If M$ is building a new OS from scratch for 2005 how will Apple compete? [Archive]

rainman::|:|

Jan 21, 2003, 02:24 PM

They can build all the OS's they want from scratch, they'll still do it wrong. They already copy Apple in everything, they've caught up from being 10 years behind to being around 2-3 now... but it still takes time to impliment these things... again, it will suck in new and interesting ways... and all it will do is drive users to Mac... you've seen the troubles Apple had in building an OS from scratch, but we're done with it now. So while the new MS OS will be completely unstable and unusable for the first year or two, OS X is here with unsurpassed stability and adabtability.

Let the switching continue :)

pnw

LethalWolfe

Jan 21, 2003, 02:33 PM

If MS is building a whole new OS from scartch i'd run away in fear. All though most of OS X growing pains were from slow software developers, which probably won't happen to MS, I think they are going to have a bitch of a time. And even though it's going to be a whole new OS you know it's gonna have legacy support out the @ss which is going really going to be interesting. I don't see MS doing the "Classic" type thing that Apple did w/9 & 10. I think they are gonna release one, huge ugly bloated OS that will take legacy hardware/software at first, but thru updates the first couple of years it will slowly shed legacy compatibility (kinda like how Jobs weened people off 9).

Lethal

Nipsy

Jan 21, 2003, 02:43 PM

M$ could build the world's greatest OS.

All they'd need to do is:
Fire their marketing department (the people who promise every 'feature' that comprises the bloat).
Fire thier management team (the folks who gave you M$ Wristwatch)
Scrap everything they've done thus far (the registry model, the .dll structure, etc.)
Hire away all of Apples UI team, as well as some usability and UI experts from the world of BE, Sony consumer electronics, HP imaging, and some other top notch divisions.

Give the Micro$oft dev team a clean slate, and let them use most of that 60BN to get it done, and M$ will give the world a secure fault free OS, with an elegant and intuitive UI, and an exstenible OS experience.

Although it has the money, and the talent, I can guarantee that the M$ monolith will shoot themselves in the foot and miss it again...

tcmcam

Jan 21, 2003, 02:51 PM

The Windows OS update in 2005 is called Longhorn. It's not from scratch. They are taking the Windows XP code base (the Windows NT multiprocessing kernel) and adding a boatload of features to it.

Unfortunately, they still have to be "backwards compatible" which means it will still have to have many, many features to support their older applications.

It is supposed to have a new UI model (more web like - e.g. forward, back).

But OS X is still very nice so Apple shouldn't worry. Apple's iLife apps still make it a unique (albeit niche) platform.

"former MS dude"

HasanDaddy

Jan 21, 2003, 02:57 PM

M$ is already built upon an unstable, non-unix, foundation

no update can fix that

Will they incorporate unix???

I doubt it - wouldn't it be tough to do it now!?!?

HasanDaddy

Jan 21, 2003, 02:58 PM

In addtion

the update will probably cost around $200

and if you buy one and install it in your friend's computer, your friend's computer will SHUT DOWN and be unusable

fock WinDoZe

mangoduck

Jan 21, 2003, 03:05 PM

the real question is, how will ms compete with apple? if they were to release a from-scratch os in 2005, it would still be about 5 years behind osx. more actually, because x comes from next, which comes from unix, which is the grandfather of modern systems.

starting a new os would be an admission that the pretty, smooth, friendly, stable, and almost perfect os they make xp out to be - is not. it wouldn't be wise anyway, because they've invested too much in the nt base to scrap it now.

but yes, whatever they do will include major bloat, foot-shooting, and lots of bugs. i'm not worried.

edit: spelling

Gelfin

Jan 21, 2003, 03:11 PM

Apple will compete very well with whatever new monstrosity Microsoft comes up with, because the reason MS is developing a new OS to start with is so that they can embed Digital Rights Management into the core of the OS. There's almost no way this can be anything but a disaster for them. The problems it will introduce will befuddle novices and infuriate advanced users. Microsoft will not be able to resist using it to engage in anticompetitive business practices (no other word processor will be able to import a Microsoft Word document, for instance). And thanks to the lunacy of the DMCA in the U.S., it will inevitably become a violation of federal law for you to simply get your computer to do what you want it to do in certain cases.

And Apple will be able to step up to the plate, yet again, and offer a computer that Just Works. And that's how they'll compete.

P-Worm

Jan 21, 2003, 03:53 PM

To me, the big reason that Apple will come out ahead is this:

Microsoft will have to make a from scratch OS eventually. It just can't handle the self destruction it is going through right now. When this happens they will have the same transition phase that Apple made with OS X.

That, my friends is the killer. You think WE had problems switching? Microsoft has a HUGE enstallment base, and not even close are they all running the newest OS. I worked for an engineering company last year that had all of their Windows machines running 2000 because the company does not trust XP. There are lots of people that work this way. Microsoft has dug them into a hole by having people count on their newest OS to be filled with bugs.

Also, there is no way that Microsoft will be able to make a working classic environment for the old apps. It can't even make a decent STAND ALONE OS

You think that the 970 will bring switchers? You ain't seen nothing yet. :)

P-Worm

000111one111000

Jan 21, 2003, 04:03 PM

The update in 2005 is not Longhorn. Longhorn has switched from being a full XP upgrade to being just a normal client release, similar to the way 98 was just 95 repackaged with better features, etc. etc. etc.

The completely new OS Microsoft is releasing in 2005 or 2006 is called Blackcomb.

There's an article out there somewhere stating this, but I've lost the link. I think it was on eWeek perhaps, but I don't really remember. A simple search on Google should turn it up if you really care to read it.

enoch

CrackedButter

Jan 21, 2003, 04:26 PM

Also if you guys didn't know this but the next windows release will break compatibility with older hardware. It will not install on current hardware at all, people will need NEW hardware just to use the OS, i think one of the requirements for the OS is for the hardware to have PCI Express which is 64bit and is not out yet.

I feel sorry for new XP users all the time, they buy it now not knowing they cannot upgrade the OS!

Glad i'm switching now!

FattyMembrane

Jan 21, 2003, 04:28 PM

building an os from scratch will undoubtedly (although this is microsoft) create a better system than 2000 or xp. looking at some of the new features that the next versions of windows are supposed to include, it is actually somewhat impressive for ms and i don't think that it's necessary to blindly bash the os (i'm trying to keep restrained, i probably hate ms more than is natural or healthy). what you have to remember is that apple will keep innovating as well (if you can call what ms does "innovation"), it will not just sit on it's haunches until 2006 and go "oops! looks like we'd better get to work!". if apple keeps the schedule it's been following so far, os x should be at about 10.5 by the time blackcomb is anywhere near ready for production and now that the "growing pains" have been covered in osx, i think that we can expect more focus on innovation and less on getting the os up to par.

you must also remember that microsoft will build fabulous features into it's new os, like palladium, and the new media shenanigans described in this thread
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18116

970+10.5-palladium=bliss

G4scott

Jan 21, 2003, 04:37 PM

It's funny.

This new OS will be entirely proprietary, yet everything in it will be called a standard, because microsoft makes it, and they can push it to the masses.

Everything else will then be seen as incompatible, and will become obsolete, because microsoft will put strict rights on their standards, making it next to impossible for others to adopt them.

Small, innovative startup companies will go out of business, and microsoft will grow.

Thousands of bugs will be found in the first week of its release.

There will be about 10 security patches in the first month of its release.

People will be forced to buy new computers to keep up with the OS.

People will loose entire hard drives due to installation errors.

And while all this is happening, Apple will keep on doing what they do. Innovate.

Apple will still be releasing small updates to their OS. The dual/quad 970's (and beyond) will be the powerhouses of personal computers...

And people will praise microsoft for putting out such a wonderful operating system, and shun Apple for doing what they've been doing the whole time: updating their OS little by little and continuing to innovate the computer industry one thing at a time.

We can only hope for a fatal flaw in microsoft's plans, like a bug that destroys hard drives, a security code that keeps you from keeping downloaded music, and your own legally obtained music on your computer, or the complete lack of HTML, HTTP, FTP, mp3, mpeg4, and every other standard out there that microsoft doesn't make.

We really need to do something soon. Microsoft continues to kill innovation by pushing their proprietary crap on users, instead of letting open source and other standards and applications compete fairly. If something's not done, we won't be able to browse the web without using a microsoft browser that really has no future plans for updates, just because people program their websites to work with microsoft only browsers. We'll all have to switch to .wmv file formats for our media, because nobody else will support mpeg, or even real player. We will be forced to use CRAP because microsoft decides that their $#!t is better for everyone, and even though it'll start with windows, it will inevitably float over to the Mac side of things. microsoft will make some cheap apps for the mac just to get by, or maybe even just forget about us, and screw over every ounce of innovation in the computer world.

microsoft IS a monopoly, microsoft WILL take advantage of you, microsoft DOES NOT play fair. They play stupid, hoping that people won't notice what they're doing, and when people find out and take it to the courts, they lie and cheat their way out of it. microsoft is very deceiving, and will get you if you're not careful.

You may think that my post is a bunch of hatred towards microsoft, and a bunch of opinions and myths found online, but if you manage to see what has been left in the wake of microsoft (if you can see past the curtains that they have erected to keep people out of their past), you will see that microsoft doesn't want to help you or any other consumer, but themselves...

G4scott

Jan 21, 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
970+10.5-palladium=bliss

You need to put that in your sig...

Jimong5

Jan 21, 2003, 04:52 PM

Ive noticed something... While Apple is working toward the Digital hub, Windows is slowly becoming a Web Browser. Imagine.. 2020, Windows will be the Mac Default Web browser, because thats all it is :D

medea

Jan 21, 2003, 07:59 PM

hmm, well in 2005 ms might just catch up to the current version of os x, and by that time we would have advanced even farther, kinda like how VPR Matrix finally brought out the first widescreen pc to catch up with the Tibooks brought out 2 years ago and now we bring out the 17" ones...oh and the 12". Don't worry about what Apple will bring out, we will always be ahead in innovation.

Chaszmyr

Jan 21, 2003, 08:36 PM

The next upgrade revision is indeed Longhorn, and is indeed based on WinXP... It is however all 3d rendered and stuff like OSX.

The big question is - based on the ugly OSs MS has made in the past - is it possible that they will be able to rival OSX in terms of aesthetic appeal of the OS?

yosoyjay

Jan 21, 2003, 09:23 PM

yosoyjay

Jan 21, 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
They can build all the OS's they want from scratch, they'll still do it wrong. They already copy Apple in everything, they've caught up from being 10 years behind to being around 2-3 now... but it still takes time to impliment these things... again, it will suck in new and interesting ways... and all it will do is drive users to Mac... you've seen the troubles Apple had in building an OS from scratch, but we're done with it now. So while the new MS OS will be completely unstable and unusable for the first year or two, OS X is here with unsurpassed stability and adabtability.

Let the switching continue :)

pnw

You are frightfully delusional.

janey

Jan 21, 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Chaszmyr
The next upgrade revision is indeed Longhorn, and is indeed based on WinXP... It is however all 3d rendered and stuff like OSX.

The big question is - based on the ugly OSs MS has made in the past - is it possible that they will be able to rival OSX in terms of aesthetic appeal of the OS?

For micro***** to become more successful than Apple, they need to fire Gates, Ballmer, their entire maketing department and whoever does the gooey thing for their operating systems.

There is no way Microsoft will be able to rival OS X in terms of aesthetic appeal because by the time they get to that point, Apple would have come out with some more great software. And if MS's new OS isn't backwards compatible, Windoze users will probably have to get new hardware and software...and they might as well switch at that point because you're going to buy a new computer anyway, why not buy a Mac?

Raiden

Jan 22, 2003, 08:55 AM

Look, I have no dought that MS will create a good OS from scratch by 2005. It will have some great features that rival jaguar, and of course tons of bloatware.

What I honestly hate is the big brother software and the digital copyright protection and tons of other MS "standards" that will be encorperated into the new OS. Not only that, but as someone pointed out, its impossible for MS to not build an OS w/o bugs and security holes. Security updates, patches, service packs, will all be the norm.

Not only that, but it would be impossible to create a "classic" type thing like OSX did. They would have to be able to emulate DOS, 95, 98, 2000, ME, NT, and even XP. Even if they attemt to pull that off wouldnt it have tons of inconpatable software and other problems?

I forsee that by the time 2006 roles around, companies will start to want to switch to a more stable, user friendly OS. Then the masses of people will want to do the same thing, and they will all come to OSX in hordes.

FattyMembrane

Jan 22, 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Raiden
I forsee that by the time 2006 roles around, companies will start to want to switch to a more stable, user friendly OS. Then the masses of people will want to do the same thing, and they will all come to OSX in hordes.
as i read more of these messages, i realize that as unfortunate as it sounds, there will not be a big switch to the mac for a long, long time (despite my earlier, more hopeful postings). i'm still not quite sure why people who can seem to tell the good from the bad in every other situation stick with windows, but they do. we're forgetting that windows has had all kinds of problems already, and people still stick with it (and are ever so impressed with the latest-greatest virus-magnet update). there are lots of people out there who say "well, i just use windows because it's compatable with everything". these are the same people who feel that it is absolutely necessary to drop half a grand on office because it's "the standard". palladium will come along, copy-protected cds will come along, flackbomb will come along, and these people will just accept it, because that's the routine.

nightowl

Jan 22, 2003, 10:05 PM

As a former PC user (still stuck with one at work :( ), I switched almost a year ago to Apple for one simple reason - stability in the OS and sick and tired of M$.

Until just a few years ago, I was one of those Apple bashers, trash talking the Mac, it's a toy, etc. OSX got me interested in the Mac, and ultimately is why I switched at home.

It's amazing at how easy, powerful, and gorgeous my Mac is. I've been a PC user for nearly 20 years, actually started on an Apple ][ in elementary school. I WAS the biggest PC cheeleader there was.

Heck, I've even convinced my best friend to switch, when he scrapes some money together to buy all new hardware.

To tie it all into this thread, I think that as M$ ticks more and more of us seasoned, experienced, knowledgable users off, we will be switching more and more. I didn't like some of the privacy "features" in XP, and I have yet to install it on any of my PCs.

Ahh, so glad there's no more "Blue Screen of Death" rearing its ugly head!

GeneR

Jan 23, 2003, 08:39 PM

I appreciate all the time and energy from everyone who's responded. It's always helpful to get a feeling for what might be in store for the future. Anyway, thanks again! May Good Fortune shine on all of you and you all wake up with 17" A|PBs under your pillows! (Me too! I'd like that too!) :D

Jimong5

Jan 23, 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by nightowl
As a former PC user (still stuck with one at work :( ), I switched almost a year ago to Apple for one simple reason - stability in the OS and sick and tired of M$.

Until just a few years ago, I was one of those Apple bashers, trash talking the Mac, it's a toy, etc. OSX got me interested in the Mac, and ultimately is why I switched at home.

It's amazing at how easy, powerful, and gorgeous my Mac is. I've been a PC user for nearly 20 years, actually started on an Apple ][ in elementary school. I WAS the biggest PC cheeleader there was.

Heck, I've even convinced my best friend to switch, when he scrapes some money together to buy all new hardware.

To tie it all into this thread, I think that as M$ ticks more and more of us seasoned, experienced, knowledgable users off, we will be switching more and more. I didn't like some of the privacy "features" in XP, and I have yet to install it on any of my PCs.

Ahh, so glad there's no more "Blue Screen of Death" rearing its ugly head!

Ditto For me!

Catfish_Man

Jan 23, 2003, 09:50 PM

Blackcomb does have some truly innovative features. IIRC the whole imaging model should be offloaded to the graphics card (Quartz SHOULD be doing the same thing by that time), it will have a database like filesystem for super fast BeOS-like searches, and probably a bunch of other things. On the other hand, it'll have a MS user interface (they OUGHT to be able to do it right, but so far they have a string of miserable failures), and it will have Palladium <gives the Palladium team the finger>.

Jimong5

Jan 23, 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Blackcomb does have some truly innovative features. IIRC the whole imaging model should be offloaded to the graphics card (Quartz SHOULD be doing the same thing by that time), it will have a database like filesystem for super fast BeOS-like searches, and probably a bunch of other things. On the other hand, it'll have a MS user interface (they OUGHT to be able to do it right, but so far they have a string of miserable failures), and it will have Palladium <gives the Palladium team the finger>.
See Quatz Extreme... Quartz is doing that NOW

MrMacMan

Jan 23, 2003, 11:22 PM

Windows users have 3 options on Microsofts latest 'anti-piracy' joke
1) M$ releases it, you get some software that takes anti-file sharing away
2) M$ release it: You never get another windows update. From there you can use you old hardware or get another solution to the problem (mac)
3) Use M$ anti piracy shiz and live with it, ha.

benixau

Jan 23, 2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
it will have a database like filesystem for super fast BeOS-like searches, and probably a bunch of other things.

this is apples only threat. really.

i have read it may be based on MySQL Server. BUT, if apple has everyone using only OS X and with very little classic it can classicize HFS and do the same.

They could even use BFS if they realy wanted. i am sure that Be wouldnt mind selling it.

Apple is going to stay alive for one reason above all others: us. we will buy our next somputer from apple, and our next and our next etc etc. apple ahs positioned itself so it only needs us to survive. The more we get the better it gets but we can survive.

besides the world still needs successful powerpoint presentations where the laptop plugs into the projector and just works.

long live apple. apple for life.

Les Kern

Jan 24, 2003, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by P-Worm
I worked for an engineering company last year that had all of their Windows machines running 2000 because the company does not trust XP. There are lots of people that work this way.

Indeed there is.
Apple might have done the single best thing they have ever done in developing OSX... and we all know the various reasons.

Microsoft, since it's the subject here, can do the same. Seems to me that 30BLN in cash can buy a lot of R+D, and if they truly hire some visionaries and get off that DLL-Death-Dance, they can change the world. But they won't, and folks will still buy it. Windows fixation by the general public continues to be the biggest mystery of my tecnological life.

Ajmbc

Jan 31, 2003, 06:47 PM

Microsoft is just a big company that copied off of other people to get started. They bought full use rights to DOS, they copied Apple's GUI, and Windows XP is just a sorry attempt to copy Apple's good looks and all-around greatness. I know of a few people who think Mac is to 'Simple' and 'You can't do anything on it', but when all of that copy-protection junk happens in 2005, they'll really be screwed. Windows IS just really one big web browser (I forgot who said that). Anyone who has ever worked on Windows, if IE crashes, then your desktop and open windows do too. The reason M$ has never been as good as Mac is because it runs off of DOS. DOS handles all of the core operations. M$ has based all of their OSes off of something they didn't even make! So, if Microsoft makes a new OS from scratch, then they'll have to put their minds to work.... because I can guarantee you they won't use another platform to base their OS on. I mean, M$ is this so-called superior company, they should be able to make a superior operating systems. I don't know if people will adjust to the copyright thing, though. What is their reasoning?

yzedf

Jan 31, 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Gelfin
Apple will compete very well with whatever new monstrosity Microsoft comes up with, because the reason MS is developing a new OS to start with is so that they can embed Digital Rights Management into the core of the OS. There's almost no way this can be anything but a disaster for them. The problems it will introduce will befuddle novices and infuriate advanced users. Microsoft will not be able to resist using it to engage in anticompetitive business practices (no other word processor will be able to import a Microsoft Word document, for instance). And thanks to the lunacy of the DMCA in the U.S., it will inevitably become a violation of federal law for you to simply get your computer to do what you want it to do in certain cases.

And Apple will be able to step up to the plate, yet again, and offer a computer that Just Works. And that's how they'll compete.

Speaking strictly about popularity; Apple can not compete.

Techinical merit? Yes, of course.

As to the poster implying that since windows is not UNIX/BSD based it is inherently unstable, so was MacOS until version ten... :cool:

The NT kernel is a good one... it is just a shame that M$ feels they must honor combatibility back to crappy 16bit apps.

My question about Longhorn is... will it be a true 64bit OS? Or is it going to be some kludged together 32bit workup?

trebblekicked

Feb 1, 2003, 02:31 AM

the battlelines have been drawn for the next phase of the compu-war...

digital hub vs. corporate spy

i pity the people who buy a machine/OS stacked with spyware, ready to lock you out if you play that justin timberlake cd too many times. i can see the switch ads now:

"i was working on my graduate thesis, and i was listening to some music, when all of the sudden this little gremlin came on my screen, held a gun to my paper and demanded a sacrifice of $12 ($49 Canadian) unless i could provide notarized proof of purchase...but there are no gremlins on my mac."

i don't see a mass windows exodus come '05-'06, but this will help apple's market share.

Falleron

Feb 1, 2003, 05:23 AM

Apple has always competed! They always will. As long as Motorola or IBM keep delivering, then we are ok.

blogo

Feb 1, 2003, 06:34 AM

Longhorn will be the competiter for OSX jaguar :rolleyes:

springscansing

Feb 1, 2003, 07:06 AM

The reason Apple always wins in the UI department is simple.

Microsoft's engineers are ugly, straight men.
Apple's engineers are hot, gay men.

I mean seriously, have you SEEN that XP interface lately? I wouldn't be surprised if it said V-Tech or Fisher Price on it.

benixau

Feb 2, 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Eple
Longhorn will be the competiter for OSX jaguar :rolleyes:

correct!!

but if we are still on jaguar in 05-06 ..... may god have mercy on us all. in other word: ms is making an os to compete with todays mac. but it will only be available tomorow. by then they will be once again, behind.

oh well. bad luck ms. hooray for apple, they dont need luck :D

Das

Feb 3, 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by springscansing
The reason Apple always wins in the UI department is simple.

Microsoft's engineers are ugly, straight men.
Apple's engineers are hot, gay men.

*ahem* ... *backs away slowly* ...

*four miles later*...anyway, I heard MS is going to make an OS where they replace the start button with a big happy face and call it Windows XL. People are already pre-ordering it like crazy.

As long as MS is in the lead, they aren't going to rewrite their top dog OS to exclude legacy support. They are just going to continue their MS Office philosophy, release a new version often with little changes, a new annoying mascot, and more exploits, then spend the next 4 years fixing them. As long as people can play [insert PC only software title/game], it will sell through the roof.

FattyMembrane

Feb 3, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Das
I heard MS is going to make an OS where they replace the start button with a big happy face and call it Windows XL. People are already pre-ordering it like crazy.
to get off on a tangent here, has anyone taken a good look at the start menu (or any other graphical part of xp)? it's the ****** ugliest thing i've ever seen. i realize that we all know that xp is hideous, but every time i use it in my computer lab, it's like needles in my eyes. i don't know if ms is still using the same 12x10 pixel boot screen that they blow up to make it look like crap, but the font rendering in the interface is horrendous and the start menu (which is supposed to be the gateway to windows) is the ugliest, most pixelated monstrosity i've ever seen. do these people do graphic design in the dark?

cubist

Feb 3, 2003, 10:16 PM

The Start menu is one thing that drove me to the Mac. The horrible walking menus with hundreds of items! They say user studies led them to that?! It's got to be the most horrible user interface in the world! It's completely nutty - Start -> Programs (why "Programs"?) -> a list of over 100, text-only menu items, hundreds more inside text-only folders (the icons are so small they're just smudges). Ghastly.

For Microsoft to talk about what they will have in 2005 is pure FUD. (Where's Cairo? Wasn't it supposed to have all this hot-zingety stuff?) Besides, as we all know, it will be late. Really late, and with far fewer features than claimed. And loaded with bugs.

alex_ant

Feb 3, 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by springscansing
The reason Apple always wins in the UI department is simple.

Microsoft's engineers are ugly, straight men.
Apple's engineers are hot, gay men.

I mean seriously, have you SEEN that XP interface lately? I wouldn't be surprised if it said V-Tech or Fisher Price on it.
No, the ugly straight men are the ones who work on GNOME. (And the ugly gay men work on KDE.) I believe the artwork in XP was done by a separate design firm... hot, gay women maybe? Ahhhhhh the comedic joy of sexual orientation.

jaykk

Feb 5, 2003, 07:40 PM

PCWorld have a sneak preview of Longhorn -
Sneak Peak : Windows XP's Sucessor (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,109165,00.asp)

"Most interesting is a completely new desktop element called Sidebar that lets you place commonly used items, including the taskbar, recently launched applications, and a clock, into a vertical, transparent window on either the right or left side of the screen."

"A new theme, called Plex, offers a more rounded window style, while a revamped, as-yet-nonfunctional Display Settings dialog box looks like something right out of Apple's OS X Aqua interface. "

This is all M$ could come up with 40bln in the bank. Where is the innovation? Why just copy from Mac os X or Linux. Isn't the sidebar an extended dock?

danman

Feb 5, 2003, 08:27 PM

MS has a vast array of great talent, you cannot say that the guys hacking the code are dumb... no way.

I have seen longhorn (admittedly, there is a long way to go before release)... there is something _stuck_ in MS.. they simply seem unable to make an impressive product.

They have spent years buying other peoples ideas and frantically integrating them into Windows and so they have the hodge pogde that is WinXP.

Windows 2k was the best thing MS ever did, and on my Sony laptop, that's what I run (sits next to my mac). It is clean of fuss, and works very well, (and it took cues from Unix in it's construction) but I still feel it to be awkward when compared to my mac (9 or X)

It flies in the face of all the talent that MS has on it's campus and around it, but I somehow just cannot see it producing any product that challenges Apple in Apple's market / cutomer base. Particularly with the semi-zealots as most of us are.

There is something fundamental that MS does not _get_ about computing, and that is the role of the user, and I don't see any sea change that will put that right.

Les Kern

Feb 5, 2003, 09:03 PM

Longhorn looks like XP with a modified OSX taskbar. Sorry, but some of you are right, and I've said it before: 30BN bucks can buy a LOT of stuff, but I guess it's not enough to buy a visionary. MS doesn't get it, never has... with a few pretty cool exceptions... that slip my mind.
I have XP Pro running on my OmniBook. I tried, I REALLY tried to not only like it but also gave it a chance to make me as or more productive than OSX. Grade: D. XP: That's one lousy OS. That reference to Fisher-Price was RIGHT ON.

Moofman

Feb 5, 2003, 10:19 PM

This is a bit off topic, but I thought I would share. As a highschool Junior, I seem to be both the only one who is interested in this great stuff, and a mac "zealot," as someone said. And as far as I can tell other kids that I know only care about computers if they have some huge amount of megahertz, and they can play their infantile shoot-em-up game. I don't get it! But I think that their perception, and therefore, misunderstanding about the whole equation that is needed to derive the clock speed is something apple should target. I know this isn't a huge market now (juuuuuuuuuuuuuuust wait!) and I know switch was supposed to target people who had misconceptions, but frankly, most people (Including me! Am I the only one?) that I know were REALLY infuriated by Switch. I think it was sorta hostile. Not that we don't have the upper hand, my friends, but why come off as pretentious, if that's how they see us. I think that apple may have to lower themselves down to the level of some younger buyers, and that might mean compromising some of their ideals. As long as PCs feature 800 bazzillion megahertz, and you can play Duke Quakem 400,000 (Everyone KNOWS you can't play games on macs!) the mac will not be seriously considered on what I think will someday be a huge proportion of the buyers. People are too comfortable with windows, and too paranoid to switch...and I think that as long as MS can maintain that sterotype, we will always be 10% or less of the market. But then again.......Palladium.........:-) That might be the proverbial straw.

Sorry for the rant.

TonicAngel

Feb 5, 2003, 10:51 PM

ew that is just hideous... i got my pc looking like aqua (of course also hideous, but its WAY better then the EVIL green start button) and there is an apple logo covering UP the start button so it is bearable.. (sp?) I do like the blue... but it looks like a rip off of disgusting windows media player skins in windows media player 9.. only the whole os looks like it.. :mad: that is just disgusting.

FattyMembrane

Feb 5, 2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

No, the ugly straight men are the ones who work on GNOME. (And the ugly gay men work on KDE.)
the sad part is that as ugly as gnome and kde are (actually, the stuff arlo rose did with crux and nautilus are pretty nice, and i rather like a lot of gnome mods i've seen), it still looks much better than xp. microsoft pays graphic designers to make the interfaces for their products and they are 10x more hideous than what coders slap together in a few weeks.

apple should have implimented virtual desktops from day one. i don't need them, but there are a lot of people who find them helpful, and we wouldn't want ms puting a unix feature in their os first.

as far as the file system goes, apple hired dave hyatt a few months back and early reports said that he was hired to work on the help viewer. we all know how that turned out (we sure got one hell of a help viewer). apple recently hired the guy who designed the BFS, so you can be fairly sure he's not wasting time recessing the widgets for the brushed metal theme. the sql database was the only thing that flackbomb seemed to have going for it, but after that xp sql worm a few weeks ago that shut down my isp and bank, i think we're safe.

ms's theory with the whole xp thing seems to be "make the bloat bluer and rounder and no one will notice". i almost wish they had better ideas just to give apple some competition as far as innovation went.

macmax

Feb 5, 2003, 11:12 PM

hahahhahhahahhaha

******* microsuck

macmax

Feb 5, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Eple
Longhorn will be the competiter for OSX jaguar :rolleyes:

yes but the thruth is that microsuck just said that they will have problems for 10 more years to dvelp a secure os, i just hope they die before they can do it

shadowfax

Feb 5, 2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by macmax
hahahhahhahahhaha

******* microsuck

how could one leave a thread with that as the latest post?

longhorn is going to be neato. ugly, but neato. it will be fast, feature rich, and you won't be able to play mp3s or make home movies without mortgaging your house to M$ and selling your daughters as sex slaves (also to M$). DRM is going to kill MS. activation (and the frear of what else would come) is a huge reason i left M$, and while it's quite clear to them that nobody likes that, they are going to keep doing it anyway.

sawaguchishinji

Feb 7, 2003, 10:52 PM

What if RIAA or MPAA (or something) forces Apple to include DRM in the OS X?

FattyMembrane

Feb 8, 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by sawaguchishinji
What if RIAA or MPAA (or something) forces Apple to include DRM in the OS X?
i seriously doubt the RIAA could do something like this. it has been jamming its hand up the asses of American consumers a bit too brazenly and now we see companies like kazaa suing the riaa for being a monopoly. it would open up a huge legal can of worms if the courts were to say "you have to make your computers infringe upon the fair use rights of your clients". don't get me wrong, our government and the riaa are communist enough to do such a thing and the American people will just sit there and obey what they are told, but it will take finesse. also, it would probably require a hardware component like palladium, not just an alteration to the os.

sawaguchishinji

Feb 22, 2003, 10:39 PM

Microsoft read this post and bought Connectix!

beatle888

Feb 22, 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by HasanDaddy
In addtion

the update will probably cost around $200

and if you buy one and install it in your friend's computer, your friend's computer will SHUT DOWN and be unusable

fock WinDoZe

oh my, windoze kills your hardware if you install the ox on two different systems with one license ?:D hahahahahaha.....that is hard ball :D

how can that be legal? even though the person
was installing it on two computers, what right do they have in damaging the hardware?
hehehe, thats so old testament :D eye for an eye grrrrrrrahahaha :D

beatle888

Feb 22, 2003, 11:37 PM

shadowfax

Feb 22, 2003, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by beatle888
oh my, windoze kills your hardware if you install the ox on two different systems with one license ?:D hahahahahaha.....that is hard ball :D

how can that be legal? even though the person
was installing it on two computers, what right do they have in damaging the hardware?
hehehe, thats so old testament :D eye for an eye grrrrrrrahahaha :D

<--- observes first time he's seen beatle forego pressing the enter key every half-line.

XP doesn't render your computer unusable if you put it on two computers. you can put it on both easily. you will activate it on one, and that one will be fine. then, you will try to do the same on the other, and XP will tell you that the key you are using is already in use or something, and that you've basically got about 30 days to get a legal copy of XP to run on it. after that, if you are dumb enough to let the 30 days run out before resolving the issue, your hard drive will stop booting, as the OS has been proven (effectively) invalid. then you have to reformat and redo all your stuff, booting from a CD or a different hard drive. XP does not destroy hardware, though the user might, in frustration with it ;).

beatle888

Feb 23, 2003, 12:23 AM

:D im trying to be a better poster. its funny, i was just thinking as i typed that post, "i wonder it anyone will comment", many people seem to prefer that i let the forum software create my line breaks:D.

anyway, thanks for clearing the ms issue up for me. LOL im still laughing:D

guitargeek

Feb 23, 2003, 12:08 PM

apple should have implimented virtual desktops from day one. i don't need them, but there are a lot of people who find them helpful, and we wouldn't want ms puting a unix feature in their os first.

I'm actually surprised that they HAVEN'T. I *love* my virtual desktops, and I couldn't give them up. I would be surprised if apple didn't include them soon, esspecially if M$ is going to with Longhorn.

the sad part is that as ugly as gnome and kde are (actually, the stuff arlo rose did with crux and nautilus are pretty nice, and i rather like a lot of gnome mods i've seen), it still looks much better than xp. microsoft pays graphic designers to make the interfaces for their products and they are 10x more hideous than what coders slap together in a few weeks.

It's sad, isn't it? The gnome and KDE teams just really work on better functionality, and the GUI is more of an afterthought, while M$'s team OBVIOUSLY doesn't work on better functionality, so they must be working on getting their UI prettier, right? WRONG!

pyrotoaster

Feb 23, 2003, 12:57 PM

I'm just diving into this thread, but I figure there are two things to consider here:

1. Anything M$ makes will be sub-par compared to Apple. That said, M$ could make a real marketing blitz out of a new OS (because we all know how effective their XP marketing was! :rolleyes: ), and Apple could look bad to potential switchers.

2. The solution: Apple releases Mac OS XI, or just 11 if SJ finally gets sick of the whole roman numerals thing. It wouldn't be a totally new OS, but it would obviously tote some major new features. This could be released in mid-to-late 2004 at the earliest, or just sometime during 2005.

A simple, yet elegant, solution. Very Apple.

sickboy_osX

Feb 23, 2003, 03:07 PM

We all saw in 1995 how many issues there were with Windows 95, a OS that was built from scratch.

I dont think Microsoft should do it, even if it is the 10 year anniversry of Windows 95. There are too many lines of code, they would have to start work on it now. And I think they are more worried with getting Windows 2003 Server out the door. =)

But then again before Mac OS X how long had Apple used the same interface??

Chef Ramen

Feb 23, 2003, 05:38 PM

i bet theyll finally start charging for sending email by the time this comes out

atomwork

Feb 23, 2003, 06:00 PM

Fact is that Bill Gates copied once Apple's OS system and came out big. Since then he never managed it to build a great system. How can he know. MS has no talent. Those guys just how to do big business. He only can copy whats available now. Apple and Steve will surpass every attempt with passion and innovation. just look at the products from Apple and compare them to the PC crap!

MasterX (OSiX)

Feb 23, 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
the start menu (which is supposed to be the gateway to windows) is the ugliest, most pixelated monstrosity i've ever seen. do these people do graphic design in the dark?

Doing graphic designing in the dark isn't a problem for apple. With their 23" 16:9 HD Cinema displays Apple enginers work around the clock to produce quality GUI elements.

Since a screen is lit doing work in the dark shouldn't be a problem. OH **** i forgot. MS emplyees will be using Dell LCDs. With a contrast ratio like that you can't blame them.

Dazzler

Feb 23, 2003, 07:38 PM

Anyone else notice the naming structures between M$ & Apple?

With Apple software, we get lean, fast, predators at the top of the foodchain - Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar...

whilst MS are naming their software after chickens?

Does anybody else find this as funny as me?

shadowfax

Feb 23, 2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Dazzler
Anyone else notice the naming structures between M$ & Apple?

With Apple software, we get lean, fast, predators at the top of the foodchain - Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar...

whilst MS are naming their software after chickens?

Does anybody else find this as funny as me?

what about Longhorn?
careful how you respond, there are probably some UT fans here ;)

beatle, that's groovy that you are letting the software format. I'd be the last person to say that there's no value in being unique, but the short lines compared to the common flow of the threads kinda throws me off. thanks :)

ktlx

Feb 23, 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by sickboy_osX
We all saw in 1995 how many issues there were with Windows 95, a OS that was built from scratch.

Windows 95 was not built from scratch. It still had a lot of DOS crap in it to get to the new GUI. It was just integrated unlike DOS and Windows 3.1.

The closest thing to a new OS from scratch that Microsoft has done to date was Windows NT and even that was built off a base from some guy in DEC.

I am skeptical that Microsoft will really ever release something truly from scratch. They seem to be constitutionally unable to throw away legacy crap. My guess is they will get 80% finished with the new OS and then be forced by marketing and management to port a bunch of Windows XP code into it. :p

beatle888

Feb 24, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the short lines compared to the common flow of the threads kinda throws me off. thanks :)

LOL, wooooo sorta lose your balance :D no its cool, i dont mind. i'll conform to THIS, i suppose :D

Catfish_Man

Feb 24, 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by sickboy_osX
We all saw in 1995 how many issues there were with Windows 95, a OS that was built from scratch.

I dont think Microsoft should do it, even if it is the 10 year anniversry of Windows 95. There are too many lines of code, they would have to start work on it now. And I think they are more worried with getting Windows 2003 Server out the door. =)

But then again before Mac OS X how long had Apple used the same interface??

Win95 is the OPPOSITE of built from scratch. It's basically just a 32 bit API and GUI for DOS. Windows NT was built from scratch (aside from the networking stack, that's BSD, same as most other systems).

Chrisnorth

Feb 25, 2003, 12:13 PM

To be fair, Windows has many great GUI features. The Start menu isn't perfect and becomes downright ungainly when you have a lot of items in the program section for instance, but for average users it is quite convenient.

The real problem with MS operating systems is all the built in bloat and "security". All their operating systems smack of a "Big Brother" approach, and this is where they will continue to fail. I suspect they are complex for reasons of marketing and control, and since these appear to be fundamental tenants of the MS game plan, there is really nothing that will save MS's latest OS from its creators.

As for Apple, they have always made really attractive GUI's. As long as they can continue to produce a robust operating system with the features that Mac users want and rap it in an attractive package, they will probably continue to survive. Most Mac users and many PC users are platform chauvinists anyway, so as long as there isn't a huge and obvious performance differential, the status quo should remain pretty much as is.:eek: