Microsoft .NET and Windows 2000

What is Microsoft thinking?

Last month, I outlined Microsoft's new .NET strategy. It's about making applications Web-aware and establishing the infrastructure to deliver them. .NET aims to transform the Web into a collaborative (i.e., multiuser read, update, and delete) environment instead of today's predominately read-only environment. .NET is a framework for distributing collaborative applications across the Internet. Whether they're hosted on your servers or somebody else's is a secondary consideration. In the .NET model, software becomes a service.

Microsoft says that .NET is the company's future, and everything now revolves around establishing this platform. Because Microsoft is focusing so much attention on .NET before companies have even begun to widely deploy Windows 2000 Server, I had some burning questions about how Win2K fits into Microsoft's .NET strategy. I asked Microsoft's .NET team to answer some of these questions.

Win2K vs. Windows.NET
If .NET is a revolutionary strategic platform for Microsoft, I wondered whether readers of this magazine should even deploy Win2K or just wait for Windows.NET. I learned that Microsoft considers Win2K to be the fundamental platform for building a .NET infrastructure. According to Bob O'Brien, group product manager for Windows 2000, "Windows 2000 Server is a building block and fundamental in delivering services in the overall .NET environment. Windows 2000 Professional is the foundation for Windows.NET. We recommend that customers interested in a future migration to Windows .NET should start deploying Windows 2000 Professional today. Microsoft will continue to maintain and support its current Windows platform for organizations and users who are not planning to migrate to the new .NET platform."

Active Directory (AD) is one aspect of Win2K that isn't clear in relationship to .NET. Implementing AD is a huge task, so should you bother with it if it's not central to the .NET strategy? Will Microsoft make AD authentication a standard Web development object? Today, we think of AD as a place to store information about our internal users. Tomorrow, we might look at AD as a place to store information about our customers, suppliers, partners, and end users. For example, the Windows 2000 Magazine Network (http://www.win2000mag.net/) has more than 1 million unique users each month, many of whom subscribe to the print magazine. Looking toward .NET, should we use AD to authenticate unique users for premium Web services? If so, then scalability of our Win2K infrastructure takes on a whole new meaning.

Microsoft Servers and .NET
In addition to Win2K itself, how do the Microsoft Server products fit into the .NET strategy? For example, SQL Server 2000 supports XML and other core parts of the .NET framework, and so does Exchange 2000 Server. But are SQL Server 2000 and Exchange 2000 necessary for a .NET infrastructure?

Jeff Ressler, Microsoft's lead product manager for SQL Server, said, "SQL Server is not necessary for implementing a .NET infrastructure. However...SQL Server will have the deepest integration with the .NET platform of any database product. That means greater integration with and support for Visual Studio.NET as well as the ability to efficiently and securely expose data via Web services."

Microsoft's Chris Baker, lead product manager for Exchange Server, said, "Exchange 2000 is a key component of the Microsoft .NET platform. Along with the other enterprise servers, Exchange 2000 provides full support for XML. Its new Web Storage System natively stores XML data so developers can build rich Web-based collaborative applications as well as easily exchange information with other applications."

Baker noted, "Additionally, Exchange 2000 delivers on the 'software as a service' tenet of .NET. It provides the scalability, availability, and performance to support millions of users operating in a hosted environment. In addition to the core-messaging infrastructure that Exchange 2000 provides to our ASP partners, Exchange expands the range of services that ASPs can provide to their customers. These new communication/collaboration services include instant messaging, conferencing (audio, video, and data), unified messaging, chat, and team collaboration workspaces."

What Does It All Mean?
I think Microsoft is undermining its Win2K message by placing so much emphasis on .NET right now. The company is sending mixed messages to its current and potential customers.

Are you confused about Win2K and .NET? Well, O'Brien seems to give direction: "Customers who have already built on the Windows 2000 foundation will definitely be at a time-to-market advantage over someone holding off and trying to do it all at once." Let me know what you think.

End of Article

I think Microsoft is definitely moving FAST on this one. I have been using Windows 2000 over 2+ years now and am currently on a Windows 2000 Project. People need to get on the BAND WAGON now or reap the consequences later. Windows 2000 is just the begginning of the fast moving FUTURE.

Carl Cousino October 24, 2000

I have to agree that Microsoft is going full force in too many directions now, especially with the .NET initiative. I'm worried about (and sick of) training my guys and spending money on COM+ and other technologies that are going to be obsolete in 1-2 years! I want a clear vision of what platforms and tools I can implement for my customers that I can leave in place for at least a couple YEARS. Is that really too much to ask?

We all know Microsoft is under pressure from investors to the money machine humming along. I think that since some of the new solutions like the "Snap File Server" and Linux are really cutting away at future sales potential, they have to come up with new ways to keep us buying and buying (constant new software upgrades) ... I'm finally getting sick of the contant upgrade cycle because I just can't keep up well enough. :(

Jeremy Goemaat October 25, 2000

Making the AD project a priority at this time would reduce later conversion to .NET is a big plus for any company. All medium and larger organizations need to have NDS or AD to become a fluent member of a network infrastructure and to be a member of larger nets. These nets of course are larger than the organization. These types of services will be provided to smaller organizations by a service parallel to ISPs. The resource availability and security will be a central part of these nets.

Carl Fisher October 26, 2000

being part of the ASP dev community, the .NET framework is a very welcome addition to the MS product line. the .NET framework isn't just some new buzz word. This offers many things that are built on the win2k OS. ASP+, web services will open up programming for the web. The other tools, biztalk, app center, exchange 2k among the products that can be added to fit business needs. All the hype and confusion I see in articles is from peoples lack of understanding of a business role technology plays. This doesn't apply to all but the media I don't think has a clue.
Microsoft is doing the right thing in my opinion. Doing something right takes time and as I've seen with win2k, the wait was worth it!

Steve S. October 30, 2000

I think your last question is important. Are MS confusing their customers with a mixed message? O'Brien's answer is good "Customers who have already built on the Windows 2000 foundation will definitely be at a time-to-market advantage over someone holding off and trying to do it all at once."

But MS will need to put a lot of effort into helping IT DIrectors, who have been working on their Boards, to convey a coherent plan to their business, showing how this new strategy builds on the previous one and that their investment, past or future, in Win2K will still show a return in costs or in ability of the company to compete.

Joe Kelly November 03, 2000

Without a lasting attitude change within the Microsoft campus .NET will be nothing more then yet another way of locking your company into a future that makes them dependent on the exclusive club they've joined. As anyone knows exclusive clubs have recurring high membership fee's and are generally incompatible with the ways of the rest of the world.

Fact is that Microsoft solutions aren't known for their outstanding compatibility with other vendors solutions (or even Microsoft's own previous versions). And being able to communicate (be compatible) with anything about anything without issues seems to be what it's going to be about.

Arthur B. November 08, 2000

<br><br>In his November 2000 editorial, "Microsoft .NET and Windows 2000", Mark Smith concludes that Microsoft might be undermining its Windows 2000 message by placing so much emphasis on .NET and that Microsoft is sending a mixed message to its current and potential customers. In the editorial, Mark asks, "Are you confused about Win2K and .NET?" We were definitely confused at first. My company was part of the Win2K Joint Deployment Program (JDP), then Microsoft rolled out .NET. Initially, we thought we got caught holding the early-adopter bag, but now we agree with the Bob O'Brien (group product manager for Win2K) quote at the end of the editorial; we're in the perfect position to implement .NET services on top of our existing Win2K infrastructure.<br><br>

John P Studdard December 13, 2000

I have the .NET runtime infrastructure installed on my W2k Server, and use it to develop ASP+ applications. Where is the incompatability between Windows.NET and W2k?

Robert Cripe December 24, 2000

You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.