[Nodnarb]

I've been hearing how longhorn is supposedly going to blow mac's out of the water and will just be so much better then OS X. I don't know anything that longhorn's supposed to have, or what it's even going to be like. If anyones heard anything about it, please reply.

I don't think it'll be that great but what if it is? That'll bad news for apple...

[greenamp]

Longhorn will most likely be a bloated, illogical, candy colored hack job. Microsoft has given no reason through the years to expect otherwise.

[hyperb0le]

Longhorn is essentially bringing Windows up to where Apple was two years ago. One of the main additions to Longhorn will be a new graphical compositing engine (very similar to Quartz Extreme) called "Avalon," with a new GUI, called "Aero" to take advantage of Avalon. Longhorn was also supposed to have a new WinFS filesystem, but from what I hear, that won't be ready until Longhorn SP1.

The biggest problem with Longhorn is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of long-term planning involved. The mentality at Microsoft seems to be "What could we add?" rather than "What should we add?"

Also, Avalon will require a very powerful PC. This is a big problem because people will have to buy new PCs to enjoy Longhorn's new GUI. Quartz, on the other hand, scales back very nicely. If your machine can't handle an effect, Quartz will still let you use the effects you can handle. Plus, Quartz extreme is supported on almost all moderately recent Macs.

[Catfish_Man]

New features in Longhorn that I can remember:

Hardware accelerated display
New 3D libraries (DirectX Next)
XML user interfaces (XAML, WVG, some other stuff)
New programming APIs (WinFX)
New Internet Explorer
New UI (Aero/Aero Glass. Looks hella ugly in current builds)
Evil security stuff (mostly canceled, thank goodness)
WinFS (scaled back some, but still in. Looks pretty similar to spotlight, perhaps somewhat more ambitious)
Emphasis on .NET for most apps (should result in somewhat better security, at least)
Integrated search (MS hates google)

[mikemako]

Originally posted by hyperb0le:
...Avalon will require a very powerful PC. This is a big problem because people will have to buy new PCs to enjoy Longhorn's new GUI. Quartz, on the other hand, scales back very nicely. If your machine can't handle an effect, Quartz will still let you use the effects you can handle.

It's the same with Longhorn. If your current PC isn't powerful enough for its high tech effects, it can scale back as much as necessary.

[hyperb0le]

Originally posted by mikemako:
It's the same with Longhorn. If your current PC isn't powerful enough for its high tech effects, it can scale back as much as necessary.

The thing is, so much of Longhorn relies on those 3D effects. Joe Schmoe doesn't care about XML Interfaces, etc. All he is going to see is that he has to buy a new PC to enjoy the benefits of Longhorn.

[hmurchison2001]

By the time Longhorn hits we'll have everything that it has and more that matters. I'm starting to think that OSX will get a new fs come version 10.5. Longhorn will get lots of pub but it's going to be an interesting fight seeing OSX 10.5 going up against Longhorn.

Quarts Extreme 2D/3D covers much of what Avalon does.

OpenGL 2.0 will have 2 years of improvement over Direct Next.

Both companies will have new stuff to show by then. I'm impressed with both. Consumer OS have gone from crashing toys to the stable workhorses we have today. A testement to the talent of programmers and leadership of executives. Funny to think but by the end of this decade we'll look at say "Tiger was so archaic" and compared to what we have in 10.7 we'll be right. That's a scary thought but in a good way.

[Sven G]

Longhorn FAQ...

[powermacj7]

Does M$ ever feel ashamed or embarrassed for obviously copying other's ideas? I agree, it appears that Apple has the upper hand in OS technology. Longhorn still has time to implement technologies by the time it comes out. In any event, Windows is not Unix, and that is my reason to stay with Apple, among several others.

[Targon]

Yeah well it still looks like a cheep babies cartoon interface to me. XP looks like some pathetic attempt at copying OS X, Longhorn is no different.

Regardless os the fsckin ugly assed interface they come out with, they still havent addressed the 'dumb, illogical factor' of their OS's and software. It will still be the same clumsy mess Windows has always been famous for, that with their .dll's, stupid assed menu's in apps, the million different settings for 1 control panel in 500 thousand different and irrelevant locations, bundled with the confusion and hoop jumping needed to set up simple functions...file sharing on a network for example.

Blah, u can have ya joke of an OS, i really don't give a sh!t now, cos OS X has finally matured and is an OS i expected it to become.Everything is smooth now here with Panther. Its great time to be use a Mac

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
New features in Longhorn that I can remember:
Evil security stuff (mostly canceled, thank goodness)

Can you expound upon this cancelled evil security stuff, I'm curious.

Thanks
Mike

[crystalthunder]

I think he was talking about Palladium, the system wide Digital Rights Management system, but I could be wrong.

[forkies]

Originally posted by Targon:
Yeah well it still looks like a cheep babies cartoon interface to me. XP looks like some pathetic attempt at copying OS X, Longhorn is no different.

Regardless os the fsckin ugly assed interface they come out with, they still havent addressed the 'dumb, illogical factor' of their OS's and software. It will still be the same clumsy mess Windows has always been famous for, that with their .dll's, stupid assed menu's in apps, the million different settings for 1 control panel in 500 thousand different and irrelevant locations, bundled with the confusion and hoop jumping needed to set up simple functions...file sharing on a network for example.

Blah, u can have ya joke of an OS, i really don't give a sh!t now, cos OS X has finally matured and is an OS i expected it to become.Everything is smooth now here with Panther. Its great time to be use a Mac

from the link Sven G provided:

Q: But Mac OS X already has a lot of these features. What's the big deal?

A: Apple has implemented some basic desktop composition features in Mac OS X "Panther." But the basic problem with Mac OS X isn't going away: It's a classic desktop operating system that doesn't offer anything in the way of usability advancements over previous desktop operating systems. Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X. In the future, Longhorn will further distance Windows from OS X. From a graphical standpoint, there won't be any comparison. As Microsoft revealed at the PDC 2003 conference, Longhorn is far more impressive technically than Panther.

omg such conflicting views...so who's right?

[JKT]

Paul Thurrot, the author of that site, is a grotesque win-apologist/mac-basher. I would look for someone less bigoted for an analysis of what is to come in Longhorn (versus MacOS X).

[eyadams]

While I'm loath to give Mr. Thurrot's writings serious thought and attention, this deserves quote definitely deserves some comment.

But the basic problem with Mac OS X isn't going away: It's a classic desktop operating system that doesn't offer anything in the way of usability advancements over previous desktop operating systems.

This is a biased presentation of what is actually an interesting debate over task based versus application based metaphors. Personal computers have generally centered around applications - the user needs to run an application to perform a task, and the OS provides the interface to do that. What Microsoft has been trying to promote is a shift to a "task based" metaphor - instead of thinking "what application", the user can think "what do I need to do?" and the OS will handle the messy details.

Personally, I think the task based approach is nuts, and Microsoft is going to discover what Apple discovered 20 years ago with the Lisa, or 8 years ago with OpenDoc, or 12 years ago with "templates": task based computing isn't a replacement for application centered computing.

[JKT]

Originally posted by eyadams:
While I'm loath to give Mr. Thurrot's writings serious thought and attention, this deserves quote definitely deserves some comment.



This is a biased presentation of what is actually an interesting debate over task based versus application based metaphors. Personal computers have generally centered around applications - the user needs to run an application to perform a task, and the OS provides the interface to do that. What Microsoft has been trying to promote is a shift to a "task based" metaphor - instead of thinking "what application", the user can think "what do I need to do?" and the OS will handle the messy details.

Personally, I think the task based approach is nuts, and Microsoft is going to discover what Apple discovered 20 years ago with the Lisa, or 8 years ago with OpenDoc, or 12 years ago with "templates": task based computing isn't a replacement for application centered computing.

There is an obvious reason why MS wants a task-based system - it means that it will become even more difficult to use anything other than MS applications as those tasks will undoubtedly all point you towards their solutions first and third-party software last (if at all).

[lookmark]

Originally posted by JKT:
Paul Thurrot, the author of that site, is a grotesque win-apologist/mac-basher. I would look for someone less bigoted for an analysis of what is to come in Longhorn (versus MacOS X).

Quite true but (and this is addressed to the thread's poster) I wouldn't take seriously some of the more ignorant dismissals of Longhorn around the Mac web either. Your best sources about information about Longhorn can be found from Microsoft itself, from its Longhorn developer resources (see the Aero User Interface section to get the most details about Longhorn's UI) or various MS info sites, e.g. Neowin.net (or Thurrot's Winsupersite.com if you must, but, really, w/ a industrial-size grain of salt).

Personally, I wouldn't underestimate Longhorn... Apple certainly isn't, to judge by Tiger's feature set and their revised OS schedule. It will at long last bring the display and graphics capabilities of Windows to the level of OS X (Tiger, I think, roughly speaking) and, at least according to the dev information, advance many thoughtful and useful-looking advances in metadata and UI. The worst (or least resolved) things about so far sound like the advanced file system, which is still pretty slow, the likely continuation of a host of annoying Windowisms, and the fact that it's still a long, long ways away.

Anyway, Apple has its work cut out for them -- but I'm confident that they can rise to the occasion. 10.5 v.s. Longhorn should be an interesting comparison.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
By the time Longhorn hits we'll have everything that it has and more that matters. I'm starting to think that OSX will get a new fs come version 10.5.

imo, the need for a new filesystem is not nearly so critical now that spotlight exists. It provides almost everything a new FS would provide, without the compatibility hassles. MS is doing their new FS the same way, a database layer on top of NTFS.


In response to the question about the security stuff, try googling for Palladium and NGSCB, it's pretty complicated, but there are some good articles out there.

[johnpg]

Did any of you read through the WinFS stuff? http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/u...ic_storage.asp

Two things stood out to me.

1) Stacks are basically the patented Apple "piles" concept.

2) WinFS looks like it's well thought out and won't suck. At least based on how they're describing it. How it will work in the real world is still unknown. But it's better than what Apple is offering with Spotlight. I say this with the caveat that both are pre-release and I am judging based on the available information. A true comparision cannot be made until both OS's have been released.

Oh and the Longhorn UI is so obviously based on OS X and brushed metal that it's embarrassing. :-)

John

[lookmark]

Originally posted by johnpg:
Two things stood out to me.

1) Stacks are basically the patented Apple "piles" concept.

Well, use it or lose it... Apple's been sitting on that one for years and years.

Also -- haven't taken a look at Apple's "piles" patent too recently, but isn't Longhorn's use of stacks as "filters" for creating + sorting metadata somewhat unique?

2) WinFS looks like it's well thought out and won't suck. At least based on how they're describing it. How it will work in the real world is still unknown. But it's better than what Apple is offering with Spotlight. I say this with the caveat that both are pre-release and I am judging based on the available information. A true comparision cannot be made until both OS's have been released.

WinFS is quite ambitious... Apparently in the latest Longhorn seeds it's still sluggish in real-world use. I'm sure MS is currently working on its performance like mad.

Originally posted by johnpg:
Oh and the Longhorn UI is so obviously based on OS X and brushed metal that it's embarrassing. :-)

Well, the real UI is kept under wraps, no doubt, for the final release. But yeah, OS X is undeniably -- in some case, shamelessly -- a major, major visual influence on Longhorn.

[SoClose]

There are three "pillars" in Longhorn: the new presentation layer called Avalon (with its new skin, Aero), a new data layer (the most prominent feature being WinFS but there are many others) and a new communications stack called Indigo which facilitates application messaging (that was formerly in big app servers) in the desktop OS. There's a lot in Longhorn that's under-the-hood and comparable to Tiger advances. Steve Jobs wasn't kidding when he said the next big OS shift after Tiger is Longhorn. The problem is, he had the starting point incorrect -- the shift isn't Win95 to Longhorn, it's WinXP to Longhorn. Longhorn is huge -- go to the Microsoft Developers Network Longhorn page and read about the pillars of Longhorn and look at the architectural chart of its new features. The best advice: know your enemy. Tiger will rock, but Microsoft isn't resting on their laurels!

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by SoClose:
The best advice: know your enemy. Tiger will rock, but Microsoft isn't resting on their laurels!

I know my enemy. They manage to create a piss-poor OS every time no matter how many cool features they throw in. Technically, Longhorn sounds interesting, but when I remember every other version of Windows over the years, I realize that it's just going to be frustrating.

[Dark Rob]

XP was finished durring the birth of the modern file sharring app days (kazaa etc), and look how much of a problem the XP piracy was?

Now in the world of stuff like bittorrent, I hope MS has fun squashing thousands of different Longhorn torrents.

[msuper69]

Well, here's my take on Longhorn et. al.

Life is too short and I'm spending whatever time I have left on a Mac. And then, I pray there is a heaven because I've already spent enough time in he!! as a Windows admin during my IT career.

[strokemouth]

I'm amazed that there aren't any people here that are actually excited for Longhorn. I understand that this is a Mac site, but regardless, it's still the same industry. I personally hope that Longhorn does very well. It can only force Apple to start trying a little harder. I personally am not very excited for Tiger (aside from performance increases, Spotlight, and CoreImage) and really cannot see myself shelling out another 130 bucks for this one. If Longhorn really delivers, Apple will need to rethink itself and start to figure out some amazing stuff.

If Longhorn flops, why should Apple try harder? I'm glad that they are putting RSS aggregation into Safari and everything, but I would prefer they work on getting my screen brightness to stop adjusting to ambient light, regardless of my settings (and yes, I've called Apple care, their advice was "see if it gets fixed in 10.3.5") and work out the little quirks.

Competition can only make Apple strive to improve. Not to mention, it would make my job easier (Windows is the bane of the IT world ).

[thePurpleGiant]

Originally posted by strokemouth:
I'm amazed that there aren't any people here that are actually excited for Longhorn

I am certainly interested to check out Longhorn. But I suppose the main reason I wouldn't call myself "excited" is because I don't have a PC!

My number 1 hope for Longhorn: Support for CSS and PNG properly in IE. That is all. Now that would be somethign that would make me excited.

[hmurchison2001]

I'm amazed that there aren't any people here that are actually excited for Longhorn. I understand that this is a Mac site, but regardless, it's still the same industry. I personally hope that Longhorn does very well.

Longhorn won't ship until some time in 2006. What's there really to be excited about? Especially considering that most of the features of Longhorn will be in Tiger save a new fs and Avalon-3D.

It can only force Apple to start trying a little harder. I personally am not very excited for Tiger (aside from performance increases, Spotlight, and CoreImage) and really cannot see myself shelling out another 130 bucks for this one. If Longhorn really delivers, Apple will need to rethink itself and start to figure out some amazing stuff.

No disrespect intended but it sounds like you wouldn't understand a computing breakthrough if it fell out the sky and cracked you on the noggin. To trivialize a modern metadata search engine, performance improvements, real time GPU processing of Images and Video and a bunch of other stuff conveniently left out speaks more to your naivete than a statement of the Tiger teams developing prowess. One has to wonder how the clear benefits of Tiger are so oblivous to you. It's duly noted that you like Longhorn but have shed absolutely no light on just what "amazing' features Longorn will have that OSX doesn't.

I don't mean to be harsh but I whenever I read someone that blows Tiger off as "non compelling" I have to wonder why they are even in computing. $129 is nothing and Tiger is "it" until 2006. These people can't be telling me their going to stick with Panther for 2 more years.

None of us are privy to the 200 sessions of WWDC in which developers received the roadmap Apple technologies. There has to be something in Tiger that is of value because I haven't met one developer who doesn't see something new that will have a causal effect on their application.

Longhorn is going to be a great OS provided it works. It's the most ambitious task I've ever seen MS take but Apple has and advantage. By 2006 Mac developers will be comfortable with using Apple's metadata featues. Core Image and Video will be transparent to end users but they will like the benefits they get. There will be thousands of Dashboard Gadgets and Automator scripts on the internet. Core Data will usher in a change in how data is stored and retrieved and shared.

Yes Longhorn is exciting but I'm getting most of it's functionality in 2005 with Tiger and we'll likely get 10.5 late 2006 early 2007 for another step forward. I don't think Apple has to rethink itself..they're already there man.

[squish]

I consider myself a UI junky. I feel that I know what works and what makes sense. I suppose it's all "my opinion" so nobody has to agree with me, but here 'goes:

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/s..._activewin.gif

Exhibit A: There are 'centers' thing asking me what I want to "do?" What the hell?

I launch iPhoto, and I am presented with my collection, but on the bottom I have all the functions I want to execute. i know when I'm 'importing' 'organizing' or 'editing.' Apple understands that using a computer should be easy, so they make it as easy as possible. It lets me ****ing figure it out because I can easily do just that. In that Longhorn pic, it's like I'm reading a damn book, not using a device that's supposed to enhance my life.

What do I want to do? well, if I'm at the 'music center,' i probably wanna look at my music collection. It should just present me with an actual UI that displays all those options in a tangible and most importantly, useable, fashion.

[BurpetheadX]

Longhorn will be Microsoft's "10.0". It will be slow, buggy, and have little to no software for it upons it's release. It will take another 3-4 years for it to be in a good usable state, just like OS X.

[hmurchison2001]

squish- MS "better" have a way to turn that garbage off. The level at which MS treats some of their users is deplorable. "What do you want to do?" geez I thought this was Task Based UI not 'tard based.

BurpetheadX- perhaps it may take a while to mature but honestly I think MS has their shiza together on this one. They have SDK and code in the hands of developers early and C# has been praised by more than a few of the programmers I know as being a solid .net programming tool.

The OS wars are far from over, consumers are going to have such an array of techn sitting before them come the turn of this decade it'll boggle the mind. I mean working in real time is going to be the norm for most applications soon. For those apps that require brute force the xgrid built into Macs will kick in and I'm sure by the time Longhorn ships they may have some sort of clustering built in as well. This is cool stuff. Guess it boils down to applications and who has the coolest

[HOMBRESINIESTRO]

What is Longhorn?

As I see it, Microsoft is going to merge MS Bob (http://toastytech.com/guis/bob2.html) with their current OS line. Bob was their idea of task centered computing in the mid-90s.
So I think we might see some greater change in the Longhorn UI before release. I'm, as I said, expecting something that resembles Bob... but we will see!

I used Bob once in those days, and it was Clippy on steroids. You could see back then that this interface has no future.
Nevertheless I bet it is Bill's way of looking at Interface Design. The various centers in Longhorn are just the bginning.

I for one am sticking with my Mac and looking forward to Tiger. As I see it, in contrast to the winsupersite comment, Apple has understood how to make interfaces that are simple enough to get done whatever you want to do with your computer. And I expect that they will lead us to new dimensions of interface desing that are far beyond MS Bob.

[strokemouth]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Longhorn won't ship until some time in 2006. What's there really to be excited about? Especially considering that most of the features of Longhorn will be in Tiger save a new fs and Avalon-3D.




No disrespect intended but it sounds like you wouldn't understand a computing breakthrough if it fell out the sky and cracked you on the noggin. To trivialize a modern metadata search engine, performance improvements, real time GPU processing of Images and Video and a bunch of other stuff conveniently left out speaks more to your naivete than a statement of the Tiger teams developing prowess. One has to wonder how the clear benefits of Tiger are so oblivous to you. It's duly noted that you like Longhorn but have shed absolutely no light on just what "amazing' features Longorn will have that OSX doesn't.

How is any of this a breakthrough? The only thing that even seems close to that is CoreImage, which I noted as me being excited for. Having a modern metadata search engine is fine, but you know what, I'm using Quicksilver in the same manner I would use Spotlight anyways. There are at least 3 apps that accomplish the same thing as Spotlight. And as far as the "bunch of other stuff coneveniently left out." That's just what they are other stuff. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing revolutionary, yet again more programs that accomplish things that I am doing now in Panther. RSS? Yep, got it. Widgets? Don't use them, but I could. Automator? Can write my own Applescripts if some task is too repetitive.

I don't mean to be harsh but I whenever I read someone that blows Tiger off as "non compelling" I have to wonder why they are even in computing. $129 is nothing and Tiger is "it" until 2006. These people can't be telling me their going to stick with Panther for 2 more years.

None of us are privy to the 200 sessions of WWDC in which developers received the roadmap Apple technologies. There has to be something in Tiger that is of value because I haven't met one developer who doesn't see something new that will have a causal effect on their application.

Tell you what, buddy, I'll PM you my address. You can send me a check for $130 every year since it's such a pittance. And perhaps we should be privy to all of the technologies planned. It would at least attempt to convince those of us not excited about Tiger that there is something worth waiting for. And I do see some of Tiger's features as worth buying. But the sum of them does not equal $130.

Longhorn is going to be a great OS provided it works. It's the most ambitious task I've ever seen MS take but Apple has and advantage. By 2006 Mac developers will be comfortable with using Apple's metadata featues. Core Image and Video will be transparent to end users but they will like the benefits they get. There will be thousands of Dashboard Gadgets and Automator scripts on the internet. Core Data will usher in a change in how data is stored and retrieved and shared.

Well, that's assuming everything goes according to plan.

Yes Longhorn is exciting but I'm getting most of it's functionality in 2005 with Tiger and we'll likely get 10.5 late 2006 early 2007 for another step forward. I don't think Apple has to rethink itself..they're already there man.

And here is exactly where you missed the point of my post. The question isn't so much of what can YOU be doing up until 2006, but rather, what will THEY be doing then? Comparing Longhorn to Tiger is pointless. That's one of the reason's I refuse to ever look at Paul Thurrot's website. He compares what may be possible to what we are doing now. But take a look at the real comparison: Longhorn v. XP. THAT'S what I'm excited about. That is a monumental step for MS. The differences are so drastic, you can't help but at least wonder how well it's going to work.

So this is a comparison to explain my differing excitement levels:

PC- XP Pro now. Hasn't been turned on since April. Well, turned on once a month to update virus definitions.

Mac - Use it daily. Do many of the things now that Tiger boasts, but most likely with a little different motor under the hood.

So which would you be more excited about? An OS upgrade that will supposedly revolutionize a platform when its released? Or an OS upgrade that may lay some framework for the future, but will show very few enhancements in terms of the way we do our work?

Longhorn should most likely change the face of computing on the x86; Tiger should cost no more than $50. (The average end user is not going to know why they should have GPU processing or a metadata search engine)

[hmurchison2001]

How is any of this a breakthrough? The only thing that even seems close to that is CoreImage, which I noted as me being excited for. Having a modern metadata search engine is fine, but you know what, I'm using Quicksilver in the same manner I would use Spotlight anyways. There are at least 3 apps that accomplish the same thing as Spotlight. And as far as the "bunch of other stuff coneveniently left out." That's just what they are other stuff. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing revolutionary, yet again more programs that accomplish things that I am doing now in Panther. RSS? Yep, got it. Widgets? Don't use them, but I could. Automator? Can write my own Applescripts if some task is too repetitive.

Quicksilver is nice but It's results would never be as accurate without Spotlight tech. Indexing our HD has been around since System 8. Something tells me Spotlight isn't ready. It handles simple searches fine but to those using Launchbar or QS that's nothing new. The coup de grace that was "talked" about but not shown was when Jobs said you could type in "give me everything about Bertrand". As a basic search program I'm not overly impressed with Spotlight but if indeed we can use some natural language searches that actually work. Color me impressed. However even I remain skeptical for now. RSS...meh. That's nothing big if I like RSS I'll seek out Pulp Fiction or NetNewswire. Both more full featured. Safari RSS is just a taste.

Speaking of Automator check this link out.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622168,00.asp

I like this part

But Automator is not simply a new front end to AppleScript. Although it's capable of running AppleScripts as well as Unix shell scripts, Automator Actions are compiled C++ code. Third-party developers wanting to let customers use their applications in the Automator environment will need to write their own set of Actions, in addition to opening them up to AppleScript

I thought that Automator was indeed just a GUI sitting on top of Applescript. If what Ian is saying is correct(and I'm sure it is) then Automator is going to be more handy. Compiled C++ code and support for Shell scripts means that Automator might go from being a "toy" to something that we may actually use to do some good things. Again I fault no one for having a bit of healthy skepticism. As always it has to work.

Tell you what, buddy, I'll PM you my address. You can send me a check for $130 every year since it's such a pittance. And perhaps we should be privy to all of the technologies planned. It would at least attempt to convince those of us not excited about Tiger that there is something worth waiting for. And I do see some of Tiger's features as worth buying. But the sum of them does not equal $130.

Yeah I hear you man. By the time Tiger ships we'll know to the full extent of what it offers. I'm sure Apple will regain points with you if they fix your Powerbook issue.

And here is exactly where you missed the point of my post. The question isn't so much of what can YOU be doing up until 2006, but rather, what will THEY be doing then? Comparing Longhorn to Tiger is pointless. That's one of the reason's I refuse to ever look at Paul Thurrot's website. He compares what may be possible to what we are doing now. But take a look at the real comparison: Longhorn v. XP. THAT'S what I'm excited about. That is a monumental step for MS. The differences are so drastic, you can't help but at least wonder how well it's going to work.

Agreed. Looking at Longhorn I'm totally amazed that MS is attempting something so ambitious. In fact I may sign up for MSDN later after I get a working knowledge of Cocoa and Java to check out C# and some of the Longhorn tools. Apple knows they will have to bust butt to be ready. We won't see 10.5 until probably 2yrs after Tiger ships so it's likely that 10.5 ships after Longhorm by say maybe 6 months or slightly more. Two heavyweight OS(relative to consumers) slugging it out is a can't miss opportunity.

Thanks for the civil response and I apologize for being snippy. I'm eager to start programming and Tiger is like a veritable treasure chest for me right now.

If you're a developer for future developer you're excited about Tiger. If you're a person that just wants your computer to run better then the whole hullabaloo of Tiger means nothing until you can see some concrete improvements.

Scott Stevenson comment #1

My reaction to WWDC last year was that Panther was going to be a really solid release with some great technology. This year, I�m amazed by what Apple has put together for Tiger. It�s a dimension beyond the Mac OS X we know today. I know I keep gushing, but it really is justified. The software teams deserve a standing ovation.

Scott Stevenson comment #2

Tiger simply looks amazing. There�s no other way to say it...Here�s to Tiger! Looks absolutely incredible. Apple has outdone themselves. Anybody who has resisted buying a Mac up until now may find the temptation too strong to resist any longer.

I think that if developers are happy then we're bound to have happy end users. We still have months to go as well. The Preview Release only showed what was necessary for the SDKs handed out.

We've yet to see what Apple does with Quicktime 7 and other general features. By the time Tiger ships it will definitely be more complete than the PR and then we can really see what Spotlight can do. These damn developers know more but NDAs prevent them from talking.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by strokemouth:
So which would you be more excited about? An OS upgrade that will supposedly revolutionize a platform when its released? Or an OS upgrade that may lay some framework for the future, but will show very few enhancements in terms of the way we do our work?

Longhorn should most likely change the face of computing on the x86;

No, I still expect it will be inefficient and frustrating. It will just be inefficient and frustrating with some technologically impressive new features tacked on.

Honestly, just because Longhorn is a lot better than XP, that doesn't mean it's "revolutionary." It isn't much of an improvement over what I already have installed on my Mac. From what I've seen, the only feature that's significant enough to call it in any way revolutionary is WinFS. The rest of it is just playing catch-up to Mac OS X or doing things that aren't particularly interesting in the first place.

Tiger should cost no more than $50. (The average end user is not going to know why they should have GPU processing or a metadata search engine)

If they don't feel it's worth the upgrade, neither Apple nor I is going to stick a gun to their heads and make them. They'll know why they need to upgrade when they aren't able to use any new apps.

Personally, I think just the new under-the-hood technologies + Quartz 2D Extreme are worth $100.

[strokemouth]

Like I said before, Longhorn is bound to change the face of computing on x86. Practically all of the computing world is not able to experience the joys that we do of Mac OS. Strictly dealing with the Windows arena, Longhorn (if it ends up being as good as it is supposed to be) ought to be rather revolutionary. Tighter security (hopefully), smoother interface (which I bet they will polish up...even if they do take a page out of OSX's book), and usability type stuff should make using LH vs. XP quite a difference.

hmurchison: PM sent, buddy.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Here's the real question...are people going to upgrade to Longhorn?

Longhorn is upping the minimum requirements.
Lots of people stayed with Win 98 and ME when XP came out...how long will it take for Longhorn to get adopted.
Some people doubt that MS will ever produce a more secure OS...these people are unlikely to upgrade because they feel like it's going to be the same story all over again.

10.2 has Quartz Compositing and Quartz Extreme today. Most people are on 10.2 and up. Most people will be on 10.3 or 10.4 by the time Longhorn ships.

10.3 is an excellent OS...much, MUCH, better than XP, IMO. And would probably still give Longhorn a run for its money when it's released in 2-3 years. A whole lot of people are going to be on 10.4 which probably on par with the known features in Longhorn and probably in some cases way ahead (but who knows). 10.5 will probably arrive right before Longhorn, or right after Longhorn and be way ahead (but that's another story).

It won't be until 2008 or even 2009 that the majority of users will have made the jump to Longhorn. Almost everyone will have been on 10.4 for at least a year or two by then and enjoying Spotlight, CoreImage apps, iChat Extreme, and all the Quartz goodness we've been enjoying since 10.0.

I'm sure Longhorn will be a great OS but I don't see how people would get excited over something that is available today in a slightly more expensive but user-friendly package.

[JKT]

Originally posted by strokemouth:
Like I said before, Longhorn is bound to change the face of computing on x86. Practically all of the computing world is not able to experience the joys that we do of Mac OS. Strictly dealing with the Windows arena, Longhorn (if it ends up being as good as it is supposed to be) ought to be rather revolutionary. Tighter security (hopefully), smoother interface (which I bet they will polish up...even if they do take a page out of OSX's book), and usability type stuff should make using LH vs. XP quite a difference.

hmurchison: PM sent, buddy.

So it is exciting for you as a Windows user - I can fully understand that, but your original comment was "I'm amazed that there aren't any people here that are actually excited for Longhorn." The reason we here aren't as excited about it, is because we are already using many of the features that are going to be in Longhorn now (and will be using even more when Tiger arrives) so there isn't all that much in it to excite us in the same way as it would a Win95/98/2000/XP user. I'm reminded of a quote I heard many years ago, "Windows95 is Macintosh '87." Well, in the same way, Longhorn '07 is going to be MacOS X '04.

What Longhorn will be for us is interesting in that it'll be good to contrast how Apple and Microsoft 's different philosophies end up solving the same issues.

As for a lack of excitement about 10.4, I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it again here. The thing about 10.4 is that as an update in itself, it isn't likely to offer a huge amount of revolutionary new features (over Panther) to the end user. Where it is going to be amazing, however, is in what it allows developers to come up with. In other words, it is the applications where 10.4 is going to shine - both Apple's and probably to an even greater extent, Third Party ones.

[greenamp]

Micro$ofts problem is simple: their focus when building an OS revolves around 1)how to keep it from being pirated, 2)how to sell the most copies, 3)how to edge out apple. If they would just focus on actually building a good, logical, stable OS they might just come up with a winner.

[BZ]

Another question to ask is, what applications are going to take advantage to all these new features of Tiger and Longhorn and when will they be ready?

It seems like in Tiger, Apple has released a TON of SDKs (iSync, CI/CV, Spotlight) that OSX developers are going to have a great time building amazing new applications for. If Tiger is a year and a half ahead of Longhorn, that is a year and a half of new applications that take full advantage of the power of OSX.

I fully expect there to be some ground breaking, fully killer apps launched after Tiger is released, things that will turn heads.

BZ

[HOMBRESINIESTRO]

Originally posted by BZ:
It seems like in Tiger, Apple has released a TON of SDKs (iSync, CI/CV, Spotlight) that OSX developers are going to have a great time building amazing new applications for. If Tiger is a year and a half ahead of Longhorn, that is a year and a half of new applications that take full advantage of the power of OSX.

I think you underestimate how Microsoft works with their developers (DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS). Of course they have alpha releases of Longhorn now and are going to be supplied with up-to-date info on Longhorn so that they can get their software ready to use the advantages of Longhorn.

There are many more developers for Windows than there are for the Mac and many of them Win-developers are getting in touch with the new architecture right now and not when Longhorn is released!

Nevertheless, it is a good thing to have Tiger out before Longhorn. And I'm hoping for UI independence in the final version of Tiger, which is the only true advantage of Longhorn that I can see now.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by eyadams:

Personally, I think the task based approach is nuts, and Microsoft is going to discover what Apple discovered 20 years ago with the Lisa, or 8 years ago with OpenDoc, or 12 years ago with "templates": task based computing isn't a replacement for application centered computing.

I think it depends on the level of the user. When you talk to a new user about a computer, you say, "what do you want to do?" Not "what applications do you need?" To a new user, having a huge icon that says "check my e-mail" is the way to go. To the advanced user, open up mail, pine, whatever.

Another way to look at it is this: a task based OS is a little like the Object Oriented Programming metaphore. You don't need to know how something is done, you just care about the end result. This does not apply for power users though, because we actaully do care about how things are done.

I think on the first startup, OSX should ask a question:

Are you a new user, advanced, or power user? If you're new, make the icons huge and throw a "check my mail", "browse the web", "listen to music", and "view my pictures" icons on the desktop, as well as a alias to the home folder. I hate to use the whole "my" thing, but it should probably be called "my home folder" or something like that.

For the advanced and power, I don't know - i just threw those in there as ideas.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
I think it depends on the level of the user. When you talk to a new user about a computer, you say, "what do you want to do?" Not "what applications do you need?" To a new user, having a huge icon that says "check my e-mail" is the way to go. To the advanced user, open up mail, pine, whatever.

Another way to look at it is this: a task based OS is a little like the Object Oriented Programming metaphore. You don't need to know how something is done, you just care about the end result. This does not apply for power users though, because we actaully do care about how things are done.

I think on the first startup, OSX should ask a question:

Are you a new user, advanced, or power user? If you're new, make the icons huge and throw a "check my mail", "browse the web", "listen to music", and "view my pictures" icons on the desktop, as well as a alias to the home folder. I hate to use the whole "my" thing, but it should probably be called "my home folder" or something like that.

For the advanced and power, I don't know - i just threw those in there as ideas.

The big Mail 'button' and iTunes 'button' in the Dock isn't good enough?

The task-based approach is useful for about 3 days...then a user is probably comfortable enough with some aspects of the interface to start doing things himself.

Task-base is like permanent hand-holding. It's like learning how to walk, for the rest of your life. You don't want to learn how to walk everyday, do you?

There might be some slow folks out there but if someone never catches on that clicking the Safari icon lets you surf the web, clicking Mail icon lets you *gasp* write an e-mail, maybe those people should not be on computers at all.

We're not all babies for the rest of our lives.

A task-based approach might have been good 5-20 years ago when computers were mysterious new tools. Today, a lot of people have used a computer before...is a task-based approach really needed? If it is, should it really be default?

Automator will offer this to people if something is really too difficult to figure out. But building a task-based approach into the OS is stupid.

[chris v]

It sounds to me like "task-based computing" is nothing more than putting a verb and a pronoun in front of the name of an alias, or shortcut.

CV

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
The big Mail 'button' and iTunes 'button' in the Dock isn't good enough?

The task-based approach is useful for about 3 days...then a user is probably comfortable enough with some aspects of the interface to start doing things himself.

Task-base is like permanent hand-holding. It's like learning how to walk, for the rest of your life. You don't want to learn how to walk everyday, do you?

There might be some slow folks out there but if someone never catches on that clicking the Safari icon lets you surf the web, clicking Mail icon lets you *gasp* write an e-mail, maybe those people should not be on computers at all.

We're not all babies for the rest of our lives.

A task-based approach might have been good 5-20 years ago when computers were mysterious new tools. Today, a lot of people have used a computer before...is a task-based approach really needed? If it is, should it really be default?

Automator will offer this to people if something is really too difficult to figure out. But building a task-based approach into the OS is stupid.

Different strokes for different folks dude. It's not like anyone's forcing you to do things one way, and to some people it might make things easier. Note how I also said it should be there for "new users". Because if someone can sit in front of a mac and within 1 second get to the web, they'll be happy. They'll say, "holy crap this is easy to use." If you haven't tried to teach someone new how to use a computer, then it's about time you did.

Also, Automator will not get used by newbies, as you need to know how to do something before you can automate it, (i would imagine)

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by chris v:
It sounds to me like "task-based computing" is nothing more than putting a verb and a pronoun in front of the name of an alias, or shortcut.

CV

In some cases yes, that's exactly what it is. It's also the sentence that follow, "what do you want to do?" For me, that sentence is Open Mail. For others, it's "check my e-mail".

[johnpg]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
I think on the first startup, OSX should ask a question:

Are you a new user, advanced, or power user?

The problem with that is now you've changed the way the computer works for a certain subset of users. You're much better off teaching new users how things work rather than dumbing things down for them. If you learn to use the computer in the simple mode then in your mind that's how the computer works.

Now I'd be open minded to having video tutorials or other things available with the OS that could be made easily available to new users. But we shouldn't change the interface. That's one of the key problems with Windows, you never know what you're going to get. This is especially bad with their silly drop down menus that hide items you don't use. My wife has told me of cases where OPEN wasn't visible on the file menu, etc. That is just stupid. I see where MS was going, but it's just a bad idea. The way to ease of use is to be make things obvious, limit visible options and stay consistant.

John

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
In some cases yes, that's exactly what it is. It's also the sentence that follow, "what do you want to do?" For me, that sentence is Open Mail. For others, it's "check my e-mail".

"Open Mail", "check my e-mail", click on the Mail icon. Please find something a bit more worthy of an example. Because the difference to a newbie between "check my e-mail" and clicking the Mail icon is very small.

And another thing if you're gonna tell me that finding the task you want from a huge list of tasks written in words on a screen...even if they were to be divided up in categories and sub-categories...is easy or fun, it's not.

Maybe I don't understand newbies very well but I doubt they'd go "wow, this is easy" after being presented with tons of tasks.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by johnpg:
The problem with that is now you've changed the way the computer works for a certain subset of users. You're much better off teaching new users how things work rather than dumbing things down for them. If you learn to use the computer in the simple mode then in your mind that's how the computer works.

Now I'd be open minded to having video tutorials or other things available with the OS that could be made easily available to new users. But we shouldn't change the interface. That's one of the key problems with Windows, you never know what you're going to get. This is especially bad with their silly drop down menus that hide items you don't use. My wife has told me of cases where OPEN wasn't visible on the file menu, etc. That is just stupid. I see where MS was going, but it's just a bad idea. The way to ease of use is to be make things obvious, limit visible options and stay consistant.

John

just a shortcut on the desktop. why is this so insane?

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
"Open Mail", "check my e-mail", click on the Mail icon. Please find something a bit more worthy of an example. Because the difference to a newbie between "check my e-mail" and clicking the Mail icon is very small.

And another thing if you're gonna tell me that finding the task you want from a huge list of tasks written in words on a screen...even if they were to be divided up in categories and sub-categories...is easy or fun, it's not.

Maybe I don't understand newbies very well but I doubt they'd go "wow, this is easy" after being presented with tons of tasks.

ive listed 4 things.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
ive listed 4 things.

Browse the Internet shortcuts and E-Mail shortcuts were in Mac OS 9. But I really doubt these shortcuts really made much of a difference in usability.

You're pretty much just renaming Safari to 'browse the internet' and Mail to 'check mail'. I can understand how 'browse the internet' and 'check mail' can be useful to someone who's just crawled out of a cave...on Mars...and stumbles upon 'a computer'...luckily there is only a small number of people in North America and Europe in this situation.

I think you underestimate the Dock. Why would you need shortcuts on the Desktop when the apps are all right there...1 click away?