Microsoft is developing a new version of Windows aimed at companies that want to better secure their older machines, the company confirmed Thursday.
Code-named Eiger, the product is basically designed to turn older PCs into a thin client, which is a terminal that gets most of its information from a central server. Unlike traditional thin clients, though, a few programs can be run locally, including Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and antivirus software.
Microsoft is pitching the software at customers who can't or don't want to buy new PCs, but are concerned that their older computers are not secure and hard to manage. In many cases, upgrading those machines to standard Windows XP just isn't an attractive option, even if it is technically possible
"If they wanted to run Windows XP, it really doesn't run very well; it might take 20 minutes to boot," said Barry Goffe, a group product manager in Microsoft's Windows client unit. "Eiger is a solution we are building, designed specifically for these customers."
Just when Eiger will be available is unclear, however.
Goffe said the product is in the very early stages of product development, with the company this week offering a preview version to a few dozen early customers. He did not give a date for a final launch of the product or say how the company will price it.
"While most of those customers will likely buy new PCs with a new OS, some of those customers are not in a position, either financially, politically or for some other reason, to buy new hardware," he said.
Although Eiger will offer security and other improvements, in many cases it won't be as widely capable as the older OS it is replacing. Microsoft won't guarantee that it will run most of the hundreds of thousands of Windows programs. The company won't even promise support for Office, perhaps the most ubiquitous of Windows programs. Office and other business software will be able to be run off a server and viewed on Eiger-based PCs using Microsoft's remote desktop software or thin client software from Citrix and others.
Goffe said Eiger is not intended to be a long-term fix for companies with older PCs. Rather he sees it as a bridge to Windows XP, or perhaps Longhorn.
"If they can't buy the hardware now, Eiger is a good solution," he said. "It's really designed to help them bridge the gap. By far the best solution is for them to buy a new PC with a new OS."
Goffe also acknowledges that probably only a small fraction of the machines running an older Microsoft OS will want to take the path proposed with Eiger.
One of the benefits to Microsoft is that each machine that moves from an older OS to Eiger is one less unpatched machine that can easily fall prey to viruses or other malicious code. Customers, too, have complained that they have no way to make older machines safe without replacing them with new ones.
"From a security perspective, there are a lot of unhappy customers out there because they are running older machines that can't be patched," Goffe said.
Under the hood, Eiger is a hybrid of Windows XP with Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Embedded. The software gets its code name from a mountain in Switzerland.
To run Eiger, Microsoft is recommending a Pentium II processor and 128MB of memory; However the software will also run on machines with an older Pentium processor and as little as 64MB of memory.
Goffe said Microsoft also has a list of other features that it won't get to with Eiger, things like support for more programs that can be run locally and the ability to connect to handhelds or other devices. Microsoft calls that wish list "Monch," named for the mountain that sits next to Eiger.
Microsoft enthusiast site Bink.nu first published details on Eiger and Monch last month, but Microsoft had declined to comment on the products.
Why doesn't Microsoft strip all the crap from the OS including IE, Messenger, Themes, Screensavers, and anything else that doesn't need to be there. Why we are at it Linux could do the same.
I use nlite to strip out as much extra crap as I can from Windows. I can't find anything that gives me that option for linux (if anybody know of anything let me know). You would be suprised at how much faster Windows is when you get rid off all the extra crap that doesn't need to be there. Turn off unneeded services and rid yourself of most of the drivers and you probably have a nice, mostly secure platform.
Now if Microsoft would only seperate IE from the core of the OS.
I have a very functional (and speedy) backup machine running the latest kernel. This is a pentium 166 (circa 1995). I use it primarily as a test server, but, occasionally a desktop machine as well. Linux is modular by nature and you can have it run on any platform. Remember the Linux watch?
Why doesn't Microsoft strip all the crap from the OS including IE, Messenger, Themes, Screensavers, and anything else that doesn't need to be there. Why we are at it Linux could do the same.
I use nlite to strip out as much extra crap as I can from Windows. I can't find anything that gives me that option for linux (if anybody know of anything let me know). You would be suprised at how much faster Windows is when you get rid off all the extra crap that doesn't need to be there. Turn off unneeded services and rid yourself of most of the drivers and you probably have a nice, mostly secure platform.
Now if Microsoft would only seperate IE from the core of the OS.
I have a very functional (and speedy) backup machine running the latest kernel. This is a pentium 166 (circa 1995). I use it primarily as a test server, but, occasionally a desktop machine as well. Linux is modular by nature and you can have it run on any platform. Remember the Linux watch?
Back in the bad old 80's we ran diskless workstations over Novell Netware. Windows, Office, etc. all ran off of the server. Only one copy of the software to maintain or upgrade. Nothing to go wrong on the workstation except for hardware failure. Then Microsoft decided that it would be better to run all programs on the workstation, moving them off the server. Cynical people might say this was simply a ploy to sell more copies of their software. What it did do was vastly complicate the job of computer support people.
Back in the bad old 80's we ran diskless workstations over Novell Netware. Windows, Office, etc. all ran off of the server. Only one copy of the software to maintain or upgrade. Nothing to go wrong on the workstation except for hardware failure. Then Microsoft decided that it would be better to run all programs on the workstation, moving them off the server. Cynical people might say this was simply a ploy to sell more copies of their software. What it did do was vastly complicate the job of computer support people.
There is no way around it, users like their graphical user interfaces. To do this, you have to at least have a 386 but even then you'd have to find a really really good ISA video card and it may not even be worth it considering the hard drives supported by them and the amount of RAM available. The article seems to poke around the idea that consumers want to keep their old machines, or don't want to buy a new one, and want to upgrade it as much as they can. Firstly, Linux has so many more features than windows 95, 98 or Me, but the next problem is do windows users need these features? Secondly, if the domain of the consumers involved revolve around consumers with machines less than a Pentium I (386/486 only) Linux could be installed but not run as fast as windows 95 or 98. I have installed Fedora Core 3 on a celeron 700 with 256 megs of ram and it ran decently, but not as fast as windows 98 did when it was installed on the machine. Thirdly, when a consumer understands the power of Linux and all its features, then and only then can it be an alternative to costly upgrades of an older machine. However getting Linux or any Unix variant operating system to be as user friendly as Windows users would like it to be is still being worked on, with the exception of OS X, which is simply FreeBSD. All in all, Linux is a great operating system, with or without a GUI, and can run slow on a 386 machine or faster on a Pentium or AMD compatible. Marketing and development of Linux has to revolve around ease of use in order to gain a better piece of the consumer market.
There is no way around it, users like their graphical user interfaces. To do this, you have to at least have a 386 but even then you'd have to find a really really good ISA video card and it may not even be worth it considering the hard drives supported by them and the amount of RAM available. The article seems to poke around the idea that consumers want to keep their old machines, or don't want to buy a new one, and want to upgrade it as much as they can. Firstly, Linux has so many more features than windows 95, 98 or Me, but the next problem is do windows users need these features? Secondly, if the domain of the consumers involved revolve around consumers with machines less than a Pentium I (386/486 only) Linux could be installed but not run as fast as windows 95 or 98. I have installed Fedora Core 3 on a celeron 700 with 256 megs of ram and it ran decently, but not as fast as windows 98 did when it was installed on the machine. Thirdly, when a consumer understands the power of Linux and all its features, then and only then can it be an alternative to costly upgrades of an older machine. However getting Linux or any Unix variant operating system to be as user friendly as Windows users would like it to be is still being worked on, with the exception of OS X, which is simply FreeBSD. All in all, Linux is a great operating system, with or without a GUI, and can run slow on a 386 machine or faster on a Pentium or AMD compatible. Marketing and development of Linux has to revolve around ease of use in order to gain a better piece of the consumer market.
If it based on XP, with IE, media player, and security is my main concern then I'd rather stick to Win98 with IE removed. They cannot even promise support for Office! If I want a secure thin client, then I'd rather install Linux on the box, Citrix works too on that. Why would anyone pay for junk like that.
If it based on XP, with IE, media player, and security is my main concern then I'd rather stick to Win98 with IE removed. They cannot even promise support for Office! If I want a secure thin client, then I'd rather install Linux on the box, Citrix works too on that. Why would anyone pay for junk like that.
Great idea if it gets brought on for $29.00 for a new install and 9.95 as an upgrade to pre XP systems. It would be great especially for young students etc. Give it a rudimentary word processor like Wordpad or Works and a calculator and I'd let the kids each have one in their rooms for studies etc. Of course Microsoft will screw up and charge almost as much as an XP home upgrade and it will end up going nowhere.
It doesn't matter if they give the software away for free. That's because the whole concept makes no sense - why turn a full featured but older computer into a thin client? If you want to run anything bigger than a browser you'll need a connection to a $2000 server. This will make it worthless for home users.
Great idea if it gets brought on for $29.00 for a new install and 9.95 as an upgrade to pre XP systems. It would be great especially for young students etc. Give it a rudimentary word processor like Wordpad or Works and a calculator and I'd let the kids each have one in their rooms for studies etc. Of course Microsoft will screw up and charge almost as much as an XP home upgrade and it will end up going nowhere.
It doesn't matter if they give the software away for free. That's because the whole concept makes no sense - why turn a full featured but older computer into a thin client? If you want to run anything bigger than a browser you'll need a connection to a $2000 server. This will make it worthless for home users.
Rather than fix what they produced, like Windows 98, they continue to come up with new ideas on how to get you to spend money and hook yourself into new software you can't back out of.
Then they'll force you to kill off the old systems when they start over-bloating whatever this waste of disk space is called.
Rather than fix what they produced, like Windows 98, they continue to come up with new ideas on how to get you to spend money and hook yourself into new software you can't back out of.
Then they'll force you to kill off the old systems when they start over-bloating whatever this waste of disk space is called.
Light weight windows? How about recalling windows 98?
If Microsoft is looking for a solution to keep the low end PC market, how about keeping support for windows 98 instead of coming up with a totally new operating system? Windows 98 still works as great on a 486 machine with enough ram. Furthermore if people out there are still using low end pc's, they can't do much on it except for viewing web sites and sending/receiving email. This is still a good function of windows 98 for those not interested in anything else.
The answer why this isn't happening is simple. It costs more to support windows 98 and would probably be more beneficial to microsoft to charge for a new OS. This would be a great time for Open Source vendors to push some of their favorite Linux flavors for a lot less the cost of a single Microsoft OS product that you won't really own anyway due to licensing agreements.
Light weight windows? How about recalling windows 98?
If Microsoft is looking for a solution to keep the low end PC market, how about keeping support for windows 98 instead of coming up with a totally new operating system? Windows 98 still works as great on a 486 machine with enough ram. Furthermore if people out there are still using low end pc's, they can't do much on it except for viewing web sites and sending/receiving email. This is still a good function of windows 98 for those not interested in anything else.
The answer why this isn't happening is simple. It costs more to support windows 98 and would probably be more beneficial to microsoft to charge for a new OS. This would be a great time for Open Source vendors to push some of their favorite Linux flavors for a lot less the cost of a single Microsoft OS product that you won't really own anyway due to licensing agreements.
Also, if you're buying a several-$100k M$ Great Plains "solution" to handle your CRM/ERP/Accounting etc "environment" (and a few more $100k's in installation, customization and training while you're at it) I think you can afford to sink a couple of thou into up-to-date hardware. The software you're talking about seem a little out-of-place in a discussion about how to save money by using Terminal Services.
Also, if you're buying a several-$100k M$ Great Plains "solution" to handle your CRM/ERP/Accounting etc "environment" (and a few more $100k's in installation, customization and training while you're at it) I think you can afford to sink a couple of thou into up-to-date hardware. The software you're talking about seem a little out-of-place in a discussion about how to save money by using Terminal Services.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
I use nlite to strip out as much extra crap as I can from Windows. I can't find anything that gives me that option for linux (if anybody know of anything let me know). You would be suprised at how much faster Windows is when you get rid off all the extra crap that doesn't need to be there. Turn off unneeded services and rid yourself of most of the drivers and you probably have a nice, mostly secure platform.
Now if Microsoft would only seperate IE from the core of the OS.
machine running the latest kernel. This is a
pentium 166 (circa 1995). I use it primarily as
a test server, but, occasionally a desktop
machine as well. Linux is modular by nature and
you can have it run on any platform. Remember the
Linux watch?
I use nlite to strip out as much extra crap as I can from Windows. I can't find anything that gives me that option for linux (if anybody know of anything let me know). You would be suprised at how much faster Windows is when you get rid off all the extra crap that doesn't need to be there. Turn off unneeded services and rid yourself of most of the drivers and you probably have a nice, mostly secure platform.
Now if Microsoft would only seperate IE from the core of the OS.
machine running the latest kernel. This is a
pentium 166 (circa 1995). I use it primarily as
a test server, but, occasionally a desktop
machine as well. Linux is modular by nature and
you can have it run on any platform. Remember the
Linux watch?
For more info, see ltsp.org, and get a version of Linux for thin-clients.
nothing that your workforce would use.
For more info, see ltsp.org, and get a version of Linux for thin-clients.
nothing that your workforce would use.
They cannot even promise support for Office!
If I want a secure thin client, then I'd rather install Linux on the box, Citrix works too on that.
Why would anyone pay for junk like that.
Probably just another piece of vaporware...
They cannot even promise support for Office!
If I want a secure thin client, then I'd rather install Linux on the box, Citrix works too on that.
Why would anyone pay for junk like that.
Probably just another piece of vaporware...
Then they'll force you to kill off the old systems when they start over-bloating whatever this waste of disk space is called.
NWLB
****
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nwlb.net" target="_newWindow">http://www.nwlb.net</a>
Then they'll force you to kill off the old systems when they start over-bloating whatever this waste of disk space is called.
NWLB
****
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nwlb.net" target="_newWindow">http://www.nwlb.net</a>
The answer why this isn't happening is simple. It costs more to support windows 98 and would probably be more beneficial to microsoft to charge for a new OS. This would be a great time for Open Source vendors to push some of their favorite Linux flavors for a lot less the cost of a single Microsoft OS product that you won't really own anyway due to licensing agreements.
The answer why this isn't happening is simple. It costs more to support windows 98 and would probably be more beneficial to microsoft to charge for a new OS. This would be a great time for Open Source vendors to push some of their favorite Linux flavors for a lot less the cost of a single Microsoft OS product that you won't really own anyway due to licensing agreements.
Payroll? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://arias.sourceforge.net/" target="_newWindow">http://arias.sourceforge.net/</a>
Accounting? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://arias.sourceforge.net/" target="_newWindow">http://arias.sourceforge.net/</a>
Business modeling? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.jgpd.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.jgpd.com/</a>
ERP? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://egs.sourceforge.net/" target="_newWindow">http://egs.sourceforge.net/</a>
Publishing? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.scribus.org.uk/" target="_newWindow">http://www.scribus.org.uk/</a>
Anything else?
Also, if you're buying a several-$100k M$ Great Plains "solution" to handle your CRM/ERP/Accounting etc "environment" (and a few more $100k's in installation, customization and training while you're at it) I think you can afford to sink a couple of thou into up-to-date hardware. The software you're talking about seem a little out-of-place in a discussion about how to save money by using Terminal Services.
Payroll? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://arias.sourceforge.net/" target="_newWindow">http://arias.sourceforge.net/</a>
Accounting? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://arias.sourceforge.net/" target="_newWindow">http://arias.sourceforge.net/</a>
Business modeling? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.jgpd.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.jgpd.com/</a>
ERP? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://egs.sourceforge.net/" target="_newWindow">http://egs.sourceforge.net/</a>
Publishing? -> <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.scribus.org.uk/" target="_newWindow">http://www.scribus.org.uk/</a>
Anything else?
Also, if you're buying a several-$100k M$ Great Plains "solution" to handle your CRM/ERP/Accounting etc "environment" (and a few more $100k's in installation, customization and training while you're at it) I think you can afford to sink a couple of thou into up-to-date hardware. The software you're talking about seem a little out-of-place in a discussion about how to save money by using Terminal Services.