Windows .NET Server..

[dawks]

Does anyone have an idea of a release date for this puppy?

I havent heard any numbers yet.. but does anyone at least have an idea..? 2months.. 5months..?

As far as I know, its in Beta 3 right now, the last beta before gold.. so we should be close.. not?

 

[Ameesh]

Its a ways off, if you remeber reading in the news we went into a security stand down where the whole windows division did a security review on all shipping code, we are just coming out of it, so it might be a ways off.


but trust me its worth the wait, right now it runs great, active directory is a whole lot easier to manage, hercules is awsome and there are a lot of great new features and fixes to make this the best Server OS MS has made to date.

 

[dawks]

Whats it like compaired to XP? Could be be run as a desktop OS?

Is Corona going to be shipping with .NET?

And whats Hercules?

 

[joohang]

At a dinner/beer table on March 20 (I think) after Comdex, I heard from a Microsoft product manager (not in charge of the product) that it was delayed further to end of 2002.

I suppose that's quite a reliable source. It might delay even further. I'm not sure what's up with all these delays.

I'm not aware of that many significant changes to this version either. The big one will be the one that will ship COM+ equivalent for .NET, which will be either one or two versions after .NET Server.

Perhaps Ameesh can disclose some info as long as they are not NDA. He's in charge of IPSec, I think.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<< At a dinner/beer table on March 20 (I think) after Comdex, I heard from a Microsoft product manager (not in charge of the product) that it was delayed further to end of 2002.

I suppose that's quite a reliable source. It might delay even further. I'm not sure what's up with all these delays.

I'm not aware of that many significant changes to this version either. The big one will be the one that will ship COM+ equivalent for .NET, which will be either one or two versions after .NET Server.

Perhaps Ameesh can disclose some info as long as they are not NDA. He's in charge of IPSec, I think. >>



Don't worry, I trust Microsoft to promote the beta and release it when too many people start asking about the delays.

 

[Ameesh]

<< At a dinner/beer table on March 20 (I think) after Comdex, I heard from a Microsoft product manager (not in charge of the product) that it was delayed further to end of 2002.

I suppose that's quite a reliable source. It might delay even further. I'm not sure what's up with all these delays.

I'm not aware of that many significant changes to this version either. The big one will be the one that will ship COM+ equivalent for .NET, which will be either one or two versions after .NET Server.

Perhaps Ameesh can disclose some info as long as they are not NDA. He's in charge of IPSec, I think. >>



im not in charge of IPSec i just work in the group.

The end of 2002 was/is the original ETA

Herculeus is the media streming server

you could use it as a desktop but i dont see why you would want to, its role as a server would be comlimentary to a desktop not inclusive.

i dont think corona will ship with it as it will probably ship with a more consumer oriented product.

.NET code is already managed and compnent based so im not sure what your getting at with the COM+ comment.

 

[joohang]

<< The end of 2002 was/is the original ETA >>


Oh. I first heard Q1 2002. Then end of Q2. Then end of 2002. Probably rumours or maybe your marketing departments spreading wrong ETA dates.



<< Herculeus is the media streming server >>


Cool. What is Corona, then?



<< .NET code is already managed and compnent based so im not sure what your getting at with the COM+ comment. >>


I'm not a software architect and I know little about this, but I heard mixed responses to this. Some people tell me that .NET doesn't need COM+. On the other hand, others tell me that in order to take advantage of features built-in to Component Services, one needs to implement a COM+ compatibility layer to .NET apps to take advantage of component pooling, role-based security, etc. And a fully .NET-based version of Component Services won't ship for at least 2 versions, from what I heard. Enlighten me, sir.

 

[Ameesh]

Corona is the new codec.


.NET componenst can be exposed to other applications as a COM+ object but in reality there isnt any of the query interface or addref thing going on in the traditional sense a CCD wrapper is made and handles all the marshihling inbetween the CLR and native code.

COM+ applications can be invoked by .NET applications quite easily. Simple instantions will create them and the CLR will manage the outside refrences.

.NET is all about compnonents, so pooling and role based securrity is already there, that and more is ready for the develpoer and as far as COM+ is concerned its on the way out, writing everything to .NET standards will yield higher productivity and lower TCO as well as better maintablkity and troubleshooting.

 

[Descartes]

<< Some people tell me that .NET doesn't need COM+. On the other hand, others tell me that in order to take advantage of features built-in to Component Services, one needs to implement a COM+ compatibility layer to .NET apps to take advantage of component pooling, role-based security, etc. And a fully .NET-based version of Component Services won't ship for at least 2 versions, from what I heard. >>



Have a look-see at the System.EnterpriseServices namespace, specifically the ServicedComponent class. All one has to do to create a COM+ component is to derive from the aforementioned class, set the appropriate attributes (Transaction), strong name the assembly, and register it. Not bad considering all the headaches one had to go through in the WinDNA days.

 

[joohang]

<<

<< Some people tell me that .NET doesn't need COM+. On the other hand, others tell me that in order to take advantage of features built-in to Component Services, one needs to implement a COM+ compatibility layer to .NET apps to take advantage of component pooling, role-based security, etc. And a fully .NET-based version of Component Services won't ship for at least 2 versions, from what I heard. >>



Have a look-see at the System.EnterpriseServices namespace, specifically the ServicedComponent class. All one has to do to create a COM+ component is to derive from the aforementioned class, set the appropriate attributes (Transaction), strong name the assembly, and register it. Not bad considering all the headaches one had to go through in the WinDNA days. >>


Yup. I personally haven't tried it but I heard something very similar to what you just said.