Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Announces Windows Azure, Cloud-Based OS

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Oct 27, 2008 08:24 PM
from the do-you-feel-azure-after-use dept.
snydeq writes "Microsoft today introduced Windows Azure, its operating system for the cloud. The OS serves as the underlying foundation of the Azure Services Platform to help developers build apps that span from the cloud to the datacenter, to PCs, the Web, and phones. Cloud-based developer capabilities are combined with storage, computational, and network infrastructure services, which are hosted on servers within Microsoft's global data center network."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Microsoft Unveils Browser-Based Office Apps 126 comments
snydeq writes "Microsoft followed up its Windows Azure unveiling by announcing that it will deliver lightweight versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote through the browser, a la Google Apps. Surprisingly, Office Web applications will run in Firefox and Safari, not just Internet Explorer. Far less shocking: You won't get Office Web apps free and clear as you do Google apps. The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed instances of the next version of Microsoft Office, the same way Outlook Web Access provides access to mail without the fat Outlook client."
[+] Developers: Windows Azure Offers Developers Iron-Clad Lock-in 227 comments
snydeq writes "Microsoft's move to the cloud is certain to create a whole new kind of developer partner, Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister writes. But as much as Microsoft ISVs will likely go along with the shift to Windows Azure to keep revenue streams going, the kind of lock-in they will experience will be worlds away from what they face today. Rather than being able to ignore the new version of a key framework, developers will have no other option than to update their code to suit Microsoft's latest platform. That kind of lock-in will leave customers in the lurch, subject to their vendors' bottom lines, as ISVs that can't afford to rework code to keep up with Microsoft's latest platform will begin dropping services, and customers will have little choice but to accept the new terms of service their vendors send along."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Monday October 27 2008, @08:26PM (#25536053) Homepage Journal

    Was anyone waiting for this? Or interested in this?

    Anyone?

    Bueller?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Microsoft moving into services may be good for us all. The giant assuring that Google was ahead of it is the first on a path to think of the consumer and open access, and portability. Hopefully this means proper standards for IE8 and JS3 support?
      • by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768.comcast@net> on Monday October 27 2008, @08:45PM (#25536223) Journal
        absolutely not. This means proprietary standards developed by Microsoft and given cutsie names. It ALWAYS means that.
      • by truthsearch (249536) on Monday October 27 2008, @08:51PM (#25536291) Homepage Journal

        Hopefully this means proper standards for IE8 and JS3 support?

        If Microsoft owns the desktop, browser, server, and data center, what's going to motivate them to follow standards?

        • by symbolset (646467) on Monday October 27 2008, @09:50PM (#25536697) Journal

          If Microsoft owns the desktop, browser, server, and data center, what's going to motivate them to follow standards?

          Erm, you might have a point on the desktop and the browser. Both are shrinking share. Server and data center never was wholly owned. Though they did get some good sports inserted in there, not enough of them will ascend to senior management to make a difference in the long run. They totally owned the laptops for a while but they're losing it on the laptops as netbooks are taking a good chunk. They're losing a bit even on desktops - I hear they just lost all of Russian schools. That's a bite right there. We had a good laugh with their attempts at HPC, but those folks do their own ROI math don'tcha know and they never had a chance there.

          Folks in phones haven't given them much thought since they so publicly cannibalized their first partner there, and phones look like the high volume platform for the next decade. They could OEM systems, but that's a short trip to the grave as the top 20 OEMs deprecate their brand overnight for the sake of their own survival.

          In short, a declining share of a declining market doesn't look good for continued growth. Long term outlook: negative.

        • by Ostracus (1354233) on Monday October 27 2008, @10:35PM (#25537013) Journal

          Are we still claiming that MS owns the browser? Let alone the server and data center market?

          "what's going to motivate them to follow standards?"

          Being left behind.

            • by atraintocry (1183485) on Tuesday October 28 2008, @05:22AM (#25538959)

              So you didn't like Netscape (and yes by the end it was by most accounts a bloated piece of crap), but you don't get to make up your own history. In the beginning Netscape cost money, and IE did not. After a while IE came pre-installed (and of course, Netscape did not). What a bunch of chumps the Netscape guys must have been, right? Trying to sell their product when they should have just been selling an OS and bundling the browser with it.

              It's not like Netscape wasn't just as bad at "extending" the nascent standards, but they tended to do it in ways that didn't require a particular OS. And IE didn't win because their table tags were somehow better than Netscape's. The browsers were incompatible in various ways, not the least of which was ActiveX. Microsoft even did their own incompatible Java VM. And seeing as free + bundled got IE the majority share quickly, it wasn't long before certain corners of the internet started to look like an extension of the Microsoft platform.

              Technical superiority is not what makes you a success in this market. If anything, there's a magical combination of cheap and easy that does it. The *real* reason we're talking about the fall of IE (if you want to call it that) is that the web is mostly mature now, as a platform. That maturity happened in a lot of ways, some because of MS, some in spite of MS, some having nothing to do with MS. I'm not going to get into specifics, nor would I even say I'm qualified to discuss most of it. The point is, the basic technological foundation for the web has been laid, and the time has come to commodify it. Whatever money or power could have been gained from "innovating" a successful browser has dried up. The best engines for both HTML rendering and ECMAScript will be open source from here on out.

              Plus it's not all desktops anymore. There are way too many interests now from established players in other industries, like Nokia and Motorola, that also want a say in the web's future. These companies may get along with MS in certain ways but you can bet that when IE kicks the bucket, Motorola et al will sleep late the day of the funeral.

              • by quanticle (843097) on Tuesday October 28 2008, @02:39PM (#25546013) Homepage

                The *real* reason we're talking about the fall of IE (if you want to call it that) is that the web is mostly mature now, as a platform.

                No. The real reason IE is no longer the sole dominant force in the browser space is because Firefox managed to match IE on price (free), while surpassing it in features (pop-up blocker, extensions, etc.).

      • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday October 27 2008, @10:34PM (#25537007) Journal

        I don't want to be sounding redundant sounding, but isn't this just another market segment that MS was late to the game for? Who will they buy now in order to compete more aggressively before giving up on it? This is exactly the development model that MS has always used: see what other companies are doing and copy it. In recent years, it has been shown to be a poor model for business, at least where MS is concerned. Yes, they had a couple of successes, but far too many failures to really warrant pinning hope on those few successes bleeding over to cloud computing.

        I'm wondering how they will put DRM on it and keep the entire cloud from becoming one huge spambot. Security doesn't seem to be the strongest part of software coming out of Redmond.

        How can MS moving proprietary spambot software out to the cloud be seen with anything less than trepidation? Seriously?

    • by symbolset (646467) on Monday October 27 2008, @09:40PM (#25536639) Journal

      I cant wait to see how sucktacular it is. All the reliability and stability of Microsoft software delivered through Microsoft's legendary networking skill.

      Friends, the LHC has nothing on this. We're about to see an example of negative energy, when modern physics had all but proved it completely impossible.

    • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday October 27 2008, @10:10PM (#25536827)

      I, personally, would be THRILLED, if I could sit down at any broadband-connected PC in the world and get the same desktop and files that I have at home. I've played with Ulteo [ulteo.com], and it is close - but clearly needs some time and manpower thrown at it. If there was a mature, polished version of Ulteo that could do what other OSs can do, I'd probably be willing to give up my Macs as well as my Windows/Ubuntu machine.

      Can MS pull it off? I doubt it, but I'm glad that they are trying.

      • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Monday October 27 2008, @11:18PM (#25537269)

        Hey, happy to help. Grab a VNC client (there are lots of free ones for every platform) and set up your computer as a VNC server. If you've got a Mac it's one box you have to check.

        It's kinda slow, but I'm pretty sure it'll be faster than an OS written in Javascript, running inside a web browser. Also, your data stays your own and you don't have to be beholden to Microsoft to use it.

      • by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Tuesday October 28 2008, @12:51AM (#25537799) Journal

        Actually, that is one advantage to a "cloud" (what would be a better term?) OS: security is handled by people that theoretically know what they are doing, rather than hundreds/thousands that definitely don't.

        Not that I'd ever trust it.

  • by HannethCom (585323) on Monday October 27 2008, @08:29PM (#25536085)
    From what they've said so far, Windows Azure is just Microsoft hosting your applications on their distributed network.

    They were touting all these "great" things, but really that's all it really is.
  • Not going anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)

    by I_am_the_cheese (1264298) on Monday October 27 2008, @08:34PM (#25536145)
    Considering the source of this software, one can be pretty sure of this lifecycle:

    Phase one: deployment by thousands of small businesses, the poor schmucks.
    Phase two: serious security and compatibility problems go exploited and unreported. Those in the know start to advise against use of the software.
    Phase three: Patching attempts by Microsoft. Cracking attempts by crackers. Either: Massive advertising campaign by Microsoft OR Microsoft puts out Version 2 with bug fixes and advertises that.
    Phase four: more patching by Microsoft. More cracking by crackers. Microsoft comes out a with Service Pack. New Ubuntu does everything this product does, but faster and more securely.
    Phase five: fewer and fewer companies use this product, but it enjoys a long half-life as companies fail to stop using it.
  • by waferbuster (580266) on Monday October 27 2008, @08:37PM (#25536169)
    According to Wikipedia, "Azure is a blue color, halfway between blue and cyan. Commonly it refers to a bright blue, resembling the sky on a bright, clear day."

    So, now we can look forward to seeing a soothing Azure Screen of Death.
  • Ok (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daimanta (1140543) on Monday October 27 2008, @08:38PM (#25536175) Journal

    - It's slow(duh, connecting to the internet and such)
    - You have no privacy (MS knows all)
    - You have no control (MS controls all)
    - You have no guarantee (MS decides when you are allowed to use it)

    I'm sold

  • by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Monday October 27 2008, @08:40PM (#25536183)

    I've been writing Windows apps since 3.1. Microsoft couldn't write a decent API if their lives depended on it. They manage to take simple concept, and bury under layer upon layer of useless complexity. Too often their documentation doesn't give examples, and the only way to find out what something does is it sit around and experiment with it. Take the absurd DirectX: you *have* to use it, but even today it takes pages to get a window on the screen and the documentation is useless. Remember Microsoft OLE? Such a simple thing made so hard. I want to code in as few a lines as possible. I don't want to write pages of COM declarations. Worse of all is their DirectShow - put a video on the screen. It's a mess of pins and connectors. Ugh!

    Although I'm a Windows programmer by training, I've been spreading my wings and it's nice to use APIs that are simpler and more elegant. I can write code to do what I want to do, instead of wasting days with my nose buried in absurdly thick reference books trying to understand what they were trying to do. It's like the people at Microsoft who spend their time writing APIs never have to actually use one.

    So Microsoft Cloud? No, thanks. Cloud may turn out to be another flash-in-the-pan fad, but even so I'd rather use a cleaner API by someone else. Microsoft have a lousy track record. Thanks, but no thanks.

    • by sleeponthemic (1253494) on Monday October 27 2008, @09:35PM (#25536605) Homepage

      Cloud may turn out to be another flash-in-the-pan fad

      May? From the moment it was named, it was predestined to become nothing more than a scourge of sane people and a fantastic technological lubricant for the "sexually attracted to techterms" IT managers across the globe.

    • by symbolset (646467) on Monday October 27 2008, @10:06PM (#25536811) Journal

      Microsoft couldn't write a decent API if their lives depended on it.

      Microsoft's APIs are seamless, coherent and reliably engineered. They are flexible enough to enable seamless integration of all their apps into every aspect of the operating system in such a way that they seem to be part of it. They even build into the APIs current developers of their apps need to implement various features.

      Although I'm a Windows programmer by training,

      Oh. You mean the APIs they let you use. Never mind.

    • Here's a reason why (Score:4, Interesting)

      by melted (227442) on Monday October 27 2008, @11:43PM (#25537445) Homepage

      >> They manage to take simple concept, and bury under
      >> layer upon layer of useless complexity

      This is a very astute observation. As a MSFT veteran, I can tell you why this happens. Microsoft as a company does not value simplicity. Simplicity in design is perceived as a lack of technical skill and therefore considered a weakness. It has to be uber-super-insane architecture starting right from V1, and it has to be so complex that it'll only be useful by V3, and even then only by people who already know a lot of the other equally grotesque Windows APIs. Otherwise people won't get promoted.

      The most recent and most dramatic example of gross overengineering so far is Avalon, AKA WPF. I bet the same is true of Azure, knowing that it comes from Windows and there are a bunch of very senior people in the org. Which is why I predict that it will be an epic fail.

  • What's the security boundary between customers based on? Virtual machines?

  • by diamondsw (685967) on Monday October 27 2008, @08:50PM (#25536273)

    ...it's not an OS in my book. It may be an excellent (hmph!) network API, but it is not an operating system of any kind.

  • The Advantages? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SageMusings (463344) on Monday October 27 2008, @08:53PM (#25536313) Journal

    1. Can turn off access to any application, at will.
    2. Can force upgrade$, even when perfectly happy with an older version of an application.
    3. Can nickle-and-dime you for every piece of the OS, similar to purchasing your car one bolt at-a-time.
    4. Over tax our still not-ready-for-prime-time broadband.

    Gosh, how the hell does this benefit me in anyway? I am not an automatic MS-basher like some people here but I'm quickly learning.

  • by adamruck (638131) on Monday October 27 2008, @09:20PM (#25536511)

    Does this explain all the bullshit slashdot articles about cloud this and grid that? I hope this turns into microsoft bob 2.0.

    If you run a business, you have to know DAMN well that your data is:

    1) private and secure
    3) available to your apps
    4) backed up

    How can you do that if your data is "in the cloud"? The SLA isn't worth the paper that it is written on if your business goes down for a week because something went wrong with "the cloud".

    • by Freaky Spook (811861) on Monday October 27 2008, @09:38PM (#25536625)

      How can you do that if your data is "in the cloud"? The SLA isn't worth the paper that it is written on if your business goes down for a week because something went wrong with "the cloud".

      Supporting small business I've seen some down right foolish and stupid decisions made on IT, placing cost over their data security.

      Most cloud services offer business access to applications and services they could not afford if they put the software on site and I see it as no different to a SMB deciding to spend 5K on a new server and ignore the extra 5K for a backup system to support it.

      Some business owners will understand the risks, and some will either not care or go for the bottom line with cost.

    • by lysergic.acid (845423) on Monday October 27 2008, @11:23PM (#25537297) Homepage

      but cloud storage done right would provide more redundancy/reliability/uptime than most small businesses could manage on their own. that's because multitenancy and centralization of data storage allows small businesses to share a large resource pool that none of them could afford on their own. this includes:

      • higher level of reliability through multiple redundant sites
      • higher peak load capacity
      • massive scalability
      • increased efficiency & better utilization of resources (like distributed computing)

      having your data stored locally doesn't guarantee reliability or prevent things from going wrong. why do you think most small businesses go with shared hosting rather than running their own web server? if you're a large corporation and can afford to pour money into server/network maintenance then maybe it'd be better to have direct control over your data. but Google, Amazon, and perhaps even Microsoft can guaranty better uptime and reliability than the average small to medium sized business.

      after all, how often have you needed to access your Gmail or Yahoo! mail account and couldn't because their server was down? and how many times were you unable to access your webmail account because of a local network/computer problem? at least with cloud computing if you have business partners or affiliates that need shared access to your data and your office network goes down, or your internet connection craps out, they would still have access to the data and be able to continue operations.

      local data storage isn't a magic bullet against natural disasters, human error, or hardware failure. at least cloud architecture is designed to account for these contingencies.

  • by Marrow (195242) on Monday October 27 2008, @10:39PM (#25537031)

    The term to indicate a room is under some form of electronic surveillance, especially used by British intelligence services

    Actually, I think they got that from "Edge of Darkness" mini-series.

  • by speaker4thedead (193887) <sam.walters@gmail.com> on Monday October 27 2008, @11:46PM (#25537463)

    So... Basically MS has finally created an operating system so freakin' big that it won't fit onto a single computer?

    • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Monday October 27 2008, @09:32PM (#25536581) Journal
      You might not be interested in the cloud, but the cloud is interested in you.
    • Re:Frankly... (Score:4, Informative)

      by adpowers (153922) on Tuesday October 28 2008, @01:51AM (#25538099)

      Well, then, it is a good thing you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

      This offering from Microsoft isn't about a web based office suite or webmail, it is foundational web services that allow businesses and developers to build websites and services while offloading the heavy lifting (such as writing distributed systems or load balancing). The primitives Microsoft is offering are similar to those Amazon already has: storage, database, compute, queueing. In general, you don't access these through your browser.

      This isn't some new AJAXy Web 2.0 website. "The Cloud" is about outsourcing the building blocks of software--database, storage, compute--to someone else and paying for exactly what you use. Instead of buying your own machines, managing the fleet, and building or buying scalable software, you pay for a service and someone else takes care of all of that for you.

      It is like the transition to the electric grid. Instead of paying for a generator and diesel upfront, you just pay for what you use from the electric company, and benefit from their economies of scale. This is utility computing.

      • by Anpheus (908711) on Monday October 27 2008, @09:33PM (#25536585)

        Windows 7 is losing core applications and replacing them with an installer to download them because doing so appeases the federal regulators who will come down -hard- on Microsoft implementing any program that could be considered, even if twenty years from now, unfair competition.

        Microsoft doesn't want the headache and says, fine, we'll take our toys and replace it with an installer that is on the users' desktop or start menu or whatever, and they can choose to use it or not. OEMs can choose to leave it in or not, etc.

        I'm OK with that, I don't use the Windows Live apps anyway.