new computers. Since the OS isn't being updated, they have to think of other ways to motivate people to buy new hardware. My idea: rental computers. Instead of buying a computer, you MUST rent a computer from MS. Every year, you have to turn in your old computer and transfer the data to a new computer (that is, after the data has been thoroughly scrutinized in the interest of national security). Hehe. Knowing MS, they'd be the first to try it.
Comments
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
My idea: rental computers. Instead of buying a computer, you MUST rent a computer from MS. Every year, you have to turn in your old computer and transfer the data to a new computer (that is, after the data has been thoroughly scrutinized in the interest of national security). [/B]
That my friend is the "ultimate switcher machine" we've been looking for!
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Well, perhaps 2008/2009 is a very low possibility, but I highly doubt Longhorn will make it by 2005. Most people, even MS I think, say 2006, and 2007 is possible if things get delayed even more.
i don't think that ms will fall that far behind... they'll have at least an update of the current XP at the end of 2005.
I had forgotten all about the fiasco that was Pink and Copland.
With all of the delays, Longhorn's development schedule is sounding suspiciously like what Apple was experiencing in the 90's with Copland.
My, my, how the tables have turned.
OS 7.5 was always crashing and burning. NT, although imperfect, was clearly the better OS. Apple was spinning its wheels trying to come up with an answer.
Now, we have the opposite. XP is the swiss cheese of security and clearly needs a complete rewrite. OS X is like an armored vehicle. Sure, it can be broken into, but would be difficult. Not only does OS X best XP in security, the stability is better. The OS also comes with a set of compelling applications and features to boot.
Just as NT threatened to make the Mac OS obsolete, Linux is threatening to do the same to XP.
javascript:smilie('8)')
It will be quite interesting to observe how Microsoft meets the challenge.
One thing is for sure. They have to get it absolutely right this time. If they release a half baked OS not ready for prime time, OS X and Linux will put Windows out of its misery. OS X becomes ever more polished and Linux is becoming "good enough" for general use.
Pink, Taligent and Copland. What an apt comparison. I eagerly await Microsoft's answer to this new challenge.8)
Tevanian learned the mistake of Copland, Gershwin, Pink et al. at Apple: don't depend on features to base your development on, base your development on schedules, time-based goal setting. If something slips, it moves into the next brach of development. That allows Apple to maintain development of features without holding back some others, and gets the product out, money in and the OS "fresh" in people's minds. OS X development follows this approach pretty well with some leeway in the schedule for what they deem doable and critical for that release. I wonder if MS has such serious internal management problems like what led Apple to their Copland fiasco.
It should be interesting to see where each OS stands by the time Longhorn ships. Microsoft does have lofty goals for it, stuff that Apple doesn't currently have and should have by the time 2006 comes around. The big ticket I'm thinking of is the database-driven filesystem, you know, for all you metadata fans out there.
PS: Didn't MS originally plan to force customers into 3 year "subscriptions" for their operating system software, with no promises given for upgrades in that time? Thank God people put up a big enough stink for MS to change that policy. I don't see how they could ever bring that back given the precedent they're setting for themselves.
Originally posted by herbivore
If they release a half baked OS not ready for prime time, OS X and Linux will put Windows out of its misery. OS X becomes ever more polished and Linux is becoming "good enough" for general use.
I think statements like these are utterly hilarious.
There's this thing called inertia. Microsoft has a lot of it. 95% isn't going to vanish overnight or even in a year or even five years.
Remember Windows ME? Now that update was a joke. Did it phase Microsoft? Nope. Did Microsoft lose any noteworthy market share over it? Nope.
Windows isn't going to disappear any time soon. There's too much Windows-only software, too many MS-certified technicians, and too large an existing install base to allow that. Yes, it's possible that Microsoft *might* shrink to as little as 90% market domination in just a few years, but even that is going to take one hell of a coordinated effort from Apple and the Linux communities.
Originally posted by herbivore
With all of the delays, Longhorn's development schedule is sounding suspiciously like what Apple was experiencing in the 90's with Copland.
My, my, how the tables have turned.
I don't think so. Does the word Palladium tells something? It takes time folks...
Still, 95%+ marketshare does not imply absolute dominance.
There is a developing movement away from MS and it is very evident overseas.
Anyone think that the Far East won't be playing a big role in this? You better think again.
Microsoft is in serious danger in the server market and it will eventually pose problems on the desktop. Especially when Linux gets good enough for the common person.
95%+ marketshare has failed to squash Linux which continues to make gains.
If Microsoft could come out of nowhere and dominate the likes of IBM and Apple, so too can another system like Linux.
Let's not be kidding ourselves. MS itself sees Linux as a mortal threat. They themselves aren't even sure how to deal with it.
Unless MS seriously changes their ways, they will indeed bleed marketshare. And if they can't maintain dominance with 95%, it will become ever more difficult the more share they lose.
I guess the Israeli government made a bad choice by going with Linux on the desktop.
For an administrator to make disparaging comments seems a little excessive.
From now on, I will no longer contribute to Appleinsider and will no longer visit the website.
I can get nasty and inform the advertisers that I won't do any business with them, but I won't.
Just remember this. If Microsoft delays too long or releases a half done OS, Longhorn WILL bleed serious marketshare. That is all I have to say.
Soyonora
I enjoyed your comments - good to have people like you around.
But if you're going to pack your bags every time Brad, or anyone else disagrees with you, you might not be here long the next time.
P.S. you were kidding right?
Summer 2006 at the latest.
I do not think they can afford to go much past that.
We will be at what, 10.5?
What, exactly, did Brad say that was so horrible? How odd.
Glad he never ran into BR. Or applenut on a bad day...
-Craig
Longhorn wants to do quite a bit- it is very ambitious and it will take time. In the meantime, Apple is moving along very well with smaller updates on a more regular basis. Go Apple. Then again, Apple has a less mature OS in some ways, so there is lots of room for improvement. Then again, Apple has a tendency to do more UI level things which aren't as hard as oh, say, retooling one's file structure.
Wow.
See ya later.
Originally posted by herbivore
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Still, 95%+ marketshare does not imply absolute dominance.
There is a developing movement away from MS and it is very evident overseas.
Anyone think that the Far East won't be playing a big role in this? You better think again.
Microsoft is in serious danger in the server market and it will eventually pose problems on the desktop. Especially when Linux gets good enough for the common person.
95%+ marketshare has failed to squash Linux which continues to make gains.
If Microsoft could come out of nowhere and dominate the likes of IBM and Apple, so too can another system like Linux.
Let's not be kidding ourselves. MS itself sees Linux as a mortal threat. They themselves aren't even sure how to deal with it.
Unless MS seriously changes their ways, they will indeed bleed marketshare. And if they can't maintain dominance with 95%, it will become ever more difficult the more share they lose.
I guess the Israeli government made a bad choice by going with Linux on the desktop.
For an administrator to make disparaging comments seems a little excessive.
From now on, I will no longer contribute to Appleinsider and will no longer visit the website.
I can get nasty and inform the advertisers that I won't do any business with them, but I won't.
Just remember this. If Microsoft delays too long or releases a half done OS, Longhorn WILL bleed serious marketshare. That is all I have to say.
Soyonora
MS will do well overseas once they figure out that they can't charge top dollar for their OS. Once they start selling windows for $15 in India, they will do fine with marketshare.
MS will never do well in China. This is purely because of issues of national security, specifically, that China does not trust MS (a US company) to write the OS that they use at a governmental level. Hence Red flag Linux.
Linux is NOT a threat to MS on the desktop. Sorry. People who think this are either technologists, hobbyists, Linux advocates, or people who have never had to try to use Linux on the desktop. Linux for desktop users is far less usable than Windows.
MS views Linux as a threat to themselves in the server space, where Linux is quite a threat, and probably is going to win out against windows.