Microsoft overhauls Longhorn plans: They will delay some of ...

[MacBytes]

Category: Microsoft
Link: Microsoft overhauls Longhorn plans: They will delay some of the key improvements that had been planned. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040827144603)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[Applespider]

It's cruel to laugh at those less fortunate... :rolleyes:

Apple will have to make the most of the Tiger advertising next year - a full year (at least) before Longhorn ships incomplete!

[wrldwzrd89]

Category: Microsoft
Link: Microsoft overhauls Longhorn plans: They will delay some of the key improvements that had been planned. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040827144603)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug
Oh dear - this was inevitable, wasn't it? Microsoft couldn't get Longhorn delivered on time, so they either push back the release date or cut back on features. The sad thing is that this has happened before and it's likely to happen again to Microsoft.

[Sharewaredemon]

ships incomplete! very funny.

it's wierd for the longest time i've wanted people to switch to macs. But really, I'm just glad i use one. But i seriously wonder if apple and other operating systems will gain market share due to window's delays on longhorn.

As I saw this i remember reading somewhere that very few people who own windows computer upgrade operating systems.

[nacl99]

It sounds like longhorn will not have the meta search stuff like tiger, and will not have the graphics engine run by the video card like, ummm... osx 10.0?

Am I right?

If so...wow....that sucks.

[Lancetx]

Ouch. ;) And thus the slow but steady stream of users switching to the Mac or Linux will continue. Eventually M$ is going to have to get it together or else run the risk of losing more than just a trivial amount of their user base. People think Apple's hardware delays are bad, but this is getting ridiculous. :)

[space2go]

They should have named it Copland.

[dotnina]

I've been amazed at all of Microsoft's slip-ups lately. How does a company with so much money and so many resources screw up so badly, repeatedly, in such a public way?

:confused:

[jasonbw]

It makes sense, MS is having difficulty offering something new or usefull besides those three key bu--features, so they are going to roll them out either piecemeal or not whatsoever. It'll allow them to have something to put into longhorns sequel. And sell two OS's instead of one.

[Bendit]

The more they push it back the more I look forward to it as it seems they are actually putting thought into this and making sure it's ready before it's released. It's a nice change.

[SeaFox]

I can't decide which would make more sense for Microsoft...

* Release Longhorn with it's original planned features when it's ready (around 2007 or so).

* Strip features to get Longhorn out the door sooner.

Really, once you take the the Avalon UI, WinFS, and other features axed a few months ago away, what are you left with?

Everyone who commented on the Longhorn beta's UI looking much like WinXP were told it was just a temporary front and it would look completely differnet when finished (because of Avalon). But now Avalon's been shelved.

It's looking more and more like Longhorn is going to be nothing more than a rehash of XP.

One that took 5+ years to be released and costs $199.

[JeffTL]

This nerfing will give Tiger -- which I understand already has metasearch and graphics system enhancements done -- the clear technical superiority over Longhorn, beyond even what Panther has.

And Linux will always be cheaper than either, so it doesn't bode well for Longhorn.

[winmacguy]

And like a woman in an abusive raltionship the punters just keep on going back for more because they have never known any other way of living.

[eric_n_dfw]

It sounds like longhorn will not have the meta search stuff like tiger, and will not have the graphics engine run by the video card like, ummm... osx 10.0?

Am I right?

If so...wow....that sucks.Actually, 10.2 introduced Quartz Extreme, the first GUI hardware acceration for Mac OS X. That was the 1st "built in" 3d compositing engine of any popular OS, using OpenGL acceleration on video cards that supported it.

On the other hand, Windows (all the way back to 3.x I believe) and Mac OS 9 (and earlier) has had hardware acceration of their GUI routines all along. This is why, even with QE, window resizing and scrolling is slower that on those (more simplistic) GUI's.

Core Graphics in 10.4, on a high-enough end video card, may actually bring Quartz/Aqua back up to speed with those GUI's since it not only is offloading the compositing to OpenGL - but also pixel-level manipulations. (At least that's what I understand from the stuff I've read)

[shamino]

Oh dear - this was inevitable, wasn't it? Microsoft couldn't get Longhorn delivered on time, so they either push back the release date or cut back on features.
And they appear to be doing both. (Remember that there were news articles about schedule slips last month.)
The sad thing is that this has happened before and it's likely to happen again to Microsoft.
The usual "rule" is "good, fast, cheap - pick any two". It appears that Microsoft has abandoned the first two. If they ship Longhorn with the same pricing scheme as XP, then they'll have abandoned all three.

Glad to see they're keeping with tradition :D

[shamino]

... i seriously wonder if apple and other operating systems will gain market share due to window's delays on longhorn.
Probably not. 2000 and XP both shipped very late, compared to initial estimates. This didn't translate to people trading in their PCs for Macs - heck, it didn't even translate to people installing non-Windows operating systems on their existing PCs. (Yes, a lot of people moved to Linux, but I don't think that had anything to do with MS's release schedules.)

[shamino]

I've been amazed at all of Microsoft's slip-ups lately. How does a company with so much money and so many resources screw up so badly, repeatedly, in such a public way?
An entrenched user-base. People don't switch because the perceived cost of switching is more than that of putting up with the screw-ups.

A home user switching needs to buy new hardware and software. It's an expense, but not an unbearable one.

A corporation that switches all at once must do this dozens or hundreds of times over. Then it must also train its employees on the new systems. Especially training for the IT and tech support people. This costs a huge amount.

A corporation that partially switches will spend less at once, but they'll have increased support costs, since the IT people will have to know both systems at once, and there will be inevitable interoperability issues when the two systems share documents and network resources.

MS has to REALLY screw up big time to convince a corporate accounting department that this kind of expense is worth it.

[shamino]

It's looking more and more like Longhorn is going to be nothing more than a rehash of XP.

One that took 5+ years to be released and costs $199.
It'll probably cost more. $200 is the current pricetag for WinXP home edition, with the "professional" edition costing $300. I expect Longhorn to ship for $300-350, with a stripped-down "home" edition costing less.

But to be fair, it's worth noting that Windows NT initially shipped with the same user interface of Windows 3.1. But it would be unfair to call it a rehash of Windows 3.1. There was a whole new architecture underneath that facade. When NT 4 shipped, it used the Win95 look-and-feel, but again, it would be unfair to call it a rehash of Win95 - because the underlying architecture was very different.

Longhorn, when it ships, may look and feel like XP, but it will probably be unfair to say that it is just another XP release. (Unless it gets stripped even further, of course - which is a possibility.)

[macridah]

M$ is probably scared of Tiger and want to release longhorn asap. Since they are rushing the product release, I wonder if it will be more buggy and have more security holes ... probably will, it's M$.

[XboxEvolved]

I would rather they take their time to make it what it is supposed to be. You have to figure also Windows OS has to be compatible with millions of configurations, etc, etc. OS X has very little in comparison it has to be compatible with. I am sure Longhorn will definately be an improvement although I will still stick to OS X.

I would think they could be making a completely 64-bit version also since it seems within the next 7 years most programs will be 64-bit compatible.

[Applespider]

Probably not. 2000 and XP both shipped very late, compared to initial estimates. This didn't translate to people trading in their PCs for Macs - heck, it didn't even translate to people installing non-Windows operating systems on their existing PCs.

I don't think many Windows users upgrade their OS - simply because their PC isn't likely to be capable of running the new OS. Back when XP came out, I didn't upgrade from 98 - I waited until my PC was pretty much dead and then went computer shopping. Happily someone showed me OS X in time and I switched - Panther (and then Tiger) are far more impressive to demonstrate to potential switchers than system 9 was.

All the 'nontech' consumers out there nowadays who are the ones most affected with viruses, spyware etc (simply because they don't understand how to avoid them), the ones who just dump everything in one folder and can never find anything again, the ones who like eyecandy because it just looks cool, and whose PCs have got to 3/4 years old and they need a new one just because the system needs reinstalled and they can't do it - they're the ones that Apple need to do a big push on.

Let's face it, chances are most of us are going to upgrade anyhow!

[DJY]

Not that I needed any more reasons to switch (which I did two months ago)... seems between this news...
problems already with Win XP SP2...

well I'm glad to be rid of Microsoft!

[Abstract]

Oh dear - this was inevitable, wasn't it? Microsoft couldn't get Longhorn delivered on time, so they either push back the release date or cut back on features. The sad thing is that this has happened before and it's likely to happen again to Microsoft.

How can a product with a moving release date ever be shipped "late"? ;) People who were following along with Longhorn development news, like myself, knew it was going to be released at a specified date. This date changed.....a google number of times. Now I can't be arsed to find the newest and most updated release date. All I know is that they're releasing in 2007. So if they release it in 2007, they're not late. May as well not even tell people that they're delaying the release.....most people didn't know when it was anyway. ;)

And I hope they take their time, like others have said. I want it to be done right. Windows could actually be a great OS. They have much more to worry about than Apple does with regards to compatibility. Could Apple have done better? I don't believe so. :o
If they're building it from the ground up, then some of the past mistakes have probably been fixed. MS knows it's reputation, and I'm sure it wants Windows to be good this time. It has too much on the line. And even if its not as good as Tiger, or the future OS 10.5, that's fine. I thought all OSX versions pre OS 10.2 were crap. Even after Longhorn is first released, it has a few chances. :) I can't wait.

[solvs]

The more they push it back the more I look forward to it as it seems they are actually putting thought into this and making sure it's ready before it's released. It's a nice change.
Actually it seems to be the opposite. They are trying to release it sooner with fewer features. Hopefully this means fewer issues for those who need to use Windows, but somehow I doubt it. Better than rushing it with all sorts of crap that doesn't work right, I guess, but they are still rushing to get it out. And it's still late.

But if all the stuff that was supposed to make it so great isn't included... what's the point? Wouldn't this just be XP with some (much needed) fixes? And what happened to rewriting it from scratch?

[wrldwzrd89]

How can a product with a moving release date ever be shipped "late"? ;) People who were following along with Longhorn development news, like myself, knew it was going to be released at a specified date. This date changed.....a google number of times. Now I can't be arsed to find the newest and most updated release date. All I know is that they're releasing in 2007. So if they release it in 2007, they're not late. May as well not even tell people that they're delaying the release.....most people didn't know when it was anyway. ;)

And I hope they take their time, like others have said. I want it to be done right. Windows could actually be a great OS. They have much more to worry about than Apple does with regards to compatibility. Could Apple have done better? I don't believe so. :o
If they're building it from the ground up, then some of the past mistakes have probably been fixed. MS knows it's reputation, and I'm sure it wants Windows to be good this time. It has too much on the line. And even if its not as good as Tiger, or the future OS 10.5, that's fine. I thought all OSX versions pre OS 10.2 were crap. Even after Longhorn is first released, it has a few chances. :) I can't wait.
I'm judging lateness here by the original release date for Longhorn, not the google-times-revised one that seems to change often.

[iMeowbot]

As I saw this i remember reading somewhere that very few people who own windows computer upgrade operating systems.
Right, but manufacturers are getting antsy. CPU speeds aren't increasing the way they used to, and they need something to make their products look "new and improved." Computer sales have generally been shifting away from first-time purchasers to replacements, and sellers have trouble if this year's model doesn't seem very different from what was on the shelves three years ago.

[shamino]

I don't think many Windows users upgrade their OS - simply because their PC isn't likely to be capable of running the new OS.
No. It's because they're mostly not technically inclined and the self-proclaimed experts in the press say that they won't run the new OS.

But it's not true. I ran Windows 2000 for years on a Pentium-90 system that shipped with Win95. And this was with a piddly 96M of memory in it.

My dual PPro/200 system at home (that came with NT 4) has no problems running Win2K and XP, after upgrading the memory from its stock 64M to 256M.

People with old PCs generally have no problem running modern versions of Windows. In almost every case, the only upgrade required is more memory. People who believe otherwise are either gamers (who need a motherboard replacement for reasons unrealted to the version of Windows) or systems that are so old that the memory can not be expanded to a usable amount.

Yes, modern applications need more horespower, but that's unrelated to the OS. An application that needs a 2GHz processor will need it if you're running Win98 or XP. And an application that runs fine on an old Pentium box will run just as well on XP, as long as you have enough memory.
Back when XP came out, I didn't upgrade from 98 - I waited until my PC was pretty much dead and then went computer shopping.
That's, of course, your choice, but it was not necessary, unless your Win98 box was REALLY old. I've found that XP runs OK on anything with at least 256M of memory, and runs well on anything with at least 512M.
All the 'nontech' consumers out there nowadays who are the ones most affected with viruses, spyware etc (simply because they don't understand how to avoid them), the ones who just dump everything in one folder and can never find anything again, the ones who like eyecandy because it just looks cool, and whose PCs have got to 3/4 years old and they need a new one just because the system needs reinstalled and they can't do it - they're the ones that Apple need to do a big push on.
These are also the people who refuse to think for themselves. An ad campaign won't do much for them.

Let's face it, chances are most of us are going to upgrade anyhow!
That's funny. Didn't you just argue that nobody ever upgrades without a complete hardware replacement?

[adamfilip]

i think.. Bill should take a few bucks and start a new company.
start a new Operating system from scratch..

not having to rely on legacy code for old sstems will help.

longhorn is suppose to be equal to the OSX from OS9 transition.. but its not going to be it will be the OS 9 to OS 9.5..

likely same basic core..

nothing fundamentally new. unfortunately

dont get me wrong.. I love macs.. but it being a OS for 5% of the computing world makes it what it is.. if Mac was on 95% of systems.. it wouldnt be the same OS..