why did it ever stop

Discuss Windows 2000, NT, XP and Windows Server 2000, 2003, SBS 2003.
Post Reply
jwborc39963

why did it ever stop

Post by jwborc39963 »

the answers are everywhere, but I am having some trouble putting everything together.

I am vurious as to why development of what we now know as Longhorn was stopped, and why they started working "Vista". I know later builds became unstable, and features were starting to become a mess, but why didn't they just fix that up? they basically let a few years of development go down the drain, and they released an operating system that wishes it could even be compared to "Longhorn". why didn't Microsoft just keep working on longhorn?

logicaL
FTP Access
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:30 pm

Re: why did it ever stop

Post by logicaL »

jwborc39963 wrote:the answers are everywhere, but I am having some trouble putting everything together.

I am vurious as to why development of what we now know as Longhorn was stopped, and why they started working "Vista". I know later builds became unstable, and features were starting to become a mess, but why didn't they just fix that up? they basically let a few years of development go down the drain, and they released an operating system that wishes it could even be compared to "Longhorn". why didn't Microsoft just keep working on longhorn?
Longhorn is/was the codename for Vista. The only thing that they did was change the base of the code from XP to Server 2003 (a much better base).

Basically the original XP-based builds are really nothing more than XP with a few extra goodies thrown in, while the 2003-based builds are more feature/interface complete.

jwborc39963

Post by jwborc39963 »

I understand the whole codename thing, but I understand that there was a "reset" when they changed over to the new code base. I wanted to know why they did that because they had to re-do everything, and a lot of awesome features were lost.

hounsell

Re: why did it ever stop

Post by hounsell »

logicaL wrote:The only thing that they did was change the base of the code from XP to Server 2003
The original builds weren't XP based, rather pre-release server based. The change merely brought the RTM (SP1 I think) server core

jwborc39963

Post by jwborc39963 »

but what actually caused the change? so many awesome things were lost! the gui was SO MUCH BETTER

Daniel
User avatar
Staff
Posts: 2607
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Germany, Earth
Contact:

Post by Daniel »

jwborc39963 wrote:but what actually caused the change? so many awesome things were lost! the gui was SO MUCH BETTER

You already said it, this caused the change:
I know later builds became unstable, and features were starting to become a mess,

Longhorn was something like a "playground", the developers added a lot of things and experimented with Longhorn, but they hadn't set themselves a goal I think. Then Longhorn was too unstable and they decided to change the codebase and begun from the beginning.

gracz54
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:44 am
Location: Poland

Post by gracz54 »

The builds were unstable, etc. But still. The Longhorn concept was a great one and I do not understand why did they completely change their course by 180 degrees to make the piece of crap known as Vista. That concept was surely possible to code.

jwborc39963

Post by jwborc39963 »

gracz54 wrote:The builds were unstable, etc. But still. The Longhorn concept was a great one and I do not understand why did they completely change their course by 180 degrees to make the piece of crap known as Vista. That concept was surely possible to code.
thats what I was getting at here. surely it was possible to fix it up, there were so many great ideas that never got implemented into "Vista"...

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

of course it was/is possible to fix them up, but much eaiser and faster to start over and not do the same mistakes.

hounsell

Post by hounsell »

I think if you ever use 4093, you will quickly realise that Longhorn got bad very fast towards the end. It was probably for the best, though they could have tried to keep some of the Longhorn features

fzajac
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:45 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by fzajac »

Yeah, the project was bad organised.
But some good ideas went to trash with the project and nobody knows why...

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Post by XDude »

if you asked for when, it's August 04

it's sad that everyone saw 4074 and was excited about it.
They no news came for MS for another year.
When we all checked out 5048, everyone was surprisingly disappointed.

hypr
Donator
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:42 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Post by hypr »

what base is 3718 built on ?

Leon
Donator
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:52 am

Post by Leon »

The last build I actually installed on my computer was 4074... I couldn't run any of the others (Old PC).

I haven't tried to install any other builds on my new pc... Should I even bother?

hounsell

Post by hounsell »

hypr wrote:what base is 3718 built on ?
What I understand is that the Server builds and Longhorn builds were developed almost together when Longhorn was in its 3718 branch, as they updated the Longhorn kernel with the latest Server code, so Longhorn 3718 would have been built on Server Build 3718. This is shown by the fact the Server build was built about 1 week before the Longhorn build.

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Post by XDude »

hounsell wrote:
hypr wrote:what base is 3718 built on ?
What I understand is that the Server builds and Longhorn builds were developed almost together when Longhorn was in its 3718 branch, as they updated the Longhorn kernel with the latest Server code, so Longhorn 3718 would have been built on Server Build 3718. This is shown by the fact the Server build was built about 1 week before the Longhorn build.
thats because Lab06 builds are behind the main builds
3718 was based on XP SP1 and so was Server 2003

Post Reply