Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by stridey, Jun 26, 2005.
Nice bit of Windows bashing here.
I'm a windows user exclusively and after reading this I went ahead and looked for some screenshots of longhorn. I found some and surprise surprise it's the exact same thing. Hell if I could use Windows 95 or 98 I still would, same interface less taxing on hardware... but programs aren't having that.
I'm sure all revisions of Windows added something or another, some kind of hardware support and whatnot but for being non-technical and just looking at how it works... XP is exactly the same as 98 except with a shiny taskbar. For what they bring to the table they should keep things as low on requirements as possible and stop bloating the hell out of everything. All their products are bloated, Windows to WMP to MSN Messenger.
All Longhorn is right now (or appears to be) is a over polished version of windows XP. They seem to have made way to many promises that they havent been able to keep. From the demos ive seen there new search technology still lags behind spot light because it isn't search as you go. By the time Leopard comes out it will be doing circles around Longhorn.
Too think all we had to do this entire time was look at the animal kingdom to see what the results of these two OS's.
Well, to give them *some* credit, most of Longhorn's new features come from under the hood. However, from the reports I've read (and the one above), those "big" features won't be in the initial releases and will take a significant amount of more time to complete/implement.
Microsoft is looking like a big blundering idiot... making promises they can't keep, delaying schedules, etc...
Guess what? This is what they've always done. Microsoft virtually invented the concept of vaporware (and probably holds a patent on it). It's one part lack of competence and another part corporate strategy.
I like that although every new Mac OS needs a better computer to run every feature. It actually SPEEDS up in terms of usability for older (and newer I guess) hardware.
It seems that Windows, does not, never has, and possibly never will do this.
*VERY* good point.
Yes, but I think this gelded bull has BSE.
Oh how longhorn is so ripe for parody!
Don't you mean "Oh how longhorn will someday be so ripe for parody if they ever release it"?
Yes it is...
Hopefully the USDA testing will show that this diseased cow should be destroyed before it has a chance of reaching consumers and infecting them.
It's a good thing that this isn't a Canadian product, elsewise the US would ban importing it into America.....
Interesting summery. A couple clarifications on what Longhorn is and is not. Under the hood Longhorn is NOT a rewrite of the OS. Microsoft originally was going to use the code from XP as the base for Longhorn. They were well into development when all of a sudden in Spring of 2004 it was quietly announced that they were dropping that code. No reason why but Ill give you one guess. Instead they are using Windows 2003 as the core of Longhorn. What does this mean? Well other then the fact that they were well into production when they scrapped everything it means that whatever bugs are in 2003 will post likely be ported over to Longhorn. How many is this? No clue but if you look at the number of patches that have applied to XP and grandparented down to 2000 and NT 4 you will see that many dont apply to 2003. If this could be because the code is tighter in 2003 who knows. Its interesting nonetheless. The point is though that Longhorn is not a rewrite, which is what was promised initially.
So expect patches. But all OSs will get patches. The question is the severity of those patches. Are we going to have more MS Blaster (The RPC security hole thing.) worms on our hands? MS is taking a different approach to security. Whether this is better or worse is subjective. What does a turtle, a castle, and Longhorn all have in common? Answer: A strong perimeter security. If anyone has been playing around with some of MSs security solutions: read firewall, spyware scanner (FYI - Does more then just spyware scanning.) you will see that they are already working on solutions to secure the perimeter of Windows. The continuing problem with Windows is that you cant lock down the desktop and give the user limited privileges without breaking backwards compatibility with a number of older apps. MS is in a serious bind with this issue. To a Mac user it may not be that big of a deal but to the enterprise environment it will be the difference between migration and saying screw you to MS. MS spent an unusual amount of time on Window XPs compatibility mode. This wasnt just for the hell of it. They know that there are A LOT of both consumers and corporate users who have old legacy apps and they need to cater to them so what is MS to do? Their answer: put a mote around their castle. A firewall is a good first start. Limiting services that run active ports on the computer is another. There are other technologies that MS will be using that escape me but suffice it to say that is their plan. This is all well and good but what happens when someone is invited into the castle (e-mail) and they run amok? Once you get past the mote or the shell of a turtle its easy pickings. So who knows how this is going to play out in the end.
Beyond security we still havent seen the full-blown GUI of Longhorn. People keep bitching about how the screenshots weve seen suck. Well yah. Mainly because the special effects and features that Longhorn has arent turned on. Tell me how good OS X would be if all the graphics features on X were turned off. It would be pretty bland. So is Longhorn simply a reimage of XP? Well only if 10.4 is a reimage of 10.1. MS has an OK GUI as far as Im concerned. The biggest deal is two fold.
The first is continuing to streamline where the components of the OS are. When I say components I mean things like the control panel or how you view your files. Im a windows veteran who has done his tour in the trenches of Windows and its ugly underbelly. I know where to go to configure and change things. But for the average user even with XPs streamlining its still in need of some massive work. Im not saying it needs to have the GUI thrown out but it needs some more refinement something MS just isnt good with. Maybe they can contract Apple to design their GUI? Theyve been doing it indirectly for years anyways? Maybe its time to admit it and just contract Apple.
The second is its graphics engine. OS Xs quartz extreme kicks the living snot out of anything XP has. Period. No debate on this. Ive glared several pro windows users down when they start to rebuttal. This isnt up for debate. It sucks. Period. OK. Right then. Moving on. IMHO beyond security THIS is Longhorns bread and butter. Their Desktop Composition engine is going to at last bring Windows graphics into the 21st century. From everything Ive read OS X still has the advantage but its narrowed drastically.
So in reality the GUI itself may not be all that advanced over XPs but it doesnt really have to be. I myself like how Windows works. The consolidation with the start menu makes running apps much simpler and having your control panel, search area and help all in one location. The grouping function in XP works well other then some bugs that never were ironed out. Well suffice it to say: I like the design.
Beyond that there are other technologies that will be present in Longhorn (God I wish MS would get rid of that codename call it anything: Maybe Operation Hoyvin-Mayvin?) The big deal is the same big deal that made OS X important. Youve seen the incremental improvements that Apple has made to a solid foundation. OS X was built with a solid foundation. Screw the features that Longhorn adds. As long as the foundation is solid they can add crap into it later. The only question is how solid is that foundation. I question this simply from the standpoint that they are now on a tight deadline for the of end of 2006. Their current recipe smells like jock straps and gym sock soup. Take: Dropping your source code and starting over from scratch. Add a pound of depression from the shock of that decision. (I dont care how much valium you are taking that had to have had a major moral impact to the team. No one does their best work when what youve been working on for 2 years is, for all intents and purposes, told its ****. So they begin again. ) Add a pinch of an ever moving deadline. Mix in stopping the project for Windows XP Service Pack 2 and starting it up again and you have a recipe for a freaking mess. I can tell you this much I wont touch Longshot with a 10GB bittorrent pipe for at least the first 3 months. Its going to be a mess for at least that long.
If MS had any failure in this project it was what theyve done time and again in the past Promise the world and expect their coders to deliver. Contrary to popular belief WinFS is NOT Spotlight. It would be like me saying Novell Netware is the same as OS Xs desktop client. WinFS doesnt just search your desktop. It was intended to be not only a search technology but an API that could be leveled across an enterprise environment. Spotlight is cute and all but it focuses on the single user experience. WinFS was intended to take searching to the next level beyond the desktop. MSs fault is thinking too big. Apple has been doing incremental steps. The reason MS may be thinking too big is that they simply cant pull this 18 months release a new OS crap that Apple does. Every CIO on the planet would be on Gates doorstep screaming for Ballmers head on a pike. (IMHO this is why Apple will never overtake MS in the enterprise. Apples flexibility is also its curse.)
So this is MSs big shot for the next 5 year or so. They were shooting for something big. But obviously couldnt deliver. Im not so sure about that statement anymore. I think MS could have delivered if they wanted to. I think. [insert massive wild guess here] that someone said that if we are going to deliver a secure OS we cant keep focusing on these extra goodies and sadly those features got axed. Personally Im all right with that. If MS can FINALLY learn that security is #1 that would make the whole Longhorn experiment worth it. We will see though. In the mean time mmmmm Leopard goodness. I want an OS X Ocelot damn it!
Well it could be argued that since 10.0 had no where to go but up 10.1-10.4 were simply updates getting the OS to the speed it should have been at 10.0. Why do you think they released point versions after point versions year after year and only settled down to a slower pace after OS X reached a good speed.
Well, the release proximity of Win98, Win2k, WinME and WinXP are pretty much on the Apple level. And an even more confusing morass in that they targeted subtly different, but overlapping markets.... But recently, this is currently true. And I guess, if you ignore that episode, it was true before that as well (e.g. the distance between Win95 and Win98)
To some extent, I agree with you that CIOs would not be happy dealing with Apple's upgrade pace. Apple's OS design really doesn't comprehend the managed environment in a lot of little ways, such as the slowness with which they're bringing back a credible network home directory type of option.
OTOH, considering how many large managed sites still use Win2k, as opposed to any release of XP, how much does it really matter? If Apple and MS reversed places, the reality is that there would be very, very little deployment of Tiger on the large site managed desktop, for some time to come. Just like XP, as old as it is, is so often not yet implemented on those desktops.
So you subscribe to that tired mantra that because the point release numbers of MacOS X 10.x indicate that the changes are small. Tired and pathetic. For fun and profit, look at the actual version numbers of Windows beginning with Windows 95. You might learn something.
In my opinion, Apple slowed the pace of OS upgrades so that developers have a chance to update their applications to Intel versions without having to worry about a new OS version during the same time frame.
It will be interesting to see what Longhorn actually contains once it is (finally) released.
No I subscribe to the notion that 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 were all released year after year because they had nowhere to go but up which was the point of the bloody post.
And don't play windows games with my little man. I have every version of widows on disk since 1.3. I know what version of windows is what.
1998 Windows 98
1999 Windows 98SE
2000 Windows ME
2000 Windows 2000
2001 Windows XP
2003 Windows Server 2003
2005 Windows XP Pro x64
And that list doesn't include Media Center Edition or Tablet PC edition.
1. They never promised a "rewrite".
2. That depends upon your definition of a "rewrite".
Win32 will effectively be replaced by WinFX and .Net
The command-line will be replaced by MSH/Monad
GDI+ will be replaced by WGF/DCE
Windows Explorer will be replaced by the metadata driven Document Explorer
All the Printing, document, imaging, and video services have changed
Windows Media has changed
The UI will change
NTFS5 will see a massive upgrade with NTFS6
Longhorn Server has more cool technologies than I can count
The main kernel and OS are now 64-bit
The driver models have changed
The security model has changed
and with SP1 the user data store and main data models will be replaced by WinFS
That definitely a "rewrite" in my book.
Yes, Win2k3 code is tighter. After XP was released MS did a major code audit and the result was Win2k3. It's immune to many of the worms that hit XP. The reason they scaped the XP code base was because it didn't support all the things they wanted to do with Longhorn Server and 64-bit. If you notice, XP Pro x64 is based on Windows Server 2003 and not XP. They had a choice of developing the 32-bit client on XP's code base with everything else (Longhorn Server and all 64-bit versions) being based on Win2k3 code or scrap the XP code base and put everything on Win2k3 code. They obviously choose the later.
BTW, Win2k3 code is also much faster than XP code.
What makes you think that QE is better than the DCE and WGF? Everything I've seen and read points to Longhorn's technology being far superior. Longhorn utilizes the unified shader model and hardware accelerated everything including text, all video playback and decoding (MPEG-2, WMV, and H.264), all vector graphics and it completely ditches the notion of "resolution independence" by scaling bitmaps (like Tiger does) because it doesn't use bitmaps to draw anything on the screen ever. And as we already know, DirectX/WGF is much faster than OpenGL.
I think you don't understand what happened. The only teams that stopped working on Longhorn was the core team. The team responsible for the kernel and other low-level stuff. All the Avalon, Indigio, WinFS, Windows Media, and other teams were hardly affected.
Furthermore, Longhorn Server will be in public beta (as in freely downloadable from Microsoft.com) starting in August or September. Longhorn Client will be in Public testing starting in Novemeber. That's a ton of time to work out bugs and that's a ton of beta testers having access to the product. The public testing of Longhorn will essientially given them the same thing Apple got when they released Tiger to the public in April-- the ability to see their OS in the wild and catch bugs that they never would have otherwise. there's very little reason for Longhorn not to be stable and high-quality at launch. Both Win2k3 and x64 went through the same public process and their launches were extremely high-quality.
1. WinFS has nothing to do with Fast Search as you know it, even across the enterprise. WinFS is a new data storage model that enables lots of things including new ways to search, retrieve, and manipulate data. The patents clearly show this.
2. MS didn't originally plan for WinFS to be an enterprise technology. It was client only until they got a ton of feedback at the PDC2003 asking for enterprise solutions. Then they started adding enterprise stuff and moved the rest of Longhorn up into 2006. With the additions of enterpirse senarios and the dependence upon .Net 2.0 WinFS was stuck in the 2007 timeframe.
3. All Microsoft search technologies are very network and enterprise aware (unlike Spotlight). Even Windows Desktop Search and the default indexing service in Windows 2000/XP can index any UNC path including websites, remote computers, and FTP's.