Sometimes I am amazed at how such smart people and companies can make such weird decisions. I thought that Microsoft had a great brand built up in the Windows NT name.
You knew that the client side would be some iteration of Windows - Windows 95, 98, etc. The naming of Millenium or ME was just confusing.
But dumping the “NT” name and naming what should have been Windows NT 5, Windows 2000, didn’t make sense. The client OS should have been 2000 and the server side should have been NT 5.
Where does the XP brand fit in? Sure, it’s built on the NT/2000 kernel but unless the idea is to completely merge the client and server OS, the naming convention is not very intuitive.
The good news is that the upcoming release of the server product, which should have been NT 6, will drop the .Net from the end and just be called Windows Server 2003.
The .Net moniker is too confusing and not just to end users. And as a VAR, the dates on the versions confuse the end users too. I constantly hear questions about running Office 97 on Windows 95 or 98 or 2000 or whatever.
Naming a server product “2003” in April of that year guarantees that a large portion of the implementers will be installing “2003” in the year 2004 or later. I am gearing up for the inevitable questions from clients - “Why don’t we just get the latest - Windows 2004?” Sigh.
11:12:07 AM
|