The longhorns are coming

[jerryjg]

whos gonna rush right out and get it? I am!http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp

 

[Nothinman]

A new Windows release with everything changed around to confuse users again, whoopty doo.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

(yawns)

 

[Nocturnal]

Wow, beta 2 in November, I wasn't expecting a beta 2 until at least 2006 March or April.

 

[DanDaMan315]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Wow, beta 2 in November, I wasn't expecting a beta 2 until at least 2006 March or April.

Isn't that the official release date?

 

[13Gigatons]

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista.asp <<<---- Updated FAQ

Beta 2 won't be released until July 2006, m$ will release interim builds though.

 

[jerryjg]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista.asp <<<---- Updated FAQ

Beta 2 won't be released until July 2006, m$ will release interim builds though.

No, you misread, it says Beta 2 will be widely distributed in late 2005 (i guess Nov. or Dec.), and that the Vista version will be ready mid part of 2006. Thansk for the clarification on the Vista distribution dates however.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: jerryjg

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista.asp <<<---- Updated FAQ

Beta 2 won't be released until July 2006, m$ will release interim builds though.

No, you misread, it says Beta 2 will be widely distributed in late 2005 (i guess Nov. or Dec.), and that the Vista version will be ready mid part of 2006. Thansk for the clarification on the Vista distribution dates however.

I know that they are saying that beta 2 will out in Nov but it just isn't going to happen. I would say July 2006 before beta 2 hits. If they are lucky they will release the RTM in 2006 but more then likely the RTM won't be seem until 2007.

 

[stash]

I know that they are saying that beta 2 will out in Nov but it just isn't going to happen.

I see. And you know this how?

An eight month slip? Highly unlikely.

 

[drag]

heh.

Eight month slip is nothing for Microsoft. Originally when was 'longhorn' suppose to be out? How about the AMD64 version of Windows XP?

However I realy doubt it will take them till July to pump out another beta. It just doesn't make sense... they could probably release a beta2 right now if they felt like it.

I like Paul Thurrott's estimation.. late this year, early next year.

Which is fine with me. It means that it's likely that it's likely that Linux will have a fully operational 3d-API driven GUI interface before Windows gets one. Which itself doesn't mean jack crap, but it's slightly amusing.

Didn't I read somewere that MS was planing on a 3rd Beta for Vista? Or am I just thinking of Office 12 or something?

 

[stash]

Eight month slip is nothing for Microsoft. Originally when was 'longhorn' suppose to be out? How about the AMD64 version of Windows XP?

There were a couple little projects you might remember called XP SP2 and Server 2003 SP1 that caused LH dev to slip. The Windows division is now almost entirely focused on LH dev (there's also work being done on the upcoming 2003 R2).

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: STaSh

Eight month slip is nothing for Microsoft. Originally when was 'longhorn' suppose to be out? How about the AMD64 version of Windows XP?

There were a couple little projects you might remember called XP SP2 and Server 2003 SP1 that caused LH dev to slip. The Windows division is now almost entirely focused on LH dev (there's also work being done on the upcoming 2003 R2).

Ohhhh... I remember those.

And I also remember quite a few other things to. Like Avalon, WinFS, Indigo.. And the attempts to rewrite much of Windows using the Managed Code API only to scrap most of that, too. (you remember, right? To protect against viruses and make it impossible to buffer overflows in most of Longhorn?)

I am sure those things had their effects, too. Just a few other little projects MS had going on.

 

[nweaver]

The real "Beta 2" will be from release date till the SP1 is released, if MS follows track history

 

[13Gigatons]

Don't forget that it microsoft a year to switch from window xp code to windows 2003 sp1 code.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: nweaver
The real "Beta 2" will be from release date till the SP1 is released, if MS follows track history

LOL! In fact, it can be argued that Microsoft products never leave Beta status.

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: nweaver
The real "Beta 2" will be from release date till the SP1 is released, if MS follows track history

LOL! In fact, it can be argued that Microsoft products never leave Beta status.

LOL! back at ya? Same for any Linux distro, any piece of software written in history.....

You point being??

*Suspects another "man its so cool to hate bill gates diatribe is iminent*

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Seeruk

LOL! back at ya? Same for any Linux distro, any piece of software written in history.....

You point being??

*Suspects another "man its so cool to hate bill gates diatribe is iminent*

Yeah, lets all bash windows cause we hate bill.

Did you ever think that maybe we expect stuff to work WHEN IT"S RELEASED? If you are using debian stable, it's exactly that, stable. If you use Gentoo, it's not advertised as stable, and sometimes isn't. Windows is sold as "stable" and I would care to gandar that no windows box would touch a debian stable box, or a Netware 5 box, or an HPUX box for stability/reliablity at release. I'm not saying "M$ is t3h suck!!1!". I'm just saying they might release an OS before it's really ready.

 

[stash]

Did you ever think that maybe we expect stuff to work WHEN IT"S RELEASED?

Right, because Microsoft is the only group to release something with problems.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39195896,00.htm
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39196419,00.htm

I'm not saying that Debian is a piece of crap or they have shoddy QC. I'm just saying that expecting something as complex as an OS (or any software) to perform perfectly right out of the gate is unreasonable. Can you name any piece of commercial software that has never had bug fixes?

Edit: I'm not sure if commercial is the right word to use. But basically, can you name any software that has not had bugs?

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: djmihow
(yawns)

(yawns too)

Oh man, stop. It's contagious...

 

[nweaver]

I can name an OS that runs stable. I did in fact, debian stable and netware 5. We had a netware 5 server with 0 reboots (on UPS and generator) with over 4 years of uptime. Show me a windows machine that is running without reboot (uptime of 4+ years) and still providing the services at a normal speed. They might have patches, but usually it's to fix security holes just dicovered in software. Even then debian stable lives up to it's name. Not sure on those links, as I don't know what version debian stable is (not the debian man, it's my friend who put it on several production machines for the company).

 

[stash]

Uptime is highly overrated. Availability is where it's at.

 

[nweaver]

so a server that is up 24/7 for 4+ years, and still has full availability isn't good? I know with our exchange server, monthly reboots are a given for it to run smoothly/quickly. OWA dies if you don't. Of course, that is up from weekly reboots to keep OWA working.

 

[stash]

so a server that is up 24/7 for 4+ years, and still has full availability isn't good?

It's fine, but rebooting a server every month for patches does not mean the OS is any less stable than a system that is up for years.

I know with our exchange server, monthly reboots are a given for it to run smoothly/quickly. OWA dies if you don't. Of course, that is up from weekly reboots to keep OWA working.

Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support this? What version of Exchange? Have you bothered to investigate this with Microsoft? If such a bug exists, how is it every supposed to be fixed if it is never reported? I'm looking through cases in our internal database, and I'm not finding anything about people rebooting their Exchange servers on a regular basis to keep OWA running.

 

[nweaver]

my evidence is a dual 1ghz p3 xeon w/2 gigs of ram, server 2k3 and exchange 2k3 in a test lab, and 2k3/2k3 on our copr network (installed on Dell 2650's, not sure on complete specs).

My history is 2 years in the lab, and my coworker who spent 6+ years in one of HP's datacenters managing exchange 5.5/2000 on NT4/2K servers. And you said it's about availablity, reboots mean it's not available, doesn't it?

I did have one of oure exchange machines up for 90 days, but you could not connect to any services (RDP, SMTP, OWA, RPC). We had to reboot it from the console and then all was fine. This happened several times.

Most sysadmins don't call support when they have to reboot their MS boxes to keep services up and running. I'm not saying Linux/Netware can be installed and left alone forever, but I am saying they have a higher uptime/availability then my MS boxes. This is in the experience of me and co workers.

 

[stash]

And you said it's about availablity, reboots mean it's not available, doesn't it?

That depends. You could use an Exchange cluster, for example.

Most sysadmins don't call support when they have to reboot their MS boxes to keep services up and running

Really? They are satisfied with having to reboot a server to get RDP, SMTP, OWA and RPC to work? That is not normal behavior. For most people, email is one of the most critical services on the network. I know that if my customer's email was behaving like that, they would be on me and my colleagues' collective asses 24/7 to get it fixed. In their case, email is critical to keeping the government functioning.