is windows.net any different from the previous windows?

[iLoveDivX]

i know the betas are out so just wanted to know if it's different from the other windows as far as looks and stuff.

 

[Blayze]

Pics

 

[gopunk]

i heard they went back to the basics... it's just a fancy dos prompt now

 

[iLoveDivX]

looks to me like just another xp but improved server sh*t or whatever. am i right?

 

[MrBond]

<< looks to me like just another xp but improved server sh*t or whatever. am i right? >>

Looks like it to me. I see no reason for server applications to need anything better then Win2k Advanced Server, but MS really is pushing their .NET services, so I fully expect to see them force this upgrade on people running 2k.

 

[Blayze]

<< looks to me like just another xp but improved server sh*t or whatever. am i right? >>



more than likely...


I also read on that site that Longhorn (whatever its called) comes out in 2003 and its basically Windows XP SE or something like that.

 

[Train]

my god people, listen to yourselves! "uh duh, gui looks the same, its basically the same thing......"

theres more to an OS than the GUI!!!

FYI, .NET has HUGE architectural differences over 2k adv server, main thing is that its almost entirely XML based, which really rocks as far as being able to dynamicaly adjust the configuration, as well as it being simple enough to open up in notepad and edited by hand. The fact that XML is a non MS open standard means many applications will be able to interface not only with the OS, but other 3rd party applications and services as well. Not to mention .NET has a much better kernal that 2k.

 

[wyvrn]

Now MS is changing to fast for people to keep up. What a waste.

 

[gopunk]

the reason ms is changing so fast is because there are competing technologies. if you don't like the pace, you can pray sun and co. goes out of business or something. then ms might slow down.

 

[Train]

<< because there are competing technologies >>

agreed, MS needs to innovate in the Server market more than any other. One competitor making huge gains in market share is IBM Websphere

 

[erub]

Since when is a major release every 2 years "too fast?". I think its the perfect pace actually (for desktops, at least).

 

[Elledan]

<< FYI, .NET has HUGE architectural differences over 2k adv server, main thing is that its almost entirely XML based, which really rocks as far as being able to dynamicaly adjust the configuration, as well as it being simple enough to open up in notepad and edited by hand. >>


Configuration files? No more registry-stuff?

Would they happen to drop the drive-letters as well? And increase security? And introduce a functional CLI-interface, or at least a terminal window?

Hmm.. wait, that sounds familiar. Aren't there a couple of OS's out there which already do have these features? =)

 

[royaldank]

<< I also read on that site that Longhorn (whatever its called) comes out in 2003 and its basically Windows XP SE or something like that. >>



Last I heard, Longhorn was due this summer...at least, that's what an analyst on TechTV was saying last week. And it sounded as if it was just WinXPSE. I'm going to hold off thinking about XP until I see that, and because I don't need XP for anything right now.

Also, the latest rumors have .NET being pushed back a ways. I think it was supposed to be around now that it was to hit, but they are way behind on it. There are a few people speculating over whether or not they will actually be able to produce a .NET that meets their earlier specifications. And if they do, it will be 2 or 3 years behind schedule.

 

[Train]

<< Also, the latest rumors have .NET being pushed back a ways. I think it was supposed to be around now that it was to hit, but they are way behind on it. There are a few people speculating over whether or not they will actually be able to produce a .NET that meets their earlier specifications. And if they do, it will be 2 or 3 years behind schedule. >>

.NET is right on schedule, Feb 13th MS will throw a huge release party. Just over a month away.

 

[iLoveDivX]

<< my god people, listen to yourselves! "uh duh, gui looks the same, its basically the same thing......"


theres more to an OS than the GUI!!!

FYI, .NET has HUGE architectural differences over 2k adv server, main thing is that its almost entirely XML based, which really rocks as far as being able to dynamicaly adjust the configuration, as well as it being simple enough to open up in notepad and edited by hand. The fact that XML is a non MS open standard means many applications will be able to interface not only with the OS, but other 3rd party applications and services as well. Not to mention .NET has a much better kernal that 2k. >>



You GEEK. I don't care about the xml sh*t. All i use my comp for is internet and gaming. that's it. no programming here. therefore, all that other stuff is useless to me. it might matter to some of you, so that's your situation and i respect that. as far as mine, it's all about the gui and how user friendly it is. don't flame others unless you want to get jacked yourself.

 

[Train]

<< You GEEK. I don't care about the xml sh*t. All i use my comp for is internet and gaming. that's it. no programming here. therefore, all that other stuff is useless to me. it might matter to some of you, so that's your situation and i respect that. as far as mine, it's all about the gui and how user friendly it is. don't flame others unless you want to get jacked yourself. >>

in that case, you will never buy .NET, its a server OS, not at all good for gaming. (unless you running a gaming server, then it might help ya )

 

[trmiv]

<<

You GEEK. I don't care about the xml sh*t. All i use my comp for is internet and gaming. that's it. no programming here. therefore, all that other stuff is useless to me. it might matter to some of you, so that's your situation and i respect that. as far as mine, it's all about the gui and how user friendly it is. don't flame others unless you want to get jacked yourself. >>



Why would you even care? .NET is a SERVER OS, it is not intended for people that use their computer for internet and gaming. The .NET OS shouldn't even be on your radar.

 

[iLoveDivX]

<< Why would you even care? .NET is a SERVER OS, it is not intended for people that use their computer for internet and gaming. The .NET OS shouldn't even be on your radar. >>



new os = gotta try it.

 

<< FYI, .NET has HUGE architectural differences over 2k adv server, main thing is that its almost entirely XML based, which really rocks as far as being able to dynamicaly adjust the configuration, as well as it being simple enough to open up in notepad and edited by hand. >>


Haha, Unix had text based configuration for what, 30 years. XML is the biggest buzz word technology. It's nowhere as useful as people hype it up as. It's just a standardized text file if you boil it down.

 

[trmiv]

<<

<< Why would you even care? .NET is a SERVER OS, it is not intended for people that use their computer for internet and gaming. The .NET OS shouldn't even be on your radar. >>



new os = gotta try it. >>



Unless you can come up with the really high asking price--W2K server 10-client is $1200 and W2K advanced server 25-client is $4000, so you can bet this will be high--I doubt you'll be trying out the final version.

 

[royaldank]

<<

<<

<< Why would you even care? .NET is a SERVER OS, it is not intended for people that use their computer for internet and gaming. The .NET OS shouldn't even be on your radar. >>



new os = gotta try it. >>



Unless you can come up with the really high asking price--W2K server 10-client is $1200 and W2K advanced server 25-client is $4000, so you can bet this will be high--I doubt you'll be trying out the final version. >>



Or, at the very least, a completely legal final version.

 

[iLoveDivX]

legal? never heard of it. not in my dictionary. what does it mean?

 

[Descartes]

<< Would they happen to drop the drive-letters as well? And increase security? And introduce a functional CLI-interface, or at least a terminal window? >>



Why drop the drive letters? Why not have all unix-derived drop the arbitrary mount points? Increase security? What can they do to "increase security" if the moronic administrators can't even apply patches that have been out for months?? Don't blame the creator, blame the interface. A functional CLI-interface (superfluous, btw)? Huh??? I spend at least 75% of my time in a command-prompt. Most of the tools I use are CLI only, and most of the tools I write are CLI only. Indeed, for many of the more powerful tools, GUIs are an extreme hindrance. I obviously do most of my development in Windows, but other than that, command-prompt all the way. Terminal window? What is the difference between a terminal window, and a command-prompt? Are you upset because Windows doesn't spawn 6 processes (or more depending on your inittab) for an mgetty'esque process? The command-prompt works just fine for me.

 

[Descartes]

<< Haha, Unix had text based configuration for what, 30 years. XML is the biggest buzz word technology. It's nowhere as useful as people hype it up as. It's just a
standardized text file if you boil it down. >>



I wish to hell programs like Sys V init, apache, etc., would use XML-based configuration. I use XML pretty much exclusively for configuration files, simply because it's easier for me to interface with it. A benefit I've recently seen, is that the data used by my program (in XML) was easily transposed to another format for our auditing system using XSLT. I hadn't anticipated this, but another programmer was able to do it w/o consulting me. Now, consider having a configuration vernacular for XML, only one administrative interface would need to be built for *all* programs. The interface could be dynamically rendered to accomodate the configuration file in question. Also, XSLT could translate the documents to other formats w/ ease. In one of the recent XML magazines there was an article on XMLConfig in Java. It suggested an implementation for what I mentioned; the ability to provide an extensible, consistent configuration vernacular. Have a look-see if you like...

But yes, largely, XML has been way, way overhyped. It does have it's uses, but it's not the panacean solution that was pushed for so long.

 

[Train]

<< Haha, Unix had text based configuration for what, 30 years. XML is the biggest buzz word technology. It's nowhere as useful as people hype it up as. It's just a
standardized text file if you boil it down. >>

oh another one of those "Unix has had that for 30 years" comments, whoopee, if its had it for 30 years, how come unix isnt 30 years ahead of XP now eh? Oh wait, Unix is still the same as it was 30 years ago.