PDA

View Full Version : Ballmer: Longhorn is 'disruptive - but worth it'


MacBytes
Jul 13, 2004, 04:49 PM
Category: Microsoft
Link: Ballmer: Longhorn is \'disruptive - but worth it\' (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040713174950)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

yamabushi
Jul 13, 2004, 05:20 PM
In other words, "Don't worry we will mess up your systems again with an expensive and complicated upgrade but it is going to take a while so you have to wait". :rolleyes:

Stella
Jul 13, 2004, 05:35 PM
No microsoft software is worth the hassle.

windows - a virus portal
office - expensive, slow and full of bloat
smartphone - requires powerful processor for a phone, bloated
ie - virus portal, slow, lacking in features, incompatibility issues regarding the web and other CSS compliant browsers.

I could go on.... but really, microsoft is all but a joke

Category: Microsoft
Link: Ballmer: Longhorn is \'disruptive - but worth it\' (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040713174950)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

winmacguy
Jul 13, 2004, 05:48 PM
Actualy it is Microsoft marketing speak for " we need more revenue" Come everybody buy our products and pay our licensing fees because we have run out of original ideas and need to rehash ideas that are already out of date but we still like to milk our cash cow.

csubear
Jul 13, 2004, 05:49 PM
Longhorn is going to be M$ Os 9 -> OS X. Except it will be total failure.

wrldwzrd89
Jul 13, 2004, 06:28 PM
Longhorn is going to be M$ Os 9 -> OS X. Except it will be total failure.
I'll help the process along by NOT buying Longhorn when it is eventually released. (I can't type today - I keep fat-fingering the keys.)

dashiel
Jul 13, 2004, 07:12 PM
i actually think that longhorn is going to be an awesome release. the thing is by the time it comes out (late 2006/early 2007 if current estimates are accurate), OS X will be one generation beyond tiger. quartz extreme (similar to microsoft's avalon (i think, can't keep track of all their code names)) will be in it's 4th generation. spotlight (microsoft's database style file system) will be in it's 2nd generation, dashboard (akin to microsoft's sparkle concept) and all the crazy improvements to webkit will be in it's 2nd generation.iLife apps will be 2 to 3 generations beyond where they are now. iTunes will probably be in it's 8th or 9th iteration and will have extended well in to living room. i suspect we'll see some sort of VoIP solution from apple that links in with AirPort express and iSight.

so while longhorn might be awesome if it were released today, 2-3 years from now, it's going to be the usual reaction from us mac people, "who cares".

nagromme
Jul 13, 2004, 07:24 PM
A big "step" IS what computing badly needs after enough years pass. You can't just keep building on old stuff. You can't make a bloated product forever just for legacy compatibility. But... if you don't stay compatible you lose your market base. A catch-22 for Microsoft. Expect Longhorn to be more bloated and complex and legacy-dependent than it ought to be, for that reason. It will have a lot to offer but underneath it won't be the total "fresh start" that is needed--and yet it WILL still be disruptive to everyone. Lose-lose.

And what about the day when MS has to make a big CPU-architecture jump, abandoning x86 for something entirely different? The same problems apply when that inevitably habbens.

Apple on the other hand has already successfully made BOTH big jumps. They made the CPU jump from 68xxx to RISC/PowerPC, a move that we still benefit from today as G5s ship and G6s are designed. But a move that could have been fatal if it wasn't for big help fro CodeWarrior, and the Fat Binaries allowed by Macs' resource-fork filesystem.

And Apple has made a total OS transition too--one that's new polished and settled through several versions. A done deal. We're UNIX now. A TOTAL shift under the hood. The hard times for OS 9 users are over--and thanks to Carbonized apps, were never that bad. Plus, the smaller and simpler range of systems in Apple's existing customer base--all designed by Apple (unlike PCs which are not designed by MS) makes low market share an advantage. In this sense, Microsoft must pay dearly for being the biggest--supporting a huge tangle of products and configs from thousands of vendors.

The Mac's head start is only getting bigger and bigger.

nagromme
Jul 13, 2004, 07:27 PM
"a number of Windows enthusiast Web sites reported that Microsoft had run into compatibility problems between SP2 and other software."

Thus the term, "patch and pray." That's why patching huge numbers of problems doesn't excuse MS having so many holes in the first place. Patch a hole and you may break something your company depends on. Maybe something in-house that MS never tested at all! Any update from any vendor might do that--which is why you need quality control up front so the critical patches can be few and seldom far-reaching. Like they are from Apple, for instance!

More on the nightmare that is "patch and pray":

http://www.csoonline.com/read/080103/patch.html

shamino
Jul 15, 2004, 04:08 PM
Actualy it is Microsoft marketing speak for " we need more revenue" Come everybody buy our products and pay our licensing fees because we have run out of original ideas and need to rehash ideas that are already out of date but we still like to milk our cash cow.
Yep. They started all these subscription sales so that managers won't have to worry about constantly paying for upgrades and guess what now? The next upgrade won't come for at least three more years. And all these companies are paying their subscription fees for a big fat nothing.

CaptainHaddock
Jul 17, 2004, 03:13 AM
I love giving people a blank stare when they complain about the latest virus or corrupted registry or printer drives that stopped working or DVD drive that won't burn. "What's a virus again?" I used to be the resident, frustrated virus-cleaning expert; now I'm an amused onlooker.

Looks like the joke will continue when Windows Foghorn Leghorn comes out. My new iMac already has Longhorn's best features.

themacrobaye
Jul 18, 2004, 01:33 AM
One funny thing about VirtualPC, is that Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. With VPC, my mac can run windows better than a pc.

yamabushi
Jul 18, 2004, 01:50 AM
One funny thing about VirtualPC, is that Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. With VPC, my mac can run windows better than a pc.

I doubt it. Can you explain how VPC is better than Windows on a PC?

wrldwzrd89
Jul 18, 2004, 05:46 AM
One funny thing about VirtualPC, is that Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. With VPC, my mac can run windows better than a pc.
How is that possible? Even on a fast G4, VPC is S-L-O-W, much slower than a real PC (even at the reported emulated CPU speed).

billyboy
Jul 18, 2004, 11:56 AM
How is that possible? Even on a fast G4, VPC is S-L-O-W, much slower than a real PC (even at the reported emulated CPU speed).

Retro Windows software runs very quick ie Office 2000 running on VPC2.1 with Windows 95 installed on my Powerbook is lightening fast. Dont want to do much with it, and who knows what I will do if it ever crashes, but its great for typing MS compatible documents.

wrldwzrd89
Jul 18, 2004, 02:30 PM
Retro Windows software runs very quick ie Office 2000 running on VPC2.1 with Windows 95 installed on my Powerbook is lightening fast. Dont want to do much with it, and who knows what I will do if it ever crashes, but its great for typing MS compatible documents.
Win95 is blazing fast on VPC (any version) - but WinXP is about as fast as driving a go-kart through molasses.

shamino
Jul 19, 2004, 09:48 AM
Retro Windows software runs very quick ie Office 2000 running on VPC2.1 with Windows 95 installed on my Powerbook is lightening fast. Dont want to do much with it, and who knows what I will do if it ever crashes, but its great for typing MS compatible documents.
Running a Mac version of MS Office is even faster.

And a lot of modern Windows apps are incompatible with 95. iTunes isn't the first program to require Win2K/XP.