Intel Macs running Windows...

[treblah]

Not only will the GPU not work without finding some hacked drivers or changing the firmware but Macs can't really do a lot with NTFS and Windows can't do much with HFS+. Longhorn has a big update to NTFS and that's only going to make it harder to read. IIRC Microsoft is going to do full-volume encryption by default so reading the drive will be alomst impossible from another OS (this is to stop people from stealing your data by booting into Linux or something similar).

WinFS will be next to impossible to read even from an unencrypted drive.

Even hacked display drivers won't do much in Longhorn because of the new driver system. At best you'll be able to run a lightly hardware accelerated tier. But you probalby won't even be able to do that because Longhorn requires signed drivers AFAIK.

You are making the assumption that the video cards used will be different than the cards used today in Intel based systems. Has Apple ever said that they are going to use 'Mac' only versions of cards? If they are 'Mac' only cards, and I can't see why nVidia or ATI would really want to keep doing this when they have PCIe cards to begin with, then yes some sort of 'hack' might be needed. But this is still unknown.

It is my contention that there will be no hardware in the Mactel systems that prevents Windows from booting. Be it a external FW/USB2 drive or a second internal SATA drive why would you worry about the file system, use HFS+ for the OS X drive and NTFS or WinFS (in 2009) for your Windows drive. Drag and drop support between the 2 FSs is already present, no?

 

[treblah]

Guess I missed the Firewire 800 announcement on the Centrino chipset.

Nope, could not find a Centrino based laptop with Firewire 800. I also never said Centrino had FW built in, I said Apple is no longer worried about making and selling AP Cards because the technology will be integrated into the chipset.

 

[Sun Baked]

Nope, could not find a Centrino based laptop with Firewire 800. I also never said Centrino had FW built in, I said Apple is no longer worried about making and selling AP Cards because the technology will be integrated into the chipset.

Wireless isn't integrated into the Intel chipset yet, but including the Intel wireless chip or card is part of the marketing support given for Centrino.

Doesn't mean Apple has to ditch Broadcom yet ... but it may eventually happen if Apple ditches AMD and switches to XScale in the Airport BS.

Broadcom may still be of interest, especially if Apple declines to market the iBook and PowerBooks as Centrino.

 

[RacerX]

You are making the assumption that the video cards used will be different than the cards used today in Intel based systems. Has Apple ever said that they are going to use 'Mac' only versions of cards? If they are 'Mac' only cards, and I can't see why nVidia or ATI would really want to keep doing this when they have PCIe cards to begin with, then yes some sort of 'hack' might be needed. But this is still unknown.

Well, you should ask yourself the question as to why there are special video cards for Macs now. Do you believe that it has anything to do with the processor?

And again, you are making broad assumptions not founded in any facts. Why would nVidia or ATI care either way with Apple moving to Intel processors. They make video cards, they sell video cards, and if this change of processor doesn't effect their current method of making Mac cards, then nothing has changed for them. What they want... is to sell cards.

If they haven't had any problems to date with making Mac cards, why would this change now? They aren't a party to any of the changes, why are you saying that they are going to start making demands.

What is amazing is that you seem to want to (1) apply personality to businesses and (2) then create conflict between them that doesn't exist.

Is this not as interesting to you if it isn't played out like a soap opera?




So you're now saying that some sort of hack might be needed to run Windows? But wasn't part of our bet the following:

"2. Windows, be it XP or Longhorn, will run flawlessly on the Rev. A Mactels."​

Needing some sort of hack does not qualify as running flawlessly.

Are you conceding part of our bet already? Boy, that was fast.

 

[BGil]

You are making the assumption that the video cards used will be different than the cards used today in Intel based systems. Has Apple ever said that they are going to use 'Mac' only versions of cards? If they are 'Mac' only cards, and I can't see why nVidia or ATI would really want to keep doing this when they have PCIe cards to begin with, then yes some sort of 'hack' might be needed. But this is still unknown.

You making the assumption that somehow Apple's driver model will change. If it doesn't, which is the likely scenario, then things will be just like they are today-- you won't be able to use a Mac video card in Windows (very well) or a PC video card on the Mac without flashing the bios.

It is my contention that there will be no hardware in the Mactel systems that prevents Windows from booting. Be it a external FW/USB2 drive or a second internal SATA drive why would you worry about the file system, use HFS+ for the OS X drive and NTFS or WinFS (in 2009) for your Windows drive. Drag and drop support between the 2 FSs is already present, no?

2009?
Beta in 2006 @ Longhorn's RTM, WinFS RTM six months after Longhorn's release (2007). Don't get sucked in by the RDF.

Didin't I just tell you that Microsoft has taken steps specifically to stop people from booting to other OSes and accessing the data on NTFS drives?

 

[cube]

It is my contention that there will be no hardware in the Mactel systems that prevents Windows from booting. Be it a external FW/USB2 drive or a second internal SATA drive why would you worry about the file system, use HFS+ for the OS X drive and NTFS or WinFS (in 2009) for your Windows drive.

You don't need two drives. Mactels just need to use the PC partitioning scheme.

 

[treblah]

And again, you are making broad assumptions not founded in any facts. Why would nVidia or ATI care either way with Apple moving to Intel processors. They make video cards, they sell video cards, and if this change of processor doesn't effect their current method of making Mac cards, then nothing has changed for them. What they want... is to sell cards.

If they haven't had any problems to date with making Mac cards, why would this change now? They aren't a party to any of the changes, why are you saying that they are going to start making demands.

Steve or Phil need to come out real soon and fully deny that Windows will run on the Mactels or there is going to be hell to pay in the future. Regardless of what one thinks of Schillers comment about not doing anything to stop them from running, the great mass of the internet reads that as: "Sure, it will boot Windows." One of the big selling points will be being able to dual boot between OS X for everyday use and Windows for games. If Jobs and co. are going to allow this (dis)information of running Windows to spread they are going to have some angry folks on their hands when they buy a Mactel, try to boot Windows and are greeted with a 256 VGA Desktop that cannot be changed or Windows refusing to run at all.

Secondly, if Windows is able to run on the Mactels but limited to a horrible resolution, who do you think average Joe is going to call? First, they call Apple. Apple tells them that even though they can boot into Windows it is not covered by their Support. Next, they call Microsoft, who will in turn tell them to call nVidia/ATI for correct drivers. All the while Joe is strenuously complaining to friends and family about how his new Mac wont work right and Apple refused to help him. Everyone knows this is exactly how it would go down too. nVidia/ATI say, "Uh yeah, that card is identical in every way to the ones you can buy at Fry's except Apple made us use a special firmware so it doesn't work right with Windows. Your S.O.L. Bye."

So if Apple is trying really hard to get people to switch and then piss them off, hey, more power to them. It just seems to me like management might not want to do that with the potential of millions of new customers. Remember the 'iPod Dirty Little Secret' website? Two guys made that and it was all over network and cable news. Imagine if people were to get pissed over not being able to run Windows because 'We said we were not going to stop you. That's entirely different from actually being able to."

 

[treblah]

2009?
Beta in 2006 @ Longhorn's RTM, WinFS RTM six months after Longhorn's release (2007). Don't get sucked in by the RDF.

Didin't I just tell you that Microsoft has taken steps specifically to stop people from booting to other OSes and accessing the data on NTFS drives?

I won't get sucked into the RDF if you won't get sucked into TDF (Thurrott Distortion Field). MS has been working on a updated file system to replace FAT/NTFS for almost 10 years. MS missed its own deadline for Beta 1 of Longhorn for crying out loud. And you seriously think that WinFS is going to be final 6 months after Longhorn. I'm much more willing to believe this more than say Ballmer, Gates or Thurrott.

 

[RacerX]

Steve or Phil need to come out real soon and fully deny that Windows will run on the Mactels or there is going to be hell to pay in the future. Regardless of what one thinks of Schillers comment about not doing anything to stop them from running, the great mass of the internet reads that as: "Sure, it will boot Windows."...

Why? Apple doesn't have to say anything at this point because they haven't finished designing the new hardware yet. Until the have finalized on something (and are ready to publish the developer notes of the hardware) I wouldn't expect Apple to talk too much about any of this, currently Apple sell PowerPC based systems, and those are it's focus.

Schiller's comment was an off the cuff answer to a question put to him. From Apple's point of view, you have a ton of people who are spending time looking at Apple that hadn't been before. Why would they want to stop that?

One of the big selling points will be being able to dual boot between OS X for everyday use and Windows for games. If Jobs and co. are going to allow this (dis)information of running Windows to spread they are going to have some angry folks on their hands when they buy a Mactel, try to boot Windows and are greeted with a 256 VGA Desktop that cannot be changed or Windows refusing to run at all.

Even at this point, Apple has said that they will not support Windows on Macs.

So anyone thinking that you can do this is basing all this on fantasies. There is no hardware to test to see if you can and everything else is assumptions.

Secondly, if Windows is able to run on the Mactels but limited to a horrible resolution, who do you think average Joe is going to call?

Here is a quick note... average Joe, he doesn't hack his system. In fact, he rarely even adds software. Average Joe buys a system and leaves it at the same configuration that it was when he bought it until he is ready to buy another system.

And average Joe doesn't follow computer rumor sites, so when he hears that Apple doesn't support Windows, that would be the end of him trying to install Windows on his Mac... and he most likely has never installed Windows before anyways as it had come preinstalled on every piece of hardware he has ever bought.

Next, they call Microsoft, who will in turn tell them to call nVidia/ATI for correct drivers.

Actually... no, they wouldn't.

Why do you think Microsoft would send some one like that away? That would be bad for business when you could sell them VirtualPC right there.

And you haven't brought up the fact that Windows may not even be able to get enough information about Mac hardware to be licensable... or where you thinking that reinstalling every couple weeks is something people are going to get used to?

All the while Joe is strenuously complaining to friends and family about how his new Mac wont work right and Apple refused to help him.

That is not average Joe... that is fantasy Joe.

So if Apple is trying really hard to get people to switch and then piss them off, hey, more power to them.

Apple isn't pissing people off, they are making a hardware change. The fact that people (like you) run with rumors is really not their problem.

And what I'm seeing here is that you are getting pissed off because you are starting to realize that what you had been assuming (Windows will run flawlessly on Macs) could very well be wrong. And this isn't Apple's fault. They have tried to stop people (like you) from making these assumptions, but it seems like people are going to believe what they want even if it has no foundation in fact.

I don't think you should be pissed at this (well, other than agreeing to a bet before you had a clear understanding of the facts and history of the situation). You haven't bought one of these systems yet... no one has. And now you are better informed... which puts you in a much better position when reading all the disinformation on the net (none of which came from Apple).

If I were you, I would look at your new position on the subject as empowering. You are starting to see through the disinformation which others still can not.

 

[treblah]

Why? Apple doesn't have to say anything at this point because they haven't finished designing the new hardware yet. Until the have finalized on something (and are ready to publish the developer notes of the hardware) I wouldn't expect Apple to talk too much about any of this, currently Apple sell PowerPC based systems, and those are it's focus.

Schiller's comment was an off the cuff answer to a question put to him. From Apple's point of view, you have a ton of people who are spending time looking at Apple that hadn't been before. Why would they want to stop that?


Even at this point, Apple has said that they will not support Windows on Macs.

So anyone thinking that you can do this is basing all this on fantasies. There is no hardware to test to see if you can and everything else is assumptions.


Here is a quick note... average Joe, he doesn't hack his system. In fact, he rarely even adds software. Average Joe buys a system and leaves it at the same configuration that it was when he bought it until he is ready to buy another system.

And average Joe doesn't follow computer rumor sites, so when he hears that Apple doesn't support Windows, that would be the end of him trying to install Windows on his Mac... and he most likely has never installed Windows before anyways as it had come preinstalled on every piece of hardware he has ever bought.


Actually... no, they wouldn't.

Why do you think Microsoft would send some one like that away? That would be bad for business when you could sell them VirtualPC right there.

And you haven't brought up the fact that Windows may not even be able to get enough information about Mac hardware to be licensable... or where you thinking that reinstalling every couple weeks is something people are going to get used to?


That is not average Joe... that is fantasy Joe.


Apple isn't pissing people off, they are making a hardware change. The fact that people (like you) run with rumors is really not their problem.

And what I'm seeing here is that you are getting pissed off because you are starting to realize that what you had been assuming (Windows will run flawlessly on Macs) could very well be wrong. And this isn't Apple's fault. They have tried to stop people (like you) from making these assumptions, but it seems like people are going to believe what they want even if it has no foundation in fact.

I don't think you should be pissed at this (well, other than agreeing to a bet before you had a clear understanding of the facts and history of the situation). You haven't bought one of these systems yet... no one has. And now you are better informed... which puts you in a much better position when reading all the disinformation on the net (none of which came from Apple).

If I were you, I would look at your new position on the subject as empowering. You are starting to see through the disinformation which others still can not.

Here is the article where the whole debate stemmed from.

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Now, please define how the person in charge of Marketing (you know, the division of the business that informs the buyer) talking to reporters can be construed as 'off the cuff.' It can't! This quote has been wildly reported all over major media. If this is not true, then Jobs or Schiller need to address this. Isn't that the least they can do instead of letting the 'internet' run rampant on this one quote?

From Apple's point of view, you have a ton of people who are spending time looking at Apple that hadn't been before. Why would they want to stop that?

Even at this point, Apple has said that they will not support Windows on Macs.

That is my point. People who never thought about using a Mac now are. Due to the 'Apple tax' most of these buyers will actually research their decision instead of pissing away a few grand, no? And when they read PC World or *shudder* C|Net, whey will read Schiller saying we will not stop Windows from running on our new hardware and some people probably will (which is interpreted as it 'must be able to run' if 'some will'). And this my friend is Average Joe. Knows nothing about Apple, heard from some of his "techie friends" about this, looks into it and comes to this conclusion.

Lastly, I am not pissed about anything. I am a college student with a 2002 iBook that I use religiously supplemented with a Athlon64 3200/nVidia 6600GT PC rig for gaming. When I graduate next spring I will be in the market for hopefully a new Intel PowerMac. I am also pre-law and love a spirited discussion which, I hope you agree with me, we have been having.
I am waiting for your rebuttal.

 

[ewinemiller]

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Seems pretty clear to me, you will be able to install windows, Apple (or at least Phil) expects it to happen, but if you're having trouble doing it, your AppleCare tech isn't going to help you.

Granted RacerX's comments about the machine not being out and the design not being done is true and plans may change before we actually see the final Mactel, but I'd be really surprised if it did.

Making a machine that dual boots will be irresistable to any tech head, you know all those folks that people go to when it's time to buy a new machine and ask what to buy.

There are many customers who have to work with both platforms for business reasons that will make Apple their machine of choice if they can significantly cut hardware cost.

Finally, I think it will attract more small developers that can't afford to buy a Mac now because they can buy a single machine (even at a premium) that is also a Windows machine. Developers will fall all over themselves to get something that lets them run the top 3 platforms (I would imagine that if Windows installs so will some Linux variant or another).

It makes a lot of sense to me and I think Apple would be foolish to avoid that functionality.

 

[treblah]

Seems pretty clear to me, you will be able to install windows, Apple (or at least Phil) expects it to happen, but if you're having trouble doing it, your AppleCare tech isn't going to help you.

Granted RacerX's comments about the machine not being out and the design not being done is true and plans may change before we actually see the final Mactel, but I'd be really surprised if it did.

Making a machine that dual boots will be irresistable to any tech head, you know all those folks that people go to when it's time to buy a new machine and ask what to buy.

There are many customers who have to work with both platforms for business reasons that will make Apple their machine of choice if they can significantly cut hardware cost.

Finally, I think it will attract more small developers that can't afford to buy a Mac now because they can buy a single machine (even at a premium) that is also a Windows machine. Developers will fall all over themselves to get something that lets them run the top 3 platforms (I would imagine that if Windows installs so will some Linux variant or another).

It makes a lot of sense to me and I think Apple would be foolish to avoid that functionality.

Absolutely! You make some great points. Of course the designs are probably not finalized but I don't see how/why Apple would integrate something into the MBs that would refuse to run Windows. And as far as I'm concerned, the V.P. of Marketing is much more believable than anyone else, save THE STEVE.

I myself plan on tres-booting.

 

[BGil]

I won't get sucked into the RDF if you won't get sucked into TDF (Thurrott Distortion Field). MS has been working on a updated file system to replace FAT/NTFS for almost 10 years. MS missed its own deadline for Beta 1 of Longhorn for crying out loud. And you seriously think that WinFS is going to be final 6 months after Longhorn. I'm much more willing to believe this more than say Ballmer, Gates or Thurrott.

1. FAT has already been replaced by NTFS.
2. WinFS was never meant to replace NTFS.
2.5 You seem to think that one should be able to format a drive with WinFS, that has never been the plan.
3. Microsoft didn't miss the Beta 1 date. The date has been "summer 2005", since WinHec 2005.
From the amount of incorrect information in your posts it would seem that you've done zero actual research into this topic. Your knowledge of the subject is obviously from blurbs and headlines as opposed to anything directly from Microsoft. You can go read direct statements from Microsoft, MSDN newsgroups, Microsoft blogs, and other sources of direct information or you can get your information from "journalists" and random people on wikipedia, obiously you choose the later direction.

Making a machine that dual boots will be irresistable to any tech head, you know all those folks that people go to when it's time to buy a new machine and ask what to buy.

On the PC side a lot of those people build their own machines or perfer things that Mac simply don't have. I highly doubt Apple is going to allow you to just swap out the stock processor with one you bought off Newegg and likewise for the mobo. A lot of PC techies (most people who frequent Ars, Anandtech, Extremetech, Xbitlabs, FiringSquad etc.) will be turned off by those kind of deficiencies. Techie PC people are quite fond of having tons of SATA 1/2 ports, lots of USB2's, dual gigabit ethernet, SLI, overclocking, processor upgrades, custom cases, media centers, hardware raid 0/1/0+1/5, WUXGA laptops, amazing prices, etc. These are things that Apple never offered in the past and probably won't offer in the future. Apple builds their machines a certian way an irregardless of whether or not they can boot into Windows, they will not appeal to the majority of techie PC people.
And the Apple tax isn't going to help matters either.

I think you guys are assuming that PC techie people care about being able to run the Mac OS more than they actually do. For most people (including average joes), running the Mac OS isn't something the neccesarily care about and it's definitely not something most people would pay more to do.

I've been to numerous forums and the only people who seem to care about running both Windows and OS X on the same machine are Mac users. There are very few Windows users (who aren't currently Mac users also) who care.

 

[treblah]

3. Microsoft didn't miss the Beta 1 date. The date has been "summer 2005", since WinHec 2005.
From the amount of incorrect information in your posts it would seem that you've done zero actual research into this topic. Your knowledge of the subject is obviously from blurbs and headlines as opposed to anything directly from Microsoft. You can go read direct statements from Microsoft, MSDN newsgroups, Microsoft blogs, and other sources of direct information or you can get your information from "journalists" and random people on wikipedia, obiously you choose the later direction.

Sorry, they missed their internal date.

I don't read headlines or blurbs. I read most articles about Longhorn, I am actually looking forward to it because I like technology, not Apple or Microsoft. BUT, MS has continually failed to deliver anything for consumers after XP. Direct statements from MS? Yeah, sure. WinHEC 2003 ring a bell? Longhorn with WinFS in 2005!

When actually we are looking at Longhorn without WinFS in late 2006 early 2007 at the earliest.
I am more comfortable with reporters questioning them and trying to discover what is actually going on. Do not say I am talking out of my ass.

 

[ewinemiller]

On the PC side a lot of those people build their own machines or perfer things that Mac simply don't have. I highly doubt Apple is going to allow you to just swap out the stock processor with one you bought off Newegg and likewise for the mobo. A lot of PC techies (most people who frequent Ars, Anandtech, Extremetech, Xbitlabs, FiringSquad etc.) will be turned off by those kind of deficiencies. Techie PC people are quite fond of having tons of SATA 1/2 ports, lots of USB2's, dual gigabit ethernet, SLI, overclocking, processor upgrades, custom cases, media centers, hardware raid 0/1/0+1/5, WUXGA laptops, amazing prices, etc. These are things that Apple never offered in the past and probably won't offer in the future. Apple builds their machines a certian way an irregardless of whether or not they can boot into Windows, they will not appeal to the majority of techie PC people.
And the Apple tax isn't going to help matters either.

I'd be surprised if you couldn't swap processor, you can do it now with anything from the G4 era and since it doesn't really require 11 fans and/or water cooling to make a quiet PC, we should be able to get back to that. I expect that the only thing you won't be able to swap out is the motherboard (and perhaps power supply, Apple seems to be sticking to their proprietary roots on that one).

You may be right about some of the other stuff, there are a lot of hardware geeks out there who just want to build the lastest rig (with neon, ), but I've also met a ton of OS geeks in my time and they are way more attracted to experimenting with the software side than the hardware.

 

[BGil]

Sorry, they missed their internal date.

I don't read headlines or blurbs. I read most articles about Longhorn, I am actually looking forward to it because I like technology, not Apple or Microsoft. BUT, MS has continually failed to deliver anything for consumers after XP. Direct statements from MS? Yeah, sure. WinHEC 2003 ring a bell? Longhorn with WinFS in 2005!

When actually we are looking at Longhorn without WinFS in late 2006 early 2007 at the earliest.
I am more comfortable with reporters questioning them and trying to discover what is actually going on. Do not say I am talking out of my ass.

Let me repeat what I said:
"3. Microsoft didn't miss the Beta 1 date. The date has been "summer 2005", since WinHec 2005"
Your Winhec 2003 pic is over 2 years old. The dates there changed in 2003 because they were porting Longhorn features back to XP SP2, adding features, adding Media center and Tablet stuff, and changing code bases (because of So.Big, Nimda, My.Doom, Sasser, and 64-bit etc.).
Notice you don't even see Service Pack 2 in that pic? Longhorn has taken on a ton of features and basically encompasses all of the "Blackcomb" release they talked about at WinHec 2003.
Your information old!!!

You link is just information from Thurrott. I thought you said you didn't trust information from Thurrott? So why are you trusting his information above this (from WinHec 2005):

If you see a missed date in this timeline, ya know, the most recent one and the only official timelime given out, then let me know.].

When actually we are looking at Longhorn without WinFS in late 2006 early 2007 at the earliest.
I am more comfortable with reporters questioning them and trying to discover what is actually going on. Do not say I am talking out of my ass.

It's hard for me to think you aren't talking out of your ass when you give a Steve Jobs timeline to Longhorn (late 2006/early 2007). You're sucked into Steve's RDF so far that you don't even know it, apparently. Longhorn will RTM in the summer of 2006, period. Microsoft has publically said this and have stated they aren't missing that date (at all costs). Even before that, Longhorn will be publically available (as in free with no NDA) starting late this year.

Jobs is trying to put Longhorn in "late 2006/early 2007" to comfort Mac faithful. He doesn't want them thinking Apple isn't working on a new OS and/or that the switchover is going to slow Apple's progress. He needs you to think that Apple can get another release around the same time as Longhorn so some of the less dedicated don't jump ship with the Intel switchover. As much as people here like to call Longhorn vaporware, Steve's Leopard is the king of all vaporware at this point. There is no described focus or feature set or any hint of information about it. All we know is that it will come out "in the same timeframe as Longhorn", according to Jobs.

With Longhorn Client Beta having already started (internally), the public versions coming in about 4 months, and Leopard being no where in sight until at least MWSF, if not WWDC2006, I doubt Jobs very much. But I'm sure you believe his "early 2007" banter, huh?

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

1. FAT has already been replaced by NTFS.
2. WinFS was never meant to replace NTFS.
2.5 You seem to think that one should be able to format a drive with WinFS, that has never been the plan.
3. Microsoft didn't miss the Beta 1 date. The date has been "summer 2005", since WinHec 2005.

1. Well, treblah said: "...MS has been working on a updated file system to replace FAT/NTFS for almost 10 years...". That is FAT/NTFS -> SomeOtherFS , not FAT -> NTFS
2. WinFS is/(was) Microsoft's plan for next generation file system, which implies it will/(would have) eventually replace/(replaced) NTFS. (I'll give you credit for this one, since the idea from back in 1994 was for WinFS and NTFS to coexist (ditching FAT only)).
2.5 If you cannot format a drive to use WinFS (only), then this is not a FS (FILE SYSTEM, you know).
3. This is rediculous statement. It's like saying - as of yesterday the release date is not today, but sometime in the next couple of months. Initially the first beta was anounced to be released in 2004, period.

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

It's hard for me to think you aren't talking out of your ass when you give a Steve Jobs timeline to Longhorn (late 2006/early 2007). You're sucked into Steve's RDF so far that you don't even know it, apparently. Longhorn will RTM in the summer of 2006, period. Microsoft has publically said this and have stated they aren't missing that date (at all costs). Even before that, Longhorn will be publically available (as in free with no NDA) starting late this year.

It's hard for me to think you aren't talking out of your ass when you give a Steve Ballmer timeline to Longhorn (Holiday 2006). Microsoft have publicly stated a lot of things regarding Longhorn, yet they failled to deliver most of them. Although it is perfectly reasonable to expect Longhorn to meet the deadline this time, holiday 2006 may very well mean 15 December 2006, effectively sending Longhorn mass adoption to the begining of 2007.

Jobs is trying to put Longhorn in "late 2006/early 2007" to comfort Mac faithful. He doesn't want them thinking Apple isn't working on a new OS and/or that the switchover is going to slow Apple's progress. He needs you to think that Apple can get another release around the same time as Longhorn so some of the less dedicated don't jump ship with the Intel switchover. As much as people here like to call Longhorn vaporware, Steve's Leopard is the king of all vaporware at this point. There is no described focus or feature set or any hint of information about it. All we know is that it will come out "in the same timeframe as Longhorn", according to Jobs.

Jobs has nothing to prove to anyone. He (and the OS X engineers) promissed Tiger in the first half of 2005 and not only delivered, but managed to release 10.4.1 in that timeframe and 10.4.2 two weeks into the second half of 2005.

Leopard is far from vapourware. Not anouncing any specific features != vapourware. After a couple of flops, Steve is trying not to overpromise and underdeliver (something Bill never shied to do). However, if you've been following OS X development in the recent years you may pretty much guess what's cooking - metadata enhanced HFS+, 64bit across all APIs, better multithreading, resolution independant UI, etc. In June 2006, at the WWDC, after seeing what is fasable by the end of the year, Steve will anounce which of those will make it into the final release.

With Longhorn Client Beta having already started (internally), the public versions coming in about 4 months, and Leopard being no where in sight until at least MWSF, if not WWDC2006, I doubt Jobs very much. But I'm sure you believe his "early 2007" banter, huh?

Judging by the recent track record of Apple and Microsoft, I'd rather believe Jobs than Ballmer/Gates.

 

[BGil]

1. Well, treblah said: "...MS has been working on a updated file system to replace FAT/NTFS for almost 10 years...". That is FAT/NTFS -> SomeOtherFS , not FAT -> NTFS
2. WinFS is/(was) Microsoft's plan for next generation file system, which implies it will/(would have) eventually replace/(replaced) NTFS. (I'll give you credit for this one, since the idea from back in 1994 was for WinFS and NTFS to coexist (ditching FAT only)).
2.5 If you cannot format a drive to use WinFS (only), then this is not a FS (FILE SYSTEM, you know).
3. This is rediculous statement. It's like saying - as of yesterday the release date is not today, but sometime in the next couple of months. Initially the first beta was anounced to be released in 2004, period.

1. FAT shouldn't have been mentioned at all in regards to WinFS. FAT only exists for compatibility reasons (both backward compatibilty and cross-platform compatibilty), there was NEVER any plan for replacing any the usage of FAT with WinFS.
2. WinFS is Microsoft's plan for the next generation user data store not file system. NTFS is the "next gen" file system. It's a relatively advanced file system already.
3. He was specifically talking about rumor of a June 30th, 2005 date for Beta 1. That's why he provided that link to Thurrott saying that Microsoft missed it. June 30th was never the official date, as you can see from the WinHec 2005 slide. If he was originally talking about the big Longhorn change from 2004/5 to 2006 then he wouldn't have addressed the point by saying, "blah blah blah.. they missed beta 1... blah". He brought up the WinHec 2003 stuff just to throw a Red Herring into the conversation. Microsoft has not missed the Beta 1 date he initially refered to, period.

It's hard for me to think you aren't talking out of your ass when you give a Steve Ballmer timeline to Longhorn (Holiday 2006).

Yeah, giving the timeline Microsoft recently gave for a Microsoft product is talking out of my ass He gave an Apple timeline to a Microsoft product. I'm sure Apple knows more about Longhorn development that Microsoft does

Microsoft have publicly stated a lot of things regarding Longhorn, yet they failled to deliver most of them.

Like what? Before you answer read over this list of PDC 2005 sessions (post beta 1- pre-beta 2). Now, name something that was supposed to be in Longhorn and isn't there. There are only two things you can name, the sidebar (which has been replaced by something else), and the final version of the WinFS API.



There has been one major shift in Longhorn. It happened last August when they announced WinFX would become bigger than just Longhorn Client and would be delivered in 2006 with WinFS in Beta. There are more features in Longhorn (that are public) then ever before, period. Ever since PDC 2003 they've been adding major features and moving the timeline forward. WinFS is still part of Longhorn's release, it's just a (public?) beta now because it encompasses both Server and Client technologies as opposed to just being a client technology.

Here you are acting like Longhorn is Cairo or Copeland.
Longhorn was initially supposed to be an interim release with very few features. It was supposed to hold people over for Blackcomb. Hell, Longhorn Server didn't even exist as a project until after WinHec 2003. SP2 didn't even exist back then.

So please explain how Microsoft, "failled to deliver most of them"?

Although it is perfectly reasonable to expect Longhorn to meet the deadline this time, holiday 2006 may very well mean 15 December 2006, effectively sending Longhorn mass adoption to the begining of 2007.

No.
1. Many times over it has been confirmed that the RTM is next summer.
2. "Holiday 2006" means "broad availability in holiday 2006". Look at the WinHec timeline.
3. "Holiday 2006" means late October/Early Nov. The day after Thanksgiving is the peak of the holiday season. In fact, in retail it's the holiday people refer to when they talk about "holiday season".

Mass adoption of Longhorn starts Friday, Nov. 25, 2006.

Jobs has nothing to prove to anyone. He (and the OS X engineers) promissed Tiger in the first half of 2005 and not only delivered, but managed to release 10.4.1 in that timeframe and 10.4.2 two weeks into the second half of 2005.

You're kidding, right? Tiger was by far the buggiest OS release I've seen since 10.1 It was rushed out the door to meet a deadline. Everyone who has been running Tiger (before 10.4.2) has been a paid beta tester. Tiger doesn't have all it's promised features (QE2D, 64-bit Resolution Independence) and it's buggy as hell. They were way late with their H.264 implementation and it's still the worst one on the market. If Microsoft wanted to release a half-baked version of Longhorn as final they could easily do so in 2005 with Beta 1 or Beta 2.

Microsoft, with Longhorn. had the same choice Apple did with Tiger; either release a beta quality feature incomplete OS in 2005 or release it correctly in 2006. At least Microsoft is giving us enthusiasts and early adopters a free public beta instead of charging me for Tiger beta a.k.a. 10.4.0.

Leopard is far from vapourware. Not anouncing any specific features != vapourware.

That's not what I'm saying. Leopard is vaporware because it was specifically mentioned in the context of Longhorn and only in that context. The whole point of him mentioning that it would be out at the same time is to keep the Mac OS in the mind of Mac users as the onslaught of Longhorn information (and public builds) start pouring out this month. It's a smart move because lots of Mac users are already pissed off about the Mactel thing and Longhorn may just cause people to "switch back". Steve won't get another chance to talk about the next Mac OS until at least January and by then the PDC builds and info, and Beta 2 will be in everybody's hands. So he had to at least mention Leopard at the WWDC.
That's vaporware. No different than what Sony did to the Sega Dreamcast and now the Xbox 360. Someone else announces a kick-ass product so you announce that you'll have similar kick-ass product. It stops your user base from defecting.

After a couple of flops, Steve is trying not to overpromise and underdeliver (something Bill never shied to do).

There's a difference. Microsoft is trying to be transparent so they can get feedback and improve. They tell you about the good and the bad because they believe it makes their products better (thanks Scoble!!). Apple is all about secrecy and creating a big marketing buzz. There no transparency at Apple. No one knows what they plan on doing, what their roadmaps are or anything like that unless it's imperative that you need to know (basically for damage control or marketing purposes).
If Apple would be more transparent then we wouldn't have to rely on rumor sites to try to understand what Apple developers are doing. Sure, it would mean that our feedback might change product schedules and there is less "flash" for new feature releases (because they've already been revealed) but it makes for better products. The OSS community and recently Microsoft have already opened up to customers, it's about time Apple did the same.

However, if you've been following OS X development in the recent years you may pretty much guess what's cooking - metadata enhanced HFS+, 64bit across all APIs, better multithreading, resolution independant UI, etc. In June 2006, at the WWDC, after seeing what is fasable by the end of the year, Steve will anounce which of those will make it into the final release.

All of those are absolute guesses. People thought Panther and Tiger would be fully 64-bit also, but they weren't. Apple touted Spotlight and many people though the Finder would get lost of new metadata but it didn't. People have been hoping for a Finder remodel for years and it hasn't come either. The truth is that you have no idea what's coming or when new Apple hardware is coming out etc. You can't even make a real buying decision about future Apple hardware or software purchases until they show up. It's the same problem that people have when they order a Mac and next week a brand new processor or model update comes along. The best they can do is guess at everything. That's a problem.

Judging by the recent track record of Apple and Microsoft, I'd rather believe Jobs than Ballmer/Gates.

Yeah, because Jobs knows so much about Longhorn , even more than Balmer, Gates, Allchin, or the 1500 Microsoft bloggers on blogs.msdn.com The last thing Jobs predicted about Microsoft was that Apple was years ahead of them in "search". Microsoft released MSN Desktop Search 5 months before Apple released Tiger. Jobs subsequently did a lot of backtracking during the MWSF that followed.
The fact that you trust Steve Jobs on Longhorn more than you trust all the people at Microsoft on Longhorn (even though they've been giving you the heads up on everything for the last few years) is typical RDF behavior.

 

[treblah]

Let me repeat what I said:
"3. Microsoft didn't miss the Beta 1 date. The date has been "summer 2005", since WinHec 2005"
Your Winhec 2003 pic is over 2 years old. The dates there changed in 2003 because they were porting Longhorn features back to XP SP2, adding features, adding Media center and Tablet stuff, and changing code bases (because of So.Big, Nimda, My.Doom, Sasser, and 64-bit etc.).
Notice you don't even see Service Pack 2 in that pic? Longhorn has taken on a ton of features and basically encompasses all of the "Blackcomb" release they talked about at WinHec 2003.
Your information old!!!

You link is just information from Thurrott. I thought you said you didn't trust information from Thurrott? So why are you trusting his information above this (from WinHec 2005):

It's hard for me to think you aren't talking out of your ass when you give a Steve Jobs timeline to Longhorn (late 2006/early 2007). You're sucked into Steve's RDF so far that you don't even know it, apparently. Longhorn will RTM in the summer of 2006, period. Microsoft has publically said this and have stated they aren't missing that date (at all costs). Even before that, Longhorn will be publically available (as in free with no NDA) starting late this year.

Jobs is trying to put Longhorn in "late 2006/early 2007" to comfort Mac faithful. He doesn't want them thinking Apple isn't working on a new OS and/or that the switchover is going to slow Apple's progress. He needs you to think that Apple can get another release around the same time as Longhorn so some of the less dedicated don't jump ship with the Intel switchover. As much as people here like to call Longhorn vaporware, Steve's Leopard is the king of all vaporware at this point. There is no described focus or feature set or any hint of information about it. All we know is that it will come out "in the same timeframe as Longhorn", according to Jobs.

With Longhorn Client Beta having already started (internally), the public versions coming in about 4 months, and Leopard being no where in sight until at least MWSF, if not WWDC2006, I doubt Jobs very much. But I'm sure you believe his "early 2007" banter, huh?

Let me make sure I understand you. First, when Microsoft said 2 years until Longhorn in 2003 they were talking out of there ass and had no effing clue as to when it would actually ship. Right? Second, in 2005 when MS says Longhorn will RTM by Summer and be on shelves by Winter 2006 that is the holy gospel? Do you realize how asinine that sounds? And your other argument is that MS wanted to give XP users Longhorn technology so they halt production on Longhorn because they love XP users so much they just want to give away the newer tech free?

I love how you defense is: "Microsoft has publicly stated this!"
Apparently they state a lot of things as I have shown, you just take the last thing they say as "The Word" until they say something else.

Your information old!

Hahaha. Talk to me Summer 2006 when MS releases a updated timeline at WinHEC.

As for me linking to Thurrott, yes, the guy is the biggest Windows fanboy this side of Ballmer but he does have some high up connections in MS. And when hes not bashing Apple he is pretty dead on with Longhorn developments.

It's hard for me to think you aren't talking out of your ass when you give a Steve Jobs timeline to Longhorn (late 2006/early 2007). You're sucked into Steve's RDF so far that you don't even know it, apparently. Longhorn will RTM in the summer of 2006, period.

Yeah, Steve must have gone to WinHEC 2005 and then put MS's release schedule through his RDF and found this:

Now who's talking out of their ass? Argue all you want that Holiday = September/October, wouldn't they have just said September/October? No, they say Holiday and Holiday = Thanksgiving to New Years.

Lastly, I am not going to even start to discuss Apple with you. Steve mentions Leopard and promises to talk about it in a year and you are calling it vapor-ware?

 

[BGil]

Let me make sure I understand you. First, when Microsoft said 2 years until Longhorn in 2003 they were talking out of there ass and had no effing clue as to when it would actually ship. Right?

No, the Summer or Worms happened a few months later and everything changed. SP2 changed, Longhorn security features were brought to XP, and the entire Windows code base was switched to the Windos Server 2003 code base becuase it is much more secure.
If you remember, at the time Bill Gates was still saying Longhorn was a "when it's done release". That did not change until last August.

Second, in 2005 when MS says Longhorn will RTM by Summer and be on shelves by Winter 2006 that is the holy gospel?

Essientially. The Longhorn Server team has said they are shipping thei product in 2007 no matter what and at WinHec Microsoft said they were willing to cut virtually anything that would delay a 2006 release. That's where the "Longhorn is a trainwreck" comment comes from.

And your other argument is that MS wanted to give XP users Longhorn technology so they halt production on Longhorn because they love XP users so much they just want to give away the newer tech free?

I know as a Mac user the concept of an older OS getting new features for free is completely foreign but Microsoft has always done that with Windows and Office. They are giving the new Office XML formats to users of Office 2000, XP, and 2003 not just Office 12. MSN Messenger and Desktop Search both ship for Windows 2000. IE 6 (introduced with XP) shipped for Windows 2000, ME and 98. WMP 9 shipped all the way back to Win98. Direct X 8 and 9 (2002) shipped for Windows 98. The .Net framework ships for Windows 98 although it didn't show up until 2002. Avalon, Indigo, and a bunch of Longhorn apps and features will ship for Windows XP SP2/SP3. IE 4 (and 5?) shipped for Windows 95 as did USB support. Win32 shipped for Windows 3.11. Windows XP x64 is free to anyone with a XP Pro License from the last two years. And on and on and on.
It's what Microsoft does.

As for me linking to Thurrott, yes, the guy is the biggest Windows fanboy this side of Ballmer but he does have some high up connections in MS. And when hes not bashing Apple he is pretty dead on with Longhorn developments.

Okay, then here's his Longhorn schedule:

Windows "Longhorn" Beta 1 Late July
Update for XP Media Center 2005
Codenamed "Emerald" August
Microsoft AntiSpyware
Codenamed "Atlanta" 2H 2005
Xbox 360
Codenamed "Xenon" Nov 2005
SQL Server 2005
Codenamed "Yukon" Nov 2005
Visual Studio 2005
Codenamed "Whidbey" Nov 2005
Windows Server 2003 R2 (Release 2) Nov 2005
Windows "Longhorn" Beta 2 Nov 2005
Windows Media Player 11 Beta 1
Codenamed "Polaris" Nov 2005
Internet Explorer 7 Late 2005
Windows One Care
Codenamed "A1" Late 2005
Windows Mobile 2006 Q2 2006
Windows 2006
Codenamed "Longhorn" Q3 2006
Windows Media Center Edition 2006
Codenamed "Diamond" Q3 2006
Office 12 Q3 2006
Exchange 12 Q3 2006

Here's the general Longhorn roadmap.

2005
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition: April 2005
Longhorn Client Beta 1: H1 2005
Longhorn Client Beta 2: H2 2005/Q1 2006

2006
Longhorn Client RTM: Mid-2006
WinFS Beta: Mid-2006

2007
Longhorn SP1: H1 2007
Longhorn Server: H1 2007

Longhorn Client release to manufacturing (RTM)
May-June, 2006

Longhorn Launch (widespread public availability)
October 2006

Longhorn Server RTM/Longhorn Client SP1 RTM
Second half of 2006/first half of 2007 (Client RTM + 6 months)

So is he still pretty "dead on"?

Yeah, Steve must have gone to WinHEC 2005 and then put MS's release schedule through his RDF and found this:
Now who's talking out of their ass? Argue all you want that Holiday = September/October, wouldn't they have just said September/October? No, they say Holiday and Holiday = Thanksgiving to New Years.

And where on that slide does it say anything about "early 2007"? Steve made that part up. Even if you did think Microsoft's Holiday shipping schedule meant Thanksgiving to New Years" then why would you say "Early 2007"? Because he knows that Leopard might slip into "early 2007" and didn't want to have say that Longhorn might not be in the same timeframe.
Thurrott again from the WinHec show:

Under the new schedule, Microsoft will deliver Longhorn Beta 1 this summer, then ship a second Developer Preview build in September at the Professional Developers Conference (PDC) 2005. After that, the company will ship Beta 2 and release a public beta. Microsoft says it will ship Longhorn in time for the 2006 holiday selling season, which places the final release in the August 2006 to November 2006 time frame.

Maybe you don't understand what "broad availability" means. Since Microsoft doesn't sell computers it means they have to ship the product out to manufacturers and give them enough time to whip up some configurations and get them into retail stores. Most PC OEM/retail channels operate on 3 month cycles. So for a Longhorn PC's to be on the shelves and completely displaced all the XP machines that means Longhorn has to RTM in about August or September at the latest. Then it gets customized by each OEM, loaded on to specific models, shipped to retail warehouses, and shipped to retial stores from there. All the while they have to move out old product (running XP).

The holiday shopping season starts in October around the same time people start putting their X-Mas lights up. Microsoft's goal is to have Longhorn PC's completely displaced the XP PC's by the day after Thanksgiving. That's what "broad availabilty in the Holiday season" means. That's why XP RTM on August 24th.
Their ship date and their RTM date are different animals, thats why they didn't say "Aug/Sept/October". Their ship date is wholly dependent upon retailers and OEM's.

 

[treblah]

No, the Summer or Worms happened a few months later and everything changed. SP2 changed, Longhorn security features were brought to XP, and the entire Windows code base was switched to the Windos Server 2003 code base becuase it is much more secure.
If you remember, at the time Bill Gates was still saying Longhorn was a "when it's done release". That did not change until last August.

I am playing the worlds smallest violin for MS right now. "We made crap software and we didn't think we had to fix it since we are releasing Longhorn in 2 years but now there are worms everywhere so we are shelving LH and starting work on SP2." Boohoo for them.

Essientially. The Longhorn Server team has said they are shipping thei product in 2007 no matter what and at WinHec Microsoft said they were willing to cut virtually anything that would delay a 2006 release. That's where the "Longhorn is a trainwreck" comment comes from.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

I know as a Mac user the concept of an older OS getting new features for free is completely foreign but Microsoft has always done that with Windows and Office. They are giving the new Office XML formats to users of Office 2000, XP, and 2003 not just Office 12. MSN Messenger and Desktop Search both ship for Windows 2000. IE 6 (introduced with XP) shipped for Windows 2000, ME and 98. WMP 9 shipped all the way back to Win98. Direct X 8 and 9 (2002) shipped for Windows 98. The .Net framework ships for Windows 98 although it didn't show up until 2002. Avalon, Indigo, and a bunch of Longhorn apps and features will ship for Windows XP SP2/SP3. IE 4 (and 5?) shipped for Windows 95 as did USB support. Win32 shipped for Windows 3.11. Windows XP x64 is free to anyone with a XP Pro License from the last two years. And on and on and on.
It's what Microsoft does.

This is one of MS major problems. Instead of focusing on their future they are worried about people not upgrading. There is no law that says you bought this hardware/software in '95 and were going to help you keep is somewhat usable for the next 10 years.

So is he still pretty "dead on"?

I only referenced Thurrott to say that MS missed their internal deadline for Beta 1 to prove that no matter what MS is saying, Holiday 2006 is not set in stone.

And where on that slide does it say anything about "early 2007"? Steve made that part up. Even if you did think Microsoft's Holiday shipping schedule meant Thanksgiving to New Years" then why would you say "Early 2007"? Because he knows that Leopard might slip into "early 2007" and didn't want to have say that Longhorn might not be in the same timeframe.

You need to seriously need to look at what you are saying. If MS ran like clockwork and never missed any of their release schedules I could see what you are saying. But welcome to reality. You have no idea what may happen in the next year and a half. Let me repeat that. You have no effing clue as to what might happen. A flu could strike Redmond and LH could be pushed back indefinitely! Do not act like MS has LH final and they are just waiting to release it. That is not the case.

P.S. The stone that 'Late 2006' was set in could be crumbling.

 

[BGil]

This is one of MS major problems. Instead of focusing on their future they are worried about people not upgrading. There is no law that says you bought this hardware/software in '95 and were going to help you keep is somewhat usable for the next 10 years.

And that's one of Apple's problems. They break compatibilty with damn near every release and usually it gets them no where. Even 10.X.X releases will break apps and introduce tons of new bugs. They ditched OS 9 only to give us 10.1, which was a gigantic step backward. People had to buy new software because old stuff wouldn't run (well), they completely stopped updating the older OS, and the newer OS wasn't even better. They are so concerned with squeezing every last dollar out of the small user base they have virtually all development on oolder OSes stops the day a new one comes out. Rarely does an old OS get a feature from a new OS. Safari RSS? Dashboard? Automator? CoreImage? Newest version of Java or OpenGL? None of that stuff runs on Panther.

All it does is hurt consumers and fatten Apple's pockets. Things like CoreImage would be used so much more if Apple ported it back to Panther but they won't do that because they want your cash.

Now, they're making another major switchover and they're going to drag us all through the dirt again (just like they did with OS 9 to OS X).

I only referenced Thurrott to say that MS missed their internal deadline for Beta 1 to prove that no matter what MS is saying, Holiday 2006 is not set in stone.

You didn't prove that at all. They gave the date as "summer 2005" instead of saying "June 30th" because they wanted to allow for some leaway. The entire "Holiday 2006" schedule has flexibilty built onto it. "Holiday 2006" is a general date that could mean October or November.

Look at Thurrotts schedule again:
Longhorn Beta 2
October-December 2005

Thats's the leeway for Beta 2. Maybe their internal date is October 5th but the way they laid out the schedule allows them to miss that date by a few months and still make Holiday 2006.
Look at their schedule for Beta 1 and the RTM and you'll see the same kind of time allowances.

P.S. The stone that 'Late 2006' was set in could be crumbling.

lol. I accuse you of just reading blubs and headlines and you post that. LOL

Here's the quote from the Microsoft representative:
"I'm very confident we're going to make next year," Sanjay Parthasarathy, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Developer & Platform Evangelism Group, said about making the fall 2006 ship date for Longhorn. "Keep your fingers crossed for us."

and here's the subtitle that you are pointing to as evidence:
Microsoft plans to ship its next version of Windows in the fall of 2006, but executives acknowledge that it could slip into the following year.
Notice how the Microsoft guy didn't say that? No where in that article does it say anything about someone from Microsoft acknowledging a possible 2007 release. But of course, writiing a story in July about Longhorn shipping in fall/summer 2006 draws very little attention compared to a story claiming to have the scoop on Longhorn being delayed. It's called sensational journalism and it's obvious that it got you hook, line, and sinker. On Channel9 they call such stories about Longhorn MJF's or Mary Jo Foley's (Microsoft-Watch.com).

 

[krunch]

They ditched OS 9 only to give us 10.1, which was a gigantic step backward.

what? please explain how os 9 is superior to os x...

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

BGil, you obviously have some sentiment towards Microsoft and have something against Apple. This is all fine and dandy with me. But you cannot expect people here on MacRumours forums to share those sentiments. Moreover, you cannot expect to establish a point by twisting and turning other posters' words or quoting selected sources.

And BTW you probably should start a new thread if you feel like discussing the matter, 'cause we kinda' hijacked this thread.