Microsoft drops .NET from Windows Server 2003

by Glen Gillmore

Related link: http://www.microsoft.com/windows.netserver/default.mspx



It appears that Microsoft has taken a new path with marketing .NET by dropping the confusing "ingredient brand" from Windows Server 2003 (was Windows .NET Server 2003).

How significant is the drop of the .NET name from Windows Server 2003? Will it help, hurt, or not matter?


5 Comments

gillmore
2003-01-09 11:31:23
more information
http://www.microsoft.com/windows.netserver/evaluation/news/bulletins/windowsserver2003.mspx


"Windows Server 2003 is on-track for worldwide launch in April 2003. Only the name has changed—not the functionality of the product, nor its deep integration of .NET technology."



GerardM
2003-01-09 12:30:02
Confused to the existence of the .NET product
.NET is long in the making. In my opinion it is vapourware. It gives me the impression that it is a long road that may eventually lead to somewhere if you buy into it. It keeps its public attention only by marketingicks.


Microsoft is important if only for the size of its market. When it comes to its announcements they always give me a promise that will not be delivered as promissed and is always late.

gillmore
2003-01-09 15:59:54
Microsoft's explanation to partners
http://winxp.bink.nu/


Note they say "The first product to be affected is Windows .NET Server 2003. " It will be interesting to see if they revoke .NET from products that have already released, like Visual Studio .NET

mentata
2003-01-11 02:28:42
is this news?
Why does this matter at all? As a ploy to keep the industry talking about the software that isn't here, Microsoft has found a winner. Perhaps someday they'll do like Coca-Cola did in the 80's, simultaneously releasing New Coke and Classic Coke to experience a rise in sales for both. Then again, they already do that (just think of all those poor Windows Me customers).


I say we all call the new offering what it is: Windows NT, Service Pack 11.

gillmore
2003-01-13 11:19:50
is this news?
As far as the technology goes, it doesn't matter. But as one person said in an email thread:


"Weird how on the one hand this formerly mighty marketing machine seems to have gotten the technology right, but completely screwed up its messages."


You might disagree about the technology being right, but from a marketing point of view, Microsoft did a poor job of communicating their vision and how that related to their product line.