New file system has long road to Windows [Archive]

View Full Version : New file system has long road to Windows

MacBytes

Dec 11, 2004, 12:37 AM

Category: Microsoft
Link: New file system has long road to Windows (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041211013755)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

dontmatter

Dec 11, 2004, 01:12 AM

Jesus Christ! How can microsoft have so much money, and still need so much time to do so little?

munkle

Dec 11, 2004, 01:42 AM

Instead, WinFS may not debut in the operating system until the next decade, when the version of Windows beyond Longhorn, code-named Blackcomb, is slated to ship.

:eek: :rolleyes: :p

Reading about Longhorn used to amuse me but now it's bordering on pity. I almost feel guilty as a Mac user waiting for Tiger...who am I kidding, HA HA HA! (in Nelson voice!)

dejo

Dec 11, 2004, 05:17 AM

"This isn't a relational database," he said.

Yeah, cuz throwing one of those together only takes, like, 5 minutes... NOT!

I gotta say the average relational database is much more complex than the average file system.

What exactly are they trying to achieve with WinFS? Or does anybody really now? Or is it very hush, hush?

ac2102

Dec 11, 2004, 05:23 AM

All i have to say is that if they are taking this long over it all, there has to be some top stuff being worked on. As big as Microsoft's market share is, i can't see them pansying around with something this big just for it to turn out to be nothing particularly new.

ac2102

iMeowbot

Dec 11, 2004, 06:12 AM

What exactly are they trying to achieve with WinFS? Or does anybody really now? Or is it very hush, hush?
It's the same old AI alchemy that was something of a fad in the '70s and '80s, but they are trying very hard not to call it that.

Most researchers eventually figured out that we're going to have very limited success trying to duplicate something we don't really understand. Some people at MS seem to be clinging to the idea that if only enough attributes can be indexed, programs can remember just like organic brains.

broken_keyboard

Dec 11, 2004, 07:41 AM

It's the same old AI alchemy that was something of a fad in the '70s and '80s, but they are trying very hard not to call it that.

Most researchers eventually figured out that we're going to have very limited success trying to duplicate something we don't really understand. Some people at MS seem to be clinging to the idea that if only enough attributes can be indexed, programs can remember just like organic brains.

In the novel "A Deepness in the Sky" by Vernor Vinge, AI is never discovered, and programmers have to edit code bases that are thousands of years old. That is actually a key part of the novel, as one of the characters knows some thousand year old back doors which enable him to defeat his adversary.

AmigoMac

Dec 11, 2004, 08:55 AM

Timelessblur

Dec 11, 2004, 09:17 AM

boy how many times is a dead horse going to be beaten this is old news that just being repeated for the 100th time

wrldwzrd89

Dec 11, 2004, 09:49 AM

"nstead, WinFS may not debut in the operating system until the next decade, when the version of Windows beyond Longhorn, code-named Blackcom, is slated to ship" :eek: :p

Mac OS X 10.8 : Presenting Blackcom, redmond we have a BIG problem... :D
Let's plot the likely tracks of Apple and Microsoft's next 5 upcoming OS releases:

Apple:
10.4 - Jan '05 - Jun '05
10.5 - Jul '06 - Dec '06
10.6 - Jan '08 - Jun '08
10.7 - Jul '09 - Dec '09
10.8 - Jan '11 - Jun '11

Microsoft:

Longhorn - Jan '06 - Dec '06
Blackcomb - Jan '10 - Dec '12
??? - ???
??? - ???
??? - ???

This means, for the next OS update, at best, we'll have jumped through 10.4 and moved on to 10.5 when Longhorn is released. At worst, Tiger still beats Longhorn, but only by 6 months.

For the OS update after that, at best, we'll be on 10.8 almost two years before Blackcomb arrives, anxiously awaiting 10.9. At worst, we'll have been on 10.7 for a little over a year before the arrival of Blackcomb, and 10.8 will just be getting started.

If my numbers don't seem right, please let me know what's wrong or unreasonable.

munkle

Dec 11, 2004, 10:12 AM

Let's plot the likely tracks of Apple and Microsoft's next 5 upcoming OS releases:

Apple:
10.4 - Jan '05 - Jun '05
10.5 - Jul '06 - Dec '06
10.6 - Jan '08 - Jun '08
10.7 - Jul '09 - Dec '09
10.8 - Jan '11 - Jun '11

Apple have stated that there going to be slowing down the rate of their OS releases, so I don't think we're going to be seeing regular releases and longer intervals between each OS. I think 10.5 could be quite a long way off with Tiger being such a big release...but of course it's all just speculation!

At the rate MS is going they might as well just skip Longhorn and just release lackDate or whatever it's called! :p

2GMario

Dec 11, 2004, 10:19 AM

Mainyehc

Dec 11, 2004, 10:35 AM

On "our" side of technology we are anticipating Tiger, we have gorgeous "boutique-like" retail stores, we have great hardware, but we still have to pay a premium to "feed" Apple. That's why no matter what you say, marketshare IS an important issue!

But that could be easily solved... Look at the "other" side... It's just plain ridiculous! XP is being trashed by viruses and spyware, Longhorn will take over a year to ship, and x86 hardware, although much cheaper, isn't that great. And other consumer electronics and software companies don't seem to understand what people want... Look at the iPod's competition!

I know that comparing music players to computers and software is like comparing apples to oranges; still, I think that more than Apple gaining "mindshare", what's happening here is a shift in the consumers' mentality: maybe they (by they I mean americans and europeans who weren't aware of Apple) are turning into gadget and style freaks like the japanese, who are willing to pay a (preferrably small) premium to get really *cool* products (both hardware AND software). If this is true (I'm just speculating), Apple is on the right track.

They almost have what it takes to take over a huge chunk of marketshare in the PC market. And again (I think I'm writing this once a day), their only problem is as serious as the troubles Micro$oft is facing: their damn G5 supply issues! It wouldn't hurt either if they entered the corporate market, IMHO (I mean, it's not like they would stop being a cool company because of that... Why not make [cool] products catered for business too?).

Stella

Dec 11, 2004, 10:44 AM

Let's plot the likely tracks of Apple and Microsoft's next 5 upcoming OS releases:

Double standards.

People took the piss out of microsoft because of the nearly releases - i.e., 98, 98SE, Me.

What have apple done? Yep, the same, Yearly releases and ppl actually praise apple for it.

I realise that OSX is a new OS and required time to Mature ; panther brings us this ( less a decent implementation samba front end etc ) but all in all, yearly OS releases is NOT the way to go.

Personally am so glad apple are going to take more time about releases new OSes because, really, this could not continue. There is only a period of time that you can try to sell yearly OSes. IMO, that time has gone.

I like, probably, other people, have got fed up of buying yearly OSX releases . Yes, I know I don't have to buy them, BUT, BUT, the latest apple produced software will NOT run on older OSXs - take Safari ( Panther Safari is so much better than Jaguar which would crash regularly) , iPhoto, iMovie etc amongst other software that take advantage of Panther features.

Some people like double standards a lot.

When Apple release Tiger there will be aspects of Spotlight that could be improved. This is a first stab. microsoft are trying an 'all - in - one' approach. Sometimes an all or nothing approach in software is not a good idea - i.e., too complex. Instead you need to build incrementally which makes building the solution / software vastly simpler and much less risky ( small steps, not one giant leap) This is what Apple is doing with spotlight probably, and definitely with building up OSX - from 10.0 to Panther.

Let's plot the likely tracks of Apple and Microsoft's next 5 upcoming OS releases:

Apple:
10.4 - Jan '05 - Jun '05
10.5 - Jul '06 - Dec '06
10.6 - Jan '08 - Jun '08
10.7 - Jul '09 - Dec '09
10.8 - Jan '11 - Jun '11

Microsoft:

Longhorn - Jan '06 - Dec '06
Blackcomb - Jan '10 - Dec '12
??? - ???
??? - ???
??? - ???

This means, for the next OS update, at best, we'll have jumped through 10.4 and moved on to 10.5 when Longhorn is released. At worst, Tiger still beats Longhorn, but only by 6 months.

For the OS update after that, at best, we'll be on 10.8 almost two years before Blackcomb arrives, anxiously awaiting 10.9. At worst, we'll have been on 10.7 for a little over a year before the arrival of Blackcomb, and 10.8 will just be getting started.

If my numbers don't seem right, please let me know what's wrong or unreasonable.

Mainyehc

Dec 11, 2004, 10:50 AM

but thats not where the problem lies.

im sure most of you are aware of, OS X is not based on OS 9. OS X was freshly built from NeXT.

that being said, all the things that held OS 9 back do not plaig OS X

unfortunately, this isnt the case. What MS is trying to pull off is complete backwords compatibility strait threw to Windows XP (atleast, if not ME, 98 or even 95)

Is it just me, or Microsoft developers are just a bunch of idiots? Couldn't they move to some form of Unix, or even develop a new OS from scratch, and then provide some form of emulation like Classic? If Apple, that besides being this puny little company also had to ditch a whole generation of OSs (and Mac OS was, by the way, the first truly user-friendly OS in History), managed to do that with great success, why can't the gigantic M$ pull it off??
WHY!!?? They are so damn rich they could spend millions in R&D! I honestly don't get it...

Or... that Stockholm Syndrome thing is something they need to maintain world domination, perhaps... :eek:

Stella

Dec 11, 2004, 10:59 AM

Couldn't they move to some form of Unix

Riiiiiiight. You've been taking too many Happy Pills.

Pigs will fly
Hell will freeze over
Satan will be kissing God's feet.

:cool:

dashiel

Dec 11, 2004, 11:00 AM

Double standards.

People took the piss out of microsoft because of the nearly releases - i.e., 98, 98SE, Me.

What have apple done? Yep, the same, Yearly releases and ppl actually praise apple for it.

that's comparing apples to oranges. 98, 98SE and ME were incremental updates at best. 98's biggest additions were integrated IE and FAT 32, SE was just a collection of applications that you could download for free and ME was not much more than that. so far each X release has brought about performance increases, GUI refinements, new or vastly improved features and applications, etc...

Stella

Dec 11, 2004, 11:08 AM

that's comparing apples to oranges. 98, 98SE and ME were incremental updates at best. 98's biggest additions were integrated IE and FAT 32, SE was just a collection of applications that you could download for free and ME was not much more than that. so far each X release has brought about performance increases, GUI refinements, new or vastly improved features and applications, etc...

Sorry I disagree: OSX 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 were also incremental updates. I suppose its the definition of 'Incremental' we are indifference about.

There is no reason why MS could have improved the performance of each of those three above windows ; however they chose not to, in fact each got slower, as you probably well know.

Apple put a lot more work in to each version of OSX than microsoft did between 98, 98ME ( a bug fixed 98 ) and ME.

iMeowbot

Dec 11, 2004, 11:17 AM

Is it just me, or Microsoft developers are just a bunch of idiots? Couldn't they move to some form of Unix, or even develop a new OS from scratch, and then provide some form of emulation like Classic?
That's exactly how NT/2K/XP is already built, all the machinery is there to put things into sandboxes. It simply isn't used as originally intended. The insecure mess was a deliberate choice, demanded by large prospective customers who hadn't thought very hard about the implications.

daveL

Dec 11, 2004, 11:28 AM

i think a majority of you are missing the point of WinFS.

like the equivilent in OS X (meta data i think ?) Tiger, this isnt nessecerally a new way to store files on a drive, but to index them.

to make it easier to find what you want, when u need it, as fast as possible

so did Apple beat MS to the point with Spotlight ? probably, good enough for how OS X is designed anyways.

but thats not where the problem lies.

im sure most of you are aware of, OS X is not based on OS 9. OS X was freshly built from NeXT.

that being said, all the things that held OS 9 back do not plaig OS X

unfortunately, this isnt the case. What MS is trying to pull off is complete backwords compatibility strait threw to Windows XP (atleast, if not ME, 98 or even 95)

Because the Windows user base is "SO BIG" to open up Office 97 (yes, people still use it) and not be able to save a file in Word cause the file system doesnt understand what the hell ur doing, is a big problem.

so instead of saying **** it, lets stop dev based on old code, write completly new code and deal with the problems, possibly emulating XP inside of longhorn, they have to build WinFS to be able to deal with Fat, NTFS, etc...

from a major corporation stand point what do u think is better ? loosing all customers or keeping them and just delaying specific features

could u imagine if Longhorn broke compatibility with everything design for XP ? 1/4 would shift to apple, 1/4 would shift to linux, 1/4 wont upgrade / do anything, and 1/4 would upgrade and deal with it.

were not talking about a mac thats expensive, we have come to expect thier expensive, and we deal with it happily. were talking about ur average beige box that costs $499 US, and are in 1 our of 5 homes in the usa.

i love OS X. i may try longhorn given the oportunity, but i doubt itll turn me back into a windows user. I've seen tiger and i know what to expect, and im happy.

just my view
-Mario
I think M$ has started to suffer from the same burden of backward compatibility that Intel is experiencing. By maintaining backward compatibility, the product becomes a bloated piece of crap that can't be competitive with new designs. It's very similar to the rise and fall of empires. Intel foresaw this problem when they decided to build Itanium, but they blew it big time; they tried to be so radical in their design goals that they failed to build a viable product. Longhorn my turn out to be M$'s Itanium.

I think one of the factors that helped Apple, when they decided to ditch OS 9 and transition to a totally clean, modern OS X, was that their market share was at a low point, at the time. Also, by choosing to go with a open source Unix OS, they succeeded in attracting droves of experienced developers.

It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

nagromme

Dec 11, 2004, 11:29 AM

from a major corporation stand point what do u think is better ? loosing all customers or keeping them and just delaying specific features
Very important point.

Computers were NEW not long ago. Should we all be using "the first try?" No, we need to advance. Sometimes that means throwing out legacy stuff (complexity = bugs, harder to use, and a barrier to new features) and starting fresh. And sometimes THAT means losing compatibility, which means losing customers and probably failing in your attempt. A true "fresh start" in any area of computing is a great thing but VERY difficult to pull off. Examples:

Processors:

* Wintel is still using descendants evolved from the old Intel 8088!

* Apple started with the 6502, dumped that and started fresh with 680x0, then dumped THAT and went to PowerPC/RISC! And the second time, they kept compatibility, thanks to forked files and fat binaries. That was really quite an accomplishment--one that was predicted to be lethal to devs and users alike... but it really wasn't.

So, legacy-laden evolution for Wintel, vs. evolution AND two fresh starts for Apple.

OS:

* Wintel is still using Windows descended from DOS, packed with legacy complexity. Longhorn may be a much needed "fresh start," but it's getting less fresh with every improvement they remove from the plan. Oh, and it doesn't exist yet.

* Apple's DOS-like OS (Apple II) is long gone, and their first groundbreaking graphical Mac OS has been replaced too--with OS X and a switch to UNIX. That too is quite an accomplishment, predicted to be lethal to devs and users alike... and it wasn't.

So again, legacy-laden evolution for Wintel, vs. two fresh starts for Apple.

This is a short-and-simple take on a much more complex history--I know everything is based on some old stuff--and it SHOULD be. Some old things are proven and work well, such as OS X's UNIX underpinnings. So it's a matter of degree--Apple has "started fresh" to a MUCH higher degree than MS. (And I'm not even getting into the fact of Windows being copied so directly from Mac.) Apple's results, which I use daily, speak for themselves.

For MS to achieve the same is more than a technical challenge (the price of success! all that variety of uncontrolled hardware), it's a business challenge (alienate the huge market base that has been their key advantage?). I don't see any GOOD long term answer for MS. I don't see them going away, of course, but I don't see them having a product that can truly touch the future of Mac OS X and the PowerPC--despite the temporary supply issues.

I like, probably, other people, have got fed up of buying yearly OSX releases . Yes, I know I don't have to buy them, BUT, BUT, the latest apple produced software will NOT run on older OSXs - take Safari ( Panther Safari is so much better than Jaguar which would crash regularly) , iPhoto, iMovie etc amongst other software that take advantage of Panther features.
So you want the new features, you just don't want to pay?

I'm with you 100% :D

But if you stick with Jaguar, say, your old apps keep running as well as ever, and lots of NEW third-party stuff (plus some Apple stuff) comes out too. You lose nothing by not upgrading, you just don't gain as much as if you pay Apple for the massive work they're doing.

The question is, what would you prefer? Would you rather Tiger didn't exist? You can make that happen for yourself by not buying :) Or would you rather it was free? Apple actually put some work into that product, I think! Or would you rather it just wasn't a very big advancement? Fewer features so they could give it away? No thanks, I like the choice to go with newer and better, myself. Or would you rather Apple kept at least patching Jaguar for security issues? They do. Or is your issue not with OS upgrades themselves, but with the fact that newer versions of Apple apps USE those new OS features? They're there to be used, I say--and it makes them better products. The Safari of today really does work differently than under Jaguar. Meanwhile, other free options exist. Firefox runs in 10.1! But not everything can be free.

Besides, there have only been TWO paid upgrades to OS X ever! Jaguar and Panther. That's pretty good for a new (therefore fast-evolving) OS. The early updates were free--as they should have been--because they improved on big gaps in the early OS.

By the way, here's the cycle of when you paid if you bought every upgrade:

10.0 Cheeta
...17 months...
10.2 Jaguar (first paid upgrade)
...14 months...
10.3 Panther (second paid upgrade)
....15 months in January, probably months longer...
Tiger
....even longer before the next one...

So saying that we pay yearly COULD be true in a sense, depending on WHEN you upgraded exactly. But it's also misleading. All paid OS X upgrades have been MORE than 12 months apart. All two of them.

So I understand where you're coming from--fast improvement is great, but does have SOME downsides. But I wanted to put that in perspective.

Timelessblur

Dec 11, 2004, 11:49 AM

remember apple small users base make it a lot easier for them to completely dump there plateform and move to something else. The bigger you base is the harder it is to complete dump backwards capibilitly. MS raw size is the thing that hurting it the most right now because they need to make sure everything works from the previos OSs.

Btw Windows 2000 and later are NOT Dos base. windows 98 was the last OS that from MS that ran on top of DOS. windows ME was the last of the line that was Dos Based. when they went to the NT line the dumps the Dos and just emulated Dos. Even in windows XP Dos programs will still work. all windows 95 programs work I just have to tell the computer what OS mod to run the program in and it works fine.

Now lets say apple had the market share MS did before OSX came out. I can promise you they OSX would not be out and it would of be held back by the fact that it not backwards capitble.

AmigoMac

Dec 11, 2004, 11:52 AM

Let's plot the likely tracks of Apple and Microsoft's next 5 upcoming OS releases:

Apple:
10.4 - Jan '05 - Jun '05
10.5 - Jul '06 - Dec '06
10.6 - Jan '08 - Jun '08
10.7 - Jul '09 - Dec '09
10.8 - Jan '11 - Jun '11

Microsoft:

Longhorn - Jan '06 - Dec '06
Blackcomb - Jan '10 - Dec '12
??? - ???
??? - ???
??? - ???

This means, for the next OS update, at best, we'll have jumped through 10.4 and moved on to 10.5 when Longhorn is released. At worst, Tiger still beats Longhorn, but only by 6 months.

For the OS update after that, at best, we'll be on 10.8 almost two years before Blackcomb arrives, anxiously awaiting 10.9. At worst, we'll have been on 10.7 for a little over a year before the arrival of Blackcomb, and 10.8 will just be getting started.

If my numbers don't seem right, please let me know what's wrong or unreasonable.

Apple said already that they will slow down the OS releases... let's say from 10.4 on, every release will take a while, 2.5 years? 3? ... do the math and by that time MS should be talking about the replacement of Longhorn...

but, of course, if MS continues with that development rate... :rolleyes: we will be seeing longhorn promotion ads ...

... don't be that strict , there is a ( :D ) at the end of the line ... man, :rolleyes:

wrldwzrd89

Dec 11, 2004, 01:04 PM

Apple said already that they will slow down the OS releases... let's say from 10.4 on, every release will take a while, 2.5 years? 3? ... do the math and by that time MS should be talking about the replacement of Longhorn...

but, of course, if MS continues with that development rate... :rolleyes: we will be seeing longhorn promotion ads ...

... don't be that strict , there is a ( :D ) at the end of the line ... man, :rolleyes:
:D

My numbers may be a little off, but who knows if Apple will decrease the pace by just a little each time or slow down then remain steady or what. I predict path #2, hence my numbers.

Hm, Longhorn promotion ads... :rolleyes:

rendezvouscp

Dec 11, 2004, 01:27 PM

Riiiiiiight. You've been taking too many Happy Pills.

Pigs will fly
Hell will freeze over
Satan will be kissing God's feet.

:cool:

Um, hasn't hell already frozen over?
-Chase

wrldwzrd89

Dec 11, 2004, 02:06 PM

Double standards.

People took the piss out of microsoft because of the nearly releases - i.e., 98, 98SE, Me.

What have apple done? Yep, the same, Yearly releases and ppl actually praise apple for it.

I realise that OSX is a new OS and required time to Mature ; panther brings us this ( less a decent implementation samba front end etc ) but all in all, yearly OS releases is NOT the way to go.

Personally am so glad apple are going to take more time about releases new OSes because, really, this could not continue. There is only a period of time that you can try to sell yearly OSes. IMO, that time has gone.

I like, probably, other people, have got fed up of buying yearly OSX releases . Yes, I know I don't have to buy them, BUT, BUT, the latest apple produced software will NOT run on older OSXs - take Safari ( Panther Safari is so much better than Jaguar which would crash regularly) , iPhoto, iMovie etc amongst other software that take advantage of Panther features.

Some people like double standards a lot.

When Apple release Tiger there will be aspects of Spotlight that could be improved. This is a first stab. microsoft are trying an 'all - in - one' approach. Sometimes an all or nothing approach in software is not a good idea - i.e., too complex. Instead you need to build incrementally which makes building the solution / software vastly simpler and much less risky ( small steps, not one giant leap) This is what Apple is doing with spotlight probably, and definitely with building up OSX - from 10.0 to Panther.
That's interesting Stella - you bring up a valid point. I agree with Apple's plans as far as future releases of Mac OS X are concerned - more time means better planning and proper testing to weed out the major bugs and most of the minor bugs.

dashiel

Dec 11, 2004, 02:43 PM

Sorry I disagree: OSX 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 were also incremental updates. I suppose its the definition of 'Incremental' we are indifference about.

There is no reason why MS could have improved the performance of each of those three above windows ; however they chose not to, in fact each got slower, as you probably well know.

Apple put a lot more work in to each version of OSX than microsoft did between 98, 98ME ( a bug fixed 98 ) and ME.

that's why it's not a double standard and why you're comparing apples to oranges. on a semantic level 10.1 = windows 98 and 10.2 = windows 98SE and 10.3 = windows ME. on a practical level though they are worlds apart.

people complained not because microsoft was releasing OS updates rapidly, but because those updates while costing full price, offered very little in the way of value.

broken_keyboard

Dec 11, 2004, 06:32 PM

Apple said already that they will slow down the OS releases... let's say from 10.4 on, every release will take a while, 2.5 years? 3? ...

Yes they have said that, but maybe they should take the opposite approach: keep the same release schedule but just include less stuff. One gets the feeling with Tiger that they almost bit off more than they could chew and tried to change too much stuff at once.

"Small moves Ellie, small moves..."

sjk

Dec 11, 2004, 06:39 PM

What exactly are they trying to achieve with WinFS? Or does anybody really now? Or is it very hush, hush?WinFS 101: Introducing the New Windows File System (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwinfs/html/winfs03112004.asp)

billyboy

Dec 12, 2004, 05:34 AM

WinFS 101: Introducing the New Windows File System (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwinfs/html/winfs03112004.asp)

How likely is it that programmers for Windows will get frustrated enough by the time lags in WinFS that they will turn their attention to write programmes for Tiger which will already offer an outlet for their creativity via the core services and the such like - options that are only being promised by MS Longhorn for sometime maybe never?

It would add kudos to Apple with a welter of new programmes for the OSX platform, but there could be a few backwards steps in 3rd party software development as the Windows mindset infiltrates for a while - until users educate the new programmers into the Mac way of thinking by only using apps that are neat and efficient and pretty on the eye.

wrldwzrd89

Dec 12, 2004, 06:17 AM

How likely is it that programmers for Windows will get frustrated enough by the time lags in WinFS that they will turn their attention to write programmes for Tiger which will already offer an outlet for their creativity via the core services and the such like - options that are only being promised by MS Longhorn for sometime maybe never?

It would add kudos to Apple with a welter of new programmes for the OSX platform, but there could be a few backwards steps in 3rd party software development as the Windows mindset infiltrates for a while - until users educate the new programmers into the Mac way of thinking by only using apps that are neat and efficient and pretty on the eye.
Here's my thoughts on this matter:

Developers will only develop software for platforms they're prepared to develop for (they're familiar with, have the necessary development tools, and know what's expected). This means that those developers that focus on Windows but also develop Mac software will most likely jump on Tiger, updating their Mac programs to take advantage of it and porting Windows applications that could take advantage of Tiger's features. Developers ill-equipped for Mac software development will need to evaluate the Mac platform first before beginning development for Tiger - I'd say we'll capture 0-10% of these developers.

Timelessblur

Dec 12, 2004, 10:25 AM

How likely is it that programmers for Windows will get frustrated enough by the time lags in WinFS that they will turn their attention to write programmes for Tiger which will already offer an outlet for their creativity via the core services and the such like - options that are only being promised by MS Longhorn for sometime maybe never?

It would add kudos to Apple with a welter of new programmes for the OSX platform, but there could be a few backwards steps in 3rd party software development as the Windows mindset infiltrates for a while - until users educate the new programmers into the Mac way of thinking by only using apps that are neat and efficient and pretty on the eye.

also rememeber that delevper want to make money off the software they make. That take sell larger numbers of there software and lets lets see here Apples dont have numbers windows on the other had has an extermly large user base to make money off of. Also I dont think it is fair to start saying that winFS is going to suck before it even comes out. From what I am reading and have read about it, has a huge amont of protention more so that Apple spotlight. Either way I dont see apple gaining any new delevpers from windows and windows loosing some. there is just not money in just writing software for macs.

iMeowbot

Dec 12, 2004, 11:22 AM

How likely is it that programmers for Windows will get frustrated enough by the time lags in WinFS that they will turn their attention to write programmes for Tiger which will already offer an outlet for their creativity via the core services and the such like - options that are only being promised by MS Longhorn for sometime maybe never?
That kind of thing would only play out well for a few kinds of applications, the ones where it would make sense to dedicate a machine to running them. You can look at some of the software companies Apple have been buying up to get a general idea of what those might be.

In general, people looking to make money have to look at who the people are who will probably buy the program, and what they are running. The programming environment alone won't mean much if the software is something that isn't going to interest many Mac users.

One place where people can make a comfortable income from OS X is to fill in the gaps that Windows-only vendors overlook.

There is also the semi-mythical "killer app", a program so wonderful that it would sway people to buy a computer just to run it. There aren't many of those.

dejo

Dec 13, 2004, 12:56 AM

also rememeber that delevper want to make money off the software they make.

Tell that to all those open-source programmers out there...

nagromme

Dec 13, 2004, 02:36 AM

If it's true the Apple's free dev tools (XCode etc.) make it faster/easier/cheaper to develop an app for Mac than for Windows, then that's a factor too. And it's certainly less expensive to SUPPORT and test an app for Mac vs. Windows. So selling to a smaller market can be worth it, if your costs to do so are also lower. (Or, similarly, if you're porting, the cost to port will often be only a fraction of the original app's cost.)

And there's no shortage of UNIX developers out there who would be more comfortable with Darwin than Windows.