Should Microsoft Give up on Longhorn ?
As far as I can tell, by the time Longhorn finally gets an airing it will be light years behind the current Apple Panther OS..let alone whatever else Apple will have in the wings by that time.
I am thinking that Longhorn should be dumped now as it is apparently being configured as a 32bit OS.
(Admittedly there is some argy bargy as to whether Panther is or isn't 64 bit or is just a dressed up 32 bit OS.)
But the point remains that Longhorn is only going be 32 bit in an increasingly 64 bit computer enviroment..so should it be dumped or do they go back to the drawing board to create a full 64 bit system. ?
I am thinking that Longhorn should be dumped now as it is apparently being configured as a 32bit OS.
(Admittedly there is some argy bargy as to whether Panther is or isn't 64 bit or is just a dressed up 32 bit OS.)
But the point remains that Longhorn is only going be 32 bit in an increasingly 64 bit computer enviroment..so should it be dumped or do they go back to the drawing board to create a full 64 bit system. ?
Comments
Panther is 95% a 32-bit OS. Apart from a very limited number of scenarios there is ZERO, even NEGATIVE performance benefit from 64-bit binaries or libraries. AFAIK, the only way in which Panther is a 64-bit OS is in the memory addressing.
As far as the differences between 64-bit and 32-bit goes, there isn't much at all. It's mostly a recompile with some tweaking.
Which is why, ta da ta da da, Longhorn WILL BE a 64-bit OS in the sense that it runs on AMD-64 and (maybe
Everything you've talked about really isn't a concern at all (apart from the fact that Microsoft can't innovate fast enough at the moment). Maybe Longhorn is suffering feature creep (like Copland et al), in which case MS should be scaling back Longhorn, but for the opposite reasons you described.
Barto
Oh well. Win some, lose some.
Of course MS isn't going to give up on Longhorn. What would they do, flog XP for the next six years? They'll probably release a 64 bit version (as there is a 64 bit version of XP) - they're probably targeting 32 bits because Intel has stated that they don't see consumer 64-bit platforms being relevant until the end of the decade.
In the meantime, they've got a couple of years to think about what goes in and what platforms they'll run on. If worst comes to worst, they can always push it back another year...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1368465,00.asp
2nd paragraph:
"The Longhorn preview also shipped with a 64-bit version that supports AMD's line of 64-bit processors."
Microsoft has 3 years to figure things out and add things in as needed... I wouldn't make a judgement call this early.
Wow.
Call it Longtooth.
Is this an act? A confidence game to keep the players playing while something gets built behind the facade?
In an odd sort of way, Microsoft is damning Open Source Software but using the central OSS tactic by letting developers in on the development of the operating system before it hits 1.0.
It is too early to call Longhorn beef. Even if they do, Microsoft can survive it. They have the money and momentum to kill the project, reorganize the programmers, incorporate some technologies into the current OSes and roll out "Windows 2005" in May of 2006 and still sell tens of millions of copies.
This. Is. Microsoft.
The more important question is: Where will Linux and OS X be in two years and 5 months? Linux needs a megadose of HIG*. And OS X? Well, I hate to say it, but OS X needs to quintuple its selling market share before Joe and Jane Sixpack will budge.
Screed
*Red Hat and SUSE are battling for the enterprise high ground; after all, that's where the money is. I suspect, however, Lindows or some other consumer oriented Linux to grab the headlines next year.
Originally posted by sCreeD
.....Red Hat and SUSE are battling for the enterprise high ground; after all, that's where the money is. I suspect, however, Lindows or some other consumer oriented Linux to grab the headlines next year.
And that makes me think that many current PC Microsoft users are more likely to shift to some sort of Linux platform and hold onto their current wintel boxes rather than moving completely over to OS-X..
They announce Longhorn, and then they delayed it.
Does MS thinks that XP is so perfect, that no major update is required for the next coming 3 years ?
Have windows has reached his ultimate limit of developement, and that any further improvement requieres treasures of enginering ?
Does they think, that as long they will sell OEM XP, it's not worth making progress in that aera ?
I must admit that i am confused. During this laps of time, you can be sure that both Apple and Linux will try to improve their system. Microsoft : are you sleeping ?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The current strategy of Microsoft in the OS is not very clear. After having updating their product regulary or almost regulary, they seem to have stop this process.
They announce Longhorn, and then they delayed it.
Does MS thinks that XP is so perfect, that no major update is required for the next coming 3 years ?
Have windows has reached his ultimate limit of developement, and that any further improvement requieres treasures of enginering ?
Does they think, that as long they will sell OEM XP, it's not worth making progress in that aera ?
I must admit that i am confused. During this laps of time, you can be sure that both Apple and Linux will try to improve their system. Microsoft : are you sleeping ?
I never fully understood why they pulled the rug on their OS/2 joint venture with IBM.?
Admitedly there weren't too many software compilers interested at the time..but I wonder where OS/2 would be now if they had made that their future operating system..?
Originally posted by Aquafire
I never fully understood why they pulled the rug on their OS/2 joint venture with IBM.?
Admitedly there weren't too many software compilers interested at the time..but I wonder where OS/2 would be now if they had made that their future operating system..?
I think that they just did not want to share the big cake with IBM. But why did they started the process ?
I don't know, perhaps at the time they started this joint venture, the market was different, and that they changed of strategy later.
Of course, things like the database-derived file system will go hand and hand with the ubiquitous, WinExplorer-is-everything, monolithic interface, and it's a lost cause if still using the "separate-silo" mentality that Gates abhors and that Mac users prefer, with different applications for managing different data sets.
Longhorn is shaping up to be simply a very different way of using a computer. Right now, I couldn't tell you what's "better," and the final release won't be out for three more years, so by then Mac OS X may have changed dramatically. I don't think, however, that they need to compete, really.
how long have we had the current theory for? was it really that good that all we have 20 years later is a prettier version?
Originally posted by applenut
to be honest, i appreciate and admire the fact that MS is trying to rethink and change the way we use and think of an OS.
how long have we had the current theory for? was it really that good that all we have 20 years later is a prettier version?
Yes. The "current theory" has applied to interface longer than computers have existed. It's not a mere two decades or so old.
The only semi-intriguing thing I see about the currently available Longhorn details is WinFS.
Originally posted by Steve
Longhorn's more than just a pretty face. The interface seems to be getting more cluttered and incoherent by the day, but the under-the-hood components of Longhorn that people are getting excited about go far beyond what Apple has dabbled in.
Far beyond? What are the major changes? If it's just the new filesystem, is it really any different that BeOS? The graphics layer may be projected to do more than Quartz, but I'm sure Apple has projections for Quartz to do more than it's already doing too. More security? It's not really fair to consider that an update. That's supposed to be as fundamental as mouse support, even in 'Safe Mode.'
From a platform agnostic point of view, what's to be excited about in Longhorn?
Originally posted by bunge
Far beyond? What are the major changes? If it's just the new filesystem, is it really any different that BeOS? The graphics layer may be projected to do more than Quartz, but I'm sure Apple has projections for Quartz to do more than it's already doing too. More security? It's not really fair to consider that an update. That's supposed to be as fundamental as mouse support, even in 'Safe Mode.'
From a platform agnostic point of view, what's to be excited about in Longhorn?
Well, yeah. You pretty much covered most of it. The only other major thing is the final swatting of Win32 API's, replacing it with more OO solutions, finally catching up to par. (I'm told architecturally similar to the previous .NET frameworks, just now re-branded with a slick, happenin' WinFX moniker.) I'm not familiar with the technicalities of that sort of thing, so I couldn't tell you what strides it may or may not be making over Cocoa, etc., but yeah.
Let's just say it's exciting for the 95% of the computing public that doesn't like to buy overpriced hardware. Hopefully by 2006, Apple and IBM will have completely remedied that situation.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I think that they just did not want to share the big cake with IBM. But why did they started the process ?
I don't know, perhaps at the time they started this joint venture, the market was different, and that they changed of strategy later.
They started the process so they could basically steal help from IBM. IBM and MS were working on OS/2, in the meantime, MS was getting stuff from IBM for OS/2, and also putting it into NT... tada! free extra programers for your own product and then drop out of OS/2 and release your own product while doing what they always do to the OEMS's to get it everywhere.
Originally posted by applenut
to be honest, i appreciate and admire the fact that MS is trying to rethink and change the way we use and think of an OS.
how long have we had the current theory for? was it really that good that all we have 20 years later is a prettier version?
Problem is, Microsoft has actually said they are changing the way we are using the computer and its interfacec with EVERY DAMN WINDOWS RELEASE.. I remember windows 95 they were saying stuff like "Oh,now we will be user and document centric and not program,thats why we call them folders now and not directories...." they do this with every windows release and everyone falls for it..
Originally posted by Steve
Let's just say it's exciting for the 95% of the computing public that doesn't like to buy overpriced hardware.
This I understand, it was the 'far beyond' comment that got me interested though. I may hate Microsoft, but that doesn't mean I don't like advancements in technology. Standing back and looking at everything that is available, I just don't see much to get excited about in Longhorn.
If you're never going to buy a Mac, then obviously some of the features are going to be great advancements. In regards to Apple's health, I'm not too concerned with people who are never going to buy a Mac though.