Windows Longhorn Potentials

[Phil IU Guy]

I was curious if anyone had any ideas...
What is the potential for windows Longhorn and what are its potential
ramifications of implementing it?

 

[S.Sengupta]

Hi,
check here:-
http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/
regards,
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org

 

[LOSTSOUL]

http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?
st=b&na=88&View=en-us&qu=LONGHORN

 

[bronco7]

May I suggest you forget Longhorn and prepare for the new
XP software to accompany the 64 bit Athlon.

 

[Ron Martell]

I was curious if anyone had any ideas...
What is the potential for windows Longhorn and what are its potential
ramifications of implementing it?

Longhorn is still in the Alpha stage of development. According to
http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5189453.html it is now expected to
reach market in 2006 and the beta testing is not expected to begin
until sometime in 2005.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the full feature set for the
final release version has not yet been finalized and major changes can
therefore be expected.

See http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/longhorn.htm for more detailed
information.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[t.cruise]

Thankfully MS wisely has put off releasing Longhorn for a few years. Too
many people would be ticked off after just having spent too much to upgrade
to XP, replacing hardware that was orphaned, adding RAM, and paying the
highest amount that MS has ever charged for upgrading their OS to the next
version. Longhorn's GUI is even more graphics intensive, will require more
in system resources than XP, and will orphan more hardware components. I'm
thinking that with more and more people becoming PC savvy, they will
increasingly ask themselves if they REALLY need to upgrade to Longhorn.
When MS decided to charge $100 for the Windows XP upgrade, sales fell far
short of expectations in the first year. Many people who had borderline
requirement systems, and/or hardware and software that would be orphaned,
opted to wait until they needed a new system, rather than pay more than
hundreds of dollars to upgrade to XP. I believe that it will take even
longer for Longhorn to gain a substantial market share. Many more people
will wait until they actually need a new system, rather than upgrade. I've
taken the tour of Longhorn, and am unimpressed. Many of the regulars in
this group will see it as I do, as a more user friendlier OS, for people who
don't know much about PCs. Think the Fisher Price XP Start Menu times 100
for almost every aspect of the OS. If you need a Start Menu that says Mail,
rather than the name of the email software, then Longhorn will be for you.

 

[Phil IU Guy]

Thanks a lot guys for your links and insight. I have to give a
presentation in a couple days about the potentials of longhorn for not
only the individual user but for a business in general. Its hard to
find information because Longhorn keeps getting changed around and all
of a sudden Microsoft is discovering that WinFS might have been to
much to ask for.

Do you have any other ideas about how Longhorn could impact a business
in general in the years to come? I am thinking it might be a huge
time for a lot of companies to decide between the cheap Linux route or
the Expensive Microsoft route.

Thanks again
-Phil

Thankfully MS wisely has put off releasing Longhorn for a few years. Too
many people would be ticked off after just having spent too much to upgrade
to XP, replacing hardware that was orphaned, adding RAM, and paying the
highest amount that MS has ever charged for upgrading their OS to the next
version. Longhorn's GUI is even more graphics intensive, will require more
in system resources than XP, and will orphan more hardware components. I'm
thinking that with more and more people becoming PC savvy, they will
increasingly ask themselves if they REALLY need to upgrade to Longhorn.
When MS decided to charge $100 for the Windows XP upgrade, sales fell far
short of expectations in the first year. Many people who had borderline
requirement systems, and/or hardware and software that would be orphaned,
opted to wait until they needed a new system, rather than pay more than
hundreds of dollars to upgrade to XP. I believe that it will take even
longer for Longhorn to gain a substantial market share. Many more people
will wait until they actually need a new system, rather than upgrade. I've
taken the tour of Longhorn, and am unimpressed. Many of the regulars in
this group will see it as I do, as a more user friendlier OS, for people who
don't know much about PCs. Think the Fisher Price XP Start Menu times 100
for almost every aspect of the OS. If you need a Start Menu that says Mail,
rather than the name of the email software, then Longhorn will be for you.
--

T.C.
t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com
Remove [NoSpam] to reply

I was curious if anyone had any ideas...
What is the potential for windows Longhorn and what are its potential
ramifications of implementing it?

 

[Ron Martell]

Thanks a lot guys for your links and insight. I have to give a
presentation in a couple days about the potentials of longhorn for not
only the individual user but for a business in general. Its hard to
find information because Longhorn keeps getting changed around and all
of a sudden Microsoft is discovering that WinFS might have been to
much to ask for.

Do you have any other ideas about how Longhorn could impact a business
in general in the years to come? I am thinking it might be a huge
time for a lot of companies to decide between the cheap Linux route or
the Expensive Microsoft route.

That presumes that the long term Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of the
Linux route is going to be lower than the TCO of the Windows route.
And that has yet to be proven.

Software costs are actually a minor component of the TCO. The biggest
costs are for people's time, including training, installation, setup
and maintenance.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."