what is the real reason for microsoft cutting out features in longhorn?

[minofifa]

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117630,tk,dn082704X,00.asp

this article basically states that microsoft is releasing the new version of windows without some of its key features. A spokesperson says that they are doing this to satisfy demand on waiting time. Personally, i'm in no hurry for the new OS. Maybe i don't understand the benefits of it but id rather pay for a full featured OS, insted of two half-assed upgrades. I dont think that microsoft would losse a lot of support by not releasing the new OS, as long as they maintined XP updates. Then again i could be totally wrong... any opinions?

 

[Canterwood]

I would say the old ca$h cow that is a new Windows version is the main reason for pushing the OS out without some features.

They're probably hoping that the new snazzy GUI coupled with PCI-Express graphics will tempt a lot of users to upgrade their PC's and move over to Longhorn.
I'll also guess that they will use the old "Most secure Windows OS yet" line as well as a selling point, and they're worried about losing ground to Linux as well if they don't come out with a new version in the next few years.

 

[spyordie007]

4th quarter 2006 will mark 5 years since the release of Windows XP.

They're a business, they've got to release something eventually. Imagine what would happen to AMD if they didnt release a new product for 5 years..

 

[minofifa]

ya that's true. a business needs to sell stuff to make money. Microsoft has many other means of making cahs though. They usually rlease an office every once in a while, some other applications, training for their software and servers. What exactly is that feature that they have decided to leave out? is it significant? What is taking so long in the development if there are no huge changes?

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: minofifa
ya that's true. a business needs to sell stuff to make money. Microsoft has many other means of making cahs though.

A business also needs to improve itself over time to stay competitive and relevant with consumer
and industry needs. Most of Microsoft's other means of making money as still tied into development
on the OS side, which is tied into keeping up with technological advances from other parts of the
industry.

They usually rlease an office every once in a while, some other applications, training for their software and servers.

Which is also usually tied in with some improvement to the OS/APIs or is released in anticipation
of developing the OS/APIs to match some future needs.

What exactly is that feature that they have decided to leave out? is it significant? What is taking so long in the development if there are no huge changes?

Operating Systems always take longer to develop than first expected. Even if there are no significant
changes from the old version, much of the code is usually going thru rewrite and review to see if
older features as even needed anymore. Looking at major OS projects from other companies
(Apple, IBM, Sun, etc), you see a familiar pattern. They always start with great expectations of
some magical new user experience... then reality sets in, and the programmers have to figure
out how to make that experience work semi-consistently for the majority of users that will have
to learn it.

 

[drag]

Right now Longhorn has a bunch of potential, but if they rush it to market to get it out on 2006, instead of a more sane 2008 or whatever, then it's going to be the same old crap.

Some stuff they are talking about getting rid of is Avalon, and save that for the next OS. Also thinking about killing off WinFS.


Windows already has 95% market penetration. Everybody who want office, owns office. And that's the only 2 products that are profitable for Microsoft.

Everything else MS does at a loss. Hardware, databases, development tools, Xbox. Whatever. They loose money on it. Don't ask me how, but they only make a actual profit on Office and Windows. That's it.

If longhorn doesn't get out, then in 2006 the state-of-the-art OS available to consumers from Microsoft is going to be nearly 5 years old.

Think about it. The time distance from WinXP to Longhorn is going to be greater then the time distance from Win95 to Windows 2000. The ORIGINAL win95. Look at SP2, delayed and a pain. They don't even have a 64bit version out yet.

But by almost every market analysis the whole IT sector of the economy is overvalued, including Microsoft. Look at their stock market value. here a graph of the past 5 years
2 years
1 years
Max

MSFT is currently sitting at 40% of the value it was in 2000. So if I invested 100,000 dollars in 2000 I would of made -60,000 dollars so far.

And since then It's only gone up like maybe 5-7%. While the rest of the market is showing signs of recovery, MS really has mostly flat-lined. It goes up and it goes down. Except for some idiot day traders, it doesn't impress anybody.

Here is a little thing about the stock market:

When prices are going up: people make money.
When prices are going down: people make money. (because they are actually selling it and getting a real money return instead of just paper. and people do that selling short stuff.)

But when the prices just sit there? Nobody is making money, nobody is happy.

So MS has to make noise. That's what the buy back promise stuff was; That's what "We feel that MS should start using it's cash reserves to start paying back it's investors" was about.

Now whether or not this noise is worth caring about is up to speculation. To me it's just more of the same. Everything in Longhorn is just smoke and mirrors. 150% Marketing, pure and simple. MS has always lied about having features that don't really exist (and never will exist), made promises it couldn't keep, and delayed every single product it's ever created, except maybe for keyboards and mice.

So far Longhorn is the equivalent to Apple's Copland.

Wake me up when MS actually does something, instead of talking about doing something. All this speculation is just MS trying to get investors to pay attention to them again.

 

[spyordie007]

Actually they are not ditching avalon or winfs; they are basically saying that all the features wont be ready by 2006 so they arent going to have everything they had initially wanted as part of the release. I'd still say Longhorn brings a pretty big change to the Windows platform; but many of those changes are not readily apparent to end users (aside from the updated DX9 driven GUI).

And yes 64bit is a part of Longhorn, there were both 32 and 64 bit builds released to developers @ WinHEC.

This is pretty common in the software development cycle, both for closed source and for open source projects. A feature list gets compiled for the next release and research and development goes into those features. Not everything is able to get worked in immediatly and some things are pulled entirely either because they are not important or not feesible in the established timeframe. A couple years back I worked for another very large software manufacturer and I'd say Microsoft is doing a very good job all things considered.

Also it's important to note that they used a lot of their Windows programming team on SP2 rather than Longhorn and this is the primary reason for the latest delay. It's not common that you'll see a company pull a major portion of their workforce that is developing the next product release and put them on a free update to an existing product (SP2).

 

[drag]

Ya well out of most companies MS is the one that is most cronic about the feature fibbing.

Pretty soon you'll start hearing more and more about Avalon and WinFS and other "revolutionary" features being mentioned more and more with references to "blackcomb" (or whatever the next thing will be), rather then referenced with "longhorn". Looks like the next OS is just going to be a upgrade version of NT again, WinXP++, NT 6.0 or 7.0 or whatever.

Just more cool-aid.

But whatever, you'd think that if MS wanted to sell more liscences they'd just start selling copies of WinXP-64. Were is that at right now?

 

[spyordie007]

you'd think that if MS wanted to sell more liscences they'd just start selling copies of WinXP-64. Were is that at right now?

Delayed to Q1 2005, just like SP1 for server 2003

 

[Nothinman]

They're probably doing this because all of the people who bought their "hey, pay annually and you'll get our new sh!t cheaper!" line are complaining because there hasn't been any new sh!t to get.

Looks like the next OS is just going to be a upgrade version of NT again, WinXP++, NT 6.0 or 7.0 or whatever.

You mean NT 5.2 or 5.3, XP was 5.1.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
They're probably doing this because all of the people who bought their "hey, pay annually and you'll get our new sh!t cheaper!" line are complaining because there hasn't been any new sh!t to get.

Looks like the next OS is just going to be a upgrade version of NT again, WinXP++, NT 6.0 or 7.0 or whatever.

You mean NT 5.2 or 5.3, XP was 5.1.

Well whatever it is, it's worth releasing. In terms of security WinXP was ok in it's day, but now is terribly dated. Having a OS that comes with everything up to date security wise is always going to be preferable to having to buy a machine that has to have 3 years of patches applied before you could even start using it. That in itself would help out a lot of people.

 

[stash]

Having a OS that comes with everything up to date security wise is always going to be preferable to having to buy a machine that has to have 3 years of patches applied before you could even start using it.

Or you could create a XP SP2 slipstream install and not have to apply any patches at all.

And before you tell me that all those stupid Windows users out there can't handle that, new systems will start coming with SP2 around October, and XP with SP2 will be on store shelves around the same timeframe.

 

[drag]

Unhuh. I never said that Windows users were stupid. If you use Windows, that's great and all the power to you.


But don't you think that it's a little socially irresponsable to simply sell a computer to somebody for a 1000 bucks at a store that is completely vunerable to attacks and will be comprimised and turned into a relay for spam in under 20 minutes of being connected to the internet?

A resonable person would assume that a brand new computer would not pose a immediate threat to the internet and that a person at least have a chance at getting things all situated and secure before having to immediately worry about setting up firewalls and ant-virus protection?

Anything they do to help fix that problem is good in my eyes. I'm suprised nobody has been sued over that. It's like ford selling a new Explorer with completely bald tires and rotting sidewalls from the dealer's lot.

(and yes I understand they have gone thru some steps to fix it, but if I was selling a computer to someone personally I would make sure that it was completely up to date with patches and everything seems to function properly. It seems to me like a reasonable thing to do. Now if they were installing the OS from media, that would be different. I'd figure anybody smart enough to do that is smart enough to install patches. Although throwing in a slip stream cd or whatever would be a nice extra thing to do.)

 

[stash]

But don't you think that it's a little socially irresponsable to simply sell a computer to somebody for a 1000 bucks at a store that is completely vunerable to attacks and will be comprimised and turned into a relay for spam in under 20 minutes of being connected to the internet?

I do. Which is why OEMs will be able to sell new XP computers with SP2 preinstalled. A new machine with SP2 preinstalled is not going to be compromised in 20 minutes.

I'm not sure if Microsoft intends (or will be able to) force everyone who sells an XP system to sell it with SP2. So if someone continues to sell new computers with XP RTM, the social irresponsibility lies with that retailer, not Microsoft.

 

[bsobel]

I'm not sure if Microsoft intends (or will be able to) force everyone who sells an XP system to sell it with SP2. So if someone continues to sell new computers with XP RTM, the social irresponsibility lies with that retailer, not Microsoft.

I believe the OEM's have 90 days to move to the SP2 bits...
Bill