PDA

View Full Version : New Windows: Longhorn


shadowfax0
Oct 21, 2002, 08:53 PM
Just takin a gander at Ars Technica, and someone has some screen shots of the new version of WinXP, code named "Longhorn". Don't worry, won't be here 'til '05

http://www.tech-critic.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=358&mode=&order=0&thold=0

vniow
Oct 21, 2002, 09:18 PM
http://www.rx7club.com/forum/images/smilies/puke.gif

What is MS's obsession with blue?
Blue Dcreens of Death, XP's horrendous attempt at Aqua, blue blue blue.
I mean I like blue, but not THAT much.
I was hoping that XP was sort of a trial or something, but now I see that they're keeping with the theme, blech.
There's three different 'themes' that come with XP, default (blue), olive green http://www.rx7club.com/forum/images/smilies/puke.gif and silver, which isn't that bad.
Jeeze MS, at least somewhat consider people's opinions before you release it, you made that mistake once with XP don't repeat it.
If you're going to control 95% of the world's desktops, at least make it look good. Blech.

Hemingray
Oct 21, 2002, 09:19 PM
Wow, if that ain't the most blatant rip-off of OS X I dunno what is... oh well! This is good, because it means Apple will have to do something even better. :cool:

SilvorX
Oct 21, 2002, 09:22 PM
meh, if its supposed to be out in '05, udd expect it to be alot different looking..but then again theyre gonna be redesigning the ui alot....

mac15
Oct 21, 2002, 10:03 PM
looks ok, now, needs refining, I wish we could see some new features, not refined ones

SilvorX
Oct 21, 2002, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by mac15
looks ok, now, needs refining, I wish we could see some new features, not refined ones
lol "we could see some new features"
well thats pretty new ui-ish concidering this is a REALLLLLY early build of longhorn, about this stage of xp, it still had the same ui as win 2k (with win 2k about screen)

8thDegreeSavage
Oct 21, 2002, 11:44 PM
Looks like total sheeeite to me.:D

sparkleytone
Oct 21, 2002, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by SilvorX

lol "we could see some new features"
well thats pretty new ui-ish concidering this is a REALLLLLY early build of longhorn, about this stage of xp, it still had the same ui as win 2k (with win 2k about screen)

in fact, the UI for XP wasnt settled on until a measly 6 months before GM, so this POS should go through many evolutions of plagiarised UI in order to stay current with MacOS.

madamimadam
Oct 22, 2002, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by SilvorX

lol "we could see some new features"
well thats pretty new ui-ish concidering this is a REALLLLLY early build of longhorn, about this stage of xp, it still had the same ui as win 2k (with win 2k about screen)

It was the same deal with MacOS X

You will all remember OS X.0 Server.... it was nothing but a glorified MacOS9.

madamimadam
Oct 22, 2002, 12:52 AM
I loved the following 2 posts:

By MacUser:

It's gonna make me feel right at home. Those rounded windows, the dropshadows under the menus, the nice stripes in the display properties window, heck: even the duck login avatar and the "lovely new picture" in My Documents: it's my default desktop picture. And I just can't stop wanking to my clock. Burn DVD? sure! Haven't used CD's to back up my huge stuff for over a year now.
No need to tell you just how much seeing these screenshots consolidates my world view. No need to tell you what inspired this 'new' look. Hey! No need to wait for LongPorn!
get a Mac today and enjoy all of the above. And you know what? burning a DVD actually works. every time.
want to see what I'm talking about? see this image:
http://www.geocities.com/noms4me/macdesktop.jpeg

By Shaurz:

Right on mate. I'm switching to OS X as soon as I can.

I mean it's the coolest looking thing ever, and it runs on BSD! How can you get better than that??? Well, three buttoned mouse...

But I'm a cheapskate. My PC cost £300 to build, and you know how much Windows cost me, wink wink. Any chance of building a custom PPC system that would run Mac OS X?


You guys rock :)

Saying this, I do not know why shaurz is so anti-XP. They were speaking in a previous post about how they use the "classic" theme in XP but, personally, I would take the XP theme over the classic theme anyday if it was not so bloody slow under VPC.

Switcher2001
Oct 22, 2002, 01:15 AM
I'm surprised no one yet commented on this little quotation, but maybe that's because no one scrolled down to the bottom of the page.

PS : heres a quote from Pauls site that amused us particularly "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 know that this is not necessarily the opinion of the writers; in fact, they say that this quotation from "Pauls site" "amused" them. But still, it makes no sense. For one thing, I don't see how OS X's interface is dated, and for another, I don't see how the OS depicted in those screen shots look anything less like a "desktop" than OS X.

BTW, what size screen are these guys writing this site for? Anyone with an Apple HD Cinema Display able to read the whole page without scrolling horizontally? ;)

madamimadam
Oct 22, 2002, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Switcher2001
I know that this is not necessarily the opinion of the writers; in fact, they say that this quotation from "Pauls site" "amused" them. But still, it makes no sense. For one thing, I don't see how OS X's interface is dated, and for another, I don't see how the OS depicted in those screen shots look anything less like a "desktop" than OS X.

I think they are refering to the way you keep your files and so forth on the desktop. In OS X this is an option since so many people compained about the fact that their HDs were not there in front of them. MS, on the other hand, just removed them and forced people to use the "Start" menu.

BTW, what size screen are these guys writing this site for? Anyone with an Apple HD Cinema Display able to read the whole page without scrolling horizontally? ;)

I had to take the page to total full screen but my 17" LCD JUST made it.

They must be in the 1100s or something.

davidc2182
Oct 22, 2002, 02:03 AM
since i don't think anyone here would care about this question i'm going to ask it anyway, anyone know how i can get my hands on longhorn? i'm using xp and i would like to use microsloths latest and greatest just to crash the bugger!

madamimadam
Oct 22, 2002, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by davidc2182
since i don't think anyone here would care about this question i'm going to ask it anyway, anyone know how i can get my hands on longhorn? i'm using xp and i would like to use microsloths latest and greatest just to crash the bugger!

If you find out, I would be interested to know

szark
Oct 22, 2002, 05:08 AM
"Task-based" usually means an attempt to perform actions based on what you want to do, not on what program you need to load.

In the photos shown, this would be indicated best in the second to last screenshot, of the "My Pictures" folder. When viewing the folder in Explorer, it gives you a menu (at the top left) allowing you to "View as a slide show," "Order prints online," etc.

Instead of loading a program such as iPhoto, you can perform these tasks "directly" from Explorer without worrying about what program you need to run. Of course, it is loading another program to run those tasks, but the user doesn't need to know that (in a task-based system).

edesignuk
Oct 22, 2002, 07:47 AM
The pics have been pulled!
Image removed for legal matters
hehehehe :D

Raiden
Oct 22, 2002, 09:08 AM
Darn. Any other places where I can see those pics? Any1 save them? thanks.

SilvorX
Oct 22, 2002, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by sparkleytone


in fact, the UI for XP wasnt settled on until a measly 6 months before GM, so this POS should go through many evolutions of plagiarised UI in order to stay current with MacOS.
loli know that, i can remember talking to one of the people who got to beta test xp in its EARLY builds...and this was back in '00 btw lol, and he was saying it was really fast...hmmm what happened since then :P
n i was looking on a windows website that featured windows screenshots over the builds and the "watercolor" look was more popular with ppl who theme their xp than luna..



It was the same deal with MacOS X

You will all remember OS X.0 Server.... it was nothing but a glorified MacOS9.
ya i kno lol, i was posting some early screenies a few weeks ago of osx server when it was in its old school days lol

and actually the server is down...they werent taken off the site...a windows site i go to posted bout the site being down...

SilvorX
Oct 22, 2002, 09:40 AM
i'll start posting a few screenies of the yucky longhorn

http://members.lycos.co.uk/silvorgold/3.gif

http://members.lycos.co.uk/silvorgold/4.gif

http://members.lycos.co.uk/silvorgold/7.gif

groovebuster
Oct 22, 2002, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by szark
"Task-based" usually means an attempt to perform actions based on what you want to do, not on what program you need to load.

In the photos shown, this would be indicated best in the second to last screenshot, of the "My Pictures" folder. When viewing the folder in Explorer, it gives you a menu (at the top left) allowing you to "View as a slide show," "Order prints online," etc.

Instead of loading a program such as iPhoto, you can perform these tasks "directly" from Explorer without worrying about what program you need to run. Of course, it is loading another program to run those tasks, but the user doesn't need to know that (in a task-based system).

Reminds me a little bit of OpenDoc, but just approaching from the other side...

I doubt that this could be reall useful for the user. Actually you are never aware which program you are using for what and Joe Sixpack would be totally confused what he could do with the machine or not... "Why do I have to install a proggy for that? I thought Windows can do that anyway, so that at my neighbours PC!"

Someone was saying that he doesn't know why the UI of MacOS X isn't outdated...

Well, the answer is simple. Maybe they made it look cool, but the functionailty and concept is ancient meanwhile. A "2-D" window system dates back to the 70's. They added a few things over the years here and there, but in particular they are circling around themselves since a long time. I can't believe that the current concept fur the Computer UI can't be topped, considering the improved capabilities of current hardware. It's like thinking the world is flat, until they find out it's not... We are blind for new ideas because we are too used to the way computers are these days.
When we can't imagine something it doesn't mean it isn't possible...

I wish they would try a really different approach to the UI and revolutionize the way you use computers... The current experience is OK, but I am sure there are ways to make it way more ergonomic.

So far MacOS X is "just" a MacOS 9 in a new dress (regarding the UI)... No innovation at all!

groovebuster

FattyMembrane
Oct 22, 2002, 11:22 AM
OpenDoc was the greatest advancement in application/document design EVER CREATED! i dont say this lightly, but it was incredibly stupid of apple to kill it. i doubt ms could come up with anything like opendoc (apple/ibm still hold all the patents anyway) and although screenshots don't give away much about the features of a system, i doubt that windows will have anything extrordinary. as far as "task-based" systems go, have you ever seen the dancing paperclip? that's task based computing. the ms definition of task based means abstracting the user as far as possible from the workings of the system, which is not a bad idea if you just need to surf the web and type papers, but will get in the way if you need to do anything serious.

i absolutely agree with groovebuster about the sore need for a new way of thinking about computer interfaces. it seems that the tech industry has been quite slackard about the whole issue. i think that a 2-D screen is the way to go for logistical/speed purposes, but window/icon/menu/mouse has been around for far too long with no change.

p.s. look at the "change visual preferences for your pc" window in one of those screenshots. now open up your system prefs app and compare the screen real estate and how many other things you can do with sysprefs. ms seriously needs to work on streamlining the whole thing

Switcher2001
Oct 22, 2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster

Someone was saying that he doesn't know why the UI of MacOS X isn't outdated...

Well, the answer is simple. Maybe they made it look cool, but the functionailty and concept is ancient meanwhile. A "2-D" window system dates back to the 70's. They added a few things over the years here and there, but in particular they are circling around themselves since a long time. I can't believe that the current concept fur the Computer UI can't be topped, considering the improved capabilities of current hardware. It's like thinking the world is flat, until they find out it's not... We are blind for new ideas because we are too used to the way computers are these days.
When we can't imagine something it doesn't mean it isn't possible...

I wish they would try a really different approach to the UI and revolutionize the way you use computers... The current experience is OK, but I am sure there are ways to make it way more ergonomic.

So far MacOS X is "just" a MacOS 9 in a new dress (regarding the UI)... No innovation at all!

groovebuster

Well, I know what you mean, because I have wondered the same thing to myself, but I also wonder what the limits are to the practicality of a UI radically different from what we have.

I'm thinking back to movies I've seen in which the UI's were nothing like anything I've ever seen, and I don't know that I would enjoy using computers like that.

For instance, in Hackers (I think it was, or maybe Matrix), they showed the character searching on the Internet or on his hard drive, and there was this montage of articles from newspapers, magazines, etc., just jumping up to the front of the screen like so many different colors and shapes in a computer display test. That looks neat in the movies, but I wouldn't want that on my computer. It would make no sense and be totally impractical. Then there's Minority Report, in which you have to put on these special gloves with electronic gadgets on them and perform some kind of Tai Chi routine — standing up and waving your arms all over the place — to look through pictures and videos. Again, it looks dramatic in the movies, but I don't see myself doing that anytime soon, especially not if I'm using my laptop in bed, or on the bus, train, plane, at school. I mean, sure, we could use more exercise, and a sedentary lifestyle is a factor in disease, but there's just not enough room on a plane to do Tai Chi just to interface with your computer!

And then there's the question of the limits of practicality in industrial design. Sure, I've sometimes wondered why we can't break out of the whole rectangular theme we've got going, too. But what would be the alternative? A round display with round windows? You lose to much prime real estate when you make spaces round. Same with triangular or any other shape. The best shape for archtectural spaces and documents (be they text, picture, or video) is rectangular.

And what's so great about 3D? Life is 3D, I know, but I don't expect my computer's UI to be. One of the benefits of a computer is that it takes the three-dimensional world and compresses it into two dimensions. I've read where MS said they were going to make the UI like an office metaphor, where you could "walk through" your computer, go to a file cabinet, pull a drawer, pull out a document… please! If I wanted to go to that much trouble, I may as well be working with parchment and quill. I get plenty of 3D in the real world. I'm perfectly happy to have a 2D computer UI. I once tried a 3D UI for OS X (http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=13904&db=mac), and I thought it was a waste of time. I do admire the effort, though, and I don't doubt that there might be a better way to interact with a computer than what we have today. All I'm saying is: don't knock it just because it's old. Sometimes what's old is still around today because it's "tried & true." :cool:

Wash!!
Oct 22, 2002, 11:45 AM
I saw the picts

no matter how you look at it still winblows ***** XP-2000-95-98 no matter how you call it is ***** and still a bad copy of OS X or OS 9

Cheers:D

FattyMembrane
Oct 22, 2002, 11:46 AM
i've been checking out some other longhorn screenshots, but have been unable to see any key new features aside from window translucency and a new filesystem that supports metadata (these advances are simply amazing, i can't wait until we get stuff like this in osx). but there is one thing that i have found troubling for a while and since this is kind of a windows thread, i'll ask it here.

we're all familiar with the WINE project that allows windows apps to run in linux (check out www.lindows.com) and that xp can run many windows 95 apps, even though the systems are pretty different. why then do we have to run classic apps in emulation? i don't know enought about programming to speculate on the reasons, so feel free to shoot me down and label me an idiot. :D

FattyMembrane
Oct 22, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by FattyMembrane
i've been checking out some other longhorn screenshots, but have been unable to see any key new features aside from window translucency and a new filesystem that supports metadata (these advances are simply amazing, i can't wait until we get stuff like this in osx). but there is one thing that i have found troubling for a while and since this is kind of a windows thread, i'll ask it here.

we're all familiar with the WINE project that allows windows apps to run in linux (check out www.lindows.com) and that xp can run many windows 95 apps, even though the systems are pretty different. why then do we have to run classic apps in emulation? i don't know enought about programming to speculate on the reasons, so feel free to shoot me down and label me an idiot. :D

edit: check out this article i found about longhorn:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/19338.html
then check out the responses on the messageboard, keeping in mind that these are WINDOWs users
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/board/mboard.pl?board=nfntalkback&thread=5495&id=5683&display=1#message_5683

groovebuster
Oct 22, 2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Switcher2001
All I'm saying is: don't knock it just because it's old. Sometimes what's old is still around today because it's "tried & true." :cool:

All I was saying was, that there must be new approaches to use a computer. With 2-D I meant more the way the UI works and not to have a 3-D graphical interface in particular.

I still think that we are just stuck in our way of thinking about using computers because we are used to the way they interact with us and provide their funtionality... It blocks our imagination to think of something new or better,

What I mean is more like the step in ancient times to draw paintings with perspectives and aligments, later on even with multiple aligments to put more information into the painting than normally would be possible if it would be "accurate". I didn't mean to do holographs with oil-color. ;)

groovebuster

vniow
Oct 22, 2002, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by FattyMembrane


we're all familiar with the WINE project that allows windows apps to run in linux (check out www.lindows.com) and that xp can run many windows 95 apps, even though the systems are pretty different. why then do we have to run classic apps in emulation? i don't know enought about programming to speculate on the reasons, so feel free to shoot me down and label me an idiot. :D

edit: check out this article i found about longhorn:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/19338.html
then check out the responses on the messageboard, keeping in mind that these are WINDOWs users
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/board/mboard.pl?board=nfntalkback&thread=5495&id=5683&display=1#message_5683


Ah, yes, the WINE (http://www.winehq.com) project.
I'm no programmer either but since you mentioned Lindows and WINE in the same sentence, I feel compelled to post.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/smiley.gif

WINE is never going to run all Windows programs, mainly cuz you don't have 200 of MS's 'best' engineers working on it.

The reason Lindows said at first it could also run Windows apps is to get media attention.

You make a Linux distro. Who cares?
You make a Linux distro that will run Windows apps. Then you get some hype.

You name your Linux distro.
You name your Linux distro a name that rhymes with -indows and gets sued by the other companiy whose product rhymes with -indows, you get even more media attention.

You announce that your product is being sold in the US's biggest retailer, you get more attention.

It's called marketing and so far, Lindows has done a great job of it.
It's one of those things that needs to be copied by other Linux distros if they want half a chance of getting any hold in the smal' to medium business department.

Oh and another reason why they backed off their claim of running Windows apps is one of their partners in that backed out for undisclosed reasons.

WINE by itself is okay, hardly ever do you get the full program running right and it also helps if you install the app on your Windows parition first and then run it through WINE.

As for your origional question:

why then do we have to run classic apps in emulation?

I guess cuz it's the only way.
XP has this 'compatibility mode' which is sort of an emulator, Lindows uses WINE, which is definately an emulator, and in OSX, you have to run Classic.

OSX is an entirely different OS then OS9,Just like Windows is an entirely different OS than OSX, I think that would be the reason why you have to go the emulation route.
They're just not backwards compatible, I imagine.

i don't know enought about programming to speculate on the reasons, so feel free to shoot me down and label me an idiot.:D

Me too, feel free to shoot me down too.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/ppphhht.gif
At least I tried!

MacCoaster
Nov 10, 2002, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
in fact, the UI for XP wasnt settled on until a measly 6 months before GM, so this POS should go through many evolutions of plagiarised UI in order to stay current with MacOS.
And the UI for Mac OS isn't plagiarised? Please!

Xerox PARC is where the GUI all came about to be! Apple simply stole their idea and popularized it.

ulyssesdraco
Nov 10, 2002, 11:30 PM
wow... longhorn screenshots ey..... it looks so...so...so... not done yet......

madamimadam
Nov 10, 2002, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster

And the UI for Mac OS isn't plagiarised? Please!

Xerox PARC is where the GUI all came about to be! Apple simply stole their idea and popularized it.

Oh, come on, that path has been walked far too many times.

The original GUI was "stolen" (Xerox gave it to them) but the GUI has been worked on so much that it barely looks similar. While it still holds on to common concepts so as not to confuse people as well as not recreating the wheel, can you seriously say that MacOSX is navigated like a Xerox box?

AlejandroGonzo
Nov 11, 2002, 12:29 AM
Look at the picture in display properties for themes. That is straight out of the Mac OS X Beach Screen Saver. THE EXACT SAME PICTURE!

(I thought it was funny.)

Fukui
Nov 11, 2002, 02:51 AM
Look at the picture in display properties for themes. That is straight out of the Mac OS X Beach Screen Saver. THE EXACT SAME PICTURE!

(I thought it was funny.)

No *****...
If you ever saw wixp extra-pack or whatever they call it, it has additional screensavers and desktop pics many of which are from the screensavers beach, space and forest.

I like thier new stripe theme too.:o

I just wish jobs would release X for PC's just to shut MS up!

Fukui
Nov 11, 2002, 02:54 AM
...And judging from the pictures, if that is thier " from the ground up" re-write of the OS, that sucks...

Its more like ground-up with eXtra-craP

benixau
Nov 11, 2002, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Fukui
...And judging from the pictures, if that is thier " from the ground up" re-write of the OS, that sucks...

Its more like ground-up with eXtra-craP

No no no no no!

MS is just copying what apple did. Apple got a lot of media attention by saying that they had started with a clean slate for OSX. MS thinks that they can do the same. The problem is that where Appple did start with a clean slate, MS is just addding more UI kiddy features to the NT kernel. Besides, after spending so much time and money on moving everyone to a multimedia friendly NT kernel, why would they scrap it all except for media attention.

like they need it .....

BenderBot1138
Nov 11, 2002, 04:06 AM
Weeeeelllll doggy! That sure looks like a load of "bull", but tain't "longhorns" steers?

Sorry, judges ruling on this one... the cowboy used two hands on the rope on this ride...

Gaz
Nov 11, 2002, 04:46 AM
Since no one else has said it but it looks like the images are fakes.

It's most likely that the UI hasn't been designed yet and even if it has it will be designed separately from the main system. Imagine trying to fix bugs if you don't know if the error comes from the system or UI.

Anyway there are lots more tale tale signs that it's a fake.

BenderBot1138
Nov 11, 2002, 05:17 AM
Yea, the clock is a little too close to a quick keys icon.

GoldenFury
Nov 12, 2002, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by edvniow



Ah, yes, the WINE (http://www.winehq.com) project.
I'm no programmer either but since you mentioned Lindows and WINE in the same sentence, I feel compelled to post.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/smiley.gif

WINE is never going to run all Windows programs, mainly cuz you don't have 200 of MS's 'best' engineers working on it.

The reason Lindows said at first it could also run Windows apps is to get media attention.

You make a Linux distro. Who cares?
You make a Linux distro that will run Windows apps. Then you get some hype.

You name your Linux distro.
You name your Linux distro a name that rhymes with -indows and gets sued by the other companiy whose product rhymes with -indows, you get even more media attention.

You announce that your product is being sold in the US's biggest retailer, you get more attention.

It's called marketing and so far, Lindows has done a great job of it.
It's one of those things that needs to be copied by other Linux distros if they want half a chance of getting any hold in the smal' to medium business department.

Oh and another reason why they backed off their claim of running Windows apps is one of their partners in that backed out for undisclosed reasons.

WINE by itself is okay, hardly ever do you get the full program running right and it also helps if you install the app on your Windows parition first and then run it through WINE.

As for your origional question:



I guess cuz it's the only way.
XP has this 'compatibility mode' which is sort of an emulator, Lindows uses WINE, which is definately an emulator, and in OSX, you have to run Classic.

OSX is an entirely different OS then OS9,Just like Windows is an entirely different OS than OSX, I think that would be the reason why you have to go the emulation route.
They're just not backwards compatible, I imagine.



Me too, feel free to shoot me down too.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/ppphhht.gif
At least I tried!


And since I AM a programmer i too feel compelled to post.
WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR. thats what WINE stands for.
WINE doesnt emulate anything, it just allows Windows programs to access the proper libraries under Linux.
And Linux is an eniterly different OS then Windows, yet it runs on teh same processor and using a few library abstraction techniques you can run windows programs on it. please dont imagine, they run on teh same hardware, if thats the case then anything is possible. MS does NOT have 200 engineers working on programming windows, they may have 200 engineers helping out with the design elements, but not actual programming.
and those colors are annoying, so are the small fonts..........

GoldenFury
Nov 12, 2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by benixau


No no no no no!

MS is just copying what apple did. Apple got a lot of media attention by saying that they had started with a clean slate for OSX. MS thinks that they can do the same. The problem is that where Appple did start with a clean slate, MS is just addding more UI kiddy features to the NT kernel. Besides, after spending so much time and money on moving everyone to a multimedia friendly NT kernel, why would they scrap it all except for media attention.

like they need it .....
And Apple added UI kiddy features to NextStep which was developed in the early 90's. your point???? NT is actually a newer kernel then the Mach-O Kernel that OSX uses.

madamimadam
Nov 12, 2002, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by GoldenFury

And Apple added UI kiddy features to NextStep which was developed in the early 90's. your point???? NT is actually a newer kernel then the Mach-O Kernel that OSX uses.

How do you figure... I thought NeXt was used as more of a learning curve than anything else. Kind of like Apple buying Emagic... they get the previous research and the people employed by Emagic who know how to make future drivers for X

trusted_content
Dec 6, 2002, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by GoldenFury

And since I AM a programmer i too feel compelled to post.
WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR. thats what WINE stands for.
WINE doesnt emulate anything, it just allows Windows programs to access the proper libraries under Linux.
And Linux is an eniterly different OS then Windows, yet it runs on teh same processor and using a few library abstraction techniques you can run windows programs on it. please dont imagine, they run on teh same hardware, if thats the case then anything is possible. MS does NOT have 200 engineers working on programming windows, they may have 200 engineers helping out with the design elements, but not actual programming.
and those colors are annoying, so are the small fonts..........

Classic is not an emulator in the technical sense either... when you load Classic, its like having two OSes running simultaneously, one of which exists solely inside a HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer). This is certainly more emulator than WINE, which just emulates the Win32API, but I doubt anything similar could be done with the Macintosh Toolbox (the classic API). The Toolbox needs full control of your box... or at least needs to be convinced that it has full control of your box (Classic).