Wronghorn

[Guest]

By Tony McCune Nov 17 2003
..
..
... As far as I can tell, Longhorn is yet another Windows
wolf dressed up
in sheep's clothing.

Cutting through the marketing-speak, here's my take on
what Longhorn
will mean for the companies, government agencies and
educational
institutions who will consider adoption:


Myth #1: The Longhorn suite will be a worthwhile
investment.

Microsoft typically pushes big software bundles that force
customers to
pay for much more functionality than they actually need,
and Longhorn
will continue that tradition .. It's like going for a
fully loaded SUV
when only one person will be driving the vehicle to the
train station. A
Ford Focus would do, but you're force to buy a Lincoln
Navigator.


Myth #2: Longhorn will not drive customer dependence on
Microsoft products.

Customers who chose to migrate to Longhorn will be faced
with three
alternatives .. It's obvious which scenario Longhorn will
perpetuate:
locking customers into Microsoft software riddled with
second-class
interoperability and integration and, of course, security
flaws and
vulnerabilities.


Myth #3: Longhorn will provide a better alternative to
Java.

With Longhorn, Microsoft claims that its new software is
so easy to use
that developers won't need or want the 'complex,
specialized' Java
platform anymore. They fail to note that Java has made
great strides in
usability and--unlike Longhorn--is not tied to a specific
operating
system. Building applications on the proprietary Longhorn
framework will
continue to force developers to work within the narrow
confines of
Microsoft devices.


Myth #4: Longhorn will not require a multitude of customer
upgrades to
implement.

Microsoft has built its business on a model that forces
customers to
spend money on software upgrades every few years. Every
successive
upgrade restricts Microsoft's client base to fewer options
and increased
dependence on its platform .. Each version has a new
framework that
cannot be used with previous versions. Developers must
continually
update their skills, which costs customers time and money.


Myth #5: Longhorn will support open standards.

Microsoft has never fully support open standards, and
Longhorn will be
no exception .. Microsoft products are open only as long
as you develop
applications on the Windows platform ? and the same hold
true for
Longhorn ..

Microsoft promises the world with Longhorn, but customers
may call it
"Wronghorn" .. can Microsoft credibly claim that issues
that have
plagued its products in the past won't reappear in the
Longhorn--security flaws, poor integration, limited
scalability and lack
of interoperability? History and logic tell us not to
count on it ...

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5108026.html

and Happy Easter!

 

[Guest]

Your comments are well taken, but do you realize that you have an alternative
LINU
Personally, I'd rather go back to DOS, but that's another story.

 

[Vagabond Software]

The author of this piece obviously doesn't actually work in the IT industry.
I've never felt compelled to upgrade anything just because there was a new
version and no IT decision-maker does either.

What's the "forced upgrade every few years" the author refers to? You mean
the six-year product life-cycle offered by Microsoft? The author apparently
wasn't around when Solaris 2 was rolled out on the new Sparc 5/20 model
workstations. By the way, I can run the same Windows version of MOTU's
Digital Performer on Windows 98 or Windows XP. Tell the author to try
installing the OS 9 version of Digital Performer on Apple's OS X...

Not "Open"? Ever hear of .NET and the ECMA? Does the author not have a
version of MONO running on his Linux box? What about XML? Oh, the author
wants Windows Forms to be platform independent?


One thing is certainly true, no matter how many more versions of Operating
Systems Microsoft releases, there will always be an endless supply of morons
to write vaguely of the perceived encroachment upon their general "feel
goodness" in an IT environment of which they have never been a part.

- carl

 

[Sender's name]

-----Original Message-----
The author of this piece obviously doesn't actually work

in the IT industry.

I couldn't say, don't know em.

I've never felt compelled to upgrade anything just because there was a new
version and no IT decision-maker does either.

As I see it, the point made by the OP has nothing to do
with that.

What's the "forced upgrade every few years" the author refers to? You mean
the six-year product life-cycle offered by Microsoft?

6 years, 6 YEARS?!? Bwahahahahah, Now THAT is what is
laughable. What about the fact that Windows 2000 sp3 is
the oldest OS you better have loaded if you have any hope
of even having limited extended security patch support?!?
What about the fact that Monopolysoft doesn't even release
security patches for XP gold in recent security
patches?!? And XP gold is not much more than 3 yrs old.
6 years my hiney!

The author apparently

wasn't around when Solaris 2 was rolled out on the new Sparc 5/20 model
workstations. By the way, I can run the same Windows version of MOTU's
Digital Performer on Windows 98 or Windows XP. Tell the author to try
installing the OS 9 version of Digital Performer on

Apple's OS X...

The OP made no mention of Apple and OSx or Solaris.
Backwards comaptibility, although I have never found it to
have an effect in all of my attempts to make older programs
work in Windows XP, is also OT for this topic.

Not "Open"? Ever hear of .NET and the ECMA? Does the author not have a
version of MONO running on his Linux box? What about XML? Oh, the author
wants Windows Forms to be platform independent?


One thing is certainly true, no matter how many more versions of Operating
Systems Microsoft releases, there will always be an endless supply of morons
to write vaguely of the perceived encroachment upon their general "feel
goodness" in an IT environment of which they have never been a part.

- carl

Well, I'd rather be "mor-on" topic than more off topic
like yourself.

 

[Vagabond Software]

As I see it, the point made by the OP has nothing to do
with that.

From the piece: "Microsoft has built its business on a model that forces
customers to spend money on software upgrades every few years."

This is relevant to the piece because the author obviously implies "forced"
premium upgrades in the quoted statement.

6 years, 6 YEARS?!? Bwahahahahah, Now THAT is what is
laughable. What about the fact that Windows 2000 sp3 is
the oldest OS you better have loaded if you have any hope
of even having limited extended security patch support?!?
What about the fact that Monopolysoft doesn't even release
security patches for XP gold in recent security
patches?!? And XP gold is not much more than 3 yrs old.
6 years my hiney!

If you had talked about Windows ME, then you might have a case. I don't
know how you think Service Pack level effects life-cycle, but I don't
believe they are related. I can install Windows 2000 Pro from the orinigal
CD and receive the same level of support as I can with a Windows 2000 SP3
(or SP4 for that matter) installation.

I'm not a long-term XP user since I was going to skip the whole XP thing
altogether until someone bought me a copy to work with. However, it seems
XP Gold is still supported with security patches, assuming you've downloaded
SP1.

The author apparently
Apple's OS X...

The OP made no mention of Apple and OSx or Solaris.
Backwards comaptibility, although I have never found it to
have an effect in all of my attempts to make older programs
work in Windows XP, is also OT for this topic.

No, it is not off-topic... From the article: "Every successive upgrade
restricts Microsoft's client base to fewer options and increased dependence
on its platform. Each version has a new framework that cannot be used with
previous versions. Developers must continually update their skills, which
costs customers time and money."

Here, the author not only makes a statement that is absolutely false, but he
also implies this is somehow unique to Microsoft's business model. Visual
Basic 6 developers can write code that runs side-by-side with .NET code.
The new .NET Framework version 1.1 is available for Windows 98 and later.
Instead of being forced to buy upgraded development components, as with
those other operating systems I mentioned, I just completed the task of
converting an old pdqcom32.ocx ActiveX control to a .NET compatible dll,
including the C# source code for customization, all possible in the freely
available .NET SDK.

So, I can continue to program in VB6 or C++ 6 or I can learn VB.NET or
C++.NET. I can deploy .NET apps to Windows 98 workstations, I can deploy
VB/C++ 6 apps to Windows XP workstations, and I can use older VB/C++ 6
components and libraries in my .NET projects. The only option not
supported, as far as I know, is developing .NET applications with VB/C++ 6.

Well, I'd rather be "mor-on" topic than more off topic
like yourself.

Hmmm...

- carl

 

[Sender's name]

-----Original Message-----


From the piece: "Microsoft has built its business on a model that forces
customers to spend money on software upgrades every few years."

This is relevant to the piece because the author obviously implies "forced"
premium upgrades in the quoted statement.

Forced by security patches. If you want to be able to
test and apply the M$ security patches for your machine,
you MUST have SP1 installed. That is not 6 years of
support for Windows XP (with no service pack) when it
comes to security. That's more like 3 years. THAT is
what forces customers to upgrade their proprietary M$
software.

If you had talked about Windows ME, then you might have a

case. I don't

Windows ME is also a good example.

know how you think Service Pack level effects life-cycle, but I don't
believe they are related. I can install Windows 2000 Pro from the orinigal
CD and receive the same level of support as I can with a Windows 2000 SP3
(or SP4 for that matter) installation.

But M$ only tests and supports the patches on SP3 and up
now, just like for XP sp1. The patches couold break or
screw up your pre windows 2000 sp3 machine or your XP pre
sp1 machine, and then you are screwed.

I'm not a long-term XP user since I was going to skip the whole XP thing
altogether until someone bought me a copy to work with.

**************
However, it seems

XP Gold is still supported with security patches, assuming you've downloaded
SP1.

**************

You are restating my point with your statements about 2000
and XP.

No, it is not off-topic... From the article: "Every successive upgrade
restricts Microsoft's client base to fewer options and increased dependence
on its platform. Each version has a new framework that cannot be used with
previous versions. Developers must continually update their skills, which
costs customers time and money."

Here, the author not only makes a statement that is absolutely false, but he
also implies this is somehow unique to Microsoft's

business model.

***************
Visual

Basic 6 developers can write code that runs side-by-side with .NET code.
The new .NET Framework version 1.1 is available for Windows 98 and later.
Instead of being forced to buy upgraded development components, as with
those other operating systems I mentioned, I just completed the task of
converting an old pdqcom32.ocx ActiveX control to a .NET compatible dll,
including the C# source code for customization, all possible in the freely
available .NET SDK.

So, I can continue to program in VB6 or C++ 6 or I can learn VB.NET or
C++.NET. I can deploy .NET apps to Windows 98 workstations, I can deploy
VB/C++ 6 apps to Windows XP workstations, and I can use older VB/C++ 6
components and libraries in my .NET projects. The only option not
supported, as far as I know, is developing .NET

applications with VB/C++ 6.
****************

Yes, my point exactly. M$ will make their new stuff
like .NET compatible with their own old PROPRIETARY
software, which is not "Windows supporting open standards".

 

[Vagabond Software]

Forced by security patches. If you want to be able to
test and apply the M$ security patches for your machine,
you MUST have SP1 installed. That is not 6 years of
support for Windows XP (with no service pack) when it
comes to security. That's more like 3 years. THAT is
what forces customers to upgrade their proprietary M$
software.

So, you're saying that because Microsoft does not pre-test and support every
considerable combination of selective update choices, they "force" you to
upgrade to the next premium version of the operating system?

Even that is simply wrong. The Windows Update site and packages are
designed to make it easier for the vast majority of general users to keep
their OS up-to-date. However, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that
experts, such as yourself, that have chosen not to update Windows XP to SP1
or Windows 2000 to SP3, can still download individual security patches from
the Download Center.

For example, you can download the security patch for KB828028 for your
non-SP1 version of Windows XP Gold. So, that is continuing support by
Microsoft. It's just a little less convenient for expert users that have
technical reasons not to use the automatic updates.

Having said all that, I still don't understand how not being able to use
Windows Update "forces" someone into buying the next release of the
Operating System. Also, any IT professional worth his salt does his own
testing of security patches before deploying it to all the workstations in
the network.

Yes, my point exactly. M$ will make their new stuff
like .NET compatible with their own old PROPRIETARY
software, which is not "Windows supporting open standards".

Like I said earlier, there is already a Linux verion of the .NET framework
called mono. You could write a C# app that printed "Hello World" to the
console of a Windows machine, and take that same C# app and have it print
Hello World on a Linux machine.

At any time of their choosing, Apple, Sun, or IBM could implement the ECMA
..standard for the NET Framework on their respective platforms. Microsoft is
already experimenting with OS X and FreeBSD versions of the .NET Framework,
but no one has to wait around for Microsoft to do it. The standard is there
and the crew over at Ximian have done a decent job of implementation on the
Linux platform.

- carl

 

[David Candy]

MS only supports the current and previous service pack versions. Once SP2 is released support for gold will stop.

 

[Vagabond Software]

MS only supports the current and previous service pack versions. Once SP2 is
released support for gold will stop.

---

Well, you're confusing the issues a little, but let's test your statement:
"MS only supports the current and previous service pack versions. Once SP2
is released support for gold will stop."

So, for Windows 2000 Professional, which is currently at SP4, Microsoft only
supports SP4 and SP3. Also, according to your statement, all support has
stopped for Windows 2000 Pro SP2 and earlier.

It seems strange to me that if support has indeed ended for pre-SP3 Windows
2000 Pro, that I can install Windows 2000 Pro from the original CD, then
proceed to choose my service pack level, starting with SP1!

Windows 2000 SP1:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/servicepacks/sp1/x86lang.asp

Windows 2000 SP2:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/servicepacks/sp2/sp2lang.asp

As with Windows 2000, I'm not sure what is to stop anyone running Windows XP
Gold from continuing to selectively download security patches deemed
necessary by the user. How exactly is support for XP Gold going to "end"?

Besides all that, even if your statement were true, it sounds like it would
"force" XP Gold users to the FREELY available XP SP1, which is still not
forcing XP Gold users to Longhorn.

- carl

 

[David Candy]

Try ringing them with an issue. They'll just say install the service pack. Do your own searching. Anyway thety've changed to the preceding SP is only supported for 12 months.

Customers can receive support for the current and immediately preceding service pack. The immediately preceding service pack is supported for up to 12 months after the current service pack releases unless the product is retired during that time. This support policy permits customers to receive existing hotfixes, or request new hotfixes, for the current shipping service pack, the immediately preceding(4) service pack or both, during the mainstream phase. This policy took effect October 15, 2002 with most of the products available through retail purchase or volume licensing and products to be released in the future. All products released before October 15, 2002 will continue to receive support on the most current service pack only.

 

[Vagabond Software]

Try ringing them with an issue. They'll just say install the service pack.
Do your own searching. Anyway thety've changed to the preceding SP is only
supported for 12 months.

Customers can receive support for the current and immediately preceding
service pack. The immediately preceding service pack is supported for up to
12 months after the current service pack releases unless the product is
retired during that time. This support policy permits customers to receive
existing hotfixes, or request new hotfixes, for the current shipping service
pack, the immediately preceding(4) service pack or both, during the
mainstream phase. This policy took effect October 15, 2002 with most of the
products available through retail purchase or volume licensing and products
to be released in the future. All products released before October 15, 2002
will continue to receive support on the most current service pack only.

--
----------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so the problem you're talking about is that Microsoft does not support
all possible combinations of selective patch levels for the life of the
product. Assuming it was reasonable to expect such support, that still only
drives those users who like to call Microsoft to install the FREE service
packs. It does not "force" users to upgrade to the next premium operating
system.

- carl

 

[Sender's name]

-----Original Message-----
Try ringing them with an issue. They'll just say install

the service pack.

They will say this becuase they do not support previous
service packs with security patches.

Do your own searching. Anyway thety've changed to the preceding SP is only
supported for 12 months.

Customers can receive support for the current and immediately preceding
service pack. The immediately preceding service pack is supported for up to
12 months after the current service pack releases unless the product is
retired during that time. This support policy permits customers to receive
existing hotfixes, or request new hotfixes, for the current shipping service
pack, the immediately preceding(4) service pack or both, during the
mainstream phase. This policy took effect October 15, 2002 with most of the
products available through retail purchase or volume licensing and products
to be released in the future. All products released before October 15, 2002
will continue to receive support on the most current service pack only.

--
----------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so the problem you're talking about is that Microsoft does not support
all possible combinations of selective patch levels for the life of the
product.

I'm saying they don't live up to their "6 year model"

Assuming it was reasonable to expect such support,

Which it is because of their "6 year model"

that still only

drives those users who like to call Microsoft to install the FREE service
packs. It does not "force" users to upgrade to the next premium operating
system.

- carl

It does force users to upgrade IF:

A) They want their machines to be secure by using the
security patches
B) They want their machines to work (one can be more sure
of a patch that M$ tests for their OS and SP level than a
patch that has not been tested by them on certain OS and
SP levels)i.e., the patch won't break something
C) They want to hear something besides "Install the latest
service pack" if they ever do have to pursue any kind of
tech support from MS.

You may disagree that the above conditions effect a large
portion of the commercial industry, but my company is one
of those affected.