Readers Weigh In on Longhorn Due Date
|
Last week, I wondered aloud whether Microsoft's decision to slip the due date for Longhorn (to 2006) would matter all that much to users well used to perpetually late Windows releases. Read "It's Official: No Longhorn Until 2006" Well, the readers have spoken. It matters. To most who wrote in, the latest push-back is a positive thing. They say they have barely digested Windows XP and are in no rush to upgrade to yet another new Windows release. They would rather Microsoft get the product right than have to patch and re-patch, they say. But to others — who have been hearing Microsoft's promises of better security; more tightly integrated development tools and technologies; a souped-up user-interface equal to Apple's best — another delay is the last straw. Linux and Mac OS: Here they come. Here is just a sampling of reader mail on the subject:
They have taken a lot of shortcuts on the XP code and it was a sloppy OS from the start. If they can release a product that rivals OS X in security and innovation in 2006 that will benefit them.....unfortunately Apple is releasing it on the 24th of this month. P.S...While my letter my sound like it is from a Mac user, which I Randy Smith
With all the security holes found in Windows 2000/XP, seems both operating systems have the same vulnerabilities, Microsoft needs to sit back and take a long look at what they have in place security wise before moving along with a newer OS. I think newer operating systems that come out are great but I don't agree with how fast Windows XP came out after Windows 2000. The reasons we are forced to upgrade to the newer operating systems isn't really that we need it for things to work properly, or in a reasonable manner; The reason is because OEM manufactures, software manufactures, etc., have to move along with the newer technology and throw out the old. Microsoft stopped supporting Windows 9x based machines; So what does the manufactures do? They stop supporting Windows 9x as well. This forces companies to upgrade to newer operating systems even though what they have in place may be working just fine. In overview, I really think Microsoft should slow down with pushing out newer operating systems because of flaws that shouldn't exist and for the reasons that we really don't need a whole new operating system when one just came out a few years ago.
"Readers Weigh In On Longhorn" Letters, Page 2 The delay of Longhorn is actually a relief — I won't have to put up with the Microsoft hype around a product that has too many features that I don't want. Linux keeps looking better and better — a stable product with lots of choice of software, no hardware requirements that force upgrades every two years. I'm starting to sniff the beginning of the end for MS dominance in the desktop OS and Office sutie arenas. Security, stability and affordability — MS will never understand all three of those at the same time. Chris Austin I believe it (2006) is a bit too long before implementing a new client OS. But I believe Microsoft has the consumers' best interest in mind. With all of the Security problems they have had with XP, I think they want to spend more time with QA on the next release, to insure a solid and secure system. Plus I believe at this point there focus in the market place is the server platform, working to get a bigger share of this market. Once they have obtained that goal everything else will fall into place, and the timing of the next release of a client OS will be perfect.
BJ (Bob) Schmid I've been following Longhorn quite adamantly since the first alpha release was "accidentally" leaked to the internet, and it definitely has some potential. I believe that the length between major releases will mean people will have a greater chance to become curious as to what else is out there, maybe going out and trying something new instead of following the same routine they have every day, as well as allow Linux to progress to the point of being able to compete directly with Windows in the entry-level market. I think this is a bad move on Microsoft's part, not that they really have a choice if they want to do all they say they do. Now would be a good time to launch OSX for the x86 platform! Brendan I really don't think XP is lacking, and therefore am not all that concerned about "waiting for the next big thing" in operating systems. What "bit" I am chomping for is of the 64-bit variety, a 64-bit operating system from either Apple or Microsoft. Now that Apple and AMD have 64-bit chips, we just need an operating system to take advantage of it. In the 32-bit world, I think both OS X (.2) and XP are stable and easy to operate...just would love more speed on multimedia apps. Mark Snyder "Readers Weigh In On Longhorn" Letters, Page 3 Such a long delay in Longhorn would give us great cause to consider Apple's Mac OS X (Panther), as we see this very exciting, stable and feature rich OS as offering creative technical professionals like us many advantages and features to be put to good use.
I'm the IT director of a prominent 15 person Boston architectural firm and manage a mostly Windows XP environment.
Anthony Frausto-Robledo For me, this is good news. It will give Apple and Linux as a whole plenty of time to not really catch up, but differentiate themselves from Microsoft. As a secure reliable alternative that is available today, not in 2006 (2007 anyone?).
Apple is already many years ahead in several areas compared to Win XP Adam Chaney I must say, as a one-man IS department for a small business, I was very happy to hear that Microsoft is pushing back Longhorn to 2006. Small companies with small IS budgets can hardly afford to be locked into a two-year upgrade cycle. As I write this I'm putting together my 2004 budget and I'm going to have quite a fight trying to prove the value of upgrading our Office installations from 2000 to 2003. Also, at the rate we're currently going, it will take me until the end of 2004 to get all our machines upgraded to Windows XP. Even more exciting is the prospect of no ME-style incremental release in the next couple years. I'm still fighting with users' machines that came with the "upgraded" OS. Steve Ballmer should wake up and realize that he's asking for another ME debacle if he pushes another Windows release before Longhorn. I'm all for a beefy SP2, but let's leave it at that. Dan Wearsch
In the "For What It's Worth" department, four to five years should be quite sufficient for Lindows (already underway) and Novell-whatever (just announced to compete with Lindows) to get a great head-start on Microsoft in the 64 bit arena. There are a few rumblings that major application providers such as Corel, Adobe, and Symantec are considering porting to the Linux/Lindows environment. Coupling that with other utility houses such as McAfee, PKZIP, a user would have a clear choice of Linux/Lindows versus MS Windows products. Considering the historical stability of each product, it would be interesting to see just how quickly the public would be willing to move to Linux/Lindows/Novell-whatever.
I for one would be very happy to get all the seriously deficient and perpetually defective Microsoft products off my computer hardware for good. Any company that makes as much profit as Microsoft does and then uses that monetary advantage to destroy competition having superior products instead of using that money to put more effort into developing vastly superior products just does not deserve to be in business. Reader Name Withheld By Request "Readers Weigh In On Longhorn" Letters, Page 4 For me (and most of my company from what I can see), we're still on 2000 with some NT4 sprinkled here and there. We are just now getting around to doing an XP upgrade at the desktop. There's nothing wrong with XP (except the product activation thing), and considering the pricing, I'd like to hang onto XP for at least a few years before upgrading again... Longhorn showing up before 2006 would be pointless in my book. We certainly wouldn't be moving to it as soon as it became available because we would be just barely done with moving to XP. A lot of companies that I know about are even farther behind than we are. If anything, Microsoft can do much better by pushing Longhorn even further back and using the added time to get it right. Two years may be fine for the home user between upgrades, but for a decent company of any size, it's way too short.It takes a good year to do quality configuration, testing, and QA for an OS upgrade cycle. Making sure nothing breaks as a result of the upgrade and that everyone's needs are accounted for is not a small task. Then it takes at least three to six months to roll it out and do end user training and stamp out any snafus that weren't readily apparent during the configuration phase. Having another OS upgrade pushed on you when you just finished the last one less than a year ago is not desirable. Windows 2000 is more than adequate for many of our business needs. We're moving to XP mostly to cover supporting newer hardware, and to make sure we're current enough that we don't have to worry about running out of support from MS at some point in the relatively near future. Reader Name Withheld By Request
Web Services? Nobody has shown me why this is a new needed function in my network. The concept is still a little flaky to me at this time. Appears somewhat worthless in my current network. Palladium —concept sounds OK, but the potential for Microsoft to turn this into their own tool for checking my systems scares me. Beyond this, if it becomes a situation where certain applications/functions will not work properly without the consent of Microsoft, there will be no such action within my realms. Self-healing/self-managing systems??? Why does this sound like the proverbial 'pile' in the pasture? Can't realistically see it happening. Visual Studio, XML, HTML, Java: Good for the code writers, worthless to the rest of us. Office 2003 Professional???? Price tag is a Killer app in it's own way. The price will kill us. How about "Feature Rich - Value Poor" There is no reason to move up when you only use 10% to 20% of the regular features. Sharepoint?? Another 'Oh well.' In all actuality, I see no value in moving up to XP or any future versions. It almost appears as though we are heading into a future with locked in platforms under the Microsoft banner, and a price tag that will guarantee a gold edging. Jim Lambright - MIS Well, speaking as one worm in the trenches, I am *delighted* to see a greater gap between editions of any OS — taking into account the training time, the debugging time, and the time spent preparing for the next upgrade, the effective life of an OS being pushed at the Microsoft pace is about two years — and that's just not long enough. Nobody herniated when NT4 lasted five years, so I see no reason for there to be any change now. In fact, retrograde stick-in-the-mud that I am, I would be quite happy if we were to reintroduce stem to computing, and have an OS upgrade cycle every 10 years or so..... John Howard Oxley I am actually happy the next windows will not be released for an additional year. As MIS Admin for a regional ISP, I won't have to upgrade 50 workstations just so they can have the new bells and whistles, additionally I can put off training out Tech Support to support for yet another Operating System. I don't even think you can imagine how lost our customers were in XP. If you think about it what more could you really want from Windows? How about cheaper site licensing. J Fish
I don't see what's wrong with them delaying the release of Longhorn — maybe finally they'll release something that might be able to function right out of the box (which is very unlikely, though), unlike all their previous releases, which needed to be patched first thing after installation. Besides, by the time they release the system, others might have something better to offer — you never know :) Dmitry Nikiforov "Readers Weigh In On Longhorn" Letters, Page 5
I run .Net on windows 2003 server standard edition and it simply rocks! There is absolutely nothing out that can compete with the aforementioned combination. Hence, Longhorn would be a "nice to have." Senior Software Engineer Speaking as the IT manager for a mid-sized manufacturing company with a network of 200 desktop and control system PCs, I can say that I am relieved that the latest and greatest from Redmond has been delayed. It means that we will have another year before it becomes necessary to upgrade our standard office environment. The economy may, or may not be recovering but we are still managing our business with lean, recession-style budgets and management is not anxious to spend a boat-load of cash to upgrade our desktop operating system and office suite. The delay also means that our decision two years ago to "Just Say No" to Microsoft's insistent Software Assurance pitch was the right choice — the return on investment for Software Assurance gets smaller and smaller with every delay in the new version's release date. Keven Simmons If you haven't weighed in on the Longhorn delay and would like to share your two cents, write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and let me know what you think. |
