PDA

View Full Version : Longhorn pushed back to 2006 ...


Fender2112
Oct 14, 2003, 05:45 PM
Found this on ArsTechnica (http://www.arstechnica.com). Thought it would be of interest.

Longhorn pushed back to 2006



Posted 10/13/2003 @ 7:39 PM, by Eric Bangeman

At last week's Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference, Longhorn was described by Microsoft executives as being "three years away." Originally slated for a 2004 release, and then pushed back to 2005, a bit of simple math tells us that Longhorn won't be ready until 2006. What does this mean for Microsoft?

[T]here will be no Visual Studio tools release for two years after "Whidbey" (which Microsoft is still insisting will be a late 2004 product). No Office 12 until 2006. And Longhorn Server – which was expected, until this week, in 2006 – is now, more likely than not a 2007 product (given that it was set to lag the client release by a year).

While enthusiasts will continue chomping at the bit for the Next Big Thing from Microsoft, the enterprise will likely breathe a sigh of relief at not having to worry about a major OS revision for at least three years. On the other hand, Microsoft has pimped a number of Longhorn technologies such as the Next-Generation Secure Computing Base and self-repairing systems that will either have to wait until Longhorn's release or be rolled out incrementally into Windows XP. On the competitive front, Apple has been releasing significant OS X updates every 12-16 months which are in many ways setting the bar higher for Microsoft in terms of GUI innovation and user experience.

Microsoft hopes to fill the gap by hyping Windows XP SP2, with Ballmer going as far as to call it a "new version of Windows XP." However, SP2 won't be out until 2Q 2004 at the earliest, and a service pack does not a new operating system make. Longhorn has been in the on-deck circle taking practice swings since 2001. With over five years between at bats, even the most-seasoned pinch-hitter can get rusty.ArsTechnica (http://www.arstechnica.com)

realityisterror
Oct 14, 2003, 05:56 PM
just more reason to switch to the mac...

pepeleuepe
Oct 14, 2003, 06:05 PM
I have in no way been keeping up with the Longhorn hype. I read a little bit here and there, but this seems pretty crazy. How can it take this long to release a new OS?

Also, is Longhorn a complete rewrite of the Windows OS, or is it a revision of 2000/XP? Microsoft is large company with vast resources as far as programming goes. It wouldn't seem that 5 years for a new OS is acceptable, but maybe I'm missing something.

Fender2112
Oct 14, 2003, 08:37 PM
The part I find most interesting is that each time Apple updates OS X, it moves that much farther ahead. Whatever Microsoft is doing now will be obsolete in three years. I can't image Microsoft developing anything NOW that will be ground breaking in 2-3 years.

My guess is that they will wait until next year, emulate whatever Apple does in 2004, then release it as Longhorn in 2006. :D

Ryan1524
Oct 14, 2003, 08:54 PM
yeh, MS needs to change certain things (read: copy copy copy). or it might seem archaic compared to Panther. but then again, it'll still look archaic compared to 10.5 Kitty cat. LOL. :D :D

Frohickey
Oct 14, 2003, 09:18 PM
Is anyone surprised by this news?

Of course Longhorn would be pushed back to 2006... it takes time to copy new OS features from Apple. :D

MacsRgr8
Oct 15, 2003, 03:44 PM
What happened?

Source code been stolen ? :D :D :D

Dont Hurt Me
Oct 15, 2003, 03:47 PM
longhorn 2006 will be like mac osX.1

edesignuk
Oct 15, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by pepeleuepe
Also, is Longhorn a complete rewrite of the Windows OS, or is it a revision of 2000/XP?
I *think* it is starting from scratch, well, sort of. It is also supposed to use a new file system based on their own MySQL server technology. They have a lot of work to do in order to be able to achieve all of the things they want this new OS to be capable of, but it's hard to believe that a company the size of Microsoft, with billions of $$$ behind it can take so long about it!

mrjamin
Oct 15, 2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
I *think* it is starting from scratch, well, sort of. It is also supposed to use a new file system based on their own MySQL server technology. They have a lot of work to do in order to be able to achieve all of the things they want this new OS to be capable of, but it's hard to believe that a company the size of Microsoft, with billions of $$$ behind it can take so long about it!

yeah it is a completely new OS, but from what i've seen it doesn't look like that much of a step on from XP.

MySQL? Microsoft and opensource? never! They're supposedly basing the filesystem around SQL Server technology. Yeah i know, i'm being nitpicky but thats what nerds do.

Its odd how mac .x updates are like the jump between win95 to win98, and mac x.0 updates are like windows 3.1 to win98. Compare the timescales between these releases from both companies - quite shocking!

SiliconAddict
Oct 15, 2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
I *think* it is starting from scratch, well, sort of. It is also supposed to use a new file system based on their own MySQL server technology. They have a lot of work to do in order to be able to achieve all of the things they want this new OS to be capable of, but it's hard to believe that a company the size of Microsoft, with billions of $$$ behind it can take so long about it!

Yes and no. The core file system will be a slightly revamped version of NTFS which is found in XP and 2K right now. The file system that you speak of sits on top of that. Its called WinFS or Windows Future Storage. I've read more that a few articles on it and its intriguing to say the least. And more then a bit confusing. The idea is basically to extend the abilities of data searching and retrieval beyond that of simply a file name or even basic metadata. One example would be a search for Jon Doe would go through folders, contacts, calendars, track titles, etc, etc. Its intended to extend what is searchable from beyond a simple filename. Also WinFS can be used by applications allowing app to parse your e-mail, calendar, contacts, etc. Now imagine having a number of applications that can all interact with all this data. And AFAIK its extendable to the net and other computers. So potentially searching a network full of data should be faster and a whole heck of a lot slicker. Side note: WinFS is still at least a year off from being completed. MS is working their butts off trying to get WinFS as compatible as possible with legacy apps.

Second. The GUI. I’ve played around with a VERY early alpha of Longhorn. It’s nothing big at this point. The GUI is a spiced up version of XP right now. This could easily change between now and Longhorn’s GC release. Looking at the services and many of the features it looks like XP.5 right now. IF they did build it from the ground up I do believe that just from the looks of things that they are reusing a good portion of XP’s code. How can I tell? I did a simple hex edit of a few of Windows XP’s common files and browsed through it. There are a lot of identical items in Longhorn that is also in XP. I expect the rampant security flaws that have backtracked windows as of late (i.e. It effects XP, 2K, and NT.) to also do the same in Longhorn. Maybe not to the same extent that you are seeing in XP but I’ll bet money it will happen.

Also of note if you’ve been paying attention to the news, MS has decided that trying to fix every problem in the OS itself is a futile effort and will be focusing on external “shielding” to guard PC’s against security threats. Right off the top of my head that screams firewalls, something XP has a rudimentary version of right now. I’m not sure where they plan on going with this line of thought since firewalls have a nasty habit of ****** up applications that require net access. However it wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibilities of sandboxing certain parts of an OS from the outside world and allowing other parts to speak freely with the world at large. There are certain areas of an OS that are more vulnerable to attack then others. Compartmentalizing Windows could have the desired effect if done right.
I believe this idea of strengthening its external defenses is what has pushed Longhorn back to 2006. (Even thought it hasn’t officially been confirmed by MS as of yet.)

what Mac users should be focusing on is not the fact that Longhorn has been pushed back but that this gives Apple the opportunity to observe what MS has planned and plan accordingly with appropriate updates to the next several versions of OS X and maybe OS 11. From a marketing standpoint if Apple wants to go up against Longhorn it needs to be seen as whatever version they release should be “fresh” not a .x update. So I expect whatever is released in 2006 will be OS 11.
Also, as every Mac user is well aware this pits OS X vs XP for the next 3 years. This HAS to be music to Jobs ears. More security holes, more patches, more worms and viruses. More reasons to upgrade to OS X. Apple has an opportunity to gain market share in the next 3 years. After that all bets are off. I will not underestimate longhorn. The install on my laptop took 2 clicks.
1. for next after entering the serial #
2. for selecting the partition to install it in.
Very easy install and this was alpha software. Apple should be concerned. Or more accurately they should be concerned in fall of 2005 if they don’t have a 10%+ market share. I think it can be done and I think it will be done as long as IBM and Apple keep churning out solid products.

Hmm I think I rambled on long enough. Later.

AmigoMac
Oct 15, 2003, 05:31 PM
They will introduce a classic mode with panther features and native mode with 10.6 features... bill has been so busy playing with his G5 that he forgot he owns a company... or maybe showing his kids the light under the keyboard of his 17" :p

SiliconAddict
Oct 15, 2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by mrjamin
yeah it is a completely new OS, but from what i've seen it doesn't look like that much of a step on from XP.

MySQL? Microsoft and opensource? never! They're supposedly basing the filesystem around SQL Server technology. Yeah i know, i'm being nitpicky but thats what nerds do.



FYI the version of SQL they will be using is a stripped down version of Yukon MS’s latest and greatest.

howard
Oct 15, 2003, 05:57 PM
well who really knows what could happen in 3 years...if its taking this long maybe there actually doing it right! while it could be obsolete in 3 years, well i would like to know how long it took os x to get going...after the first rumors. all i can say if its taking this long its bound to be big and groundbreaking...

now i have no love of microsoft, but i do have love for a good stable os, and in the end no matter what the company is i will buy the better product. however i do have the feeling that in 3 years from now apple will be the better product even more so...it as the next 3 years to get ahead with the G5 and panther, and for sure 10.4 will be released before longhorn... i'm thinking they'll really gain some ground here

cubist
Oct 15, 2003, 06:05 PM
BTW when they talk about SP2, remember that Microsoft said after NT4 SP4 that they would not roll out new features in service packs (the Active Directory stuff they rolled into that service pack was a disaster). So unless they give up on that, it's not likely we'll see any changes in Windows Xisher-Price at all.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 15, 2003, 06:27 PM
I don't see anything wrong with he release date being 2006, and it's ridiculous that Jobs made fun of this at the WWDC. Maybe Microsoft and the PC world is just content with Windows XP and sees no need for an update any time soon? There were also once rumours of XPSE (XP Second Edition) which could resourface. Adding the sidebar and new theme from the early Longhorn alphas to XP isn't that hard. Microsoft also said it wants to get rid of all the security issues in XP before moving on to a new OS.

Here are some of the features that will probably be in Longhorn:

- WinFS: an MS SQL Yukon database that runs on top of a revamped NTFS which makes searching by content (and metadata) much easier. It also uses XML and can supposedly work transparently with data on the network/internet.

- Aero: more of a technology than a new look. It's a bit like Mac OS X's Quartz because it moves ui composition work over to Direct X.

- Avalon: a new and rewritten set of APIs (although in the early alphas this seems to be the name for the sidebar).

- P2P networking, instant messaging, new speech API for speech and speech recognition, etc. will be completely intigrated.

- Palladium: it may sound evil now but it could but a stop to viruses and piracy.

- New hardware support: there will be better support for Bluetooth devices, Wi-Fi, mp3 players, etc.

Longhorn will be based on the NT kernel (NT 4, 2K, XP, 2K3) but it will probably undergo at least a great a change as 2K was to NT 4. Microsoft is also thinking of getting rid of the task bar and replacing it with the sidebar or something like it.

yamabushi
Oct 15, 2003, 07:44 PM
I hope that this delay does not make Apple approach OS improvements any less aggresively. Security and stability in particular could be improved further.

I suspect that eventually Microsoft will be forced to include some kind of antivirus capabilities into their OS. That appears to be their major point of weakness right now.

Apple should get there first and do it better. Add in protection against viruses, trojans, worms in the OS and in Mail. Isolate Safari so that malicious code from the web won't effect the rest of the system.

Also, full compatibility with FreeBSD is unnecesary if Darwin can further evolve by combining the best of FreeBSD and OpenBSD to create a successor to them both.

Steve Jobs is welcome to laugh about XP in public as long as he is serious about OS improvement behind closed doors at Apple.

Marble
Oct 15, 2003, 07:45 PM
It is in a way intimidating. Part of me hopes that Microsoft screws up again, but I think that they know this, and are out to prove me and the rest of the world wrong. Apple may have more time for innovation, but I worry that Apple will have to do more somersaults to wiggle away from a Longhorn that is compatible, stable, and not only copies all of OS X's powerful features (which, you remember, are only doable because of Apple's "from scratch" enterprise three years ago), but exceeds them with new technologies that will be built in to the OS from the start.
I am, perhaps, overreacting; but Microsoft always has the advantage of being second up to bat. So far they've been striking out, but they've still been watching very carefully how the star player makes his game.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 15, 2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by yamabushi
I hope that this delay does not make Apple approach OS improvements any less aggresively. Security and stability in particular could be improved further.

I suspect that eventually Microsoft will be forced to include some kind of antivirus capabilities into their OS. That appears to be their major point of weakness right now.

Apple should get there first and do it better. Add in protection against viruses, trojans, worms in the OS and in Mail. Isolate Safari so that malicious code from the web won't effect the rest of the system.

Also, full compatibility with FreeBSD is unnecesary if Darwin can further evolve by combining the best of FreeBSD and OpenBSD to create a successor to them both.

Steve Jobs is welcome to laugh about XP in public as long as he is serious about OS improvement behind closed doors at Apple.

Microsoft is already ahead of Apple on this front. It recently bought an anti-virus company to appropriate its technology and will probably introduce it as part of Windows/Longhorn soon.

Originally posted by Marble
It is in a way intimidating. Part of me hopes that Microsoft screws up again, but I think that they know this, and are out to prove me and the rest of the world wrong. Apple may have more time for innovation, but I worry that Apple will have to do more somersaults to wiggle away from a Longhorn that is compatible, stable, and not only copies all of OS X's powerful features (which, you remember, are only doable because of Apple's "from scratch" enterprise three years ago), but exceeds them with new technologies that will be built in to the OS from the start.
I am, perhaps, overreacting; but Microsoft always has the advantage of being second up to bat. So far they've been striking out, but they've still been watching very carefully how the star player makes his game.

Almost all of the new features in Longhorn are unique with the exception of Aero which is pretty much just Microsoft's version of Quartz. Yes, both Apple and Microsoft have tried a database-driven file system before, but both were failures.

solvs
Oct 15, 2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
I don't see anything wrong with he release date being 2006, and it's ridiculous that Jobs made fun of this at the WWDC. Maybe Microsoft and the PC world is just content with Windows XP and sees no need for an update any time soon?

I'm forced to use Windows at work. I can tell you first hand, I am not content. My home PC uses 2000, also not content.

Seems to me that Apple is doing better on the security issues. Instead of adding antivirus utilities, et al, they stop the holes that make viruses possible. No OS is completely secure, but who do you trust more? Apple is trying harder because, let's face it, it has to.

Though I am still of the belief that M$ is more inept than corrupt, I could be wrong. :D

rhpenguin
Oct 16, 2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by pepeleuepe
Also, is Longhorn a complete rewrite of the Windows OS, or is it a revision of 2000/XP?

Last time i checked it was only to be a "better" version of XP with new more secure features.

rainman::|:|
Oct 16, 2003, 10:44 PM
-v-a-p-o-r-w-a-r-e-

they'll keep doing stuff like this, until about a month before the release date, when they realize, ****, we don't have anything close to a product. so we'll steal most of the XP code and put it on top of the stuff we do have done, it'll be fine.

but i don't think we'll ever see an OS from microsoft as longhorn is described.

and i fear for us all if we do.

pnw

Jonathan Amend
Oct 17, 2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
-v-a-p-o-r-w-a-r-e-

they'll keep doing stuff like this, until about a month before the release date, when they realize, ****, we don't have anything close to a product. so we'll steal most of the XP code and put it on top of the stuff we do have done, it'll be fine.

but i don't think we'll ever see an OS from microsoft as longhorn is described.

and i fear for us all if we do.

pnw

I don't remember Microsoft making unplanned vaporware before (Windows Me was planned). Windows 95 was a major GUI improvement over Windows 3.x. Windows NT took the new GUI and put it ontop of a stable kernel. Windows 98 may look a lot like Windows 95 but there's a reason why most of Microsoft's new stuff (DX9, .Net, etc.) need 98 and up. Windows 2000 was a major overhaul of NT 4 that had a much improved GUI and let you forget what a service was. Windows Me was known to be junk as soon as it was anounced... It was pretty much the 2000 GUI but with a 9x kernel that took a step in the wrong direction. A lot of oem computers shipping with Me even came with coupons to upgrade to Windows XP when it came out. Windows XP took Windows 2000 and improved just about every aspect of it. It's more than just a fancy new look to compete with the latest craze of WindowsBlinds skins and Mac OS X... It's also faster and more stable and it has things like a better help system and driver database as well as almost complete compatibility with everything since Windows 3.x to make it more apealing to consumers (2000 was for professionals). Granted, XP did have some features like proper Bluetooth support and IPv6 because they weren't completed in time but they were added later on with SP1. SP2 will add even better Bluetooth and Wi-Fi support as well as new measures to fix the recent increase in security issues including code to automaticaly stop buffer overflows. There are also still rumours of XP Second Edition (XPSE) which I'm assuming might have a new skin similar to that of the Longhorn alphas as well as the sidebar.

evilsprung
Oct 17, 2003, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by pepeleuepe
How can it take this long to release a new OS?


Heh, why don't you ask Apple? It took them 15 years to build a replacement to their classic Mac OS with the end results being of course Mac OS X.

Haha, why do people always ask that question in regards to Longhorn, geez.

panphage
Oct 17, 2003, 03:55 AM
The BeOS was also supposed to have a database instead of a "normal" filesystem. It, too, failed. They said: too much overhead. From the way they talked about it, no one had tried it before. I myself don't know if the Apple and MS attempts predated the BeOS (1992/3?)

Kitano
Oct 17, 2003, 04:02 AM
I frequent these boards and generally sit back and keep my mouth shut, but there is something I continue to see that bothers me.

Maybe I have this totally wrong, but I don't care if Apple increases it's market share.

One of the reasons Apple is able to be in the position that it is, i.e. cutting edge products, loyal customers, diversifying it's type of products, brick-and-mortar stores, etc. (the reasons why we love Apple) is because it IS a fringe company in the OS world.

Apple computers are not affected by worms, viruses, and the like because there are so few computers out there and it is not worth someone's time or energy. These people are out to get a rise. What, you think they'll be happy pissing off the videography community? No they are going after banks, government, and the very software companies whose products they are using. And it's not because Macs are harder to **** with, these people are quite resourceful.

Apple also has less compatibility issues. Well, there are way fewer Mac-compatible peripherals, and thus, less problems.

The Mac OS runs on Apple Computers, and no one else's, thus narrowing the number of problems, thus better tech support, thus happier customers. They can also make changes in house for there products to run better on their machines, optimizing performance. Once again, happier customers.

These are but few reasons off the top of a relatively new (2+ years), but dedicated Mac user, who is not entrenched in the industry with crazy technical knowledge. I just call it like I see it.

Apple is doing well as a company. They have their ups and downs as a company, but they have millions in the bank, and you know what? They are making great, innovative products all the time. We should be happy that Apple is making things we need and want, and can do so by being a fringe company, not some large international conglomerate that takes 7 years sitting on it's balls to bring their OS into the 21st century.

Here's to 5% and no more; and one happy customer.

evilsprung
Oct 17, 2003, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Kitano


...but they have millions in the bank,
... not some large international conglomerate that takes 7 years sitting on it's balls to bring their OS into the 21st century.


Heh yeah they got millions, but freaking Microsoft's got billions.

Sure, but Apple took about twice as long to dish out their replacement.

Chealion
Oct 17, 2003, 01:02 PM
evilsprung - Apple hasn't been working on OS X for 15 years, other companies have (eg. Next) and Apple took their continuing OS development, and moved to a UNIX platform. My guess is that Apple worked on it for around 3-4 years or so. They bought Next in 1997, so they were still developing OS 8 and 9 at the time. Microsoft isn't actively developing another OS (yes, they are developing Yukon, and Longhorn Server, etc.) with Longhorn as their long term project that is behind the scenes.

Schiffi
Oct 17, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Kitano
Apple computers are not affected by worms, viruses, and the like because there are so few computers out there and it is not worth someone's time or energy. These people are out to get a rise. What, you think they'll be happy pissing off the videography community? No they are going after banks, government, and the very software companies whose products they are using. And it's not because Macs are harder to **** with, these people are quite resourceful.

There was an article over how this assumption is wrong. It's how OSX separates the system and user files. I'm sure if Apple had a 98% market share their popularity would increase viruses somewhat, but nowhere near MS level. There are important computers running under Unix based OSes but I never heard about an entire Linux/Unix/OSX/Darwin/ect. having to shut down due to a virus attack. If they do it's probably due to MS machines on the same server and taking up bandwidth. There are probably people now looking for vulnerabilities in OSX/Linux and trying to put viruses out, but can't because of the way they're built.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 17, 2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by panphage
The BeOS was also supposed to have a database instead of a "normal" filesystem. It, too, failed. They said: too much overhead. From the way they talked about it, no one had tried it before. I myself don't know if the Apple and MS attempts predated the BeOS (1992/3?)

Apple's attempt was around 1985 but I don't remember what it was called. Microsoft tried it in Cairo (Windows NT 4) around 1995. Longhorn won't actually have a database-driven file system but instead a database that runs on top of NTFS that stores user files and data to make searching and remote intigration easier.

dbally
Oct 17, 2003, 03:46 PM
A couple of thoughts . . .

Personally I don't want Apple's market share for computers to that of the HP's and Dell's of the world. One of the reasons I switched was, in part, because of you who participate in message boards like this one. The Mac community seems to be more educated and refined than that of the PC. I've worked in the technology department in a retail chain for years, and there is no minimum intelligence requirement to purchase a PC (although maybe it'd be better off if there was - I don't think I can handle any more questions about how to download the internet, about Intel's Pendulum or Celrion processors, of if one needs a CD-recorder to record to CDs). With Apple's computers, intelligence is there by default it seems. I don't want millions of people diluting the Mac community with their stupidity. Basically I feel like PC's are for the masses and Macs are for those who know better.

Gymnut
Oct 17, 2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
Apple's attempt was around 1985 but I don't remember what it was called. Microsoft tried it in Cairo (Windows NT 4) around 1995. Longhorn won't actually have a database-driven file system but instead a database that runs on top of NTFS that stores user files and data to make searching and remote intigration easier.

Btw...Are you on the Microsoft Payroll?

1macker1
Oct 17, 2003, 04:18 PM
I dont like having to upgrade my OS every year, when did the yearly upgrade become a good thing?

evilsprung
Oct 17, 2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Chealion
evilsprung - Apple hasn't been working on OS X for 15 years, other companies have (eg. Next) and Apple took their continuing OS development, and moved to a UNIX platform. My guess is that Apple worked on it for around 3-4 years or so. They bought Next in 1997, so they were still developing OS 8 and 9 at the time. Microsoft isn't actively developing another OS (yes, they are developing Yukon, and Longhorn Server, etc.) with Longhorn as their long term project that is behind the scenes.

I never said that Apple was working on OS X for 15 years, I they were working on their replacement OS for the classic Mac OS for 15 years, which resulted into OS X. Either way it took them 15 years. Sure you can blame it on troublespots and what not for the delay, but the end result is that they took freaking 15 years. So when someone in the Mac community goes bashiing on Microsoft for how long it takes Microsoft to dish out and OS, that person should take a look at Apple first.

Gymnut
Oct 17, 2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by evilsprung
I never said that Apple was working on OS X for 15 years, I they were working on their replacement OS for the classic Mac OS for 15 years, which resulted into OS X. Either way it took them 15 years. Sure you can blame it on troublespots and what not for the delay, but the end result is that they took freaking 15 years. So when someone in the Mac community goes bashiing on Microsoft for how long it takes Microsoft to dish out and OS, that person should take a look at Apple first.

Remember, personal computers have come along way since 1985. I highly doubt OSX would've run spectacularly on an Apple IIe.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 17, 2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Gymnut
Btw...Are you on the Microsoft Payroll?

No, although that would be nice =)
I preferer PCs but I have nothing against Macs and I think both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses. I also don't think it would hurt these forums if someone were to have different opinions... Likemindedness doesn't make good conversation.

benixau
Oct 17, 2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Gymnut
Remember, personal computers have come along way since 1985. I highly doubt OSX would've run spectacularly on an Apple IIe.

Have you tried ????? :D :D :D

yamabushi
Oct 17, 2003, 08:05 PM
I know somebody who was running Linux on a Mac SE a few years ago.

Evilsprung- Since Mac OSX is primarily based upon FreeBSD and NeXTStep, Apple didn't have to do most of the work. Apple didn't develop either of those - it just put them together and had the foundation for a new OS. The first version of OSX actually only took a few years to develop.

yamabushi
Oct 17, 2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by dbally
Personally I don't want Apple's market share for computers to that of the HP's and Dell's of the world.

How would you like cheaper Macs with more and cheaper software? More support for peripherals? More Mac using friends to hang out with? More Macs at work?

More signifcant market share can lead to all of these things and more.

coopdog
Oct 17, 2003, 09:14 PM
Haha.

Gymnut
Oct 17, 2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by benixau
Have you tried ????? :D :D :D

Lol, well to be honest no, but I recall seeing some pics with 10.0 on an SE. Though of course it had an upgraded processor inside.

Gymnut
Oct 17, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
No, although that would be nice =)
I preferer PCs but I have nothing against Macs and I think both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses. I also don't think it would hurt these forums if someone were to have different opinions... Likemindedness doesn't make good conversation.

I understand where you're coming from though I don't happen to find myself perusing PC rumor forums. Yikes, your PC is a dinosaur.

dho
Oct 17, 2003, 11:51 PM
We will be at 10.6 by then:D

oh SO exciting

edit:
Originally posted by coopdog
Haha.
that is all that really needs to be said:)

evilsprung
Oct 18, 2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by yamabushi
I know somebody who was running Linux on a Mac SE a few years ago.

Evilsprung- Since Mac OSX is primarily based upon FreeBSD and NeXTStep, Apple didn't have to do most of the work. Apple didn't develop either of those - it just put them together and had the foundation for a new OS. The first version of OSX actually only took a few years to develop.


I think some of you people are missing the point. I'm talking about the development time that Apple took to develop their next replacement OS for their classic Mac OS. The end result, yes, was OS X. But it still took them 15 years to get their act together to put that replacement out. And if Longhorn is suppose to be that big of jump for Windows as it was for Mac OS, I wouldn't necessarily go ragging on Microsoft for pushing their release till 2006.

yamabushi
Oct 18, 2003, 12:54 AM
Well they did upgrade from experimental machines such as Lisa to the II+/IIc/IIe/GS series then again to the first Mac and then upgraded the Mac OS on a regular basis.
DOS/Win3.1 and MacOS. 6.x era-it worked and was absolutely tiny! Mac OS 7.6 (features and stability)was very good around the time Win3.1/Win95 was out. Mac OS 8.1-8.5 (a beautiful GUI) around the Win98/Win98SE era. Mac OS 9.0-9.2 (Speed, reliability) around the WinME(hah)/Win2k era. Then came OSX. Just cause they didn't change the name doesn't mean they didn't improve the OS.

How long did it take MS to shed DOS completely from the OS? Quite some time. Yes, Windows became vastly more complex over time, but so did the MacOS. Obviously there were times when each OS had an advantage in some features. Also each OS had revisions that were either unstable or slow for the average hardware of the day.

We could go back and forth forever debating the various features and which OS was more advanced or more useful. Pretty pointless. Why don't we focus on what we have now and expect in the near future instead.

evilsprung
Oct 18, 2003, 03:02 AM
You're damn right its pointless. So why don't some people of the Mac people quit ragging on Microsoft for their delays?

Seriously, who gives a crap? I don't. But every time I come on these forums there's usually some post from some person ragging on Microsoft about either the Longhorn delay or whatever. Heh and it doesn't stop at Longhorn but I digress.

Sabenth
Oct 18, 2003, 03:38 AM
most of us use Mac OS version 8 -10.2.somthing there are windows users still using windows 95 and 3.1 poor souls but longhorn can come and go for all i care i have osx and xp both do the job and i am happy not going to jump up and down for the mac osx either iam still learning osx 10.2 .3 can wait another few months so hell with it all windows and Mac can do there jobs right

Longhorn is windows xp stage 2 or 3 ..

i will say this that when i first got my hands on a Mac and OSX i was gobsmaked ive re installed it once just to see what the difince is because i normaly have to re stall xp once every 3 months i like osx installation and i also like xps installation but osx is so much nicer to use and xp is just glory fied 95 -98

osx seems to be a reall improvment i say that now re thinking god sod it ill stick with Mac osx much better 3 years is a long time

Gymnut
Oct 18, 2003, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by evilsprung
You're damn right its pointless. So why don't some people of the Mac people quit ragging on Microsoft for their delays?

Seriously, who gives a crap? I don't. But every time I come on these forums there's usually some post from some person ragging on Microsoft about either the Longhorn delay or whatever. Heh and it doesn't stop at Longhorn but I digress.

Well judging by your posts, you seem to give a crap. "People of the Mac people"..hmm....

Likvid
Oct 18, 2003, 07:26 AM
Actually i don't like Microsoft at all.I hate their OS's.

However the hardware for x86 is excellent and you can get "exactly" what you want and you can run any Linux version or BSD you want.

Apple users and Apple community is all about design and the looks of the computers, there are many drawbacks owning a Mac.

1.Less flexibility, you dont have any choices when you want to buy hardware components, Apple users have like 2 graphics cards to choose from, how fun is that?

2.Apple hardware is slooooow and they copy everything from the x86 world like Firewire, USB and everything.....

3.The only good thing about Apple is their OS, OSX.

4.There is no software at all really, there are no good software for receiving digital satellite broadcast channels, there are no good stock broker software like Metastock, there are lots software that Mac doesn't have which make it very handicaped as a productive platform.


I think Apple users are too much design and showoff oriented.

Steve's best move would be to port OSX for x86 hardware....

Everyone is bragging about the G5 PowerMac, it's really nothing special about it, in the x86 world we had AMD Opterons for while and they are much faster than the G5.

Also everyone loves the G5 aluminium case, what is new about that?

Coolermaster have made much more nicer aluminium cases before the G5 was released.


And this stupid thing about one-button mouse with Macs.

I can't really understand any intelligent person defending this crap.

I am afraid MacOSX will go the same way as BeOS if Steve Jobs doesn't port OSX to the x86 platform.

mkaake
Oct 18, 2003, 07:44 AM
just to pick one thing (of many) that caught my mind, before i head off to start my day...

Originally posted by Likvid
2.Apple hardware is slooooow and they copy everything from the x86 world like Firewire, USB and everything.....

maybe take a few minutes to find out who developed firewire, and it's original intent.

http://www.faculty.iu-bremen.de/birk/lectures/PC101-2003/13firewire/history.htm

sorry, that just really popped out at me.

but again, i'm off to the real world..

matt

XnavxeMiyyep
Oct 18, 2003, 07:48 AM
Likvid -
I'll admit that Apple is lacking in video cards. However, I'm pretty sure Apple got either USB or Firewire before the x86 world. Their hardware is plenty fast. While technically, my Dual 867 G4 is not faster than a 2+ GHz PC, it sure gets things done faster. OS X is probably one of the best part about Apple, but not the only good part. When you speak of software compatibility, in my case, Windows doesn't have the software I prefer to use.(iChat, Final Cut Pro, etc.) Apple will not go the way of BeOS, considering Apple is one of the few computer companies currently making a profit.

Likvid
Oct 18, 2003, 09:51 AM
Actually i prefer a dual AMD Opteron 2GHz with RAID SCSI and FreeBSD with Flux any day over a G5 PowerMac.

It will kick MacOSX ass any day......not to mention humongous faster.

XnavxeMiyyep
Oct 18, 2003, 10:24 AM
I'm sure that installing applications is nice and easy on FreeBSD. And you were trying to say that Macs lacked in software compatibility?

irmongoose
Oct 18, 2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Likvid
1. Less flexibility, you dont have any choices when you want to buy hardware components, Apple users have like 2 graphics cards to choose from, how fun is that?

It's fun because we can actually rely on Apple that the card will work. With PCs even though it says the card will work for XP, you have no idea whether your configuration supports it because there are so many configurations, making it unreliable. Apple chooses industry standards so there is no doubt on the consumer's side. If you want other cards that support the Mac, you are free to buy one and stick it into your PowerMac.


2. Apple hardware is slooooow and they copy everything from the x86 world like Firewire, USB and everything.....

Okay, what is this? FireWire, as mkaake has already shown, was developed by Apple. USB, on the other hand, was developed by Intel but Apple was actually one of the first companies to incorporate it into their machines and actively support it. Take a look here (http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/465/0,10732,109819-779189,00.html). Get your facts straight.


3. The only good thing about Apple is their OS, OSX.

Oh of course, Microsoft has so many good products... let's see here, uhh Windows, Windows, and Windows. :rolleyes:

Have you personally touched and worked with Macs before? The architecture of the iMac, G4 PowerMac, and the G5 are far superior to any PC I have seen or worked with. Nothing beats the awesome accessibility of the G4's insides - one door.


4. There is no software at all really, there are no good software for receiving digital satellite broadcast channels, there are no good stock broker software like Metastock, there are lots software that Mac doesn't have which make it very handicaped as a productive platform.

Maybe it's more like Macs don't have lots of the junk software like Windows has. Almost all the first-class software companies support OS X, assuring quality software. Where these companies don't fill in, there are plenty of shareware developers who make almost anything and everything. No software at all? Check out VersionTracker (http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/), it will show you the tens of new software released every day.


Everyone is bragging about the G5 PowerMac, it's really nothing special about it, in the x86 world we had AMD Opterons for while and they are much faster than the G5.


For a while? Let's say 2 months. And currently the only way to really get one is to build one yourself. And even those companies that do sell these Opteron Workstations price them about $1000 more than the G5 if you put in similar specs.

Mac users are not too design-oriented. It's just that we actually care what our machines look like. I can't stand sitting in front of a huge black box all day.

Oh, and in case you haven't heard, OS X's foundation, Darwin, is based on FreeBSD. And you cannot possibly say that the GUI of KDE or Gnome and such is more advanced than Aqua+Quartz.

Bleh.



irmongoose

Likvid
Oct 18, 2003, 01:06 PM
You Apple users are so fixed with obsession of Windows as soon as some guy talk about PC hardware.

I have never brought up Windows, you did...

That's the great thing with PC hardware, you can run almost any OS you want at peak performance compared to Apple hardware which is mostly limited to OSX and some Linux distros.

Heck, i can even run SUN Solaris on mine....

Freedom is what it's all about.

Apple never gives the user choice or freedom, you do as Daddy Steve tells you to do..

One example is the obsession by the one-button mouse that Steve wants you to use...

Well, if you read the document further down you can read that Sony was one of the developers of IEEE1384.

So you are wrong...

IEEE is a standardisation organisation.

I don't understand why Apple users are so ignorant and live in their own fantasy world that Apple is the best.

Apple aint the best, just realize it.

I even thought about buying the Powerbook 17" and i am thankfull today that someone here told not to do so.....

Apple hardware is slow, you are welcome to try my Pentium-M 1.7GHz IBM Thinkpad with FreeBSD later on and you will realize what you have the missed.

XnavxeMiyyep
Oct 18, 2003, 01:22 PM
Actually, the reason we buy Macs is (usually) to run Mac OS X. And OS X is the easiest OS to use, and the most efficient. And saying we are forced to use the one-button mouse is like saying you are forced to use Windows on an x86 machine. I don't use a one-button mouse on my Powermac.

Likvid
Oct 18, 2003, 01:25 PM
Try use a two button mouse with your Powerbook while you are seated in your flight chair.

Where are you gonna put it? in your knee?

Its ridicolous, and you know that, right?

XnavxeMiyyep
Oct 18, 2003, 01:31 PM
Most planes have tables. I hate laptop trackpads anyway, so regardless of how many buttons the laptop has, I'd probably get a trackball mouse if I were to use it on a plane.

vniow
Oct 18, 2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
Actually i don't like Microsoft at all.I hate their OS's.

Wow, something we can agree on.

However the hardware for x86 is excellent and you can get "exactly" what you want and you can run any Linux version or BSD you want.

You mean I can run any piece of hacked together unpolished, never-out-of beta OS on my machine? Sweet!

Apple users and Apple community is all about design and the looks of the computers, there are many drawbacks owning a Mac.

I'm sorry, I was unaware that people actually liked to look at dull, ugly computers...

1.Less flexibility, you dont have any choices when you want to buy hardware components, Apple users have like 2 graphics cards to choose from, how fun is that?

Pfft, the samn damn chipsets on Mac video cards are the same for PC ones, only the BIOS is different. Nvidia and ATI make all this chipsets for all the no-name cards you see at Fry's and whatnot, they just put it in a cheaper package, the only cards which don't have a Mac counterpart are the reallt high end ones like ATI's Fire and stuff...

2.Apple hardware is slooooow and they copy everything from the x86 world like Firewire, USB and everything.....

Yeah, we all know who invented Firewire and popularized USB, hmm....

3.The only good thing about Apple is their OS, OSX.

Matter of opinion.

4.There is no software at all really, there are no good software for receiving digital satellite broadcast channels, there are no good stock broker software like Metastock, there are lots software that Mac doesn't have which make it very handicaped as a productive platform.

There's not even software for receiving satellite broadcasts on the PC! There is no way the satellite companies would go for it at this time, not will all the rampant pirating that's going around..

I think Apple users are too much design and showoff oriented.

Yeah, those scratches on my iBook really add to its character.

Steve's best move would be to port OSX for x86 hardware....

Not again...

Everyone is bragging about the G5 PowerMac, it's really nothing special about it, in the x86 world we had AMD Opterons for while and they are much faster than the G5.

Does Final Cut Pro mean nothing to you?

And this stupid thing about one-button mouse with Macs.

I can't really understand any intelligent person defending this crap.

Woah there. I hate the one-button mouse just as much as anybody but there are some good arguments for it and I would never go so far as calling someone essentially stupid for defending it.

I am afraid MacOSX will go the same way as BeOS if Steve Jobs doesn't port OSX to the x86 platform.

http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml

Actually i prefer a dual AMD Opteron 2GHz with RAID SCSI and FreeBSD with Flux any day over a G5 PowerMac.

It will kick MacOSX ass any day......not to mention humongous faster.

Sorry, I actually prefer a nice GUI.

Heck, i can even run SUN Solaris on mine....

Whoop-de-frickin-do.

Apple never gives the user choice or freedom, you do as Daddy Steve tells you to do..

One example is the obsession by the one-button mouse that Steve wants you to use...

I happen to like my wireless Logitech thank you very much.

Well, if you read the document further down you can read that Sony was one of the developers of IEEE1384.

You mean IEEE1394? And did you even read the article? Sony didn't come in until before it was finalised as a standard, Apple were the ones to origionally come up with the technology.

I don't understand why Apple users are so ignorant and live in their own fantasy world that Apple is the best.

Apple aint the best, just realize it.

Matter of opinion.

Apple hardware is slow, you are welcome to try my Pentium-M 1.7GHz IBM Thinkpad with FreeBSD later on and you will realize what you have the missed.

Ah well, your loss. More for us!

Try use a two button mouse with your Powerbook while you are seated in your flight chair.
Where are you gonna put it? in your knee?


Yes. I can and I have.

Rower_CPU
Oct 18, 2003, 03:06 PM
DNFTT

Thank you

Dale Sorel
Oct 18, 2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
Freedom is what it's all about....Apple aint the best, just realize it.

So let me get this straight...freedom = best?

That's why M$ can't optimize their code, and have a plethora of security problems, because they have to make their software fit every POS PeeCee in the known universe :rolleyes:

Gymnut
Oct 18, 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
I don't understand why Apple users are so ignorant and live in their own fantasy world that Apple is the best.

Apple aint the best, just realize it.

I even thought about buying the Powerbook 17" and i am thankfull today that someone here told not to do so.....

Apple hardware is slow, you are welcome to try my Pentium-M 1.7GHz IBM Thinkpad with FreeBSD later on and you will realize what you have the missed. [/B]

Why are you a Guest? It seems you're not even a Macintosh user, much less an owner. I for one do not find myself perusing PC rumor forums. This almost fits into PC weenies writing in letters to Mac Design.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 18, 2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by irmongoose
It's fun because we can actually rely on Apple that the card will work. With PCs even though it says the card will work for XP, you have no idea whether your configuration supports it because there are so many configurations, making it unreliable. Apple chooses industry standards so there is no doubt on the consumer's side. If you want other cards that support the Mac, you are free to buy one and stick it into your PowerMac.


If the card specificaly says that it works for Windows XP then it went through Microsoft's Logo testing and certification, and that means it will work in your PC. OEM's also vigorously test each system they design before producing it to decrease tech support costs. Yes, Apple does choose for you. I've also never seen a computer store (and I've been to Mac stores) that actually sell the Apple versions of graphics cards.


Okay, what is this? FireWire, as mkaake has already shown, was developed by Apple. USB, on the other hand, was developed by Intel but Apple was actually one of the first companies to incorporate it into their machines and actively support it. Take a look here (http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/465/0,10732,109819-779189,00.html). Get your facts straight.


Yes, Apple did create FireWire 400 and it was an inovative move by them. That does't justify their other "standards". The Apple Display Connector is just DVI with USB ports... because everyone needs more USB ports, especially on their monitors (yes, there's a DVI-ADC adapter, but it costs $99 US). Then there's FireWire 800, which has a different plug so you can't plug a FireWire 400 device into it (not to mention you can't reach the maximum speed of FireWire 400 unless you're doing a ram-to-ram transfer, making FireWire 800 rather useless). At least USB 2.0 is 100% backwards compatible.


Oh of course, Microsoft has so many good products... let's see here, uhh Windows, Windows, and Windows. :rolleyes:


You forgot Office. They also make a wide range of server software and lots of popular games. Thanks for admitting that Windows is a good product =)


Have you personally touched and worked with Macs before? The architecture of the iMac, G4 PowerMac, and the G5 are far superior to any PC I have seen or worked with. Nothing beats the awesome accessibility of the G4's insides - one door.


Sure, it might be easy to get inside, but why would you ever do that with a Mac? It's like wanting to open up your stereo system. Macs are, after all, known for being reliable and never ever requiring maintenance. Unless you bought the Power Mac G4 GeForce 4 Ti upgrade for only $399 or a new hard-drive (god forbid it doesn't have the Apple logo on it, otherwise things could go terribly wrong), there's really no reason to open up a Mac. You could make a PC case that is as accessible as a PowerMac but then you'd have to break the ATX form factor standard, and in the PC world we like sticking with standards.


Maybe it's more like Macs don't have lots of the junk software like Windows has. Almost all the first-class software companies support OS X, assuring quality software. Where these companies don't fill in, there are plenty of shareware developers who make almost anything and everything. No software at all? Check out VersionTracker (http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/), it will show you the tens of new software released every day.


Sure, there is lots of software for the Mac from big companies, but if you want some special program to do that special thing you need it to do, don't expect to find it for the Mac.


For a while? Let's say 2 months. And currently the only way to really get one is to build one yourself. And even those companies that do sell these Opteron Workstations price them about $1000 more than the G5 if you put in similar specs.


Longer than the G5 anyways. Those workstations aren't as hard to get as you think. They can also be cheaper than a G5 1.6, depending on what's in it, although they're ususally more expensive due to many gigs of ram or Fire GL/Quatro cards as well as fancy SCSI/RAID hard-drive setups. Building one yourself isn't that hard and most computer stores will do it for you if you give them a list of specs.


Mac users are not too design-oriented. It's just that we actually care what our machines look like. I can't stand sitting in front of a huge black box all day.


Wait, so you both care and don't care what your computer looks like? If you don't like black or beige, check out www.lian-li.com... they've been making aluminium cases long before Apple.


Oh, and in case you haven't heard, OS X's foundation, Darwin, is based on FreeBSD. And you cannot possibly say that the GUI of KDE or Gnome and such is more advanced than Aqua+Quartz.

Bleh.


Graphicaly Aqua does look better but technically it doesn't stand a chance against xfree86's customizability and all of the neat remoting capabilities. It's also been around much longer than Aqua and you don't need a PowerPC to run it (although it runs on that too).

LethalWolfe
Oct 18, 2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
Yes, Apple did create FireWire 400 and it was an inovative move by them. That does't justify their other "standards". The Apple Display Connector is just DVI with USB ports... because everyone needs more USB ports, especially on their monitors (yes, there's a DVI-ADC adapter, but it costs $99 US). Then there's FireWire 800, which has a different plug so you can't plug a FireWire 400 device into it (not to mention you can't reach the maximum speed of FireWire 400 unless you're doing a ram-to-ram transfer, making FireWire 800 rather useless). At least USB 2.0 is 100% backwards compatible.



I'd love to see you try and cram some broadcast or better quality HD across FW400. Apple seems to have this uncanny ability to predict what many people will be using a few years in advance and release/incorporate that technology into their comptuers today (newton, USB, Firewire, iMovie/iDVD, wi-fi ready, etc.,). So what may seem like overkill now, could be the norm in 2-3 years. Nothing wrong w/some forward thinking and future proofing IMO.

And every store I've been to that's had a Mac section has had the video cards. Be it Fry's in LA or CompUSA in Indiana. So I guess finding Mac video cards is a YMMV situation.


Likvid, OS X is the only good software Apple makes?

What about FCP 4 (including Soundtrack, Compressor, Live Type, and Cinema Tools), DVD Studio Pro 2, Shake, logic, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto.


Lethal

vniow
Oct 18, 2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
DNFTT

Thank you

Sorry, I was bored, needed something to go before I went off to my sister's birthday party.

MacFool
Oct 18, 2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
Actually i don't like Microsoft at all.I hate their OS's.

However the hardware for x86 is excellent and you can get "exactly" what you want and you can run any Linux version or BSD you want.
...
4.There is no software at all really, there are no good software for receiving digital satellite broadcast channels, there are no good stock broker software like Metastock, there are lots software that Mac doesn't have which make it very handicaped as a productive platform.


Can you point me towards Metastock for Linux or *BSD? I was under the impression Metastock only ran on Windows.

evilsprung
Oct 18, 2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Gymnut
Well judging by your posts, you seem to give a crap.

hahah, what the hell are you talking about? The only reason I posted was to provide some damn perspective to some of the Mac bigots that are out there. Ever since I bought my 12" PB and came to these forums I will always see some kind of post ripping on Microsoft or Bill Gates. And every time I read those posts there's always some form of underlying resent or bitterness as if MS and Bill Gates did a great injustice not only to Apple but a personal injustice to the people of the Mac community as well.

hahaha, wtf is that? There's businesses out there that have done and do bad business practices all the time. But I really never see people going up in arms against those companies as the Mac and Linux communities do against Microsoft.

But hey, I guess whatever right? If some guy wants to go posting a thread ripping or whining about Microsoft/Bill Gates in order to provide some informal form of justice against the "evil" company known as Microsoft for the "great" company known as Apple, who am I to butt in right? Heh, looks like I was wrong in thinking that a community can be fans of something without having to rip on something else just to make the object of their affection all the greater.

wtf.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 19, 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I'd love to see you try and cram some broadcast or better quality HD across FW400. Apple seems to have this uncanny ability to predict what many people will be using a few years in advance and release/incorporate that technology into their comptuers today (newton, USB, Firewire, iMovie/iDVD, wi-fi ready, etc.,). So what may seem like overkill now, could be the norm in 2-3 years. Nothing wrong w/some forward thinking and future proofing IMO.

And every store I've been to that's had a Mac section has had the video cards. Be it Fry's in LA or CompUSA in Indiana. So I guess finding Mac video cards is a YMMV situation.


Likvid, OS X is the only good software Apple makes?

What about FCP 4 (including Soundtrack, Compressor, Live Type, and Cinema Tools), DVD Studio Pro 2, Shake, logic, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto.


Lethal

What does FireWire have to do with broadcasting? What you call "forward thinking" seems more like a marketing gimmick to me. Devices can't quite go as fast as FireWire 400 yet, much less FireWire 800. Sure, they might go that fast in the future, but if you buy a computer with FireWire 800 now it won't make things faster then because the computer will be the bottleneck. The fact that FireWire 400 and FireWire 800 have different plugs is proof enough that it's just a ploy.

Marble
Oct 19, 2003, 02:18 AM
You are obviously not a film editor.

benixau
Oct 19, 2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
The fact that FireWire 400 and FireWire 800 have different plugs is proof enough that it's just a ploy.

hey - do you know that USB can not ever get any faster. Really. The limitations of the original design means it can not get any faster with out increasing the pins and in all essence becoming firewire. Now at six pins we have both FW400 and USB2. At nine pins we have FW800.

Firewire has a design max of 3.2Gbps. We are right now at .8Gbps. There is no more for USB. It will die and firewire will be all that is left.

Remeber the days when the old serial ports and a parralell port was all a pc needed? Well if that was always the case why did we go to USB? Why do DV cams have FW400 and not USB2? Why is sony going to release their next DVCAM camera with FW800?

I dont see a REAL (not that MiniDV crap) digital camera that has USB2 on it much less the all mighty USB.

Apple's first attempt at a high speed bus was enough for digital video - intel's wazs not. They needed Three tries to get it near and even then FW400 beats USB2 in all. Even the pc mags admit that FW is better.

Give up. FW will be there when USB is o the machines that are sold for $10 are the only ones with USB on them.

irmongoose
Oct 19, 2003, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
1. I've also never seen a computer store (and I've been to Mac stores) that actually sell the Apple versions of graphics cards.

2. Then there's FireWire 800, which has a different plug so you can't plug a FireWire 400 device into it (not to mention you can't reach the maximum speed of FireWire 400 unless you're doing a ram-to-ram transfer, making FireWire 800 rather useless). At least USB 2.0 is 100% backwards compatible.

3. You forgot Office. They also make a wide range of server software and lots of popular games.

4. Thanks for admitting that Windows is a good product =)

5. Sure, it might be easy to get inside, but why would you ever do that with a Mac? Unless you bought the Power Mac G4 GeForce 4 Ti upgrade for only $399 or a new hard-drive (god forbid it doesn't have the Apple logo on it, otherwise things could go terribly wrong), there's really no reason to open up a Mac.

6. You could make a PC case that is as accessible as a PowerMac but then you'd have to break the ATX form factor standard, and in the PC world we like sticking with standards.

7. Sure, there is lots of software for the Mac from big companies, but if you want some special program to do that special thing you need it to do, don't expect to find it for the Mac.

8. Longer than the G5 anyways. Those workstations aren't as hard to get as you think. They can also be cheaper than a G5 1.6, depending on what's in it, although they're ususally more expensive due to many gigs of ram or Fire GL/Quatro cards as well as fancy SCSI/RAID hard-drive setups.

9. Wait, so you both care and don't care what your computer looks like? If you don't like black or beige, check out www.lian-li.com... they've been making aluminium cases long before Apple.

10. Graphicaly Aqua does look better but technically it doesn't stand a chance against xfree86's customizability and all of the neat remoting capabilities. It's also been around much longer than Aqua and you don't need a PowerPC to run it (although it runs on that too).

1. Look again. I've at least seen 5 different computer store chains which sell Mac video cards. I live in Japan so I haven't been to an Apple store, but I'm sure there are places which sell them in the US.

2. A different port? How about the transition from serial ports, PC/2, and ADB to USB? Didn't that involve different ports? In order to move on to new technology you have to incorporate them to new systems, otherwise peripheral companies won't make any products for them. Oh, and FireWire is also backwards compatible, all you have to do is attach a cheap adapter to your FireWire 400 plug just so it fits into the 800 port.

3. Apple also has the iApps, Keynote, server software, and has a bunch of useful technologies such as Rendezvous. And it doesn't charge customers ridiculously high amounts for them either.

4. Shut up.

5. Surely you don't only upgrade graphics cards. Hard drives, RAM, processor upgrades, and hard drive troubleshooting are all simplified with the G4's design, and although a little less convenient, the G5's. And who said the hard drives have to be Apple certified? I've stuck many no name drives or "Windows-certified" drives in a G4 and it has worked perfectly.

6. Microsoft is the god of proprietary products! How can you say "you like to stick to standards"?

7. As I've said, where major companies don't make the products, the shareware developers fill in. Do a search on VersionTracker for any kind of software. I'm sure you'll find an app for most of them.

8. I'm saying if you put the specifications the same for both the G5 and the AMD tower, the AMD ends up $1000 more. Don't compare machines with different specs.

9. It doesn't matter if it's aluminum, it's form factor is ridiculous. Those boxes are going to heat up pretty fast without a water cooling system.

10. Who cares how much you can customize it if it still looks like crap? It's been around much longer so it's automatically better? Macs let you do real work immediately without making you customize everything to make it work the way you want it to. Macs just work.



irmongoose

Phil Of Mac
Oct 19, 2003, 05:23 AM
Longhorn is Microsoft's Copland. Enough said.

Originally posted by panphage
The BeOS was also supposed to have a database instead of a "normal" filesystem. It, too, failed. They said: too much overhead. From the way they talked about it, no one had tried it before. I myself don't know if the Apple and MS attempts predated the BeOS (1992/3?)

The BeOS file system was actually a great feature that was really sweet. Yes, Be failed, but who cares?

dbally
Oct 19, 2003, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The BeOS file system was actually a great feature that was really sweet. Yes, Be failed, but who cares?

I care. It was the first alternative OS that I'd tried that actually worked very well for what I needed it to do (which wasn't that much). It also 'just worked'. It was my primary OS for a while (with win2k around just in case, long before I switched to the light side). I liked it so much I bought stock in it, but we all know how that turned out :p

As a side note, is there a way to set up a BeOS partition on OS X? Thought it'd be fun for old times sake.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 19, 2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by dbally
I care. It was the first alternative OS that I'd tried that actually worked very well for what I needed it to do (which wasn't that much). It also 'just worked'. It was my primary OS for a while (with win2k around just in case, long before I switched to the light side). I liked it so much I bought stock in it, but we all know how that turned out :p

And that's really my point: BeOS was a superb OS that Apple would have done well to adopt, and that the consumer would have done well to adopt. It failed, but that means nothing in terms of its quality.

benixau
Oct 19, 2003, 08:14 AM
One word:
BetaMAX

this proves that superior products end up only being used by the people who know about the entire market. VHS is the deFacto standard cause it was cheaper. BetaMAX is used in most TV and film studios worldwide cause it loads faster, it has a higher quality and degradation is 10-20 times slower.

Only last year did sony (format inventor vs. phillips, VHS' inventor) stop manufacturing BetaMAX players. Why? They said that these days, digital video can at least equal the quality and load times of BetaMAX with no degradation over time. They still make and sell BetaMAX tapes.

Now, my mac is better then your pc. Only people with knowledge of the entire market have them.

Sorry, windows is superior? No, it was cheaper to begin with.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 19, 2003, 08:27 AM
Betamax also could hold less video on one tape in terms of length.

dbally
Oct 19, 2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And that's really my point: BeOS was a superb OS that Apple would have done well to adopt, and that the consumer would have done well to adopt. It failed, but that means nothing in terms of its quality.

I see what you're saying. I misread the context of the 'who cares' part, sorry about that.

scem0
Oct 19, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by realityisterror
just more reason to switch to the mac...

not really. Well sort of.

Microsoft OS's are not being updated, or changed for the better. They are just getting more useless features, and are getting bulkier. I could care less if longhorn took 50 years. Windows '98 SE will forever be the best windows OS.

:)

scem0

FattyMembrane
Oct 19, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by dbally
As a side note, is there a way to set up a BeOS partition on OS X? Thought it'd be fun for old times sake.
you could try, but the problem is that the official beos is closed-source and was finalized back in the beige g3 days, so hardware compatibility may be an issue. there's no harm in giving it a shot.

you may want to keep an eye on the several sourceforge.net projects that are aiming to create an opensource version of the beos with binary compatibility for old be software.

apple actually hired the guy responsible for be's filesystem and i'm hoping that we see a drastically improved version in osx in the near future. i must admit that ms's idea for an sql fs is quite interesting and i hope that apple takes cues from gnome's storage (http://www.gnome.org/~seth/storage/) when designing a new fs.

apple also needs to step up the innovation in osx. don't get me wrong, i bleed six colors, but 10.3 is pretty much a refined and streamlined version of openstep. we're still missing some nextstep features that have been around for a decade. quartz, rendezvous, and exposé are incredible, but apple used to put out forward-looking projects like sk8, xspace, and opendoc at a feverish pace (and subsequently killed them for no good reason).

Phil Of Mac
Oct 19, 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by FattyMembrane
but apple used to put out forward-looking projects like sk8, xspace, and opendoc at a feverish pace (and subsequently killed them for no good reason).

That was part of the "random, unfocused software development" program that's been unfortunately largely canceled :)

FattyMembrane
Oct 19, 2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
That was part of the "random, unfocused software development" program that's been unfortunately largely canceled :)
it's a damn shame, those projects were truly visionary. i'd like to correct something in my previous statement: apple should take a hint from itself in incorporating a database filesystem. after doing some research, i found that one of apple's other defunct projects was "project sybil", which provided advanced ui improvements and *gasp* a database filesystem (this is in the late 80s-early 90s). what happened to the days of unhampered creativity where bright young engineers came up with ideas so far ahead of their time that they wouldn't even be incorporated a decade afterward?

Phil Of Mac
Oct 19, 2003, 03:09 PM
Random, unfocused software development had its strong points, but only if Apple would follow through on it! QuickTime was one of these projects, IIRC.

yamabushi
Oct 19, 2003, 03:24 PM
Nah... that kind of free thinking is just a waste of time and money. Just a bunch of crazy ideas. Take Xerox/PARC for example - what did they ever come up with?;)

LethalWolfe
Oct 19, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by benixau
One word:
BetaMAX

this proves that superior products end up only being used by the people who know about the entire market. VHS is the deFacto standard cause it was cheaper. BetaMAX is used in most TV and film studios worldwide cause it loads faster, it has a higher quality and degradation is 10-20 times slower.

Only last year did sony (format inventor vs. phillips, VHS' inventor) stop manufacturing BetaMAX players. Why? They said that these days, digital video can at least equal the quality and load times of BetaMAX with no degradation over time. They still make and sell BetaMAX tapes.

Now, my mac is better then your pc. Only people with knowledge of the entire market have them.

Sorry, windows is superior? No, it was cheaper to begin with.

BetaMax does provide a better picture than VHS, but I think you hav your formats crossed. I think yer confusing BetaMax (a consumer product) with BetaSP (a professional product). BetaSP is still the standard broadcast quality format, although digital is starting to creep in. I've never seen BetaMax used in a professional environment.


Lethal

Gymnut
Oct 19, 2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by pepeleuepe
I have in no way been keeping up with the Longhorn hype. I read a little bit here and there, but this seems pretty crazy. How can it take this long to release a new OS?

Also, is Longhorn a complete rewrite of the Windows OS, or is it a revision of 2000/XP? Microsoft is large company with vast resources as far as programming goes. It wouldn't seem that 5 years for a new OS is acceptable, but maybe I'm missing something.


Evilsprung, is this the "ragging" of Longhorn you are talking about? You quoted him as saying "how can it take this long to release a new OS?". Note, since he even admitted to not knowing the entire picture in regards as to how Longhorn would change the Windows landscape, this is a pretty open ended statement.

Macco
Oct 19, 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by evilsprung
I never said that Apple was working on OS X for 15 years, I they were working on their replacement OS for the classic Mac OS for 15 years, which resulted into OS X. Either way it took them 15 years. Sure you can blame it on troublespots and what not for the delay, but the end result is that they took freaking 15 years. So when someone in the Mac community goes bashiing on Microsoft for how long it takes Microsoft to dish out and OS, that person should take a look at Apple first.

I don't know to what extent your 15 years claim is true. In those 15 years, though, Apple introduced around 7 new OSes, at an average of about one every two years. Meanwhile it seems that in the five years from the release date of XP to the earliest likely release date of Longhorn, Microsoft will have released nothing more than a few service packs. Your comparison between Apple's and Microsoft's developments of their new OS is invalid because Apple concurrently developed their existing OS, while Microsoft is currently not.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 19, 2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Macco
I don't know to what extent your 15 years claim is true.

For the record, it's not. Apple started work on the first replacement for the Mac OS, Pink, in 1991. Mac OS X was released in 2000--9 years later.

Jagga
Oct 19, 2003, 10:37 PM
Phil of Mac....The BeOS file system was actually a great feature that was really sweet. Yes, Be failed, but who cares?

Well I guess Palm or should I say PalmSource cares.....as they bought BeOS and now the upcoming Palm OS 6.0 with its multimedia improvements (along with Palm OS 5.1.2) is based on BeOS or its collaboration on it.

I think whats taking Longhorn so long other than being milked for sour milk, is that this so called support for 3 dimensional displays is causing M$ promblems. That along with the whole underpinnings being rewritten........sure it'll support and have some NTFS file system structure but some new stuff that'll be more database file structure like not unlike what Windows 20003 Server.

Either that or because of so many improvements in OS X with each iteration, M$ cannot keep up with all the copying of features or think up new ideas based or provoked by them.

benixau
Oct 19, 2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
BetaMax does provide a better picture than VHS, but I think you hav your formats crossed. I think yer confusing BetaMax (a consumer product) with BetaSP (a professional product). BetaSP is still the standard broadcast quality format, although digital is starting to creep in. I've never seen BetaMax used in a professional environment.


Lethal

@Lethal:
Thanx for clearing that up. I knew it was a subset of the Beta format that sony invented, i just couldn't remember the letters for it (and as such called it BetaMAX just cause people realy do know about that one (well most (should - im 18 and know about it))). All the same BetaMAX was in all aspects, better than VHS.

@Phil Of Mac:
If BetaMAX had become the standard then longer tapes would have been made, same as we now can buy (although who would with the thiness of the tapes) 5hrs VHS tapes.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 19, 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Macco
I don't know to what extent your 15 years claim is true. In those 15 years, though, Apple introduced around 7 new OSes, at an average of about one every two years. Meanwhile it seems that in the five years from the release date of XP to the earliest likely release date of Longhorn, Microsoft will have released nothing more than a few service packs. Your comparison between Apple's and Microsoft's developments of their new OS is invalid because Apple concurrently developed their existing OS, while Microsoft is currently not.

Microsoft is actually pretty good at developing two OS's at once. There have always been the 9X (fast, low resource requirements, unstable) and the NT (slower but extremely fault tolerant) branches of Windows (until XP came along anyways) and each branch had Os's developed for it concurrently (Windows 3.x/Windows NT 3.5x, Windows 95/Windows NT 4, Windows 98/Windows 2000 (2000 had a LONG developement cycle), Windows Me/Windows XP). Although Microsoft won't be making another new OS alongside Longhorn, the service packs for XP will have some major improvements in them (SP2 is supposed to fix all of our security woes). Apple won't be doing anything other than new .1 releases until 2006 either. Microsoft is also developing other major technologies like a the .NET Framework 2.0 ("Whidbey"), a Visual Studio .NET suite for it, MS SQL Server "Yukon", and Office 2003 (although the latter has been completed now). Maybe, if you're lucky, they've also got a new Office for the Mac in the works =)

Phil Of Mac
Oct 19, 2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by benixau
If BetaMAX had become the standard then longer tapes would have been made, same as we now can buy (although who would with the thiness of the tapes) 5hrs VHS tapes.

Unfortunately, people don't buy products based on what features they might have after they became the standard. I don't buy Macs because I think after they become standard they will have a neural I/O system, I buy Macs because they have the features I want *now*.

Rower_CPU
Oct 19, 2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
...
SP2 is supposed to fix all of our security woes
...

I'll believe it when I see it. I haven't heard much talk about that besides buffer overrun exploit fixes.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 20, 2003, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'll believe it when I see it. I haven't heard much talk about that besides buffer overrun exploit fixes.

It'll also have an automatic update (so everyone will get the patches) and a real firewall.

benixau
Oct 20, 2003, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Unfortunately, people don't buy products based on what features they might have after they became the standard. I don't buy Macs because I think after they become standard they will have a neural I/O system, I buy Macs because they have the features I want *now*.

are you going to tell me that when the format wars were going on VHS had 5hr tapes? don't even try. the fact is that BetaMAX cost more for both the player and the tapes. Macs cost more and thence will not ever gain a majority market.

BetaMAX or mroe accurately (thanx lethal) BetaSP will not die cause the pros use it. Macs will not die cause the pros use it.

Black an White. You buy a product with the hope of continued support and expansion.

Would you buy a Pmac G5 if you knew that it wasnt going to be able to run panther?

mainstreetmark
Oct 20, 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by evilsprung
Heh, why don't you ask Apple? It took them 15 years to build a replacement to their classic Mac OS with the end results being of course Mac OS X.

Haha, why do people always ask that question in regards to Longhorn, geez.

What??

To start with, they obviously didn't spend 15 years on it. But, if you insist on playing that number game, then we can start with the firsts generation of windows, which was also around in the 1984 era. So, perhaps we should all rephrase:

"In regards to Longorn, why does MS take 22 years to rebuild Windows?"

Phil Of Mac
Oct 20, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by benixau
are you going to tell me that when the format wars were going on VHS had 5hr tapes? don't even try.

No. VHS did have 2-3 hour tapes, which were enough to watch a full movie, however. Betamax did not.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 20, 2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by mainstreetmark
What??

To start with, they obviously didn't spend 15 years on it. But, if you insist on playing that number game, then we can start with the firsts generation of windows, which was also around in the 1984 era. So, perhaps we should all rephrase:

"In regards to Longorn, why does MS take 22 years to rebuild Windows?"

Actually, they developed Windows NT well before that, which was a full rewrite. Longhorn is the third rewrite.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 20, 2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Actually, they developed Windows NT well before that, which was a full rewrite. Longhorn is the third rewrite.

Actually, Longhorn will still be loosely based on NT.

edesignuk
Oct 20, 2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
My PC:

Pentium MMX 166 MHZ
64 MB RAM
3.2 GB Quantum Hard-Drive
4x Acer CD-ROM
S3 VIRGE 2MB Graphics Card
SoundBlaster AWE 32 Sound Card
10/100 NIC

It runs Windows XP!
You have my pitty, that must be PAINFUL! :eek:

Jonathan Amend
Oct 20, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
You have my pitty, that must be PAINFUL! :eek:

It's actually not that bad... I can use MSN Messenger, surf these forums, and even play some old games like AOE and C&C. Windows XP can be very adaptive if you force it to run on old hardware. Installing XP on a machine with 1 GB of ram will usually make Windows take about 200 MB of it. With my 80 MB box (I just added a whopping 16 MB) it only takes around 60 MB. XP loads certain things into memory depending on how much ram is available and how much that thing is used. My computer just takes a little (ok, a lot) longer to load stuff but after that it's smooth enough to use. On installation Windows XP also adjusts some graphical settings depending on the system it's being installed on, in my case it disabled things like alpha blending and show-window-contents-while-dragging to speed things up a bit. Microsoft isn't lying when they say XP runs on 64 MB =)

Rower_CPU
Oct 20, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
You have my pitty, that must be PAINFUL! :eek:

Yeah. How much tweaking did you have to do to get that machine to work? It's nowhere near the supported specs.
-PC with 300 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233-MHz minimum required;* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

-128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

-1.5 gigabyte (GB) of available hard disk space.

- Super VGA (800_×_600) or higher resolution video adapter and monitor

- CD-ROM or DVD drive

- Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Jonathan Amend
Oct 20, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Yeah. How much tweaking did you have to do to get that machine to work? It's nowhere near the supported specs.

My 14" (I think) monitor can only do 640x480 so I had to lower the font and icon sizes and I disabled themeing. Otherwise, it's a fresh install.

Rower_CPU
Oct 20, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
My 14" (I think) monitor can only do 640x480 so I had to lower the font and icon sizes and I disabled themeing. Otherwise, it's a fresh install.

To me that's not a big a deal as the minimum CPU requirement. You're 66MHz short. :confused:

Plus, your hard drive has to be hurting...

Macco
Oct 20, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
Although Microsoft won't be making another new OS alongside Longhorn, the service packs for XP will have some major improvements in them (SP2 is supposed to fix all of our security woes). Apple won't be doing anything other than new .1 releases until 2006 either.
There is a huge difference between a Windows service pack and a Mac .1 upgrade that I feel like you should understand, since you are posting on a Mac forum. The new release of Mac OS X, Panther, has many speed and UI improvements, and includes many new features. If you haven't already, I encourage you to go to Apple's Panther site (http://www.apple.com/macosx) and check out the new features page. On the other hand, the apparently forthcoming Window XP service pack will do nothing more than possibly improve security and offer modest speed benefits (if any). So, just in case you didn't know it before, a Mac OS X point upgrade is quite significant in terms of improvements and new features, while an XP service pack is basically a bunch of bug fixes and patches lumped together.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 20, 2003, 04:12 PM
So a service pack is like a 10.2.x upgrade. Wow, we *still* get more than them!

benixau
Oct 20, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
No. VHS did have 2-3 hour tapes, which were enough to watch a full movie, however. Betamax did not.

i have a few movies fully on single BetaMAX tapes.

still - VHS won out cause it was cheaper. The same is happening in the computer industry.

macs dont have every piece of major software for them. pcs are also cheaper. therefore macs will not ever be the mainstream computer.

if they did, MS would have a conundrum on its hands: keep making windows for a minority market (remember they cancelled their browser for a minoirty and don't make software at all for some others (*nix, BeOS))

benixau
Oct 20, 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
To me that's not a big a deal as the minimum CPU requirement. You're 66MHz short. :confused:

Plus, your hard drive has to be hurting...

windows, including NT has for quite a while (since win98) had a CPU checker. It has always been set at 166Mhz. I guess they forogt to update it for XP.
I know it can run well on slower machines. My old C333, now dead, replaced by C2.78 (o/c 2.4), pc could run it well, not great, but well on 224MB PC66 RAM …

Jonathan Amend
Oct 20, 2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by benixau
windows, including NT has for quite a while (since win98) had a CPU checker. It has always been set at 166Mhz. I guess they forogt to update it for XP.
I know it can run well on slower machines. My old C333, now dead, replaced by C2.78 (o/c 2.4), pc could run it well, not great, but well on 224MB PC66 RAM …

Windows never checked if your CPU met the minimum requirements. You could probably install XP on a 386, if you wanted to anyways... I used to have Windows Me running on a 486SX with 32MB ram. I've also swapped the P166MMX with an AMD K5-75 and it still ran properly (although very slowly).

FattyMembrane
Oct 20, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Unfortunately, people don't buy products based on what features they might have after they became the standard.
amen to that. everybody else jumped on the zip bandwagon, but i had the last laugh with my SyQuest EZ135 (until they went out of business of course). consumers don't care about storage space and seek times, they want flashy names and purple disks...

Ajmbc
Oct 21, 2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend

Although Microsoft won't be making another new OS alongside Longhorn, the service packs for XP will have some major improvements in them (SP2 is supposed to fix all of our security woes). Apple won't be doing anything other than new .1 releases until 2006 either.

The probable reason for these .1 updates is because Apple is trying to stretch X as far as it will go. Think about it- Mac OS X. Mac OS 11 doesn't sound nearly as good- neither does Mac OS XI. I think the .1 releases are good- as "X" is a potential marketing strategy.

Just my $.02
-Ajmbc

benixau
Oct 21, 2003, 10:05 AM
expect to see Mac OS X version 11

solvs
Oct 27, 2003, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
the service packs for XP will have some major improvements in them (SP2 is supposed to fix all of our security woes). Apple won't be doing anything other than new .1 releases until 2006 either.

I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at that. Those of us who use Macs AND PCs know how funny those statements are. It would take a LOT to fix all of our security woes, and I hope you're right, but somehow... I doubt it.

And - you do know that those .1 releases are HUGE improvements, right? I mean, 10.1 was ok, and 10.2 was cool, but 10.3 is amazing. You should try it sometime. ;) I can't wait to see what 10.4+ brings.

You and Aiden would get along pretty well.