×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More on Longhorn

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the giddyap dept.

Microsoft 624

An anonymous reader writes "Everything I have read concering MS's future plans: Palladium, Client/Server tie in, Office 11 breaking backward compatability, 3 year licensing plans, product activation - all leave me with a foreboding sense of the potential synergy for furthering Microsoft's goals of complete domination. Now this article tells about Longhorn's new filesystem being based on the the future Yukon server. And surprise it will only work with new hardware, which they want to be Palladium enabled. And all pitched to you under the rubric of Security & Efficency. For years MS has been accused of only wanting people to run MS Software. Now according to the article, 'Microsoft doesn't think computer users should have to use one program to read and write a word-processing file, another to use a spreadsheet, and a third to correspond via e-mail. Rather, the company thinks, a single program should handle it all.' One program to rule them all, one program to bind them, indeed."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

624 comments

frist poost (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783349)

suck on my longhorn

SO CLOSE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783351)

but no fp. pretty damn close though.

i found the new slashdot mascot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783353)

check it out here [yahoo.com] (not a goatse link)

Certainly radical... (-1, Flamebait)

chrisseaton (573490) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783355)

This is certainly a radical approach, and if it was some kind of research project I would love to have a look at it. If you ignore that it's Microsoft it seems to be a really good idea - all programs would be able to access all data from all sources if everything was in this kind of database they are talkking about - today we worry about copy and paste, drag and drop working correctly. Think about how smoothly everything would work!

Re:Certainly radical... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783362)

Sorry but thats a horrible idea. Especially since it's microsoft. Just imagine a virus infecting this "1 magic program". Now your entire computer is compromised. Not just your email. Anything you can do with the computer the virus can do. And don't even try to tell me that this is gonna move towards "virus freedom". Microsoft engineers don't seem able to program their way out of a wet paper sack, let alone implement security features. Just wait 4 years from now when the first BugBear2006 comes around and makes your ENTIRE computer a dumb terminal for hackers.

Re:Certainly radical... (1)

chrisseaton (573490) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783368)

So we should hold back any new ideas, in case they make it easier for a virus to get in? Someone go back in time and stop the internet being created! Quick!

-1 Troll (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783380)

You fucking zealot, how can you say 1 program is a bad thing when that's exactly what Emacs (unix/linux) is? Your fucking cock master, Linus Torvalds, wants you to use such a program and then when microsoft talks about making it you bitch and complain. Oh, and one more thing, Microsoft engineers are geniuses, they are all the smartest minds in the counntry. Do you know why people join open source projects? Because they are too stupid to get a job for microsoft. Why don't you fucking zealots try to make a program as complicated and functional as windows and then see if its secure, the MS engineers are doing their best. All you fucks do is look at Windows, take the features which you think would be easiest to copy, and then do a shitty job of copying them.

Re:-1 Troll (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783426)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but yours is not a troll. A troll has clever statements that hook people up while being subtely false or self-contradictory.

Your comment is at least, a puny attempt of flamebait.

Rest In Peace

If you're going to argue, then argue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783453)

don't just bitch about the context of my comment, if you disagree with something I trolled then point it out.

Re:Certainly radical... (5, Insightful)

miu (626917) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783389)

Sorry but thats a horrible idea. Especially since it's microsoft.

If any company is capable of doing this right now it is Microsoft. The idea has a certain charm, it is a logical extension of components and virtual machines.

Microsoft engineers don't seem able to program their way out of a wet paper sack, let alone implement security features.

Individual programmers at MS probably have the same skill levels as those at any software company. The ad-hoc feature growth of many MS products is likely the cause of most of the security problems (and many stability problems as well).

Re:Certainly radical... (2, Interesting)

pkplex (535744) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783405)

Yeah its a bad idea as far as design goes... one big chunky program to do it all. But I wonder if MS are wanting to lump it all together into one single program/product, so that customers will think they are buying something new. It would be a bastard if it crashed aye.. dragging down all your other work with it. And imagine the service packs and patches that will follow after its release... they would be huge. It has be good for hardware manafacutrers though :)

Viruses are outdated (2, Funny)

lvdrproject (626577) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783491)

You're forgetting that with Palladium (TM) ® © viruses won't be allowed onto your computer!

Re:Certainly radical... (5, Insightful)

fruey (563914) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783370)

Radical, but bloated, with a single data structure for all the information accessed (yeah well that's a filesystem I suppose but each individual file is a unique entity) and one single company with a closed protocol set and format to really mean marriage to Microsoft in the future will be for better or worse, or the divorce will cost you at least 50% of your capital.

Corporate computing is not some ideal world... it's all about money, money, and more money. Computers exist in the first place to save time (and therefore money).

Re:Certainly radical... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783438)

Radical, but bloated, with a
single data structure for all the information accessed (yeah well that's a filesystem I suppose but each individual file is a unique entity) and one single company with a closed protocol set and format ...

Oh, you mean like that revolutionary OS of the 70s named AT&T Unix?

Re:Certainly radical... (2, Interesting)

dincubus (526920) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783373)

a couple of weeks ago we had a .NET launch event at the school i go to. several questions were asked about longhorn. the MS rep said that longhorn was seriously lagging behind and also hinted at that longhorn could be skipped totally and they would leap to blackcomb. or if longhorn was to be shipped it may not be until 2005 or 2006 so there may be more problems than we know of

Re:Certainly radical... (2)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783397)

...all programs would be able to access all data from all sources if everything was in this kind of database they are talking about

To summarize, MS version of XML concept (not MSXML, mind you).

Seems like a very bad idea. Assuming the data stored by notepad or other lite application can be accessed by a security-demanding applcation and vice-versa, I would imagine there will be a uniform security scheme put in place. And we all know how well Microsoft's security track is.

Re:Certainly radical... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783485)

Gee, yeah, like, a filesystem!

And we will worry anyhow. And things will not work smoothly regardless.

.. and in the darkness bind them (4, Funny)

theefer (467185) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783356)

Please finish your quotes.

Re:.. and in the darkness bind them (5, Funny)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783412)



Three Rings for the Microsoft-Developers under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-VPs in their halls of stone,
Nine for IIS System Administrators doomed to die,
One for Steve Ballmer on his dark throne
In the land of Richmond where shadows lie.
One Application to rule them all, One Palladium to authenticate them,
On Application to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Richmond where Shadows lie.

Re:.. and in the darkness bind them (5, Informative)

marauder404 (553310) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783424)

In the Land of Richmond where Shadows lie.
Richmond? Home of tobacco? I had no idea it was such an evil tech powerhouse! Perhaps you meant "Redmond?"

Re:.. and in the darkness bind them (5, Funny)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783431)

I put Richmond to avoid a lawsuit.

Re:.. and in the darkness bind them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783474)

that was the first time i laughed all morning

We must fight! (1, Funny)

Subcarrier (262294) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783486)

We must find Bill's cock ring and toss it into a volcano! And, mind you, I don't care if Bill is still wearing it when we do that.

In Fascist USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783357)


You are only safe if you are an extremely rich, white, fundamentalist christian.

Its been done (5, Funny)

pkplex (535744) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783359)

Its called emacs ;)

Re:Its been done (1)

coloth (630330) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783461)

Hmmm... wouldn't **Bob** be a more appropriate analogy? So entranced was BG by this product, he married its head program manager!

SO, would it be too outlandish to propose that MG sees in longhorn the redemption of her embarassingly disappointing Bob?

We'll know if longhorn's boot screen is a doorknocker.

Great line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783361)

I read this line
...it will be the first version [of Windows] that won't function fully without new hardware

and wondered if we are talking about the same product?

Been there, done that. (1, Redundant)

halftrack (454203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783363)

... the company thinks, a single program should handle it all.

Another innovation from MS, their going to recreat Emacs.

I nominate Longhorn: +1, Patriotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783369)


to manage Total Information Awareness and it will
help impeach George W. Bush!

Be Patriotic: Smoke Amerikan Grown Marijuana,
Woot

Scary quote (5, Insightful)

Mnemia (218659) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783371)

"This could bring a higher level of security than anything we've ever seen. It will almost completely prevent the platform from being compromised."

I sure hope he isn't talking about security in general, because I sincerely doubt that Palladium will yield any kind of increased security other than security for MS's bottom line. The ignorance of that statement is astounding. Even if Palladium-esque code signing does increase security the added complexity is sure to keep the security people busy for years to come.

Re:Scary quote (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783408)

ya... surely isn't talking about security of the user or of user info.

sure hope hotmail and the internet aren't part of this platform..

oh wait.

doomsday for computing is coming. fo sho!

Re:Scary quote (5, Interesting)

Ibag (101144) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783415)

Yes, I did find that quote to be rather interesting. However, I thought the lines right before it were more profound.

"...the new design is required to harness the increased security features of Longhorn, which Enderle said are embodied in Microsoft's "Palladium"-branded trustworthy-computing initiative.

It would seem that Microsoft cannot write a secure OS, so they are forced to rely on hardware.

"Neither Linux nor Unix ties the operating system to hardware," he said.
The way he puts it, you'd almost think it was a good thing.

Re:Scary quote (3, Insightful)

marauder404 (553310) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783434)

Sorry, but what exactly are you criticizing? You're remarking a quote that was made by an analyst, quoted in an article that's based largely on rumor and the best guesses -- Microsoft hasn't provided any real information in the article. The quote itself is so vague and out of context, that it's nearly impossible to ascertain anything yet.

Re:Scary quote (3, Insightful)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783494)

Remember that in the end, security is as strong as the weakest link in the chain, usually the user. A common 14 year old AOL script kiddie who faithfully opens his pr0n.jpg.vb email attachments while using various "security tools" found on various "security related" sites (read: Trojans. Lots of Trojans.) can turn even an OpenBSD box into an insecurity-ridden deathtrap.

..and in the darkness bind them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783374)

Hmm, I do not think this is a good sign. "Swear allegiance to the Program, the Program loves you, you need nothing but the Program". Well, centralization can be good and all, but that excludes variety does'nt it? Would people run other kinds of software if MS gave them a fancy neat all in one package? Strings attached, guaranteed.

Bearer of bad news (1)

Playboy3k (552242) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783376)

Ive been think ok now if microsoft actully did make a really really good os. it would end linux, mac os x ect as we know it. So i think that this os will decide weather linux, mac os x actully hav a chance at getting a fair share.

Re:Bearer of bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783468)

XP did this, die linux, die maCOXs only BeOS can save the day

Xerox Star (1)

djupdal (629381) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783378)

Now according to the article, 'Microsoft doesn't think computer users should have to use one program to read and write a word-processing file, another to use a spreadsheet, and a third to correspond via e-mail. Rather, the company thinks, a single program should handle it all.' One program to rule them all, one program to bind them, indeed."
Doesn't this sound like the original GUI idea in Xerox Star (from the 1970's)?

In the land of Redmond where the shadows lie... (5, Funny)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783379)

One OS to rule them all,
One Passport to find them,
One OS to bring them all,
And with the EULA bind them!

Sorry couldn't resist ;)

Moron (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783382)


"This could bring a higher level of security than anything we've ever seen. It will almost completely prevent the platform from being compromised."

Sounds like they will be releasing Longhorn without any networking capabilities..

foreboding sense? but what if the software's GOOD? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783386)

"Everything I have read concering MS's future plans... [leaves] me with a foreboding sense of the potential synergy for furthering Microsoft's goals of complete domination"

Any way I phrase this, it's going to sound like a troll; but... what if the software, once integrated, ends up being GOOD? What if it makes people more productive, and they're WILLING to pay for it? Because if they're not, there are open-source alternatives available (as you probably know, since you're reading this in a Slashdot forum).

I am already tremendously more productive developing at work under Win2000/XP using Visual Studio and Office (yes, even including the synergistic Outlook) than I ever could be with the open source equivalents. Microsoft has sunk more time and effort (read: money and person-hours) into making these programs intuitive and largely self-configuring. Sure, their programs sometimes don't work properly. And in a moment, several of you will make fun of me for saying that MS software is frequently intuitive to work with. But here's a dirty little secret: open source software contains bugs, too! And it's not even remotely as intuitive or polished. It's all about the Mom benchmark: she could never, EVER muster up the courage send me e-mail from overseas using the 'intuitive' interfaces found on a Linux box.

Forboding sense? Nonsense. I'm hoping they make something I'd WANT to pay for. If you don't agree, just keep using the open source alternatives. The sky is not falling.

Re:foreboding sense? but what if the software's GO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783401)

They said the same thing about the Nazis, and look what became of that.

Re:foreboding sense? but what if the software's GO (2, Interesting)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783425)

to be quite honest, I think anything is better than MS software. Even the stuff they come up with.

But MS has compatibility and politics and a mamoth investor appetite to feed.

Innovation will come from MS when they feel threatened. while they can beat Sun by just watching them sink, MS will just sit on their Win licenses for revenue. That is basically what happened this year, and boom 50% increase. No tech innovation involved. Once they need to make the move, they can do it. They have too many brains in jars on call.

Re:foreboding sense? but what if the software's GO (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783502)

I think this maybe over simplification of the situation. MS Licence revenue increased largely because many customers were trying to put off dealing with the forthcoming more expensive and restrictive subscripton based scheme.

MS are strongly driven by "compatability" and integration, for their own products at least and I think there are some interesting point in the article. A sort of follow on from XP masking lower level details from the user. The next logical step would be a single unified metaphor for application access with lookup type resource location.

However there are still many technical challenges to be overcome and as we have seen promised technically advanced features do not always make it into final releases from Redmond e.g IMDB in W2K. While its good that future requirements and demands are being considered now it will be interesting to see what actually gets implemented. Also there is the issue that while compatability and integration of this sort can be a good thing, is it really desirable to have a single corporate entity pulling the strings ?

Re:foreboding sense? but what if the software's GO (1)

botzilla (630334) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783497)

The problem is that nothing ive ever seen coming from MS has been good, so I think that if this "One Program" drives all other choices into utter destruction, well have nothing but buggy MS hardware available to us.

Is that a new idea ? (5, Insightful)

bockman (104837) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783387)

I believe there is already a program that run everything on my computer : it is called "Operating System". It just happens to use modules, called "applications" to perform the different tasks I want to do with my PC.

Kidding aside, the idea of hiding to the final user the application layer may be a good one. If this was done openly (i.e. documenting the API that each class of applications should have and allowing administrators to switch one application with another, from a different vendor, without troubles), could be a good step to make computers easier to use.

Knowing Microsoft, however ...

Good god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783390)

Won't this means hard-drives will have firmware which makes them Windows-exclusive? How are we going to get around THAT?

All anti-MS, all the time (1, Troll)

NineNine (235196) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783391)

I'm thinking... maybe Slashdot should get another URL, maybe, http://www.iamreallyboredandIhavenothingbettertodo thantocriticizeMSevery5minutes.com

This hourly "M$ sucks because..." is getting very, very old and very childish.

Re:All anti-MS, all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783410)

This hourly "M$ sucks because..." is getting very, very old and very childish.

This is a linux fansite - deal with it pr0n boy.

Re:All anti-MS, all the time (1)

drzero (192057) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783418)

This hourly "M$ sucks because..." is getting very, very old and very childish.


But it's true... if you don't like being reminded, how about not visiting this site?

Especially when you see the adds :) (1)

Otis_INF (130595) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783419)

/. runs MS adds. If you are really an organisation with balls and stand for 100% behind your opinion, you don't run adds for a company you disgust because of practises in the past.

However, in every 3 pages I click open I see MS adds. What was that saying again... never bite the hand that feeds you or something? ;)

Re:Especially when you see the adds :) (3, Interesting)

NineNine (235196) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783428)

Slashdot stands behind virtually nothing. The company is on the verge of going under, so they've pulled out the stops. On top of the incessant MS ads for a supposedly anti-MS site, they also don't write their pages with the new security header that they proclaim is the best thing since sliced bread, and they also are owned by a company that makes it's living from selling proprietary software, and very aggressively enforcing their IP (see the 10K for LNUX... too tired to get the link again).

Re:All anti-MS, all the time (3, Insightful)

Space Coyote (413320) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783445)

Palladium is a very ominous prospect, and the fact that Microsoft's market share will force its acceptance is reason enough to be more suspicious of a product 'just because it's from Microsoft'. You are, of course, free to continue using every MS product that comes along and not thinking too hard about their business practices, but there's no need to discourage others from looking deper into the nature of the software market and the inner operations of their computer. Thanks.

Re:All anti-MS, all the time (2)

NineNine (235196) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783457)

Well, the problem is is that this article is not news. It hasn't been news for a long, long time. It seems that the editors meet every few hours and say, "Well, we haven't- posted anything anti-MS in the last hour... let's just rehash this Palladium thing. It'll get us some more traffic, and people can gab ad-infinitum about how evil MS is."

Re:All anti-MS, all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783499)

is not

Re:All anti-MS, all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783505)

is too

Just an opinion (2)

Dexter77 (442723) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783392)


Atleast "The One ring" was compatible with the other rings even though it ruled them. Why can't "The one program" be compatible with the other programs if it rules them?

Hardware (1)

Markus Ingvarsson (589192) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783393)

"Neither Linux nor Unix ties the operating system to hardware," he said.

Yes, that's a Good Thing.

Re:Hardware (1)

trezor (555230) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783506)

I imagine a manager wouldnt get that. Forcing all you IT-dept-slaves out there install it on every single box.

But hey. Look on the bright side. It's only one app to install on each box! You'll be done in no time, before quiting your job!

Vote with your money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783394)

I hope there will be at least the chance to vote with our money.....

error message (5, Funny)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783396)

We're Sorry:

The software that you're trying to run (Doom3.exe) is not compatable with current Microsoft Standards. We at Microsoft believe that one program should "Do it all", and therefore should be integrated into the Operating System's kernel.

The integrated version of Doom3.exe will appear in your kernel once the authors of said file adapt the program for use with Direct3d.

Installation of OpenGL or any software that uses OpenGL is in direct violation of your EULA. Violation of said EULA will be severely punished.
---
Thank you for using Longhorn. There are 15 days remaining until Skynet becomes self-aware. Your extra CPU-cycles are appreciated, even if required.

Re:error message (3, Funny)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783436)

I've ran Lognhorn (.net server rc2). OpenGL works fine, but their are no versions of DirectX to be found (Neither by default nor on microsofts directx site).

BeFS (3, Informative)

bradams (241228) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783399)

...the new file system will also function efficiently with hard drives holding at least one terabyte of data...

Creating such a file system is an extraordinarily difficult task, one that has been attempted for years by database companies, including Microsoft, but that has never reached fruition.

The BFS used in BeOS uses 64 bit addressing (18 exabytes) and has been working for over 5 years...

Re:BeFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783463)

dont worry, MS market droids and execs have been talking out of their asses for longer than that.

jack of all trades.... (3, Insightful)

GnomeKing (564248) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783402)

Rather, the company thinks, a single program should handle it all ...master of none

But seriously, isnt that what joe consumer wants? Something which IS jack of all trades but master of none

Word and excel are both more complicated than joe consumer wants - so what their trying to do is ressurect MS works and shove outlook and MSN messenger in there aswell?

That seems to me like it would really appeal to the OEMS, so thats what joe's gonna get...

Oh please! (5, Insightful)

Otis_INF (130595) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783404)

Since when are 'leaked rumours' (!) news, based on facts? Here we have an article which bases conclusions (!) on rumours.

Ok, not that the conclusions are then worth anything, but still some remarkable opinions are ventilated in the article, even when you take into account the conclusion-based-on-rumour factor.

For example:
"Neither Linux nor Unix ties the operating system to hardware," he said.
Come again? We're talking about a new PCI architecture here, not about a new soundcard!. And since when can I install AIX or HP-UX on ANY i386 system? Ever installed Solaris for Intel on an Intel machine you also happen to use as a workstation (f.e. with Linux on another partition?). The 'he' person definitely doesn't have a clue whatsoever about tying an OS to hardware. It's in all situations very important the OS works flawlessly with the hardware it's installed on, so yes, every OS is tied to a subset of available hardware. Big deal.

Ok, then we move on to:
"I'd like to see Microsoft act like the operating-system leader it is, not promising scores of new features or letting rumors fly but stepping forward and saying, 'We will have X, Y and Z features and not A, B and C,' " he said. "That would be leadership, especially when so many people are dependent on you."
WTF is the 'he' person to ask for this? First he throws in the rumours no-one confirmed as being true (the article clearly states MS didn't say a word about any detail concerning Longhorn) and then he wants MS to clear the sky for him about the rumours and to step forward about any featureset they'll implement in an OS which isn't even in Alpha-stadium nor a releasedate has been set.

Like Linus is going to talk about features in the 3.2 kernel, released somewhere in Q4 2004, "because so many people are dependent on you.". Sure...

Paranoia or marketing to the corporate types (5, Insightful)

mrFur (413277) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783406)

I'm all in favour of keeping a paranoid eye open to the workings or Redmond, but it might be a bit early to start declaring the closing proximity of the sky. My favourite /. quote is the one about Bill being just a monacle and a Persian cat away from being a Bond bad guy.

The 'database' file system is not new (and many on /. have been calling for a Be-like fs). An 'all-in-one' office application? It's an interesting challenge, but based on XML, feasable.

Keep in mind though, that this type of pitch is being made to the corporate IS types. Stories like this are 'leaked' to help test the waters. The money just isn't out there any more for the latest bleeding edge operating system and Office upgrades. In order to pry the dollars out of corporate boards these days, you have to show real value, and the IT types these days only know one way to count (with their socks on that is), and that is the magical phrase "TCO". You can guarantee that the M$ marketing types will be selling the reduced training costs of the one-application scheme.

Maybe though, before completely calling it a waste of code, we can judge the ideas on their technical merits and make fun of the marketing slime later? Of course, if your just interested in getting the story posted, keep the chicken little act up ;)

And there will be one Master Ring (5, Interesting)

cyber_rigger (527103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783407)


I think Microsoft will fork itself to death.

The general rule that I see nowdays
is that people still use Microsoft
for its backwards compatability

not its new features.

More skepticism (2)

GeckoFood (585211) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783409)

From the article:

"There will have to be compelling reasons" to install the new operating system, because "it costs corporations a fortune to roll it out," he said.

This overhaul of Windows is also going to require a hardware shift as well, with the Palladium architecture. So, instead of paying for just a new OS license, companies have to shell out money for new systems, too?

Granted, some of the upgrades to Windows in the past have required better hardware, but often the PCs were already up to scratch or the companies in question needed new hardware anyway. This time, a new PC is an absolute requirement.

I sincerely hope this one gets dropped on the floor and that this pass at Windows will fail. Somehow, though, I suspect it won't and that M$ will have its way again. *sigh* Pass the Mac, please...

Introducing Microsoft One Window (5, Funny)

Freston Youseff (628628) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783414)

Microsoft One Window(TM) is the only window you'll ever need to look through. It provides you with a view of everything in the world. Microsoft One Window(TM) knows all. Microsoft One Window(TM) shows you only what you want to see. Microsoft One Window(TM) is GOD.

own proprietry systems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783423)

Is it just me or is microsoft trying to lock down the hardware available to use with their operating systems, it could possible lead to microsoft having their own platform with only recommended palladium enabled devices etc etc, microsoft will soon be able to control the hardware market, they already do with the progression of the operating system and its requirements, but with the "security" features it could make old joe schmoe think "this may be a good thing" and buy into it whole heartedly, the idea of proprietry systems is a bit ott, but you can only use palladium enable mobo's processors etc etc, microsoft could make the hardware possibilities almost as limited as apple, i dont know to be honest, there will always be a work around but its a scary thought that microsoft could take a stranglehold of the hardware market and close out those smaller companies who dont tie their hardware down to palladium

So XP is the last piece of M$ crap I'll fix? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783442)

I mean really.
I'm pissed off enough (as a pc-tech) with M$
and was even considering going for an MCSE
at the same time as my Linux certs, but....
Since I now see their road map for the future,
I'm just going to devote my time to converting
ALL my customers to Linux.

I have made the decision to not support anything
past XP and I will stick to that.
Fuck you Bill Gates, you're NOT my only hope.

no more MS users......=) (2, Insightful)

nobbist (558759) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783444)

Surely, someone in Redmond must realize that they will be driving their userbase away in droves. First there is all the licensing bullcrap which we have even now. But then throw in all the Palladium etc crap and there will be mass converts no doubt....I can swear now that I will never partake in any of that....no thank you, who needs it? No one.

we got IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783448)

> One program to rule them all

hey guys... we already have EMACS... WAH-HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Choice quote (5, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783449)

  • "Neither Linux nor Unix ties the operating system to hardware," [Enderle] said.

I had to read this twice to realise that Enderle means that in a negative way. Dear god. The individual words make sense, but we're clearly not speaking the same language.

This just confirms that Microsoft's vision for future PC's really is nothing more than super-X-boxen, running only Microsoft apps. Or, app singular. And if there's a single app handling everything, it has to handle everything, so is there room for any third party software?

Further, given that the X-box is Microsoft branded right now, I wonder when Dell et al will start to wonder if Microsoft will be happy with trusting third parties to build their new toy. After all, it's all about trust, right? At what point will Microsoft decide - and start telling Joe Public - that a "Microsoft PC" is more trustworthy than an identical box built by Dell?

The day Microsoft dominates is the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783455)

that hell freezes over, or the day we all die, either way its bad. They can't get global domination because look at China like they listen to Microsoft at all. Just cause Palladium could be legal doesn't mean its has to be legal everywhere, not all parts are made in the United States, this is one issue that the U.S. if it was ever backed by them would fail, but by that time Palldium would be shot down because the goverment would have already enacted a law for goverment wide open-source, and they would get pretty pissed if they can't run Linux or anything else open-sourced because its unsigned code. Now maybe the LinuxBios project would figure out away to disable Palldium and Linux will be come the dominating Operating System. Then again this could just be a fanatasy like Sputnik was to Americans.

Hmmmmmm (2)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783458)

Does anybody else get the impression that they're running at full speed, but that Linux might actually be running faster? At the moment of course, Windows is ahead of the game by a long way, but seeing the figures in that article made me wonder just how fast MS really can develop Windows.

I know there is a hard limit of about 5000 developers, during the Win2K development cycle they hit this limit and found it was almost impossible to manage. Therefore Windows development speed is basically linear, right? But Linux doesn't have that problem to anywhere near the same degree. I wonder how much of this is hype (most i expect) and how much will really finally make it. And I wonder where Linux will be when Longhorn does come out....

FUD (2)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783465)

How much more do I have to say here? Where's the proof here, no where. When MS publishes articles like this about linux we're up in arms, but when slashdot posts it, we're insightfully looking into the future?

Just like drugs, sex, and alcohol, no one forces you to use windows, it is known that peer pressure plays a large role in all though.

Most people are reluctant... (2)

suman28 (558822) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783472)

Most people are reluctant to change hardware, let alone software. This statement even applies to the people that don't know much about computers. The rest will make sure that either there we can circumvent the hardware(which will be difficult) or not buy such hardware at all. So either way M$ will lose. Now, if they get some politician to pass a law that all hardware from a pin to a sattellite should have this palladium feature, then we might all be in trouble.

In market forces I trust (5, Insightful)

melonman (608440) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783479)

I think some people posting on this topic have spent too much time watching the X files. It's only an operating system guys, and, if it is as radically different to previous versions of Windows as is claimed in the article, it is going to have to compete not only with Linux and friends, but also with W2k and XP.

So if it really does offer something fundamentally new and useful that outweighs the disadvantages of DRM, people might buy new hardware and switch. If not, they won't. And even if the new OS is a runaway success, it will have to talk to W2K, XP and Un*x servers or it just won't work on the current Internet.

In other words, if things pan out as stated in the article (which is by no means certain), Windows 04 is going to have to compete without most of the advantages enjoyed by previous versions, so it should be a much more even fight between MS and OSS. And could it be that this is what has really got everyone spooked?

I can see it now..... (5, Funny)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783480)

Computer: Dave, this is Billcomp2010. You haven't completed your reading of my EULA, Dave. Dave: Bill can this wait? I'm doing a spacewalk now. Computer: Sorry Dave, my program and your life support will be terminated in 20 seconds. Dave: Noooo....(runs into airlock and begins pulling memory cards and hot swap drives) Computer: What are you doing Dave? Is that a Linux CD you have there Dave? I'm afraid, Dave. Dave: Pound sand, Bill!

Again they copy Apple. (2, Interesting)

grub (11606) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783483)


Ideally, Longhorn will "fundamentally integrate" audio, video and images in a "visually stunning" manner, much like the Mac's OS X

Microsoft should pay Apple a huge chunk of change for all the human interface studies they've just copied over the years.

DON'T WORRY!!! (1)

Hunden (516276) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783487)

In a few years Bill will try to invade Russia, and just as things seems to go his way the Russian winter sets in...

Wow, is that not good news for linux? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4783488)

You biased bitch?

Re: More on Longhorn (1)

ddimas (629883) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783495)

Didn't IBM try this with their Microchannel bus architecture back in '88? Sounds like Microsoft has decided that the only way to keep their market share is to make a proprietary hardware system. Of course everyone uses Microchannel now...

Did you see the part about... (2)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783496)

"...neither Linux nor Unix is tied to the hardware."

Thank $DEITY for that, I say. I don't need to question my OS security and large file support deeply enough to require special hardware.

That's an interesting idea about having it all in one app -- I just hope people eventually learn the difference between an app and an OS. Not that M$'s statements under oath will make that any easier.

BTW I thought it was funny how NTFS is (evidently) considered to be new and advanced... yawns...

An anecdote regarding all this: my General Manager enthusiastically told me a few months ago that the "NT" part of "Windows NT" stands for "New Technology". Er, IMO it's only new if you've been hiding under a very obscure rock for the last 20 years. On a feature-by-feature basis there's nothing new about any of the ideas implemented in NT, and I have to wonder how this is any different aside from relying on hardware to do the job that the software should be doing in the first place.

Tied to architecture, methinks not... (1)

failrate (583914) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783501)

I would be willing to bet USD or yen or whatever that SOMEONE is able to get Linux hacked-together and running on Palladium hardware.

Xbox modders, get your belt-sanders ready!

I am not that worried (5, Funny)

codepunk (167897) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783504)

Hardware purchases at my company go like this....

COMPANY: Does it run linux?

VENDOR: It will soon!

COMPANY: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Holy crap! (5, Insightful)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 11 years ago | (#4783507)

Dilbert is coming true. Remember the one where Dilbert is at the computer store and the saleman says something like "this computer only has 1 button and we push that for you before is leaves the factory".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...