Longhorn 0r Mac Osx Tiger

just wondering if what we have learned about longhorn will it be better than mac osx tiger?

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I've been trying to figure out what Longhorn will do. I went to Microsoft's page for Longhorn, but I didn't see anything not available on Mac OS X (other than Longhorn's icons can go up to 256 pixels, Mac OS can only go up to 128, using Panther (10.3). I don't know how big they can go on Tiger (10.4) ). Has anyone found a third party site that gives any clues as to something new or unique about Longhorn? Maybe Longhorn really is some great new thing, but Microsoft has a harder time telling us what that is than does Apple.

If anyone knows any cool new features of Longhorn, I'd like to know.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Nice one Brian. Apple is king of publicity. Microsoft... Hmm... very good at making itself look bad. Really.

Anyway, having used Tiger for a full two nights (despite having it fr more than a week, just got my laptop back) and read some preview sites on Longhorn, my vote is unconfirmed. I would like to vote for Tiger though, because the speed at which this baby runs amazes me, and somehow I don't think Longhorn is going to shine in terms of performance in speed. Prove me wrong, Microsoft. Before that, I shall stick to Tiger.

Interestingly, does anyone know why WinFS is not coming out in Longhorn? Supposedly (and I'm not too sure about this) it was it's best feature. I do like how Longhorn is cutting down some of the unnecessary graphical glut from the recent screenshots. They say the sidebar thingy is gone. I thought the sidebar thingy was a monstrosity. Just there to look pretty, and yet, quite useless. Kinda like how in XP the Start button is this humongous (and very ugly) green button.

The Mac camp has given some opinions. Windows supporters? and Linux and FreeBSD and all the other OSes? Opinions please!

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I have never heard of Longhorn but I would be interested in knowing more when I can find it...

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I would have to say that Tiger wins this battle in my eyes. Unless Windows decides to base Longhorn off of the unix kernel they will never win. I'm a gamer, but mostly on the consoles, so I prefer a functional environment like OS X or Linux. I'm not sure but I could be biased.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Im voting for Longhorn, Micorosoft have this last chance at it, and I think they're gonna manage to pull something off thats major with this, they have the money and they have the developers, I believe strongly that they will manage to make this very secure and very efficient, Micorosoft have learned a lesson, they may loose there browser but they arent gonna lose an operating system battle. And Ive never been a mac fan anyway.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Well, if microsoft can really do WinFS what he was originally claimed, then it'll be the best file system since Unix file system. No more directories, file system, totally based on SQL server, catalog using SQL server, can use SQL to query files... etc, really makes me think it's the best thing microsoft have ever invented~~~~~

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

The reason WinFS isn't coming out is because its way too hard. They have to not only completely redo the file system and make it all run on a database (which is hard, slow, and sorta weird), but also re-write, test, re-write again, re-test, etc all the small filesystem tools that are part of the OS. Thats a lot. And if there is a bug in there, anywhere, say hello to fried files. Fried files do NOT make your user base happy.

To make matters worse, if they want legacy support, they have to do this while still allowing programs (and thats a lot of stuff for windows) to talk to the filesystem as if it were the old version without any work on the program authors. Otherwise, upgrading to longhorn would mean basically re-buying your system. This would be VERY bad for MS- most people stay on windows primarily because they are so committed to it with software purchases. Put them in a position where they have to re-buy everything anyway and they might as well go with a Mac and not have to deal with all the BS.

And of course, even if they do all this, is it worth the work? I have tiger, spotlight works fantastically and is very usefull. But its not worth all that. A good find function is easier, many many times over, than what MS would have to do.

So, why was apple able to pull it off? Because they had most of the pieces already in place. Windows filesystems are a joke. They are ANCIENT and antiquated by any reasonable way of looking at things. They still require people to do things like DEFRAGMENT. Pfft. So early 90s, if that. Mac OS FS, on the other hand, has none of these issues. All files are able to be moved while all programs being able to find them no matter where they are (through means of unique, non-name, identifiers). Its journaled, keeping it from breaking easily. It allows meta-data. Etc, etc.

Microsoft, in never innovating, updating, or anything else with regards to their FS, now has to catch up all at once. But their stagnation has built up a legacy code base that makes this EVEN HARDER. And now, they have figured that out.

Good luck MS, you will need it.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

To join this conversation I would like to start out with the fact that I think Open Source OS has an amazing and solidary attitude towards their users. I have always been a windows user. Not by free choice, but because it's been the only thing I've ever heard of. Now that I'm learning about Linux and Unix and the way it plows through the world with their free and "for everyone, everywhere"- mindset, I simply can't help myself from downloading every piece of linux/unix based OS out there, to learn about it.

One thing is that windows, the way I've experienced it, has the most various softwares available for use. Having been through a musicproduction period, I came across too many sofware packages for musiccreation to ever being able to buy. I may even say there were too many alternatives leading to uncertainty and confusion, and always a very high cost for quality.

I learned along the way that Apple are excellent for musicproduction and visual production such as videomaking and picture editing. I learned that from getting to know musicproducers and photographers/videomakers and being with them in the production. I have never had Mac/Apple myself, but from the view of things, it seems as if it has a solid OS, solid music and videosoftwares and that whenever someone buys a Mac, they always end up with the same software as everyone else either it's music or video/photo. Seems very clean and solid.

With the knowledge of the addictive ways of computergaming, I've tried to avoid using my recources on PC graphics cards and such, because I've seen too many friends fall into the dark pits of CS, Battlefield, Warcraft and other games in a mid-summers day when the girls and sun and warm weather are waiting for you. Behind closed curtains and dampened lights it's as if every gamer has a high quality graphicscard, a windows OS and a copy of their favourite game.

Now that I've been through the most expensive parts of OS'es, the way I see it, I end up looking for something to serve on the internet with. Windows servers are VERY expensive, and Apple/Mac software servers is a thing I haven't even been looking for. Maybe someone can write about that.

People talk alot about Linux as the best webservers and webhosts, soo I looked it up. And my surprise is that it is free of cost, and they have a policy with the intention to reach out to poor countries and help the advancement of modern technology (Ubuntu Linux). They say that some of the OS'es are not very userfriendly, but the fact that it's free and open sourced seems to have made it possible for the public to alternate it's function, develop it further and be a more userfriendly interface. Not sure if I got that one right, but the main thing is that it is free of cost, and so is most of it's additional essential software.

To sum it up I believe that the most entertaining OS is Windows, but also with a vast variety of softwares for all purposes. The best OS for media creation seems to be MAC and the best and most secure serving OS is Linux/Unix.

My hopes are that the Open Source community grows and expands both userfriendlyness and software variety, and maybe one day we will have a free opportunity to do whatever a computer can offer within creation, entertainment and serving. Even at the highest quailty, so that access to the important education of a PC is not only restricted to a rich country, but also available to less fortunate countries.

Who knows? Maybe we've missed out on a few computergeniuses already. The expansion of computertechnology also depends on wether the right knowledge reaches the right people. Making it free will increase the probability. Thank you for your time.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

While most of the key points have already been said, building upon the Open Source post above, Mac OS X is built upon the UNIX flavor Darwin, which is in fact Open Source. Apple is even supporting the OpenDarwin group to further develop the OS and port WINE. Best of all, it's already available for i386, well ahead of Intel OS X.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)