Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Fender2112, Oct 14, 2003.
Found this on ArsTechnica. Thought it would be of interest.
just more reason to switch to the mac...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Source code been stolen ?
longhorn 2006 will be like mac osX.1
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!
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. Ive played around with a VERY early alpha of Longhorn. Its nothing big at this point. The GUI is a spiced up version of XP right now. This could easily change between now and Longhorns 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 XPs code. How can I tell? I did a simple hex edit of a few of Windows XPs 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 Ill bet money it will happen.
Also of note if youve 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 PCs against security threats. Right off the top of my head that screams firewalls, something XP has a rudimentary version of right now. Im 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 wouldnt 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 hasnt 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 dont 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.
still a long... long.. horn for gates...
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"
FYI the version of SQL they will be using is a stripped down version of Yukon MSs latest and greatest.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last time i checked it was only to be a "better" version of XP with new more secure features.
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.
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.
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.
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?)