"casually slipped into their presentations that Longhorn is three years away from debut."
I hardly think this is conclusive. But for sake of argument lets say they are right. (my own opinion is that they were referring the the projected adoption point of the product [read, WHEN FOLKS START 'REALLY' USING IT]).
Assuming that 2006 is right then we have a solid date for OS 11 (not eleven, you say it One-One)
The next OS will be marketed as "One Computer, One OS".
Since Apple will just keep hammering out these miracles wouldn't be surprised if it was hailed as the first 128 bit OS. It would work on the quad processor G6 (with fuel cells in the powerbooks, liquid cooling in the towers, and predicatably firewire 1600 to plug in the video iPods)
Geez, I wonder how much even farther we'll be by then
Its rediculous that Microsoft feels the need to constantly reinvent the wheel when they could just grab an open source starting point. For the time and money they are putting into Longhorn, they could have one kick-*ss open source environment.
wouldn't be surprised if it was hailed as the first 128 bit OS. It would work on the quad processor G6 (with fuel cells in the powerbooks, liquid cooling in the towers
wow, you managed to hit on three topics that I hate:
1. needless use for 128 bit OS that can't be meaningfully implemented in hardware
2. Fuel cells in laptops- useless tech that actually makes laptops more cumbersome and raises the TCO.
3. Liquid cooling which is a geek's dream but really is just an excuse for poorly designed CPUs. (I don't hate this a much as the previous two).
SO...
There is no need for a 128 bit OS. NONE. There are few enough legitimate use cases for a 64 bit OS, and this comes from a person who codes in 64 bit land.
Fuel cells are a boondogle. They are great for spaceships and automobiles, but I doubt that people are going to want to refuel their laptops.
Back on topic...
MS is always late with a new version of the OS. This is because they plan to put so much into the OS that their ambition really makes it difficult to get a deliverable date. MS will scale back the extent of the OS, same as they always have and will ship something within a reasonable timeframe. Apple goes for somewhat more incremental OS updates that have better end user functionality. There is nothing new here.
Mac os X is becoming mature and more powerful, versions after versions. Panther should be a great improvement, and will reach the level of performance that we use to know for some task under mac os 9.
Mac os X is increasing his technological advance in the OS market. Intel has suceed some master tricks in order to improve his pentium dispite the Cisc limitation, but Microsoft have problems to improve his OS due to the X86 architecture limitation.
Since Apple will just keep hammering out these miracles wouldn't be surprised if it was hailed as the first 128 bit OS. It would work on the quad processor G6 (with fuel cells in the powerbooks, liquid cooling in the towers, and predicatably firewire 1600 to plug in the video iPods)
Whoops, you fell into the hardware advances vs. software advances pitfall. The hardware will continue to progress regardless of the OS on top of it.
Anyway... It seems to me that Longhorn is quickly becoming the new Cairo. For the uninitiated, Cairo was to be NT 5.0, but many of the technologies weren't implemented (except for Active Directory among a few) and Windows 2000 was born -- A WinNT 4.0 kernel with a Win95 interface. (Visions of "The Thing with Two Heads" -- starring Rosey Grier and Ray Milland).
I expect a WIndows XP 2.0 to roll out in the next 18 months.
Who cares about Longhorn this is AppleInsider. Windows lost to OS X. It's over. Game over man, game over.
In style, substance and innovation sure!! In market share? mmmmmnope!
However, the ever delaying rollout should give IT managers pause (at least those with still half a brain -- the other half having been eaten by the Redmond virus). Longhorn is a switcher's best friend (be they Mac switchers or Linux switchers).
Whoops, you fell into the hardware advances vs. software advances pitfall. The hardware will continue to progress regardless of the OS on top of it.
Anyway... It seems to me that Longhorn is quickly becoming the new Cairo. For the uninitiated, Cairo was to be NT 5.0, but many of the technologies weren't implemented (except for Active Directory among a few) and Windows 2000 was born -- A WinNT 4.0 kernel with a Win95 interface. (Visions of "The Thing with Two Heads" -- starring Rosey Grier and Ray Milland).
I expect a WIndows XP 2.0 to roll out in the next 18 months.
Screed
Yep,and it wasnt supposed to be called Windows 2000, it was also supposed to be released in 1997.
I think Steve Jobs already mentioned that Longhorn has slipped to 2006 at the developers conference.
Geees ... no wonder Microsoft wanted its customers to sign those new Volume Licensing programs ... if their new OS comes out in 2006- then it's going to be 2007 or 2008 before it becomes widly deployed.
I really can't imagin many large corporations not moving to Linux by then.
Comments
I hardly think this is conclusive. But for sake of argument lets say they are right. (my own opinion is that they were referring the the projected adoption point of the product [read, WHEN FOLKS START 'REALLY' USING IT]).
Assuming that 2006 is right then we have a solid date for OS 11 (not eleven, you say it One-One)
The next OS will be marketed as "One Computer, One OS".
Since Apple will just keep hammering out these miracles wouldn't be surprised if it was hailed as the first 128 bit OS. It would work on the quad processor G6 (with fuel cells in the powerbooks, liquid cooling in the towers, and predicatably firewire 1600 to plug in the video iPods)
Originally posted by DHagan4755
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33353.html
Geez, I wonder how much even farther we'll be by then
Its rediculous that Microsoft feels the need to constantly reinvent the wheel when they could just grab an open source starting point. For the time and money they are putting into Longhorn, they could have one kick-*ss open source environment.
Since Apple will just keep hammering out these miracles wouldn't be surprised if it was hailed as the first 128 bit OS.
Well since Apple hasn't produced a 64 bit OS (Panther is still 32 bit) I'd suspect that 64 bit will come before 128 bit.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
wouldn't be surprised if it was hailed as the first 128 bit OS. It would work on the quad processor G6 (with fuel cells in the powerbooks, liquid cooling in the towers
wow, you managed to hit on three topics that I hate:
1. needless use for 128 bit OS that can't be meaningfully implemented in hardware
2. Fuel cells in laptops- useless tech that actually makes laptops more cumbersome and raises the TCO.
3. Liquid cooling which is a geek's dream but really is just an excuse for poorly designed CPUs. (I don't hate this a much as the previous two).
SO...
There is no need for a 128 bit OS. NONE. There are few enough legitimate use cases for a 64 bit OS, and this comes from a person who codes in 64 bit land.
Fuel cells are a boondogle. They are great for spaceships and automobiles, but I doubt that people are going to want to refuel their laptops.
Back on topic...
MS is always late with a new version of the OS. This is because they plan to put so much into the OS that their ambition really makes it difficult to get a deliverable date. MS will scale back the extent of the OS, same as they always have and will ship something within a reasonable timeframe. Apple goes for somewhat more incremental OS updates that have better end user functionality. There is nothing new here.
Mac os X is increasing his technological advance in the OS market. Intel has suceed some master tricks in order to improve his pentium dispite the Cisc limitation, but Microsoft have problems to improve his OS due to the X86 architecture limitation.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Since Apple will just keep hammering out these miracles wouldn't be surprised if it was hailed as the first 128 bit OS. It would work on the quad processor G6 (with fuel cells in the powerbooks, liquid cooling in the towers, and predicatably firewire 1600 to plug in the video iPods)
Whoops, you fell into the hardware advances vs. software advances pitfall. The hardware will continue to progress regardless of the OS on top of it.
Anyway... It seems to me that Longhorn is quickly becoming the new Cairo. For the uninitiated, Cairo was to be NT 5.0, but many of the technologies weren't implemented (except for Active Directory among a few) and Windows 2000 was born -- A WinNT 4.0 kernel with a Win95 interface. (Visions of "The Thing with Two Heads" -- starring Rosey Grier and Ray Milland).
I expect a WIndows XP 2.0 to roll out in the next 18 months.
Screed
Originally posted by Aquatic
Who cares about Longhorn this is AppleInsider. Windows lost to OS X. It's over. Game over man, game over.
In style, substance and innovation sure!! In market share? mmmmmnope!
However, the ever delaying rollout should give IT managers pause (at least those with still half a brain -- the other half having been eaten by the Redmond virus). Longhorn is a switcher's best friend (be they Mac switchers or Linux switchers).
Screed
Originally posted by sCreeD
Whoops, you fell into the hardware advances vs. software advances pitfall. The hardware will continue to progress regardless of the OS on top of it.
Anyway... It seems to me that Longhorn is quickly becoming the new Cairo. For the uninitiated, Cairo was to be NT 5.0, but many of the technologies weren't implemented (except for Active Directory among a few) and Windows 2000 was born -- A WinNT 4.0 kernel with a Win95 interface. (Visions of "The Thing with Two Heads" -- starring Rosey Grier and Ray Milland).
I expect a WIndows XP 2.0 to roll out in the next 18 months.
Screed
Yep,and it wasnt supposed to be called Windows 2000, it was also supposed to be released in 1997.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Who cares about Longhorn this is AppleInsider. Windows lost to OS X. It's over. Game over man, game over.
Wow. That's optimistic. This must be a Mac forum Windows sure hasn't been losing marketshare to OS X (over the life of OS X).
Geees ... no wonder Microsoft wanted its customers to sign those new Volume Licensing programs ... if their new OS comes out in 2006- then it's going to be 2007 or 2008 before it becomes widly deployed.
I really can't imagin many large corporations not moving to Linux by then.