Feeds

WinXP server goes .NET – so good they named it twice

We named it already? Doh...

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

Bill Gates yesterday christened the server edition of Windows XP "Windows.NET Server," the goldfish in the marketing department having apparently forgotten that Microsoft had already christened the product Windows 2002 Server a little over a month ago.

And while we're about it we might as well note that today's big "Windows XP ready PCs" announcement is of something that's been kicking around Microsoft's site since April. This one is just as dull as it was two months ago, although this time around Microsoft is claiming 100 PC models have received WinXP ready certification.

The re-rechristening of XP Server, however, is more than just a foul up and/or Microsoft attempting to milk publicity out of a non-announcement. If you cast your mind back to the original .NET announcements you'll recall that the product that was to become Windows XP was being slated to include some early elements of .NET technology. But the real thing would be later.

At the time you may also recall The Register floating the notion that .NET quite probably wasn't so much a set of technologies (or indeed an OS) as a huge pile of everything Microsoft owned, content very much included, linked together by a kind of Grand Unified Theory the Redmond marketing department had cooked up and christened ".NET". But actually, most of the stuff Microsoft was calling .NET existed already, so it wasn't so much a question of shipping .NET as of making a marketing decision as to when to call it .NET.

Microsoft has variously declared that both Whistler/WinXP and Blackcomb will be the first .NET operating systems (it may even have been Bill both times), but as Bill has now actually nailed the name to the product, then the first one will indeed be XP Server. In his speech (at Teched), incidentally, he also confirmed that what is now Windows.NET Server will ship next year, not this.

The next question is, why is it .NET Server? What is it about the software that makes it .NET Server while Win2k Server is not a .NET product? What bits are stuck on that can't/won't be stuck on to Win2k server? Marketing decision. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Netscape Navigator - the browser that started it all - turns 20
It was 20 years ago today, Marc Andreeesen taught the band to play
UNIX greybeards threaten Debian fork over systemd plan
'Veteran Unix Admins' fear desktop emphasis is betraying open source
Sign off my IT project or I’ll PHONE your MUM
Honestly, it’s a piece of piss
Return of the Jedi – Apache reclaims web server crown
.london, .hamburg and .公司 - that's .com in Chinese - storm the web server charts
Chrome 38's new HTML tag support makes fatties FIT and SKINNIER
First browser to protect networks' bandwith using official spec
Admins! Never mind POODLE, there're NEW OpenSSL bugs to splat
Four new patches for open-source crypto libraries
Torvalds CONFESSES: 'I'm pretty good at alienating devs'
Admits to 'a metric ****load' of mistakes during work with Linux collaborators
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.