Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Thurrott says Longhorn has the makings of a train wreck
- Thread starter Nermal
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You beat me to posting this by two seconds.
Something I found amusing. I'm running the previous Alpha build of Longhorn. When I showed it to some guys here in a Tiger vs Longhorn thread they told me the thing was woefully old and Microsoft MUST have done so much more than then, and in the soon to be released beta would show more.
Guess not
It looks like they took the previous build (4074) and did some GUI tweaks (better than the hideous thing before, though similar) and removed the sidebar (THANK ALL THAT IS GOOD! It was HORRIBLE).
Something I found amusing. I'm running the previous Alpha build of Longhorn. When I showed it to some guys here in a Tiger vs Longhorn thread they told me the thing was woefully old and Microsoft MUST have done so much more than then, and in the soon to be released beta would show more.
Guess not
It looks like they took the previous build (4074) and did some GUI tweaks (better than the hideous thing before, though similar) and removed the sidebar (THANK ALL THAT IS GOOD! It was HORRIBLE).
The question is, Will those of you who are rabidly anti-Thurrott give him any credit for publicly voicing a doubt about Longhorn?
Don't forget that at this early point in the product cycle, there are bound to be problems, and sometimes a "bad build" gets released (that's been inadvertantly destabilized for some reason). Whatever issues he has will no doubt be addressed.
Don't forget that at this early point in the product cycle, there are bound to be problems, and sometimes a "bad build" gets released (that's been inadvertantly destabilized for some reason). Whatever issues he has will no doubt be addressed.
BTW, this is what the previous build of LH looked like (4047, last Alpha).
![lh1.jpg]()
![lh1.jpg]()
See why I hate the sidebar?
The performance is hideous as well. My 900 MHz machine barely runs it at all, and the 64 MB graphics card (Geforce 2 MX 400, fastest Geforce 2 made excepting the TI series) is not enough for Aero.
Thurrot confirmed it won't be getting any better. Microsoft cites minimum requirements of 1 GHz processor and 512 MB of RAM. And we all know what Microsoft minimum requirements are.
Windows XP supposedly runs on a 233 MHz processor with 128 MB of RAM. Anyone who tries to use XP on 128 MB of RAM is committing virtual suicide.
If Microsoft cites 512 MB of RAM minimum, get a gig. XP doesn't perform well without at least 512 MB already.
See why I hate the sidebar?
The performance is hideous as well. My 900 MHz machine barely runs it at all, and the 64 MB graphics card (Geforce 2 MX 400, fastest Geforce 2 made excepting the TI series) is not enough for Aero.
Thurrot confirmed it won't be getting any better. Microsoft cites minimum requirements of 1 GHz processor and 512 MB of RAM. And we all know what Microsoft minimum requirements are.
Windows XP supposedly runs on a 233 MHz processor with 128 MB of RAM. Anyone who tries to use XP on 128 MB of RAM is committing virtual suicide.
If Microsoft cites 512 MB of RAM minimum, get a gig. XP doesn't perform well without at least 512 MB already.
Paul brought his Powerbook into the keynote, kinda drove the guys on his board a lil crazy.
I've looked at many builds of Longhorn and it looks worse than XP. The new UI better be good or this will never work.
I've looked at many builds of Longhorn and it looks worse than XP. The new UI better be good or this will never work.
plinden said:
Yep, but between the build I posted and the new build (no builds released in between) was 10 months. VERY small improvement in that time.
That screenshot was taken off my own PC, fyi.
Oh trust me, it IS horrid
My apologies for the Yahoo toolbar, my sister used my computer and apparently proved that Longhorn is so backwards compatible that Internet Explorer 7 can still run all the old spyware.
Also, explorer (not IE, I mean explorer.exe, Windows' equivilant of Finder) has really terrible performance. Just looking through folders, I mean. For one thing it tries to draw every single image file, replacing the small manageable icons with huge pictures, and even if you turn that off it goes annoyingly slow.
If Thurrott says the new build offers little improvements other than GUI...well DANG. Because the performance was so hideous I reinstalled XP. It wasn't usable. I had to install FireFox just to surf the web at a decent speed. And to make things worse, since my graphics card was "unsupported" by Aero (Geforce2 MX 400, 64 MB, as I said, fully capable of playing Jedi Academy in Windows XP and even SW Battlefront at minimum settings!), I couldn't do ANYTHING 3d, not even play a game.
Well... DUH!
Having seen a few of the pre-gold master releases of Tiger on friends' machines, and comparing it to the only version of Longhorn I've seen, this only states the obvious.
I haven't seriously mucked around with pre-releases in years - not since the OS X public beta and the Windows 2000 corporate preview. However, it seems to me that a one-two punch of releasing Tiger now and a significant (hear that Apple?) hardware improvement in early 2006 might actually start turning the tide for Apple's market share. People are ranting now more than ever about security problems and Windows, and the bloated gassbag that is XP only gets worse with Longhorn - it's like M$ is trying to make basic computing incomprehensible and sluggish.
Just from an outside obervation and reading the various tech headlines, it seems Microsoft lost focus on the direction to take, and feels as though the senior management told the development team to just create a competitor to OSX. But Microsoft has put the cart before the horse. Its like building a house first, and then figuring out how to build the foundation.
When OSX premiered in 2000, it took 7 years of previous developments in NeXT to reach this point. And it took Apple another 5 years to optimize and enhance OSX to the point where we now have Tiger.
Since Microsoft was kicked into action by Apple's surprising unveiling of OSX, it now has the unfathomable task of creating the next-gen OS, but how do you compete against BSD/Unix and Darwin? It'll be by at least 2008 before MS has anything usable to offer consumers, and another 5 years to reach the level of Tiger. Windows is 12 years behind OSX.
When OSX premiered in 2000, it took 7 years of previous developments in NeXT to reach this point. And it took Apple another 5 years to optimize and enhance OSX to the point where we now have Tiger.
Since Microsoft was kicked into action by Apple's surprising unveiling of OSX, it now has the unfathomable task of creating the next-gen OS, but how do you compete against BSD/Unix and Darwin? It'll be by at least 2008 before MS has anything usable to offer consumers, and another 5 years to reach the level of Tiger. Windows is 12 years behind OSX.
clayj said:
The answer is yes. But it seems to me that this is the harbinger of a change. It's been grassroots for a few years, and MS has been holding it off but it's becoming more difficult for even the most devout to accept.
There was a link from google news to another article by him on the same topic. The basic upshot is that he sees no improvement in this year's public beta over the last one released a year ago at WinHEC 2004, and in fact feels it's a backslide because of everything that's been taken out. Ahh, here we go A Cautionary Tale About the Burning Edge
<OB Conspiracy Theory>I think it's no coincidence that Tiger will be release to the public mere days after a disappointing Longhorn public beta.
A Historical Perspective: The Irony of It All...
Microsoft has only one thing to thank for its success today: IBM. In 1980, IBM was getting its butt kicked in the exploding desktop computer market by companies like Commodore, Atari, and Apple. And IBM was in a big hurry to join the party. IBM had all the hardware plans for its new 8088 desktop computer in place, but the operating system software was a much different story. The problem was, IBM was a huge, bloated company with layer upon layer of management and bureaucracy that stood in the way to accomplishing anything quickly. Even IBM's own leadership optimistically guessed that it would take them 2-3 years to build a working operating system from scratch. Clearly this would not do. They had only one year to get their new computer to market, and IBM could not do it themselves.
In July 1980 the founder of a small software company called "Microsoft" answered a phone call and very soon after met with IBM's top executives. Bill Gates confidently said that only he could write the code they needed in the time available -- nobody else in the world was up to the task. But in order to do it, Microsoft wanted to keep full control of the software. This was completely unheard of -- a brash little programmer playing hardball with one of the richest companies in the world. However IBM realized they were stuck between a rock and hard place and Bill Gates was right. If they wanted their operating system within a year, they had to agree. So IBM and Microsoft entered into a deal that essentially saw IBM make money by selling the hardware, while Microsoft made money by selling IBM copies of their OS. IBM's PC was released on August 12, 1981 running exclusively on Microsoft software -- and the rest is history.
Of course almost 25 years later the irony is clear. In 2005 Microsoft has become IBM -- the bloated, bureaucratic dinosaur that now stands in the way of its own success. Admittedly developing Longhorn must be a massive undertaking, however so was MS-DOS 1.0 back in 1980. The development cycle of Longhorn is now five years (and counting) with no firm end in sight. Meanwhile the development time of virtually every other product is getting shorter and shorter. Perhaps Microsoft needs a history lesson, or at least a sharper focus on what it is really trying to accomplish. That is what Steve Jobs brought back to Apple, and that is what Microsoft now desperately needs.
In the ocean there's always a bigger fish. In technology there's always a smaller, faster, and more responsive competitor.
Microsoft has only one thing to thank for its success today: IBM. In 1980, IBM was getting its butt kicked in the exploding desktop computer market by companies like Commodore, Atari, and Apple. And IBM was in a big hurry to join the party. IBM had all the hardware plans for its new 8088 desktop computer in place, but the operating system software was a much different story. The problem was, IBM was a huge, bloated company with layer upon layer of management and bureaucracy that stood in the way to accomplishing anything quickly. Even IBM's own leadership optimistically guessed that it would take them 2-3 years to build a working operating system from scratch. Clearly this would not do. They had only one year to get their new computer to market, and IBM could not do it themselves.
In July 1980 the founder of a small software company called "Microsoft" answered a phone call and very soon after met with IBM's top executives. Bill Gates confidently said that only he could write the code they needed in the time available -- nobody else in the world was up to the task. But in order to do it, Microsoft wanted to keep full control of the software. This was completely unheard of -- a brash little programmer playing hardball with one of the richest companies in the world. However IBM realized they were stuck between a rock and hard place and Bill Gates was right. If they wanted their operating system within a year, they had to agree. So IBM and Microsoft entered into a deal that essentially saw IBM make money by selling the hardware, while Microsoft made money by selling IBM copies of their OS. IBM's PC was released on August 12, 1981 running exclusively on Microsoft software -- and the rest is history.
Of course almost 25 years later the irony is clear. In 2005 Microsoft has become IBM -- the bloated, bureaucratic dinosaur that now stands in the way of its own success. Admittedly developing Longhorn must be a massive undertaking, however so was MS-DOS 1.0 back in 1980. The development cycle of Longhorn is now five years (and counting) with no firm end in sight. Meanwhile the development time of virtually every other product is getting shorter and shorter. Perhaps Microsoft needs a history lesson, or at least a sharper focus on what it is really trying to accomplish. That is what Steve Jobs brought back to Apple, and that is what Microsoft now desperately needs.
In the ocean there's always a bigger fish. In technology there's always a smaller, faster, and more responsive competitor.
is it really true that microsoft bought DOS for $50k from some programmer somewhere after they had sold a non-existant product to IBM? or is that just in the pirates of silicon valley?eRondeau said:
wow. That just looks like a horrible photoshop job. Not saying it is. Just saying it looks awful.GFLPraxis said:BTW, this is what the previous build of LH looked like (4047, last Alpha).
![lh1.jpg]()
![lh1.jpg]()
Phat_Pat said:wow. That just looks like a horrible photoshop job. Not saying it is. Just saying it looks awful.
Since I didn't even attempt to install Photoshop on that computer being so slow, I did it in MS Paint (Longhorn's Paint finally adds TIFF support by the way! Some good news).
Paint's JPEG compression is HORRIBLE, so thats why it looks grainy.
Here's the actual sequence of events:homerjward said:
1. IBM approaches Microsoft to see if they can make an OS for IBM's new PC. Bill Gates tells them no, he can't do it in the amount of time that's available. He refers IBM to Gary Kildall, who ran Digital Research Inc. (DRI).
2. Kildall is out of the country flying when IBM calls, and he essentially blows them off when he hears that IBM wants to talk to him. (I might have this item slightly wrong, but the jist of it is correct: DRI blew off IBM.)
3. Meanwhile, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer buy QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) from Tim Paterson for $50,000 and a job with Microsoft.
4. IBM returns to Microsoft, and Bill tells them, "We've got an OS for you."
homerjward said:
Oh no, thats very true.
However, that version of DOS was really pathetic. They had to copy some features of UNIX such as directories (now know as folders) after buying it before they gave it to IBM
Then when Windows came out they copied some of MacOS's GUI, and for Windows NT took some of IBM's OS/2 source code...lol
LOL, even in it's infancy, Microsoft was buying and copying!
And now it's gotten so big it cannot copy fast anymore!
And now it's gotten so big it cannot copy fast anymore!
Is this a joke?
In the article he says the following under the 5:50pm section:
Paul Thurrott: "This one's bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible cheaps this very year. Yeah, seriously."
In the article he says the following under the 5:50pm section:
Paul Thurrott: "This one's bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible cheaps this very year. Yeah, seriously."
Raven VII said:LOL, even in it's infancy, Microsoft was buying and copying!
And now it's gotten so big it cannot copy fast anymore!
To be serious a moment, you hit the nail on the head!
This highlights that Gates strength has never been as a technical pundit, it's always been as a brilliant businessman. Don't forget, not only did he see the value of QDOS that not even the creator did, but he negotiated with a monopoly that he had the right to sell to their competitors! (and those arrived pretty fast).
His problem is he has come to see believe he is a technical pundit, and so MS keeps getting behind the curve and playing catchup.