Windows Longhorn? 3-D? [Archive]

MacManiac1224

Nov 10, 2002, 07:48 PM

Read this part of this article:
----
Q: What is "Longhorn"?
A: Longhorn is the next major Windows release, which will follow Windows XP and XP Service Pack 1 (SP1). Originally expected to be a fairly minor upgrade, Longhorn will now include a number of new features including a revised task-based (or "inductive") user interface, an extensible, dock-like, Start panel, and a SQL Server 2003-based file system.
----
Here is the link: http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp

Also, this is what is in longhorn:
---
Q: So what will be new and different in Longhorn?
A: Though speculation on Longhorn continues, what we know about this Windows release is steeped in generalities and rumors. Given that, here's what we know about Longhorn:

* Longhorn will feature a task-based (or "iterative") interface that goes far beyond the task-based interface found today in Windows XP. Microsoft has been working to move beyond the dated desktop metaphor still used by Mac OS X and Linux for many years; I explain some of Microsoft's early work on task-based interfaces in my old Activity Centers preview.
* The Longhorn Start Menu will likely take on the form of the Task Panes from Office XP and occupy a good percentage of the right- or left-most portion of the Longhorn desktop.
* Longhorn will take full advantage of 3D video hardware to render special effects that will make the screen more photorealistic and deep. This doesn't mean that the basic windows and mouse interface is being replaced, just that it will look a lot better.
* Longhorn will optionally include the Palladium technology Microsoft is developing with Intel and AMD (see the next question for details).
* Longhorn will include a database-like file system based on technology from SQL Server 2003 (code-named Yukon). This file system will abstract physical file locations from the user and allow for the sorts of complex data searching that are impossible today. For example, today, your email messages, contacts, Word documents, and music files are all completely separate. That won't be the case in Longhorn.
---

This does not look good for OS X, I hope Apple has something up thier sleves.

What do you guys think?

gorman

Nov 10, 2002, 08:06 PM

Let's go through this list point by point:

* Longhorn will feature a task-based (or "iterative") interface that goes far beyond the task-based interface found today in Windows XP. Microsoft has been working to move beyond the dated desktop metaphor still used by Mac OS X and Linux for many years; I explain some of Microsoft's early work on task-based interfaces in my old Activity Centers preview.

- I've seen screenshots and read about this, it's really nothing _that_ innovative.

* The Longhorn Start Menu will likely take on the form of the Task Panes from Office XP and occupy a good percentage of the right- or left-most portion of the Longhorn desktop.

- Is this a good thing? Seems like the dock does a much better job of what they're doing to do here (again, I've seen screenshots).

* Longhorn will take full advantage of 3D video hardware to render special effects that will make the screen more photorealistic and deep. This doesn't mean that the basic windows and mouse interface is being replaced, just that it will look a lot better.

- OS X 10.2 already has this (Quartz Extreme - Apple even notes that other operating systems, obviously Longhorn, won't have this until 2004)

* Longhorn will optionally include the Palladium technology Microsoft is developing with Intel and AMD (see the next question for details).

- Again, is this a good thing?

* Longhorn will include a database-like file system based on technology from SQL Server 2003 (code-named Yukon). This file system will abstract physical file locations from the user and allow for the sorts of complex data searching that are impossible today. For example, today, your email messages, contacts, Word documents, and music files are all completely separate. That won't be the case in Longhorn

- This is one of the cool features of Longhorn, but I'm sure Apple has something to compete in the works. I know they're doing a lot of work on the filesystem (journaling is included in the next update, for example).

All in all, I really don't think Apple has anything to worry about. By the time Longhorn is out, OS X will be greatly improved over what we have now, and will continue to maintain it's technological and design lead over Windows.

Nipsy

Nov 10, 2002, 08:10 PM

Well, I think they both steal from (dock-like), and insult (dated desktop metaphor still used by Mac OS X ) OS X in the same interview.

As we all know, M$ has never had the same UI skills that Apple has, and likely will continue in this fashion. Remember the bumper sticker "Windows 95 = Macintosh 84"?

It will continue to be very invasive, especially if M$ ever gets .NET of the ground. Palladium will provide security for the MPAA & RIAA, but the user will still be bombarded by virii, worms, and vulnerabilities. Am I the only one who notices that as Windows becomes more complicated, it becomes less secure?

Meanwhile, OS X will continue to become faster, and cleaner, as optimaizations and evolution take effect.

e-coli

Nov 10, 2002, 08:13 PM

i think they'll botch the job. and the "3D" thing is basically a windows variant of the OS X QE / OpenGL.

they won't get it right. they never do until someone comes along and does it better and more intuitive. don't get all worried. The palladium thing is going to drive people to Linux / OS X in droves.

besides, have you seen the 3D OS X file navigations out there? OS X has so many possibilities, it makes me giddy. the new file searching in windows is likely to be similar to apples "find by content", only it will simply draw out info from various docs and assemble it into a unified package. Apple isn't far away from that. in fact, i'm certain they could do it now.

don't worry... ;)

gorman

Nov 10, 2002, 08:19 PM

e-coli: Could you point me in the direction of some of those 3D file navigation programs? I haven't come across those yet (I'm new to the Mac world :)). Thanks!

e-coli

Nov 10, 2002, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by gorman
e-coli: Could you point me in the direction of some of those 3D file navigation programs? I haven't come across those yet (I'm new to the Mac world :)). Thanks!

http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/macwarriors/eoh2k2/3dosx/

gorman

Nov 10, 2002, 08:41 PM

Cool, thanks!

syco

Nov 10, 2002, 08:46 PM

Gorman, can you link us to some of these screenshots?

gorman

Nov 10, 2002, 08:49 PM

Unfortunately it seems their page just went down, so I'm not able to even check out the screenshots myself at the moment. I don't actually _have_ a Mac yet (waiting for my Powerbook Superdrive to ship), I was just curious as to what that program looked like :)

vniow

Nov 10, 2002, 08:54 PM

For some screenies, click here. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13248&highlight=longhorn)

Mr. Anderson

Nov 10, 2002, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by gorman

All in all, I really don't think Apple has anything to worry about. By the time Longhorn is out, OS X will be greatly improved over what we have now, and will continue to maintain it's technological and design lead over Windows.

Somewhat true since MS seems to always seems to be playing catchup with Apple in this regard and takes what it likes for its own upgrades. Although, to expect MS to just wait for Apple to come out with something so that they can 'borrow' it would be foolish.

I just hope Apple can keep ahead of the curve here.

D

gorman

Nov 10, 2002, 09:07 PM

Oh, oops, I thought you meant screenshots of the 3D file browser. The link provided above has 'em though :)

medea

Nov 10, 2002, 09:22 PM

nah, apple has always been ahead in the os wars and (hopefully) always will, and I thinks it's obvious they will in the near future, Longhorn looks like a piece of polished up candy crap, the current version of os x is ahead of it and by the time it's actually released windows will be even further behind. Just my thought though.....

solvs

Nov 10, 2002, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
Read this part of this article:
----
* Longhorn will optionally include the Palladium technology Microsoft is developing with Intel and AMD.

Anybody else find it funny that 2 companies who esentially stole most of their technology from other companies are implementing these stratedgies stop "piracy".

Can you say IRONY.

macmax

Nov 10, 2002, 10:11 PM

the only difference between the so called innovations of microsuck and apple is that microsuck has great marketing guys which apple lacks.

If msft has anything that they will launch, it can be a pos and they will still sell it.

FattyMembrane

Nov 11, 2002, 02:49 PM

few consumers seem to notice that while apple keeps it's developments secret and does not reveal details until a product is actually launched, microsoft has to release details years in advance to try to keep customers. a graphics card accelerated interface has already been done with quartz extreme and "task based interface" means more of the dancing paperclip. i'll admit that their new filesystem sounds neat, but i'd wait to see if they manage to execute it well (launchbar removes my need to be concerned with physical file locations) and what apple has to compete with it. as far as the new start menu on the left side of the screen, i've seen screenshots of this and it looks cool, but it's not that impressive. you can have your msn messenger docked into the side of the screen, or outlook telling you how many mails you have, etc, but osx's dynamic dock menus and menu bar items provide much of this funcion with less screen real estate. if the new start/dock menubar is really that cool to you, check out www.konfabulator.com for info on arlo rose's upcoming osx project.

if apple really wants to give ms a kick in the pants, they need to bring opendoc to osx (i know, i sound like a broken record). opendoc cleans the floor with just about any other approach to the application/document structure (and it's cross platform!)

SilvorX

Nov 11, 2002, 03:07 PM

icky...

syco

Nov 11, 2002, 03:43 PM

That has to be the ugliest thing I've ever seen, even surpassing the ugliness of the original Windows XP. Poop brown, sand, and sky?! What is this, a giant nature milkshake?

M$ needs to adopt a color scheme that doesn't look like a blind retard throwing paint at a wall.

DreaminDirector

Nov 11, 2002, 03:53 PM

Orginally Posted by macmax

the only difference between the so called innovations of microsuck and apple is that microsuck has great marketing guys which apple lacks.

What are you talking about? Apple has amazing marketing. I have yet to see Microsloth come out with anything close to Apple's "Think Different" campaign or the current "Switchers" campaign. Even the classic "1984" tv spot was better than anything, ANYTHING that M$ has done. In my opinion, Microsloth has put out quantity instead of quality. Apple is the exact opposite.

patrick0brien

Nov 11, 2002, 04:32 PM

-All things being equal, e.g. looking at OS to OS here, OS X has nothing to worry about.

Seeing Longhorn in action merely reinforces the addage "Microsoft just dosen't get it". They only sell by force-feeding.

Otherwise, who would use a computer built on a band-aided, chicken-wired, bailing wired, sheet metaled, stapled, chewing-gummed OS that harkens from 1985 with a few planks of wood for good measure to nail the whole shebang together?

Yes, DOS is still there...

ThomasJefferson

Nov 11, 2002, 04:34 PM

OK wheres my photoshop, this is too tempting, what is grazing in the field behind that puke-green install window. How about a large pile of cow-paddie ... or at least a cows behind. The possibilities for abuse are endless.

beatle888

Nov 11, 2002, 05:04 PM

i think task based computing is a concept
that should be FULLY explored. i think it
would work well...i hate the desktop metaphor.
im always using DragThing to come up with ways
to change the way i interact with my mac....
i have a "contacts" doc that when i move the
mouse to the left side of the screen a transparent
doc FILLS THE SCREEN the WHOLE screen and
it has HUGE 128x128 icons that have one click
email links that open up a persons email address
in a new email...all i have to do is type the email
and send....also my address book and some
other communications apps are in this doc.

i think it comes down to organization....and i
feel comfortable in my belief that apple knows
how to do that...we dont have anything to
worry about in my opinion...i am absolutely
impressed with apple and osx.

FattyMembrane

Nov 11, 2002, 05:51 PM

that screen looks newer than the ones i've seen, yet it's still pretty ugly. will ms ever figure out how do do font anti-aliasing correctly? i know that some people will say that the interface is secondary and that features are paramount, which is true, but the windows interface has always been cumbersome and impeded workflow. if this new screenshot is any evidence of what is to come, it looks like clutter and bloat will reign for a good while longer. one of the things i love about osx, is that my computer can sit unatended, and all that obscures the desktop is a 1/4 inch menubar, that's it (no icons on the desktop, the dock hidden). then, with one click, i can launch any application i want, hide them, move them, whatever.

cubist

Nov 11, 2002, 10:38 PM

... they mean the Start button walking menus, which IMHO are a major failure. I don't know anybody who likes them at all. In Windows, I put icons all over the desktop (oddly, just like the Longhorn screenshots); other users like to put the tiny icons in the lower left of the "taskbar", where they function somewhat like the Mac OS X dock.

I kind of like the Mac OS X dock. Under OS 9 I had shortcuts on the desktop, but right now I don't in Mac OS X.

Oh, they could also be referring to what they call "Wizards", which should really be called "Idiots" or, more politely, "Scripts". Windows still has nothing like AppleScript, altho WSH (Javascript) is a feeble attempt in that direction. That's where they ought to go if they want to make their system more usable. Windows GUI apps are almost completely un-automatable.

barkmonster

Nov 12, 2002, 02:48 AM

Why didn't apple patent the 3D based GUI engine ?

I mean, there's an apple patent on using an 8 bit mask on icons etc... (I read it on here somewhere with a link to it a while ago) Apple can't patent the whole GUI idea but the Dock and QE (or any derivitive) should have been the first things they should have patented to prevent M$ from passing off more (poorly imitated) apple innovations as their own.

Bear

Nov 12, 2002, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
* Longhorn will include a database-like file system based on technology from SQL Server 2003 (code-named Yukon). This file system will abstract physical file locations from the user and allow for the sorts of complex data searching that are impossible today. For example, today, your email messages, contacts, Word documents, and music files are all completely separate. That won't be the case in Longhorn.

I am not sure this is a good thing.

What speed hit will this have? Oh, right, I forgot, they're trying to sell faster Intel processors also.

Why would you want to search your music files when you're looking for a text document?

You can integrate different types of document searches without this type of filesystem and the ensuing overhead.

Of course there is the fact that any disk volume with a filesystem is already in a sense a database.

FattyMembrane

Nov 12, 2002, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by barkmonster
Why didn't apple patent the 3D based GUI engine ?
you can't really patent the process of rendering something with a graphics card, thats what graphics cards are made to do. it would be like id all of a sudden trying to get a patent on using opengl for games. i know exactly what you mean, but it's kind of a fuzzy area, if apple was allowed to do that, it would be able to ask for a patent on running computers with microprocessors (not that it would be a bad thing... :D ).

whocares

Nov 12, 2002, 02:19 PM

My favourite part of the screen-shot: the"fix-it" icon.

Next thing you know, they'll be replacing the "Start" button with a "Fix" one:p

MacCoaster

Nov 12, 2002, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Bear
I am not sure this is a good thing.
I personally think it is a great idea. Search should be relational, human like. (SELECT * FROM database WHERE content LIKE ...)
What speed hit will this have? Oh, right, I forgot, they're trying to sell faster Intel processors also.
Most likely very little speed hit. Since SQL is indexed, relational, etc. It might just be faster, esp since just one user is likely to use it rather than millions of people searching your harddrive all the time. In fact, SQL Server (by Microsoft) is one of the most well-scalable SQL servers in respect with cost esp. for high end corporate citizens.
Why would you want to search your music files when you're looking for a text document?
That's the beauty of SQL. It's relational. It doesn't need to search your music files when it's irrevelant. It selects where to look at and finds it.
You can integrate different types of document searches without this type of filesystem and the ensuing overhead.
That's another beauty of SQL. Gigabytes worth of SQL database performing a simple search is RIDICULOUSLY instant, so ridiciously instant that it's amazing. Hell, even with many people searching your harddrive with the SQL backed filesystem, it will still be very, very fast. I've experienced this with web developing and corporate SQL developers who all do similar things that I do (.NET/SQL programming). That's much more efficient than going through each directory and trying to find it.
Of course there is the fact that any disk volume with a filesystem is already in a sense a database.
Yes, database, but not relational.

Durandal7

Nov 12, 2002, 05:52 PM

All that I'm seeing here is that Longhorn exaggerates the problems that PC users had with XP.

In a foolhardy attempt to mimic the dock and menu bar M$ has managed to take up 20% of your screen. Windoze is now even more invasive, I know a lot of PC users and XP has pushed some of them over the edge to using Linux full time. I can see even more of them using Linux once Palladium shows up.

MacCoaster

Nov 12, 2002, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Durandal7
All that I'm seeing here is that Longhorn exaggerates the problems that PC users had with XP.

In a foolhardy attempt to mimic the dock and menu bar M$ has managed to take up 20% of your screen. Windoze is now even more invasive, I know a lot of PC users and XP has pushed some of them over the edge to using Linux full time. I can see even more of them using Linux once Palladium shows up.
Nah, Linux is never going as a true desktop. If anything, they'll just switch to Macs, or Mac OS X on x86; if that's ever to be published.

Besides, what problems with XP? I've never had any.

crassusad44

Nov 20, 2002, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by syco
That has to be the ugliest thing I've ever seen, even surpassing the ugliness of the original Windows XP. Poop brown, sand, and sky?! What is this, a giant nature milkshake?

M$ needs to adopt a color scheme that doesn't look like a blind retard throwing paint at a wall.

That XP picture should go to the official poop thread :eek: :eek: :eek: :p :D :rolleyes:

MacCoaster

Nov 20, 2002, 06:33 PM

It's amazing how you people complain about the stupid wallpapers.

CHANGE THEM ALREADY!

Honestly, most people who buy computers could care less as long as they can change it.

syco

Nov 20, 2002, 06:56 PM

Its not the background I have a problem with (even though that sucks too).

Ugly green (which doesn't match a thing), on top of ugly blue - the little bar with your apps. Ugly blue with ugly red icons - window frames.

Man, I'm almost asking M$ to copy off Apple some more, simply so that I don't have to stand the horrible ugliness!

MacCoaster

Nov 20, 2002, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by syco
Its not the background I have a problem with (even though that sucks too).

Ugly green (which doesn't match a thing), on top of ugly blue - the little bar with your apps. Ugly blue with ugly red icons - window frames.

Man, I'm almost asking M$ to copy off Apple some more, simply so that I don't have to stand the horrible ugliness!
You can change that too! Jesus.

jettredmont

Nov 20, 2002, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by gorman
Let's go through this list point by point:

* Longhorn will feature a task-based (or "iterative") interface that goes far beyond the task-based interface found today in Windows XP. Microsoft has been working to move beyond the dated desktop metaphor still used by Mac OS X and Linux for many years; I explain some of Microsoft's early work on task-based interfaces in my old Activity Centers preview.

- I've seen screenshots and read about this, it's really nothing _that_ innovative.

Nope, it isn't. From the screenshots, I expect essentially Dock functionality (ie, "tasks" that are active alongside those that are not).

For those who have used Windows, you will know that the "Dock" concept (which is really driven by the fact that in OS X there is never any more than a single instance of any memory running at any time) might cause havoc in the multiple-windows/multiple-instances UI quagmire Windows has known for so long.

All in all, I really don't think Apple has anything to worry about. By the time Longhorn is out, OS X will be greatly improved over what we have now, and will continue to maintain it's technological and design lead over Windows.

Well, Apple always has something to worry about, but I don't see Longhorn overtaking the OS X usability crown anytime soon.

Also, it seems like some of the listed features were put off until BlackComb (I thought the SQL-based file system was one of these).

syco

Nov 20, 2002, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

You can change that too! Jesus.
You can? How? Sorry, I don't use Windows Xperience the Pain of using a bad operating system.

vniow

Nov 20, 2002, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by syco

You can? How? Sorry, I don't use Windows Xperience the Pain of using a bad operating system.

Right-click on desktop> click 'Properties'> click on 'Appearence' tab> click the arrow on 'color scheme' and you have three choices: Default (hideous Aqua ripoff), Olive Green (again ugly but not as bad as default) and Silver (not so bad)> click on 'OK'

MacCoaster

Nov 20, 2002, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
Well, Apple always has something to worry about, but I don't see Longhorn overtaking the OS X usability crown anytime soon.

Also, it seems like some of the listed features were put off until BlackComb (I thought the SQL-based file system was one of these).
IMHO, Windows XP is a lot more usable than Mac OS X for now, as Mac OS X has yet to bring back the usability features that once were in Mac OS 9.x and are gone now. I hope Apple is working on it. Aqua is horrible with medium processor (single 533MHz G4) with crappy 16MB ATi card; yet Windows XP is still very usable even with a once speed-king but now low-end computer.

I expect Mac OS X to be fully refined to my tastes by 10.3.

To each their own, I guess. Mac OS X has super-nice GUI, but damn, they need to work on the optimizations or throw G4... bring on the x86 Macs. :(

SQL-based file system was moved from Blackcomb to Longhorn.

jettredmont

Nov 20, 2002, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Bear

I am not sure this is a good thing.

What speed hit will this have? Oh, right, I forgot, they're trying to sell faster Intel processors also.

Why would you want to search your music files when you're looking for a text document?

You can integrate different types of document searches without this type of filesystem and the ensuing overhead.

Of course there is the fact that any disk volume with a filesystem is already in a sense a database.

The "abstracting file location from data" concept is remarkably familiar ... kind of like what HFS has been doing for ... ever ... Which is so brain-dead obvious of a UI gain ... gee, I categorize file "x" into folder "Y" and suddenly all the apps on my computer can't seem to find it! But then, this is also a stumbling block for Windows power users migrating over to the Mac (no way to make a file "disappear" without moving it to the trash and emptying the trash ...) so I don't know if that's really the road MS will be going.

No one really knows how "deep" MS is going to go with their DBFS. We'll probably get more clues as the release date nears.

jettredmont

Nov 20, 2002, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I personally think it is a great idea. Search should be relational, human like. (SELECT * FROM database WHERE content LIKE ...)

Okay, I strongly bdoubt that MS will allow SQL queries into the database. I mean, the Registry, which has been standard in Windows since Win 95, is based on a dataabase engine with an SQL front end (Jet, I think ...), and still there's no useful tool for doing an ad-hoc query.

Also, how will relational tables be arranged? Would one imagine tables as heirarchal folders, in that one table might "contain" another table, or as an entertwined relational data model? SELECT queries can very quickly become very complex when dealing with heirarchal data sets. For that matter, unless you have a decent DBA doing your database design SELECT queries tend to be horribly convoluted because the underlying database structure if whacked ... will MS trust its users as DBAs? I certainly hope not!

Really, I don't see anything like a SELECT query being abailable to us.

Most likely very little speed hit. Since SQL is indexed, relational, etc. It might just be faster, esp since just one user is likely to use it rather than millions of people searching your harddrive all the time. In fact, SQL Server (by Microsoft) is one of the most well-scalable SQL servers in respect with cost esp. for high end corporate citizens.

Note that running Windows without "Indexing Service" turned on the SQL file system probably won't imporve anything. However, the "Indexing Service" has to run around second-guessing Windows apps to see who wrote to the file system where and how that affects its index. In a true database system the indexing service would not be polling-based, but demand-driven (ie, when a change is made to disk the index is updated or at least told exactly where to look for that change in a queue). That will dramatically increase performance for those of us who like to have our file systems indexed.

So, yes, a true SQL-Server-based backend will be a huge improtement over any of the existing FS's.

job

Nov 20, 2002, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Aqua is horrible with medium processor (single 533MHz G4) with crappy 16MB ATi card; yet Windows XP is still very usable even with a once speed-king but now low-end computer.

I'm running 10.2.2 on a slower system that that and experience no major speed issues. What do you use the Mac for? You de-frag lately?

400Mhz
320MB RAM
8MB ATi

iJon

Nov 20, 2002, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

IMHO, Windows XP is a lot more usable than Mac OS X for now, as Mac OS X has yet to bring back the usability features that once were in Mac OS 9.x and are gone now. I hope Apple is working on it. Aqua is horrible with medium processor (single 533MHz G4) with crappy 16MB ATi card; yet Windows XP is still very usable even with a once speed-king but now low-end computer.

I expect Mac OS X to be fully refined to my tastes by 10.3.

To each their own, I guess. Mac OS X has super-nice GUI, but damn, they need to work on the optimizations or throw G4... bring on the x86 Macs. :(

SQL-based file system was moved from Blackcomb to Longhorn.
Exactly, windows xp is lightning fast with little things like opening up windows and things like that. and i hear about people having problems with windows xp and i have none. i get no illegal operations and when i actually control alt delete the computer doesnt crash. and even if i do have to reboot(which i never) it only takes like 20 seconds to start up. although i love my mac and i love os x, its is quite slow unless you have a good computer. i have a dual ghz mdd and os x feels fine on there. but on my g3 500 powerbook it is slow. i mean it is stable and great to use but isnt lightning fast like os 9 and xp. if you guys are wondering why i even have a windows machine it is because of games. you just have to face it that for the time being pcs stomp the macs in games. i wish the army would port americas army to mac though, that would be great, dont see that happening at all though.

iJon

MacCoaster

Nov 20, 2002, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by hitman
I'm running 10.2.2 on a slower system that that and experience no major speed issues. What do you use the Mac for? You de-frag lately? ... [con't.]
My god. Jesus. 400MHz, 320MB RAM. Whatever, it works for you.

I'd be dying a slow DEATH if I were to use Mac OS X on that machine.

Defrag? Why? NTFS is a robust file system under Windows XP. Never had to defrag, maybe once or twice in a couple of months--just making sure my system was optimal.

jettredmond: I didn't mean people actually typing that. I'm sure it can be an option, but I meant like when you type in info, select what to search, etc. the Search engine automatically forms the SQL query for you.

I've done this a million times in ASP/PHP, and it's lightning quick.

Also, Indexing on NTFS is fine, it doesn't have a BIG advantage; but neither does indexing on UNIX. Same thing, same performance--just the harddrive itself. However, an indexed SQL fs would be MUCH, MUCH faster. Differences in design, I guess.

MacCoaster

Nov 22, 2002, 06:03 PM

More information on Longhorn can be found on http://www.winsupersite.com/ including lots of screenshots.

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/lh_alpha_067.gif

Looks a lot more useful than Mac OS X's dock.

Let's see what Apple is doing to counter Windows Longhorn.

jettredmont

Nov 22, 2002, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
More information on Longhorn can be found on http://www.winsupersite.com/ including lots of screenshots.

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/lh_alpha_067.gif

Looks a lot more useful than Mac OS X's dock.

Let's see what Apple is doing to counter Windows Longhorn.

Other than space-sucking verbage next to each icon, a gaudy clock, and virtual desktops, I don't see this as an improvement over X's Dock. Functionally, the Dock (strangely enough) provides everything that I've seen on the Longhorn Sidebar. From the perspective of a UI minimalist like myself, there's simply no comparison. Also, of course, you have three Windows controls (the SideBar, the TaskBar, and the Start menu) all providing essentially the functionality of the Dock (launch a program from a short list, show running applications, allow single-click task switching), and just a little bit more (launch a program from a maybe full list of all programs on your system ... assuming you've kept links in your start menu up to date with your HD ...)

BTW, some things look off in that picture. Like the "Slide Show" text and the fact that the start button and task bar are much more like XP than in previous screenshots from the same build (3683). Maybe those things are configurable and the misaligned text is just a bug (which of course never happens in MS code, right?), but I don't know. Just looks fishy to my eyes. But then, I don't know why one would go to the trouble of doctoring up such a bland image to begin with ...

MacCoaster

Nov 22, 2002, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
BTW, some things look off in that picture. Like the "Slide Show" text and the fact that the start button and task bar are much more like XP than in previous screenshots from the same build (3683). Maybe those things are configurable and the misaligned text is just a bug (which of course never happens in MS code, right?), but I don't know. Just looks fishy to my eyes. But then, I don't know why one would go to the trouble of doctoring up such a bland image to begin with ...
You know Longhorn is alpha? :)

Friends running the alpha, "Slide Show" is properly aligned on their computers.

The taskbar and startbutton is similar to XP because that is the XP theme. There is a new Plex theme that's the default. Longhorn actually lets you use the sidebar as the taskbar if you choose to do so.

Remember, my friend, it is still alpha. [edit] BTW, the slide show thing is very real.

job

Nov 22, 2002, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
But then, I don't know why one would go to the trouble of doctoring up such a bland image to begin with ...

They get off on it?

I dunno really...

Most MS users have waaaaaaayyy too much time on their hands anyways.

RogueLdr

Nov 23, 2002, 03:30 AM

"Microsoft has been working to move beyond the dated desktop metaphor still used by Mac OS X and Linux for many years"

Ahhh, M$ has been working to move beyond copying someone else's work and doing something original for many years? Keep trying Bill, cause this looks like a reorganized rehash of everything you (and those from whom you get your ideas) have done before!

The bloatware taskbar/dock that they have designed doesn't seem to be anything new other than larger icons and misplaced desktop picture and screen saver control panels. Would you ever really want to have that much screen real estate taken up by things that you use only every now and then? And before any one says that you can choose to make this stuff go away when you don't want it there, I say why put it there in the first place if you will only use it once in a while?

What a load of crap to think that what amounts to non-useful, non-necessary, M$-style in-your-face "functionality" becomes a standard interface "feature". Going by their recent offerings, M$ will probably make this the default of their new OS as well, requiring even the computer newbies to learn enough to shut it off, if they even realize that it CAN be shut off.

Perhaps, though, the "other" 95% will simply say, "WOW! Look, Honey, now 10 % of my monitor is a clock! And another 10% is a place to change my desktop picture! How convenient!" If that is the case, I am glad it's available for them from someone other than who I choose to purchase computers from.

RL

Choppaface

Nov 23, 2002, 04:19 AM

I'm rather discouraged to see that future operating system will be littered with rather ugly stock art built into the interface. OSX is fairly clean, though the use of the imac icon and cinema display for Displays IMO is a bit much... some of the crap in these screenshots is almost depressing. not to mention that they're normalizing the user experience into a closed set of tasks that they can then market too. I think apple and MS are guilty of this.. between apple's iapps and all the media crap that MS puts in XP. the computer is becoming less of a tool. I don't want an operating sytem that looks like a television commerical :\

j763

Nov 23, 2002, 05:31 AM

who gives a $#!+

it's still going to be utter crap.

still going to have antiquited system layers, causing in a massive overhead.

smegdude

Nov 23, 2002, 07:49 AM

one thing nobody else has noticed.
What hunts longhorn......jaguar!!!! :D
I wonder if microsoft thought of this before they named their OS after a large cow???

benixau

Nov 23, 2002, 10:06 AM

if this is the new MS OS then jaguar isnt hunting longhorn at all. Longhorn is already dead and being eaten for tea.

For the num-nut user, XP makes things easier (i use a mac), it is a whole lot friendlier in keeping the user out of places where they shouldn't be and helps them with the task pane in all explorer windows.

For experienced users, they can switch it off and go back to the old ways of doing things. But experienced users know where to look to turn the crap off.

Those who can, will. Thos that can't, wont.

MacCoaster

Nov 23, 2002, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by smegdude
one thing nobody else has noticed.
What hunts longhorn......jaguar!!!! :D
I wonder if microsoft thought of this before they named their OS after a large cow???
It's not a cow. It's named after a place at the base of the mountain called Whistler (Windows XP) in British Columbia not far from Microsoft's campus.
Originally posted by j763
still going to have antiquited system layers, causing in a massive overhead.
What overhead? Mac OS X taxes processors a lot. From what I've seen, Longhorn is just as fast as Windows XP on a moderate computer.

And how is it still going to be utter crap? You haven't used it.
What a load of crap to think that what amounts to non-useful, non-necessary, M$-style in-your-face "functionality" becomes a standard interface "feature". Going by their recent offerings, M$ will probably make this the default of their new OS as well, requiring even the computer newbies to learn enough to shut it off, if they even realize that it CAN be shut off.
Windows Longhorn's dock/sidebar isn't even turned on by default. It's far more customizable than the Mac OS X dock.

Besides, it's a friggin Alpha. We've got a plenty while before it's officially released.

mmoore00

Nov 23, 2002, 02:40 PM

Wow, they even took the OS X Pinstripes. Look at the "display properties" window.

Stike

Nov 24, 2002, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Besides, it's a friggin Alpha. We've got a plenty while before it's officially released.

Yep. Alpha. It is released in 3 (three) years!!! Until then, Apple will have 10.4 or whatever - and M$ will release 2005 an "innovative and new" version of our today´s dock.

How lame.

j763

Nov 24, 2002, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
What overhead? Mac OS X taxes processors a lot.

Mac OS X does not "tax" processors at all! Where'd you get that from?

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Longhorn is just as fast as Windows XP on a moderate computer.

That's the entire point! Windows XP is incredibly bloated and has a massive overhead. As much as M$ like to pretend that there's not, there is in fact still a DOS system layer in there. M$ has got tons of layers in there... What happens when one gets busy? You wait.

That's why the Macs don't look so incredibly slow compared to machines running Windows -- Windows is so damn inefficient. You throw Linux on a PC and wow. Goodbye OS X.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
And how is it still going to be utter crap? You haven't used it.
You make that assumption based on what? I have actually used it FYI.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Windows Longhorn's dock/sidebar isn't even turned on by default. It's far more customizable than the Mac OS X dock.
um... who makes their decision as to what OS to use based on what the fricking sidebar or dock is like???

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Besides, it's a friggin Alpha. We've got a plenty while before it's officially released.
The Mac OS X DP's were *far* more promising than this thing is. And as we all know, M$'s actual releases are *so different* to their alphas :rolleyes:

j763

Nov 24, 2002, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Stike

M$ will release 2005 an "innovative and new" version of our today´s dock.

How lame.

Yeah, a little bit like that PDA at COMDEX.

I'd rather use a MessagePad 100 myself :p

blogo

Nov 24, 2002, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by mmoore00
Wow, they even took the OS X Pinstripes. Look at the "display properties" window.
If you look even closer the frame around the window is just a blue version of Apple's brushed metal

barkmonster

Nov 24, 2002, 09:17 AM

Apple really need to start advertising OS X on TV, Show off the interface, the transitions, playing quicktime movies in the dock and stuff like that.

M$ are just going to beat them to it otherwise, look at all the ads for XP that show people stuff we've had in OS 9 already.

It's stupid how apple are more focused on a petty "windows sucks!" type campaign (in the US at least) when they've got that beautiful OS to show off to the world and it's enough to draw new people into buying a mac just for user experience.

vniow

Nov 24, 2002, 12:06 PM

There's actually a mini-review of the alpha here (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp) if you wanna take a look at it..

syco

Nov 24, 2002, 01:56 PM

This is insane. M$ has ripped off Apple before, but this is just going too far.

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/lh_alpha_043.gif

This is the new Plex theme, integrated into Longhorn.

Stike

Nov 24, 2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by edvniow
There's actually a mini-review of the alpha here (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp) if you wanna take a look at it..

AAARRRGH!!! Burning DVDs! LOL! And the OS X styled "Plex Theme" is rated "amateurish and gaudy"... need to say more?

ROTFL... M$, the pure evil!

"My contacts"! "Windows Address book"! "Watercolored" "Plex theme" as a default!!

WAAAHHH!!

MacCoaster

Nov 24, 2002, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by j763
Mac OS X does not "tax" processors at all! Where'd you get that from?
Oh, indeed it does tax the processors a lot! I'm not saying just the PowerPC G4, but also the GPU, the memory controller, etc. because Mac OS X is so damn big and the GUI is so bloated so it requires a gigahertz G4 and 2GB RAM to run Mac OS X's GUI as fast as Windows XP's on a 500 MHz PIII.
That's the entire point! Windows XP is incredibly bloated and has a massive overhead. As much as M$ like to pretend that there's not, there is in fact still a DOS system layer in there. M$ has got tons of layers in there... What happens when one gets busy? You wait.
Tell me again, WHAT massive overhead? Mac OS X has an incredibly slow microkernel, a slow UNIX, a slow processor. DOS doesn't exist on NT at all, just a "command line" (cmd.exe) window that people rarely run and programs rarely require. Yes, Microsoft's OS has a lot of layers, but so does Mac OS X. In fact, a PII 300 MHz or so would run Windows XP just fine, let's see, I'd need a 1 GHz G4 to run OS X satisfactorily. I've overflowed my Windows XP available RAM (I have 512MB, and have hit nearly 1GB with so many programs open and yet it's responsive, never had to wait because my processor is so much faster than the G4s. I'd be lucky to get that kind of performance out of Mac OS X on a "fast" 1 GHz. Just my experience.
That's why the Macs don't look so incredibly slow compared to machines running Windows -- Windows is so damn inefficient. You throw Linux on a PC and wow. Goodbye OS X.
Yeah, when I interact with a Mac it's all slow thanks to the PowerPC G4's status plus Mac OS X's overheads and so on, yet I'm much more productive on a PC (for now).

And Linux, as a desktop OS, haha, you've got to be kidding me. It's not going there anytime soon. Stick with Linux for servers.
You make that assumption based on what? I have actually used it FYI.
So you've used Longhorn? Where did you get it from? On what hardware did you install it on? etc.
um... who makes their decision as to what OS to use based on what the fricking sidebar or dock is like???
If their dock proves to be more useful than a competitors, then that's the benefit and my money is to that company who makes more useful products. PC's have been cheaper for me, more productive for me, faster, and provide the same level, if not more, of "usability."
The Mac OS X DP's were *far* more promising than this thing is. And as we all know, M$'s actual releases are *so different* to their alphas :rolleyes:
Yeah, because they've gone so far in the development cycle. When Windows XP was in alpha, it wasn't that much different from Windows 2000. But what do we have now? A different beast. That's a good thing. In fact, if I recall correctly, Mac OS X 10.0 and 10.1 did not have a GUI for a firewall, it was introduced in 10.2. Yet Windows XP had that in late 2001.

Btw, stike, in the About Windows for Windows Longhorn, it says version 2003. Who knows. It might be late 2003. No one knows yet what the final release date will be. 2005 is just an old date that the original NT 6.0 was scheduled for, but since they dropped 5.2 and moving straight to 6.0. It could be earlier.

Now back to kicking Motorola's ass for not producing faster G4s and waiting for the next Mac OS X version as it should be much more refined in speed and usability.

Some people just have higher expectations, some have lower expectations.

AmigaMac

Nov 24, 2002, 02:43 PM

Hmmm... this is old hat now, at least for us Mac folk! I love it when Mac OS X is 3 years ahead of Windows XP and anything else Microsoft tries to come up with that others have been there, done that, and got the teeshirt!

demonx

Nov 24, 2002, 03:07 PM

They could make it pink, and send it out with photos of Bill Gates in drag for all I care. It will always carry MS anti-privacy ideas with it, not to mention they will be bringing along Palladium technology with it. If you do not know what Palladium is, I suggest you look it up and so good bye to any form of privacy you think you have on your PC.:)

syco

Nov 24, 2002, 04:33 PM

Palladium is just a way to keep people from pirating stuff, and then make them more suseptible to spam, viruses, etc. It watchdogs anything you do. And, in my opinion, really, REALLY illegal.

demonx

Nov 24, 2002, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by syco
Palladium is just a way to keep people from pirating stuff, and then make them more suseptible to spam, viruses, etc. It watchdogs anything you do. And, in my opinion, really, REALLY illegal.

If it was just an anti piracy measure it would not be that big of a deal, its the exta "innovative features" that you get along with it when combined with windows that should be looked into.

But im sure the public will jump all over it, "Wow new version of Windows is out and it has Palladium Technology!!!!! I need that, whatever it is":rolleyes:

madamimadam

Nov 24, 2002, 07:52 PM

Can someone explain Palladium in more detail for me, please?

vniow

Nov 24, 2002, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by madamimadam
Can someone explain Palladium in more detail for me, please?

this should do you right (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

madamimadam

Nov 24, 2002, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by edvniow

this should do you right (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

Thanks for that

JESUS that is hardcore!!!

FattyMembrane

Nov 24, 2002, 10:40 PM

i could not even make it through point 4 of the palladium faq before my brain hemmoraged and my eyes began to bleed. i never thought that someone might actually read 1984 and think, "hey, that's a good idea". do you think that people will actually buy into this technology? i'm sure that there are those out there who think, "improved security, it must be good!".

Stike

Nov 24, 2002, 10:44 PM

If THIS DISASTER is going to happen, I´ll throw away my computer and go living in the forests with the apes.

Choppaface

Nov 25, 2002, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by edvniow

this should do you right (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

mmm tasty article thanks :D

bigizzy

Nov 25, 2002, 12:50 PM

Well file systems are not that easily designed. As far as SQL server is concerned..well infact the real concern is about it's scalability. It sure as a hell does not scale well.

Any body notice in the screen shot above how MS$ seems to have stolen the idea of virtual desktops from Unix/Linux UI's?

IMHO virtual desktops are a very versitile thing and apple should add it to OS X in the next release itself if possible.

Also when I was using Linux some years back there used to be a feature wherein you could be logged in as one user but you press alt+f1/f2/f3 and you would get a login prompt to login as a who new user. I think this too is a useful feature and should be added to OS X

gjohns01

Nov 25, 2002, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by mmoore00
Wow, they even took the OS X Pinstripes. Look at the "display properties" window.

Just a sidenote about MS "stealing/taking" interface cues from Apple. I worked at the agency that did most of the XP design work for MS. The reason there are similarities in the interfaces is that all the designers used Macs. In fact, a few cubes over from the design group was a machine running an early version of OS X. I would suspect that the current design shop(s) MS is using are mac design shops also.

jettredmont

Nov 25, 2002, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by bigizzy
Well file systems are not that easily designed. As far as SQL server is concerned..well infact the real concern is about it's scalability. It sure as a hell does not scale well.

Hmmm. Yes, SQL Server really has a poor reputation for scaling. However, as a file system I don't think the scalability issues will really come into play. You won't be handling thousands of simultaneous requests at a constant rate as you would for an active web server.

Personally, I'll reserve judgement for when I see it. I'm not entirely convinced that the "file system problem" and the "database solution" necessarily are a good match for each other. The database body of work has solved so many tough problems, but I don't see many of those problems as strictly applicable to a single-user-at-a-time desktop environment.

Any body notice in the screen shot above how MS$ seems to have stolen the idea of virtual desktops from Unix/Linux UI's?

IMHO virtual desktops are a very versitile thing and apple should add it to OS X in the next release itself if possible.

Also when I was using Linux some years back there used to be a feature wherein you could be logged in as one user but you press alt+f1/f2/f3 and you would get a login prompt to login as a who new user. I think this too is a useful feature and should be added to OS X

Virtual Desktops have been a "PowerToy" (ie, free download, but not officially supported) for Windows for quite a while now.

XP also added multiple users logged in at once (Quick User Switching or something like that). Doesn't work in a Domain-login system, but otherwise pressing Windows-key+Q will bring up the login page (which will allow you to switch to a currently logged-in user with their running apps or log in as another user). A single user, though, can't log in like this twice and have two concurrent but separate sessions as is possible in X Windows (the windowing system for *nix and several other "real" OS's ... completely different from OS X and MS Windows before someone confuses the three).

While the Windows implementations of these previously X-only features pales in comparison to the real thing, the functionality is there at least. And, from the screenshot, the virtual desktops will at least each have their own backgrounds ... remains to be seen if these are true virtual desktops of just a minimize/restore-by-group kludge as previous VD implementations on Windows (and OS X ... there is a third-party virtual desktop app out there ...) have always been.

shadowfax0

Nov 25, 2002, 07:24 PM

This is extracted form my other thread, but it does ahve a link to new pictures -

...Some *real* pictures the upcoming behemoth - I have to mention this now though: one of the "new" features is '...inegrated DVD burning..." Ummm, I miss something here?

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp

MacCoaster

Nov 25, 2002, 09:06 PM

Kid Red

Nov 25, 2002, 10:33 PM

K, I've seen the pictures, where's the 3-D mentioned? Where is the "old X & linux" desktop metaphor eliminated at? Where's the innovation?

It looks like XP with Drop Drawers and an Apple clock in it. HAHAAHAHA, I hope this is there future, makes me warm all over to watch them dig that hole deeper.

MacCoaster

Nov 25, 2002, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red
K, I've seen the pictures, where's the 3-D mentioned? Where is the "old X & linux" desktop metaphor eliminated at? Where's the innovation?

It looks like XP with Drop Drawers and an Apple clock in it. HAHAAHAHA, I hope this is there future, makes me warm all over to watch them dig that hole deeper.
Dude, it's an alpha. Windows XP alpha versions didn't even have Luna.

The only "3D" I could see that was already implemented is in Explorer when you selected more than one file, it has some sort of 3D circle of the files selected in the file information bar on the top. It's hard to explain, but think of if there were five planets equidistant from the sun and equidistant from each other (in a perfect circle) orbiting the sun. Personally, I don't see any point in this, but neither do I see any point in that stupid genie effect in the dock.

j763

Nov 26, 2002, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Oh, indeed it does tax the processors a lot!

Technically, it doesn't tax the processors at all. Understand the terminology, before using it.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Mac OS X is so damn big and the GUI is so bloated so it requires a gigahertz G4 and 2GB RAM to run Mac OS X's GUI as fast as Windows XP's on a 500 MHz PIII.
Mac OS X is far more efficent than Windows XP. Windows XP will not run at all smoothly on a 500MHz P3. Also, as you obviously don't understand, OS X now uses the Graphics Card for window drawing, taking a lot of the load off the CPU. The $999 iBook runs OS X completely and utterly smoothly. I've never heard any complaints from people who've bought that model.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Tell me again, WHAT massive overhead? Mac OS X has an incredibly slow microkernel, a slow UNIX
Why do you think it is that a G4 is still faster than a P4 at PhotoShop. It's not because the G4 is a faster chip. It's much slower. It's because Windows is loaded down with so much crap.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be well aware that OS X is the fastest microkernel out there. It would be completely and totally impractical for Apple to be using anything else. And no, it's not 2.5... Hell, it's not even the CMU version any more.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
DOS doesn't exist on NT at all
Despite Microsoft's marketing dept. "we killed dos", etc., it's still sitting there in the system.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Yes, Microsoft's OS has a lot of layers, but so does Mac OS X.
OS X has no where near as many.

It's very simple. I really don't understand why people can't get their heads around it.

Mac OS X = On-the-desktop
Linux = Server
Windows = For secretaries

MacCoaster

Nov 26, 2002, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by j763
Technically, it doesn't tax the processors at all. Understand the terminology, before using it.
Why doesn't it tax the processors at all? Ever heard of GPUs?
Mac OS X is far more efficent than Windows XP. Windows XP will not run at all smoothly on a 500MHz P3. Also, as you obviously don't understand, OS X now uses the Graphics Card for window drawing, taking a lot of the load off the CPU. The $999 iBook runs OS X completely and utterly smoothly. I've never heard any complaints from people who've bought that model.
I've got friends with Windows XP on old machines and I used it on an old Pentium II of mine, works great, smoothly.
Why do you think it is that a G4 is still faster than a P4 at PhotoShop. It's not because the G4 is a faster chip. It's much slower. It's because Windows is loaded down with so much crap.Mac Slaughtered Again... (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm). Running Windows, a couple of Adobe software, and a Pentium 4 3.06 GHz and the P4 computer is about *TWICE* as fast as the Mac. That must be because of Windows! :rolleyes:
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be well aware that OS X is the fastest microkernel out there. It would be completely and totally impractical for Apple to be using anything else. And no, it's not 2.5... Hell, it's not even the CMU version any more.
Microkernels are still slower than most of their respective types of kernels. It was a design decision and a very good one, IMO, for Mac OS X's type of OS. But alas, we get a trade off.
Despite Microsoft's marketing dept. "we killed dos", etc., it's still sitting there in the system.
Still not true. DOS compatibility layer, yes, but DOS? No.

bigizzy

Nov 26, 2002, 10:00 AM

jettredmont

Nov 26, 2002, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

This (http://wwweps.unisys.com/services/news_a_events/all__news/04308137.htm) [unisys.com] isn't scalable enough for you? 25k concurrent users, that's one of the records. 57,000 (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/Onyx.asp) [microsoft.com] concurrent users!!! What about this (http://www.tpc.org/) [tpc.org]? You'll see Microsoft SQL Server in all top tens and some even blow away others.

Please back up your claims of Microsoft SQL Server having a poor reputation for scalability.

Hmmm, can't give any hard facts any more (at least, nothing you wouldn't be able to easily find yourself by going to Google and typing in "Oracle scalability"), as I'm not dealing with that these days. I can tell you that I worked on two major projects in the past five years that performed exhaustive scalability testing of SQL Server (2000 and the version before that) with a scalable clustered (not single-machine as your two links point to, which is largely unheard of in major applications) hardware architecture. We found that as demand on SQL Server grew the hardware requirements grew disproportionately, and the "dead top" of scalability was fixed based on the power of the individual clustered machines. This was in striking contrast to Oracle, which scaled up to terabytes of database and hundreds of individual servers without the size/hardware and transactions/hardware graphs spiking up.

The number of concurrent users on a database is relatively meaningless. What is meaningful is the number of users that can be doing actual work on the database at one time. This implies a load analysis, not a "how many users can we log in without bringing down the system" mountain climbing exercise. This also implies you are working with a large amount of test data underneath, the size that would be generated by your thousands of concurrent users. In real world tests on two different real world systems, my teams found SQL Server to be sorely lacking in terms of high-end capacity.

The second important factor in scalability is flexibility: if your demand grows, can you handle it by just adding more hardware, or do you have to rearchitect software? Adding hardware, even at $100k/box, is much cheaper than the manpower required to rearchitect and tweak software. Again, this is a situation where SQL Server was found to be lacking.

This was not a foregone conclusion, either. Although both teams had fervent Oracle supporters (the ones who had been doing this long enough to notice that Oracle rarely loses such analysis), both teams also had people going in thinking SQL Server would come out on top, and financial pressures to use SQL Server (not the least of which were MS promised grants).

Competition is good for Oracle, and certainly good for its customers, but SQL Server still does not yet have a reputation for scaling well in the industry. It will need more than MS-sponsored "studies" to change this opinion.

As I said, however, these factors don't mean much considering that a DBFS is an entirely different beast than a production database, with different design constraints and different compromises to be made. The best server DB will not necessarily be the best DBFS. And, personally, I don't think anyone will be willing to pay millions of dollars for a ten-user license of Oracle on their desktop computer to do nothing more than serve them their files.

No matter what its successes and failures in the production arena, SQL Server has a completely different ballgame in backing up this "Windows Future Store" (ick) FS.

jettredmont

Nov 26, 2002, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I've got friends with Windows XP on old machines and I used it on an old Pentium II of mine, works great, smoothly.

Huh? Really? Maybe you have a different definition of "smoothly" than I, but on a 500MHz P3 (Dell) Win XP is choppy, jerky, and stalls for several seconds at a time. I backed out that installation and went back to Win2k after a day of trying to get it to run decently.

MS's own figures, which are historically overly optimistic, say WinXP requires 233MHz and "recommends" 300MHz (both presumably P2's), but I have yet to see a working and usable installation on such hardware.

Still not true. DOS compatibility layer, yes, but DOS? No.

Correct. The problem is that different people think of different things when they think of "DOS".

Personally, I think of Int21h and its many hooks. That's not there in NT, 2000, or XP. Others think of having command.com load up the Windows shell ... I think that went away on the 9x side with 98 or Me, and was never there on the NT side. Still others think of 16-bit code ... which doesn't exist in NT on the OS level (although I believe NT supports 16-bit OS calls to some extent, but unless you use a 16-bit Win3.x app in NT you won't see that). Yet others believe "DOS" is the CLI (which NT has, but then so does OS X) or the fact that the "VER" command in a DOS window showed a DOS version number alongside the Windows version number (Win2k and XP no longer do this; Win 9x did it for backwards compatibility).

I know, Mac folks have been clinging to the "but DOS is still there!" argument for a long time, mostly because before actually getting rid of DOS MS decided to "hide" DOS's external effects while keeping its limitations. But, really folks, it's time that myth died. There is no DOS in XP!

cubist

Nov 26, 2002, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Still not true. DOS compatibility layer, yes, but DOS? No.

COMMAND.COM, unquestionably part of DOS, is still there. We can find more parts than that if you like.

jettredmont

Nov 26, 2002, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by cubist

COMMAND.COM, unquestionably part of DOS, is still there. We can find more parts than that if you like.

(Note: Command.com does not exist in any NT OS. You are thinking of "cmd.com", which pops up a CLI command window but which is quite different from "command.com", and, if you want to be petty, was never a part of DOS.)

What's wrong with having a terminal window on your OS?

OS X has one, in case you've forgotten, and that is an immensly helpful feature, not a problem with the OS.

NT is not built on DOS. command.com (technically, "cmd.com" in NT) is only loaded when you load it as an application. It is not permanently in memory. It is not used to load Windows.

"command.com" is a command line interpreter, much like bash and tcsh (although much less powerful). The DOS interrupts, which were the "meat" of the DOS operating system and the cause of many Win 95 slowdowns and instabilities, are quite gone.

jettredmont

Nov 26, 2002, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont

(Note: Command.com does not exist in any NT OS. You are thinking of "cmd.com", which pops up a CLI command window but which is quite different from "command.com", and, if you want to be petty, was never a part of DOS.)

Oops, correction. "command.com" exists, but just calls up "cmd.com", the NT command line, in Win 2000 and XP.

"cmd.com" was the only route to the command line in NT before Win2000.

Cappy

Nov 26, 2002, 01:26 PM

There's nothing worse than Mac users talking Windows tech. ;)

Originally posted by jettredmont

Oops, correction. "command.com" exists, but just calls up "cmd.com", the NT command line, in Win 2000 and XP.

That's somewhat misleading. It is a dos program that will automatically call cmd.com when operating interactively without explicitly calling command.com to do a specific command. Essentially command.com is a 16 bit environment while cmd.com is a Win32 app which is a 32 bit environment.

And while, yes, command.com is a dos application that exists in professional level Windows OS's, it is not part of the OS's infrastructure. It's just another program. Big difference.

Originally posted by jettredmont
"cmd.com" was the only route to the command line in NT before Win2000.

I don't have an NT4 system to work with here anymore but I thought for sure that command.com was there as well.

MacCoaster

Nov 26, 2002, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by bigizzi
Well since you have provided MS links I will give you some oracle ones. By the way ever heard of DB comparisons being made in number of concurrent users instead of Transactions per sec??? Only at MS$
Originally posted by jettredmont
Hmmm, can't give any hard facts any more (at least, nothing you wouldn't be able to easily find yourself by going to Google and typing in "Oracle scalability"), as I'm not dealing with that these days. I can tell you that I worked on two major projects in the past five years that performed exhaustive scalability testing of SQL Server (2000 and the version before that) with a scalable clustered (not single-machine as your two links point to, which is largely unheard of in major applications) hardware architecture. We found that as demand on SQL Server grew the hardware requirements grew disproportionately, and the "dead top" of scalability was fixed based on the power of the individual clustered machines. This was in striking contrast to Oracle, which scaled up to terabytes of database and hundreds of individual servers without the size/hardware and transactions/hardware graphs spiking up.
Did you guys ever bother going to the tpc.org site? It has data on several clustered db performance, for example:Top Ten Clustered TPC-C by Performance (http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=cluster) [tpc.org] is where Microsoft easily wins in performance and costs. Interesting to see a Linux box costing more per tpmC than a Microsoft solution and yet Microsoft's solution is faster.

Top Ten Clustered TPC-H by Performance (http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results.asp?resulttype=cluster) shows that no MS-SQL exists but there's no denying that Windows still plays a role (as the operating system). Again, interesting to see it costs less for a Microsoft solution than the other UNIX counterparts.

This (http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/results/tpcw_perf_results.asp) is where Microsoft Windows and Microsoft SQL owns all other database software/operating sytem. Again, MS on average is cheaper.
The number of concurrent users on a database is relatively meaningless. What is meaningful is the number of users that can be doing actual work on the database at one time. This implies a load analysis, not a "how many users can we log in without bringing down the system" mountain climbing exercise. This also implies you are working with a large amount of test data underneath, the size that would be generated by your thousands of concurrent users. In real world tests on two different real world systems, my teams found SQL Server to be sorely lacking in terms of high-end capacity.
That is true that the number of concurrent users doesn't matter, especially when the work is so light. But have you considered the benchmarking software they use? I'm sure doing complex transactions is not that light as a simple "SELECT * FROM table1," especially with gigabytes of data.
The second important factor in scalability is flexibility: if your demand grows, can you handle it by just adding more hardware, or do you have to rearchitect software? Adding hardware, even at $100k/box, is much cheaper than the manpower required to rearchitect and tweak software. Again, this is a situation where SQL Server was found to be lacking.
Again, I refer you to to the above links and you'll see that many UNIX boxes cost much more than Windows boxes.
Competition is good for Oracle, and certainly good for its customers, but SQL Server still does not yet have a reputation for scaling well in the industry. It will need more than MS-sponsored "studies" to change this opinion.
And tpc.org isn't Microsoft sponsored?
As I said, however, these factors don't mean much considering that a DBFS is an entirely different beast than a production database, with different design constraints and different compromises to be made. The best server DB will not necessarily be the best DBFS. And, personally, I don't think anyone will be willing to pay millions of dollars for a ten-user license of Oracle on their desktop computer to do nothing more than serve them their files.

No matter what its successes and failures in the production arena, SQL Server has a completely different ballgame in backing up this "Windows Future Store" (ick) FS.
True, but consider that it's still in alpha. Right now, with my experience with WinFS, WinFS is extremely slow. But I'm sure they're working on it. This is the first time an actual FS has a SQL backend if I'm not mistaken. That's an innovation to make the OS more useful. I had a screenshot of how WinFS would be used in searching, but I have lost it somewhere; when I find it, I'll post.

jettredmont

Nov 26, 2002, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

True, but consider that it's still in alpha. Right now, with my experience with WinFS, WinFS is extremely slow. But I'm sure they're working on it. This is the first time an actual FS has a SQL backend if I'm not mistaken. That's an innovation to make the OS more useful. I had a screenshot of how WinFS would be used in searching, but I have lost it somewhere; when I find it, I'll post.

I don't have Longhorn here, so I can't comment on the state of the file system now. Are you working for MS?

As far as previous DBFS, yes, there are a few unsuccessful efforts. I know Oracle was working on one for a while, although I don't know if it ever got out the door. Another of the smaller DB companies (sybase maybe?) also had one in the works, although again I don't know if it ever was released. The DBFS was quite an industry fad/buzzword back in the late 90's. I suspect that someone with more experience than I might be able to trace its roots back further.

If MS succeeds, I will be very happy for them, and they will have once again done what others have failed miserably trying. But don't think for a minute that it's as simple as just hooking up SQL Server to Windows and letting the two work magic. This is a whole new set of problems for the DB coders to conquer and a completely different environment in which it must run.

And, of course, expect bugs. Something this complex will not get out the door bug-free.

MacCoaster

Nov 26, 2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
I don't have Longhorn here, so I can't comment on the state of the file system now. Are you working for MS?
No, I do not work for Microsoft. In fact, I still haven't gotten out of high school. :p I simply use their technologies where applicable for me to be successful. In fact, I probably would have never gotten into computers if it weren't for Apple and Microsoft both. Apple for introducing me to computers (1990) and Microsoft for introducing me to programming (Visual C++, though yes it was hell, I was about to give up on Microsoft before I gave .NET a try; about damn time Microsoft has a robust framework) for the general public (i.e. consumer software, etc.) to make tools useful to everyone, not to some UNIX god who could give two ****s about the consumer which IMHO decreases productivity.
As far as previous DBFS, yes, there are a few unsuccessful efforts. I know Oracle was working on one for a while, although I don't know if it ever got out the door. Another of the smaller DB companies (sybase maybe?) also had one in the works, although again I don't know if it ever was released. The DBFS was quite an industry fad/buzzword back in the late 90's. I suspect that someone with more experience than I might be able to trace its roots back further.
Really? Never knew others had tried. I should look up on the history.
If MS succeeds, I will be very happy for them, and they will have once again done what others have failed miserably trying. But don't think for a minute that it's as simple as just hooking up SQL Server to Windows and letting the two work magic. This is a whole new set of problems for the DB coders to conquer and a completely different environment in which it must run.
Yep. If Microsoft succeeds, I'm all for them; especially when my .NET apps can take advantage of WinFS to further the consumer software flexibility.

It might not be as simple as just hooking up a SQL Server, who knows. With my limited experience, I don't think you need a SQL Server running to take advantage of WinFS (though I might have since I do have an installed copy of Microsoft SQL Server on the local computer).

But I predict that this WinFS thing will be truly fully explored in corporate environments where there are plenty SQL Servers to hook up to pool the entire network into SQL. We'll have to wait and see.
And, of course, expect bugs. Something this complex will not get out the door bug-free.
What bugs?! :D

jettredmont

Nov 26, 2002, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Top Ten Clustered TPC-H by Performance (http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results.asp?resulttype=cluster) shows that no MS-SQL exists but there's no denying that Windows still plays a role (as the operating system). Again, interesting to see it costs less for a Microsoft solution than the other UNIX counterparts.

This (http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/results/tpcw_perf_results.asp) is where Microsoft Windows and Microsoft SQL owns all other database software/operating sytem. Again, MS on average is cheaper.

First, SQL Server is in the TPC-H results; it just shows up further down the list. TPC-H might resemble our internal testing more than TPC-W as (in both instances) we had a reasonably complex database model (nothing as simple as a web store frontend) with multiple tables hit with high frequency.

The TPC-W results would be interesting if it included anything besides SQL Server and IBM DB2 databases. Based on those results, I can hardly conclude anything about the database engine properties, just that the vendors submitting results to TPC are not aiming their Oracle servers at the retail web store crowd (which is accurate, as Oracle is more expensive than SQL Server and a retail front end won't be hitting Oracle where it shines).

MacCoaster

Nov 26, 2002, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
First, SQL Server is in the TPC-H results; it just shows up further down the list. TPC-H might resemble our internal testing more than TPC-W as (in both instances) we had a reasonably complex database model (nothing as simple as a web store frontend) with multiple tables hit with high frequency.
Not in the one I provided. Though if you clicked on "All" or "Non-clustered" it'll show.

MacCoaster

Nov 27, 2002, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by cubist
COMMAND.COM, unquestionably part of DOS, is still there. We can find more parts than that if you like.
I suggest you check out the above messages and this (http://math.bu.edu/misc/DOCSERVER/raw/rnc_nt_intro.pdf) [math.bu.edu]. It has great information on the history of NT, what NT is, what NT has, and so on.

Please take note of page 10, titled "Windows NT Architecture." You'll see five "Environment Subsystems" and note Win16 and DOS has an asterisk above them denoting that it's NOT an environment subsystem. So basically, it's a compatibility layer, but keep in mind--nothing related to DOS in the kernel mode. Windows 1.x/2.x/3.x/9x/Me is basically Windows on a DOS system which is in the kernel mode, NT has nothing to do with DOS except for the compatibility layer.

[edit: by the way, since you said you could find more parts, please do! Make sure they are in kernel mode.]

Inhale420

Nov 28, 2002, 06:29 AM

it's so funny you maclots are saying it's a dock ripoff, when in reality the dock is just a ****ty version of windows taskbar.

Inhale420

Nov 28, 2002, 06:38 AM

tliptak

Nov 28, 2002, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Nipsy

It will continue to be very invasive, especially if M$ ever gets .NET of the ground. Palladium will provide security for the MPAA & RIAA, but the user will still be bombarded by virii, worms, and vulnerabilities. Am I the only one who notices that as Windows becomes more complicated, it becomes less secure?

I agree with you that it will have a lot more viruses and thing's like that. Cuz the more advanced it is then the more channels it has. Break one and it's over.

Raidiant

Nov 28, 2002, 11:45 AM

The whole GUI thing was invented by a person in Zerox, so none of the companies have claim to the GUI

However Apple has always been far ahead of Microsoft, they lost when they made the big mistake of exiling steve jobs, otherwisie Microsoft would never had a chance, if Apple didn't charge so much money for their stuff. Thats why Apple lost the first OS war.

I must say that it doesn't look good on the apple side here, everything apple invents gets stolen by microsoft, then rebuilded and advertise. Microsoft which is far more bigger then Apple have much more resources to work on a technically bnetter system, the only thing apple has is innovation. and because 95% of the world is on Windoze its pretty hard to convince them to switch, judging from the large majority which plays a lot of games..

It is amazing that steve has managed to be such a threat despite the fact that not a lot of people use macs. This whole 3D interface idea was invented by apple, and now microsoft has copied it and their gonna market it really well and !@#$% about how good their OS is.

However they need to hurry, they can only innovate so much they will run out of bullets soon of shooting a gigantic monster which won't die. I think Apple doesn't have much shots left, and they definetely need a reload of explosive rounds and shoot microsoft at where they are weak and, if they can't find a way i'm afraid they will get stomped by microsoft with its unreasonable lion share of the market.

Microsoft - giant ugly, monsters which won't die and loves to eat up ideas and build into itself. (aka Emperor Bill Gates)

Apple - Stylish goody, futile resistance with a few clips imac of ammo left. ( Aka Steven Jobs)

Think of it as star wars :)
The major problem about macs is games...about 90% of those users out there want games, and if macs find a way to play windows games, then they win.

FattyMembrane

Dec 2, 2002, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Inhale420
it's so funny you maclots are saying it's a dock ripoff, when in reality the dock is just a ****ty version of windows taskbar.
the windows task bar was a s**ty version of the NeXT dock/tray, hell, the whole win95 interface was a s**ty version of the NeXTStep interface. do some research before you start bashing macs in a mac forum :D .

madamimadam

Dec 2, 2002, 07:59 PM

Edit: After going back and re-reading what I was replying to and feeling like a complete and total moron/wanker, I retracted my post.

I actually combined your post with the post you were replying to to read "the dock is a task bar rip off but the task bar is a NeXT rip off"

Teaches me to rush over things, doesn't it.
LOL

FattyMembrane

Dec 2, 2002, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by madamimadam Edit: After going back and re-reading what I was replying to and feeling like a complete and total moron/wanker, I retracted my post.

I actually combined your post with the post you were replying to to read "the dock is a task bar rip off but the task bar is a NeXT rip off"

Teaches me to rush over things, doesn't it.
LOL
no problem. just a little editing and the whole incident is erased. i just wish i could go back and "edit" what i say in real life...

MacCoaster

Dec 3, 2002, 02:40 PM

Let's give it a rest: all of them are rip-offs of Sun CDE's dock!

valypan

Dec 3, 2002, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Dude, it's an alpha. Windows XP alpha versions didn't even have Luna.

The only "3D" I could see that was already implemented is in Explorer when you selected more than one file, it has some sort of 3D circle of the files selected in the file information bar on the top. It's hard to explain, but think of if there were five planets equidistant from the sun and equidistant from each other (in a perfect circle) orbiting the sun. Personally, I don't see any point in this, but neither do I see any point in that stupid genie effect in the dock.

The point in that is called FUN. F-U-N!!! thats ALSO what computers are for :)

Raiden

Dec 3, 2002, 06:42 PM

The way I see it, apple has 3 years to pump up OSX before longhorn hits the scene. 3 Years is alot of time, 10.3 will be out, and I am guessing that in late 05' when longhorn is about to come out, 10.5 will hit the scene and the next OS war will begin.

I am also predicting that within 2 years apple will dump motorola. Now I dont know much about these AMD, x86, G5, 970 rumors, but in 2 years I hope the result would be 3-4 Ghz apples. Many of the arguments people have made earlier in the thread about OSX being slow are true, but on a 3-4 Ghz apple, those arguments will be down the drain.

I believe that the hardware slump apple seems to be in right now is just temporary. I bet Steve Jobs isnt planing for the short term, but the long term. If my predictions come true, he is planing for the 05' OS war. This switch campain is just the start. Next will be the sudden switch from motorola. Then 10.3, then 10.5.

I honestly have no idea why I just typed all this, bye.

Pale Fire

Dec 3, 2002, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
In fact, a PII 300 MHz or so would run Windows XP just fine, let's see, I'd need a 1 GHz G4 to run OS X satisfactorily.
So the lag I'm experiencing with menus et. al. on a PII 300 MHz compared to running Win98 with the same setup is ok? Win XP on a PII is definitely far from a satisfactory experience.

shinbone

Dec 4, 2002, 06:23 AM

Well, I just read through all the threads in this discussion for the past hour, and it's been interesting. I've been a mac user ever since having a IIci when I was in kindergarten and have not looked back, ever. All I can say is that Apple products have never been better. Admittedly, Apple's unsuccessful attempt at becoming a major industrial giant like IBM by inviting a big-name president, as well as the series of dissappointing execs, ruined Apple for a good part of the 90's. You could see it directly through a bloated product line that was largely overpriced, inefficient, and confusing to the consumer. On top of it, it's OS was becomming largely inefficient as build piled on build. It had simply lost it's identity as an innovative, more humanistic computer company. I think Steve Jobs learned this lesson the hard way, but it made his return to Apple tenfold successful. He brought back the innovation necessary to keep Apple afloat, as well as learning to behave more like a businessman than a guru.
With this in mind, here's my take on where the OS war currently stands. In Apple's defence, the current OS is by far the best thing that has happened to the Mac platform. It's kernel was not developed solely by Apple's own programmers, and had the input of UNIX and Mac programmers around the world. It's the most user friendly to new users (and that is key, especially since the computer market has yet reach a saturation point) without sacrificing accessibility by the UNIX savvy. Since Unix is arguably the lead OS for web servers, the inclusion of a terminal is a blessing. Mac OS will continue to be cutting edge because the use of such open-source standards. On top of the important unix technology, Apple is letting everybody in on the bandwagon with a things they pioneered such as Firewire, WiFi, and Rendezvous. I don't see M$ doing such things. It has to be big-business' way, or no way. They merely play the catch-up game.
The point has been raised that OS X is luggish on slower machines, especially G3s. If you can run XP on a slow PII, and you're satisfied, go with it. I just pity you can't afford a decent G4 to run Jaguar. It's pretty lame to argue the strength of an OS when you are using outdated (300mhz, give me a break!) hardware to compare the two. Mac OS 10.2 runs excellently on current and recent hardware, and that's how it should be evaluated. The OS NEVER crashes. Not, "The OS NEVER crashes. . . well, sorta" as in Windows. I have a score of friends who are switching to Mac next computer purchase for this reason.
More will join this crowd if they are properly informed about the direction M$ is planning to take with the inclusion of Palladium technology. It is blatant privacy invasion and a squemish attempt by M$ to protect the investments of big wig corporations and their own petards. They have ranted about Copyrights for years, not because they care for the right of the intellectual property of artists and musicians, but because they themselves are losing money from pirated copies of their OS. To give a monopolistic giant like M$ the ability to filter and see what is on your computer is utterly revolting.
But OS X and Apple aren't perfect. Although I think Apple has good headway in bringing Unix network administrators and programmers over to the Mac, it still needs a push to get the consumer market going. Sad to say this, but games are the missing link as of now. There are thousands of great games that are written for Winblows, but the Apple selection is still lame, especially for new games. Mac OS X is a great OS for games, and Apple needs to encourage developers to tap into it. If they do so, the large generation brought up on games will adopt the Mac. The Mass doesn't care about things like scalability and overhead. As long as their games and Office programs work, they're happy. Things like movie making and listening to music on a computer are what interest people. Right now, Winblows blows for these more creative things. If OS X can bring in the gamers, they'll make headway in the future.
This article is really biased, so reply for some lively discussion! :D

yzedf

Dec 4, 2002, 07:09 AM

Now, I know that this is a Mac forum, as /. is a linux forum, but please.... MacOS had been horribly outdated until OS X came about.

Rip mp3's, photoshop, and surf the web? At once? Not in any efficient manner until the last year or so.

As to the "Longhorn" screen shots that keep popping up, and disappearing... I think they are most likely a load of cr@p. Any boob could re-create his XP desktop to look like these pitiful screenshots.... o0o0o0o0.... the clock is bigger, and the taskbar wastes more screen real estate. Must be progress!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wish I could afford a Mac.... :-(

shinbone

Dec 4, 2002, 08:00 AM

cannot agree more. :cool:

Once a hierarchy is established, it is hard to change. Windows will always be playing catch-up with mac OS because of this. Gates, even though he's the richest man in the PC industry, knows he's never been innovative and will never be on top of Jobs. The hierarchy was established in the 80's.

Newborn77

Dec 4, 2002, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

...a PII 300 MHz or so would run Windows XP just fine...

Now... I respect your opinion but a PII 300 will not run Windows XP just fine. I would rather say that it would barely be able to run XP.
I own a PC with a PIII 500 and based in my experience I can tell you that even with a fresh installation of XP the PC runs very slow. It gets a little better if you turn off all the OS visual effects (menu animations, etc), use the Windows Classic theme, change some other options, and *only* if you install the 3 or 4 apps that you need and nothing else.
If I don't do the above mentioned XP gets so damn slow that it's not funny.

MacCoaster

Dec 4, 2002, 11:11 AM

Pale Fire, NewBorn77:

Uh. I had a Pentium II 233 MHz. Ran Windows XP on it since Beta 2, with 128 MB RAM. Ran barely fine. Without the fancy **** running (had settings to the lowest possible configuration), runs just fine, even with Visual Studio, IE, AIM, Office, etc.

Let's see, can we turn off Aqua in Mac OS X? Unfortunately not. I just need a GUI *that* works speedily. That's primarily my problem with Mac OS X. Runs like **** on older computers.

I guess I have very high expectations.

Taft

Dec 4, 2002, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by j763

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be well aware that OS X is the fastest microkernel out there. It would be completely and totally impractical for Apple to be using anything else. And no, it's not 2.5... Hell, it's not even the CMU version any more.

First of all, OS X's kernel isn't the fastest out there. There have been many tests done comparing the linux kernel to the mach kernel, linux *always* comes out on top.

This should be obvious to anyone who knows the history of the mach kernel, because the mach kernel (at least in its original design) is a micro kernel, not a monolithickernel. Microkernels, though more flexible and extensible, are often harder to implement and are notoriously slower than classic monolithic kernels such as the linux kernel and the NT kernel (and its derivatives).

Its like the difference between C coding and Java coding. C is messy, hard to manage and hard to abstract in, but its really fast. Java can be very clean, organised and easy to abstract in, but you take a performance hit for those abilities.

The "problems" with OS X's mach kernel are being slowly nullified by faster hardware and constant kernel development from the Darwin project.

But just to drive the point home, OS X's kernel is NOT as efficient as many of the other kernels out there. Do I think that is a real problem?? Probably not.

Taft

Taft

Dec 4, 2002, 04:26 PM

And the site that this thread is based on is so obviously written by a MS shill that its funny.

Take this:

One of the most exciting aspects of Longhorn is its integration with Palladium, Microsoft's technology for realizing its Trustworthy Computing vision.Palladium is basically a secure run-time environment for Windows and other operating systems that allows a coming generation of software applications and services to protect the end user from privacy invasion, outside hacking, spam, and other electronic attacks.
...
Palladium stops spam. Spam will be stopped before it even hits your email inbox. Unsolicited mail that you might actually want to receive will be allowed through if it has credentials that meet your user-defined standards.

Who out there really thinks that Palladium is good, let alone exciting?? People are protesting this and generally think its doing the bidding of the RIAA and MPAA (what the DMCA is currently trying to do).

And the spam bit is such a load of crap. Trusted addresses?? How would this really work? Does it block all addresses except those you mark as trusted??

People have been trying for years to get rid of spam. Palladium is not going to succeed completely where so many have failed before.

Taft

Yujenisis

Dec 4, 2002, 05:14 PM

Does anyone remember the last time Microsoft tried to be innovative?

Two words: Microsoft Bob.

I rest my case. Microsoft should go back to stealing ideas from everyone else and stop trying at this idea of "innovation" they keep hearing about.

I have downloaded the beta...and it's not very innovative...and the "dock" thing takes up wayy too much space and as far as I can tell it seems to be pretty-task oriented only now with huge friggin buttons that get in the way.

Oh, I miss Windows 2000 already. Oh, well at least I can show my PC toting friends "Hey, look it's the future of Windows!" running along-side my glorious powerbook running X. You can guess the kinds of responses I get.

barkmonster

Dec 4, 2002, 06:25 PM

he "problems" with OS X's mach kernel are being slowly nullified by faster hardware and constant kernel development from the Darwin project.

But just to drive the point home, OS X's kernel is NOT as efficient as many of the other kernels out there. Do I think that is a real problem?? Probably not.

Does this mean that any updates that have a more efficient mach kernel will actually be improving multithreading/multitasking, thus increasing the effective speed of software running under OS X ?

Taft

Dec 4, 2002, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by barkmonster

Does this mean that any updates that have a more efficient mach kernel will actually be improving multithreading/multitasking, thus increasing the effective speed of software running under OS X ?

Presumably. But I really don't know how much performance they can eek out of the design of the Mach kernel. I do know that they have done a lot of work on the Darwin underpinnings since the original OS X beta release. Since everything on the system relies on the underpinnings (file access, multitasking, networking), a faster system base mean faster application performance.

Many of you linux heads (or Slashdot readers) out there will remember when Linus took a few pot shots at the Mach kernel and said that it had just about every design mistake that you could make. He wasn't very favorable towards the kernel at all.

Taft

MacCoaster

Dec 4, 2002, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Taft
Many of you linux heads (or Slashdot readers) out there will remember when Linus took a few pot shots at the Mach kernel and said that it had just about every design mistake that you could make. He wasn't very favorable towards the kernel at all.
Screw Linus. He's too biased.

All different types of kernels are suitable for certain tasks. Just like all different types of processors are suitable for certain tasks.

Mach kernel is very fitting for BSD + Mac OS X, IMHO.

beatle888

Dec 4, 2002, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

In fact, a PII 300 MHz or so would run Windows XP just fine, let's see, I'd need a 1 GHz G4 to run OS X satisfactorily.

RED FLAG: oops thats absolutely false. you have
just lost all credibility. i run jaguar on my 667
tibook with 512 of ram. and its fine...photoshop,
illustrator, ical, these are usually open at the
same time. your wrong...i dont know if your just
spreading lies or your misinformed.

.

Kid Red

Dec 4, 2002, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

In fact, a PII 300 MHz or so would run Windows XP just fine, let's see, I'd need a 1 GHz G4 to run OS X satisfactorily.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee troll, my parents run X on their 500 iMac without issues, I ran X on my G4 450 without issues, my wife runs it on her iMac 800 without issues. Your flaimbait should have read "it simply flies on a dual 1ghz G4 and is satisfactory on older machines". So keep on trolling!

Cappy

Dec 4, 2002, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Yujenisis
Does anyone remember the last time Microsoft tried to be innovative?

Two words: Microsoft Bob.

I think sometimes Mac folks put way too much emphasis on the innovative side of things and then lose their perspective of this. Innovation isn't everything as Apple almost innovated their way out of business with projects like Opendoc and such in the mid 90's. Don't get me wrong I love Macs and the Mac OS but I also like what MS has done with Windows in 2000 and XP. Quite frankly I don't care who innovates an item in the beginning. As a consumer I want a tool that does the job best. Sometimes that improvement could be considered by many as innovative.

Me? I was always a fan of MS's Start Menu and Taskbar over Apple's Apple Menu and Control Strip. Some considered those items from MS innovative but I bet many diehard Mac folks won't.

Originally posted by Yujenisis
I rest my case. Microsoft should go back to stealing ideas from everyone else and stop trying at this idea of "innovation" they keep hearing about.

Attacking their "lack" of innovation is a lost cause. Sure they've stolen or bought many of their ideas(not all of them) but though you may frown on it, they have actually been very innovative in a business sense which is what the bottom line is all about.

Originally posted by Yujenisis
I have downloaded the beta...and it's not very innovative...and the "dock" thing takes up wayy too much space and as far as I can tell it seems to be pretty-task oriented only now with huge friggin buttons that get in the way.

Keep things in perspective though. They were originally talking 2005 for the release of that OS. By then people are going to be running higher resolutions and you have to admit that it's still early in the beta cycle that things can change. When Aqua was introduced, many were disappointed that things were taking up too much reale estate if you had a screen res of 800 x 600 and some didn't even like it with 1024 x 768. You also have to keep in mind what kind of users are going to be picky about that as well. The basic home user typically won't care that much depending on how bad it is.

At any rate I'm not out to condone what MS does or is doing but lets not be blind to things either.

Cappy

Dec 4, 2002, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red

Gee troll, my parents run X on their 500 iMac without issues, I ran X on my G4 450 without issues, my wife runs it on her iMac 800 without issues. Your flaimbait should have read "it simply flies on a dual 1ghz G4 and is satisfactory on older machines". So keep on trolling!

Take it easy, will ya? :) Everyone has different uses and perceptions. I know lots of folks who will grade how fast a computer is just from how fast the internet bandwidth is going to the system. A 300Mhz system could appear more useable and faster than a 1Ghz system if the speed to the internet is a big enough difference. They would have no idea what was inside the two systems but just know that one was faster than the other. Lets not forget what a difference being configured correctly and having the right harddrive and amount of memory makes. I find it ridiculously entertaining how people keep talking here about Mhz and what's fast enough for what OS.

Remember the Mhz myth people? Duh! It's the same argument that you use when you're trying to defend the speed of the Macs.

It applies to all systems and depends greatly on what functions a computer does. Many times if you throw memory at it a system can almost seem to become a newer faster computer. Ever try Windows 2000 on a P5-100 with 128MB of ram. For browsing the web and eudora for email it's very useable without the known tweaks on the internet. I should know...I made my wife use one for 5-6 months instead of a PowerMac 7500 with a dual 200Mhz 604e card installed. The PowerMac had only 96MB of ram. She said that the Pentium system was faster to her. This after 5-10 min of using it. She ended up going back to the Mac because she felt more confortable with it but admitted she felt she took a speed hit when she went back. By the way the Win2k machine never crashed. The PowerMac with Mac OS 8.6 and later 9.1 had a tendency to lock up every couple weeks if left on. 8.6 was more stable but Sherlock and such was the argument to keeping the newer OS on there.

What I'm getting at is everyone sees things differently for various reasons so folks need to chill out here and stop making such judgement calls for the masses.

Can't we just all get along? ;)

LimeiBook86

Dec 4, 2002, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by ThomasJefferson
OK wheres my photoshop, this is too tempting, what is grazing in the field behind that puke-green install window. How about a large pile of cow-paddie ... or at least a cows behind. The possibilities for abuse are endless.
I have the longhorn backround, cuz my friedn has longhorn :-D He does

MacCoaster

Dec 5, 2002, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by beatle888
RED FLAG: oops thats absolutely false. you have
just lost all credibility. i run jaguar on my 667
tibook with 512 of ram. and its fine...photoshop,
illustrator, ical, these are usually open at the
same time. your wrong...i dont know if your just
spreading lies or your misinformed.
Oh, so running Jaguar on your 667 MHz PowerBook is fast enough for me? Nope.

Did you even notice the "I" in my sentence. I was referring to my opinions for MY own needs.

So I'm lying and wrong about my needs? Interesting. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Kid Red
Gee troll, my parents run X on their 500 iMac without issues, I ran X on my G4 450 without issues, my wife runs it on her iMac 800 without issues. Your flaimbait should have read "it simply flies on a dual 1ghz G4 and is satisfactory on older machines". So keep on trolling!
Again, note the "I." Mac OS X may be fine for your parents and wife on old computers. But it is not fine for me. I don't care about your parents or wife. I care what's best and what works best for me. If your parents and wife find that Macs are better value, more power to them; that is what matters. I find it sluggish on anything slower than the dual 1 GHz.

It's not satisfactorily for me on older machines. The iMac G3 700 MHz we have runs Mac OS X horribly slow, Jaguar is better, but it's still too slow. I'm far more productive in Linux using WindowMaker on a single 1.733 GHz Athlon.

Again, to these guys responding about how horrible XP is on a slow PII, I still disagree because my experience is quite the opposite. YMMV, though.

Bring on the PowerPC 970! About one more goddamned year to go, if not less.

BTW, I don't consider my post as flamebait. I was simply posting my opinions on my needs and priorities.

LimeiBook86

Dec 5, 2002, 12:40 AM

Flame bait... get it :D
http://homepage.mac.com/ibook238/.Pictures/flamebait.gif

Newborn77

Dec 5, 2002, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Pale Fire, NewBorn77:

Uh. I had a Pentium II 233 MHz. Ran Windows XP on it since Beta 2, with 128 MB RAM. Ran barely fine. Without the fancy **** running (had settings to the lowest possible configuration), runs just fine, even with Visual Studio, IE, AIM, Office, etc.

Let's see, can we turn off Aqua in Mac OS X? Unfortunately not. I just need a GUI *that* works speedily. That's primarily my problem with Mac OS X. Runs like **** on older computers.

I guess I have very high expectations.

If you have done it and you say it runs then it runs. I believe you. Remember I was just guessing based on my experience with a PIII.

LOL :D Those are exactly the only apps I have installed in my PC (Visual Studio, AIM and Office).

Aqua is certainly in the need of a tune up. In my PM 733 it works fine (could be better though). But in my iceBook... well... not very fine.

Sorry if I sound rude or something I don't mean to :D

Bye.

FattyMembrane

Dec 5, 2002, 01:02 PM

i have to begin by saying that i am not trying to sound combattive at all, or trying to continue any kind of flame war :)
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Oh, so running Jaguar on your 667 MHz PowerBook is fast enough for me? Nope.

Did you even notice the "I" in my sentence. I was referring to my opinions for MY own needs.

I find it sluggish on anything slower than the dual 1 GHz.
well, by the same token, i could say that in my opinion, a 2.8 ghz p4 is not very fast, not enough for my needs, maybe for someone's mother, but not for me, get the point?

It's not satisfactorily for me on older machines. The iMac G3 700 MHz we have runs Mac OS X horribly slow, Jaguar is better, but it's still too slow. I'm far more productive in Linux using WindowMaker on a single 1.733 GHz Athlon.
i doubt that anyone here will challenge the statement that a 1.7 ghz athlon is faster than a 700mhz g3. i also doubt that anyone would question whether or not linux/windowmaker is less resource intensive than mach/darwin/osx/aqua. obviously the pc system will be faster, if i had a 1ghz g4 running yellowdoglinux/twm, it would be a lot faster than a p2 running windows3.1at 233mhz. so if you're going to say that macs are slow because your brand new athlon box running linux is faster than your 2 year old bottom of the line mac (that's not an insult, i have an old imac too :D ) running osx, it's not really a fair picture.

MacCoaster

Dec 5, 2002, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
well, by the same token, i could say that in my opinion, a 2.8 ghz p4 is not very fast, not enough for my needs, maybe for someone's mother, but not for me, get the point?
Exactly my point. That's repeating my statement. :P. If it's not fast enough for you, then get a faster PC.
i doubt that anyone here will challenge the statement that a 1.7 ghz athlon is faster than a 700mhz g3. i also doubt that anyone would question whether or not linux/windowmaker is less resource intensive than mach/darwin/osx/aqua. obviously the pc system will be faster, if i had a 1ghz g4 running yellowdoglinux/twm, it would be a lot faster than a p2 running windows3.1at 233mhz. so if you're going to say that macs are slow because your brand new athlon box running linux is faster than your 2 year old bottom of the line mac (that's not an insult, i have an old imac too :D ) running osx, it's not really a fair picture.
Correct, except we got the iMac brand new after my Athlon [August 2001, upgraded November 2002]. Admittedly I upgraded it recently to 1.733 GHz from 1.4 GHz, but 1.4 GHz is still way faster than the iMac 700 MHz. Yes Linux takes less resources than Mac OS X: that's my exact problem with Mac OS X. Far too many resources are used. It's getting better, though, which is very good. The iMac isn't two year old, it's a year old. We got it in December 2001.

Who cares if it's not a fair picture. It's a fair picture to me because the iMac doesn't fit my needs and my Athlon was faster, cheaper. A *real* fair speed "check" of Mac OS X would be, IMHO, if it ran on regular x86 boxes like my Athlon. Since it'd take advantage of the AGP+GF3 for Quartz Engine AND it has the advantage of a really fast processor.

Yujenisis

Dec 6, 2002, 12:49 PM

Attacking their "lack" of innovation is a lost cause. Sure they've stolen or bought many of their ideas(not all of them) but though you may frown on it, they have actually been very innovative in a business sense which is what the bottom line is all about.

I probably wasn't very clear as you didn't understand. I wasn't attacking their "lack" of innovation as much as I am attacking the times they have ATTEMPTED innovation. Everytime Microsoft was claimed Innovation it has either been 1. Not revolutionary and more evolutionary, which I feel is still innovation just not something worth gloating about necessarily. 2. Is innovation they stole from another company (we all know this one all too well and not just from Apple) or 3. Ill-concieved innovation that they they simply expect consumers to love and is usually poorly-designed, backward, etc.

Microsoft should do less revolutionary innovation and MORE evolutionary innovation. They don't have the skill or the right staff to attempt what Apple and other companies do in that respect. From my perspective the Star Menu (which is filed uner evolutionary innovation) was a great idea and is very functional. I feel a thing they could improve is making it easier and more intuitive to customize the starbar itself. But the Taskbar and control panel to the right are very well done.

Now compare this to XP which claimed a "revolutionary user interface" which basically equates hiding everything useful under an annoying layer of cutesy styfling Wizards. I am a Windows power user, I don't need any of that and I can see other's using it but it should not be a "forced" part of Windows XP Professional. Professional means I should be able to exercise control over my computer and it's functions and not be limited to some animated question-mark jumping around telling me I need to set up my internet every five minutes.

Am I being more clear this time?

Keep things in perspective though. They were originally talking 2005 for the release of that OS. By then people are going to be running higher resolutions and you have to admit that it's still early in the beta cycle that things can change. When Aqua was introduced, many were disappointed that things were taking up too much reale estate if you had a screen res of 800 x 600 and some didn't even like it with 1024 x 768. You also have to keep in mind what kind of users are going to be picky about that as well. The basic home user typically won't care that much depending on how bad it is.

At any rate I'm not out to condone what MS does or is doing but lets not be blind to things either.

I don't like to think I am blind to things. I have used PC's far longer and along-side my Macs. I respect both platforms...mostly. I depend on my Macintosh for getting my work done and managing just about everything but gaming and some specific multimedia tasks that I do on my PC.

I am not one who feels 'dirty' using Windows but one is constantly disapointed by tasks taking longer and being more counter-intuitive than the Mac. Also how Microsoft feels the need to literally change the interface of various control panels with almost every release. Before XP I had been using 2000 Pro which in my opinion is the finest piece of Windows software EVER produced. Stability, speed, cohesive interface. Everything one has come to not expect from Windows is done fairly well. With XP it was a step backwards. I plan to upgrade back down to 2000 when I have time to reformat.

Longhorn will be substantially different when it comes out then how it is now. That doesn't stop me from being stupified as to why Microsoft chooses to carry Microsoft in a different direction than it should (Towards the less functional cutesy interface). In the end this will alienate businesses who already feel XP is too distracting and professionals who only get annoyed by the limitations of the dumbed-down UI.

Microsoft hopefully in time will see this and make some changes...we can at least hope for the Professional version. The consumer version they can make as ugly, cutesy, and moronic as they choose. There isn't a need to force that on people who know what they are doing.

Anyways, LongHorn has been deleted and replaced with Linux, once more. Of course Linus is just as much of an arrogant ass as Gates is so I don't see that as cleansing the computer at all. Oh, well.

We can all enjoy laughing at Longhorn for Consumers when it finally comes out. Microsoft is carrying itself down the wrong road and one it should not try and follow Apple as I myself don't like the direction Apple has chosen to take itself, despite the fact that the road may straighten out for Apple later on.

MacCoaster

Dec 8, 2002, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Yujenisis
Now compare this to XP which claimed a "revolutionary user interface" which basically equates hiding everything useful under an annoying layer of cutesy styfling Wizards. I am a Windows power user, I don't need any of that and I can see other's using it but it should not be a "forced" part of Windows XP Professional. Professional means I should be able to exercise control over my computer and it's functions and not be limited to some animated question-mark jumping around telling me I need to set up my internet every five minutes.

Also how Microsoft feels the need to literally change the interface of various control panels with almost every release. Before XP I had been using 2000 Pro which in my opinion is the finest piece of Windows software EVER produced. Stability, speed, cohesive interface. Everything one has come to not expect from Windows is done fairly well. With XP it was a step backwards. I plan to upgrade back down to 2000 when I have time to reformat.

Longhorn will be substantially different when it comes out then how it is now. That doesn't stop me from being stupified as to why Microsoft chooses to carry Microsoft in a different direction than it should (Towards the less functional cutesy interface). In the end this will alienate businesses who already feel XP is too distracting and professionals who only get annoyed by the limitations of the dumbed-down UI.

[a couple stuff snipped]
That's why Windows XP and Longhorn has Classic theme. Works just like Windows 2000. Windows XP on my Athlon is substanially faster and stabler, although it is really a "YMMV" thing. I personally find the silver theme of Luna just fine and it's plenty fast on my Athlon. I don't find any limitations in the so called "dumbed-down" UI. Please feel free to list some that are in your opinion limitations. Besides, you could say the same thing for Mac OS X. Yeah, the candy interface is dumbed down from the Mac OS 9 interface and OS 9 sometimes offers more features than Mac OS X interface-wise, such as the NSChooseFile Open File dialog. It's a step backwards from the Mac OS 9 version, IMO; in addition, what Microsoft has done is yet push that further yet retaining the usability feature of the previous operating system. I realize that Open File dialog... big whoop, but I was just making a counterpoint to prove a similar case.

Besides, what "jumping questions"? I haven't had any of those at all except when I installed Windows XP. I simply right clicked it and told it to go away. All I had to do was open Internet Explorer for the first time and make sure it has LAN set. I'm off on the internet already without re-setting it every 5 minutes. If that is what you're doing. You're having problems.

Longhorn will be a very extensible OS as many things are XML based and the FS will be able to utilize SQL technologies. Wouldn't it be so great and useful to just tell your computer to "find all music that were composed within last year by <insert band>" or "find all emails I composed to <insert name> containing information about medical records"? I personally can't wait until it comes out to see all the final features that make into Longhorn to compare with other OSes. It is much too primitive to make any hard judgements on it just yet.

Microsoft is carrying itself down the right road, IMO. Their innovation is not just in the software, but the hardware as well. They took the tablet idea and took it further. Smart Displays? Oh wow. Detach one of those apart and take it anywere. Microsoft already has one of those sweet BlueTooth keyboards. I personally think the major misconception of Microsoft by many is set exclusively on Windows and Office; yes, those are Microsoft's primary income, but that doesn't stop Microsoft from having a research company to come up with new stuff. Microsoft is on a roll. The upcoming few years will be very interesting and everyone should wake up and be smart--their money determines Microsoft's fate. Just wait and see what happens. You may be very right that Microsoft is digging its own grave somehow. As I said, it's up to the consumers to determine if Microsoft is going down the right road or not.