“Microsoft is expected to recommend that the ‘average’ Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today,” Mary Jo Foley reports for Microsoft-Watch.
“That’s according to developer sources close to the company. Microsoft officials would not comment on the Longhorn reference implementation,” Foley reports.
Full article here.
And this is JUST for the OS. What happens then after installing the first third party program?
Anyway, apart the clock, and the *URGH* terabyte storage, it looks essentially a today’s G5.
B-L-O-A-T-E-D
“Dear customer, the installer of Quake 6 requires you to add more RAM. An additional 1 GB bar is highly recommended”
LOL. & who said M$ software isn’t bloated ???
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Daaaaammmmmmnnnnnnn. And thats just to boot.
Oh no, not a :; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link”. How will they ever do that? It sounds really really advanced,
This is an old article. WinHEC is already underway and Longhorn has already proven itself to be a very slow dog during the VP’s demonstration (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=5040169 see page 2 of 2). …but it did (barely) run on a system less than what this article claims is the minimum.
Ary: recommended, not minimum. Big difference. Barely run is not useable.
Simular stuff with games: minimum config and you load it, see the first screen then realize you run at 2~3 frames/sec.
Usually a game is playable when you are way better then the recommended configuration.
…and, what has been presented is not Longhorn in all its bloated glory(?).
So much for a clean rewrite for efficiency. LOL
Well, that should encourage swift adoption!</sarcasm>
It’s hard to imagine a system like that existing for less than $800, even in three years time. It’s even harder to imagine a portable configuration – the growth area in both corporate and SoHo – for less than $1500-2000.
A 200-seat SMB/SME company that is 60/40 (desktop/laptop) will need to spend around $250,000 to re-equip, plus the upgrade costs of Office 20xx ($125), plus the costs of anti-virus software ($25), not to mention the resource costs of installing the damn thing anyway ($250-500).
So now it’s $330,000 at the least, just to buy in to the latest product from the creators of some of the most shabbily designed platform software in the history of the industry.
And then you’ll have to keep it alive everyday, which is something else entirely.
Can’t wait to read Thur-rots latest fawning piece about how Longhorn’s graphics will look so much nicer than OS X. Fscking well should with that spec.
These are not minimum requirements, they are “average” requirements. Hopefully (or not) Intel and nVidia/ATI will be able to keep on track for these specs. Could you imagine delaying the next major revision of Windows until 2006 and having to wait until 2007 to run it properly?
Please, don’t misunderstand my intent. I think Longhorn is the biggest joke ever conceived by a company. I am much more bothered by MDN’s scratching around week-old obscure articles and posting them as “news” than I am of the predictably huge hardware requirements for Longhorn.
Personally, I’ve been trying to find a video (stream) of Allchin’s struggle with Longhorn. That’d be priceless.
ummm… just wondering… exactly how many computers, that meet THESE specs, does M$ have access to in order to develop their bloatware??? WTF are they thinking? Do they really believe that “Joe Sixpack” is going to scurry out and buy a new CPU to run this? Idiots.
I want to see Dull offer this computer for $499! These cheap pee-cee buyers will go into sticker shock when the minimum system is $1,000 or more. This will help Apple look better to new computer buyers.
The minimum 2Gib RAM blows out any chance of it running decently on a Pentium then. Looks like another reason for Windows users to abandon Intel for Athlon64.
On another point, before we all get too smug. Yes, Longhorn is currently very slow, but so was OSX 10.0.
Dave: true, but OS X got faster with every new release. Now, if I have to judge from Micros**t records…
Yeah, I was marvelling at the specs last night over at Slashdot. Longhorn’s not slated until 2006 or 2008, so that’s a few years off, but still $3000 won’t even give you that configuration at Dell, even with Higher Education discounts. You can’t get the processor speed (3.2GHz is the highest in the OptiPlex line), you can get the RAM. You can’t get the hard drive space (240GB or 2x120GB drives built in is the best you can configure, currently). And that doesn’t even include FireWire or the guarentee of GB Ethernet. Some machines have it some don’t.
Though oddly enough, with the exception of processor, those are the specs Iim looking at for my new G5 configuration, if I can afford it, or decide not to upgrade my laptop. But I’m looking at the Dual 2GHz G5 processor, with 2GB memory, and 2x250GB internal hard drives, and a 1TB LaCie FireWire External. It’s my ultimate remote system admin and programming machine.
Though admittedly a G5 laptop would lead me astray, since its hard to give up the current freedom and power that my 15″ G4 laptop provides me.
So the ad we’re all clamoring for should be a side by side of Jobs with OS X and Allchin with Longhorn. Wait a couple months and use Jobs with Tiger. Then mention that Tiger is months away and Longhorn is years away. I doubt it’d be done, but it would sure be delicious!
Good point Dave.
But, Microsoft has a terrible record optomizing code and they generally don’t get anything right untill version three and there is a 2-3 year gap between versions. So if Longhorn manages to get released in 2007, version three won’t be out until 2011-2013. Will PCs even be PCs by then?
I Have to agree w Dave H. 10.0 and 10.1 were just way ahead of the hardware offered, but I still hear about people cramming OS X into pre-G3 systems and calling it usable. Usable means different things to different people.
But in reality 10.0 was really more like a beta and apple wasnt running around in ’99 yelling how great OS X will be. Plus Longhorn will hit the streets in 2006 and wont be upgraded for another 18 months or 2 years, where as Apple had realeased 2 major upgrades and tones of incremental upgrade (not just security patches) in that time.
Just think SJ can run the same graphic for longhorn as he did last year and it would still get a laugh
Allgood, MS must be developing on dual opteron systems and not pentiums.
This is the Longhorn Pro version, I am sure that the “home” version will be sooo much better…
M$ is a progressive company offering cutting edge solutions for everyone…
just think a 1GB network connection on a home PC…
WOW!…
I cant wait…
�
The major difference between Apple and MS is that Apple DELIVERS!
Even if you read our dear friend Thurrott’s “unbiased” review of the Gates-Allchin keynote speech at WinHEC, it is all about what cool stuff they might have 2 years from now. Even then, this is the best they could say “…[Allchin] showed Longhorn playing 6 high-resolution videos simultaneously while playing Quake III Arena in the background [Thurrott fails to mention how poorly it did that]… Allchin also demonstrated an interesting migration tool that can optionally use an upcoming smart USB cable to transfer personal data from an existing PC to a new Longhorn-based PC.” YAAAWWWNNN….. Can you imagine how long it will take someone to transfer files via USB? THIS is the best they can do to help their poor XP users to transfer gigabytes of files to Longhorn? AND you have to wait over 2 YEARS for it!!
Steve Jobs tells you what is available TODAY. He has never failed to give us something new TODAY… often for FREE! And when he does talk about the future, he ALWAYS delivers ahead of schedule with a product that is better than he described earlier.
It totally baffles me how people can be struggling to get their Sasser-crippled computer working again and still tolerate these lame promises from Microsoft?
MS=(BS)^2
Average PC needs dual 4ghz processors to run Longhorn?
Microsoft is about to self-destruct and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of facists.
ROFLMAO
Oh man, I remember a bunch of PC engineers saying that a user will never need a 64-bit chip in regards to the G5. Now, we have an OS forcing a user to possibly get a Dual processor CPU. I bet those same engineers are are getting a woody forgetting that the user will never “need” such power.
This is an absolute joke. At the rate Intel is currently crawling, there is no way they’ll have a Dual Core 6GHz CPU in time for Longhorn unless it really is 2008 (or later) before M$ finally has it ready.
Obviously Apple is doing something right since they can get their superior OS to run on hardware with less than 1/5 of those specs…
Good work Mr. Gates! I hope you and Mr. Ballmer stay in ‘control’ at Micro$oft for many years to come! Please, please stay on this track so we can watch your company diminish into obscurity
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
What a joke… just like a Hummer today… big, ugly, unecological and horribly inconvenient…. yet, I’m sure that it doesn’t crash as much as Longhorn will.
Who said that Windows was a cheap solution will have to rephrase that.
Steve Jobs leads, the rest follow.
Ary said: ” Allchin also demonstrated an interesting migration tool that can optionally use an upcoming smart USB cable to transfer personal data from an existing PC to a new Longhorn-based PC.” YAAAWWWNNN….. Can you imagine how long it will take someone to transfer files via USB? THIS is the best they can do to help their poor XP users to transfer gigabytes of files to Longhorn? AND you have to wait over 2 YEARS for it!!”
Too bad they don’t have this feature available now, because it would take two years to transfer all your files over USB! Yikes!!!
I guess OS X is so good that Microsoft will need over 5 years to copy it and will require a system with 5x the power in order to run it. Figures…
this is one reason why its a good time to invest in Apple…
Apple introduced Macintosh in 1984. Then they rested on their laurels for about 10 years. During that 10 years, Microsoft worked diligently to copy the Macintosh. Meanwhile IS and IT people participated in the proliferation of MS and Intel because to us (yes, I was one of them) it represented IBM. It also represented job security in a couple of ways. A) It was harder so you needed “MIS” guys. B) No one was ever fired for chooing IBM.
In 1995 Microsoft introduced Windows 95 which for all intents and purposes was as close to the Mac as you needed to be for bragging rights, and “good enough” for most people. Consequently people went for cheaper hardware, and an OS that was good enough.
Today, Apple has again taken a strong lead in technology with OS X. Its UNIX foundation gives it the industrial strength, flexibility, security, and growth potential that Windows XP (really only 2000/NT warmed over) can only dream about. The thing is, Microsoft knows this and they aren’t asleep. Microsoft is working hard on Longhorn and we will see Longhorn in the next few years. My guess is that it will be one hell of a product. (MS developers think you will need at least a 4GHz Intel machine to run it on, a 6GHz being optimal.)
During the next few years, Apple has an opportunity. No one will argue that Windows is superior to OS X. If Apple maintains the constant, yearly updates to OS X and doesn’t start resting on their laurels again, MS may never catch up. If they sit around doing nothing, MS will eventually copy most of what’s in OS X and whether it works well or not, it will likely be “Good Enough” for most people, and “good enough” is all MS really needs.
Re: ” During the next few years, Apple has an opportunity. No one will argue that Windows is superior to OS X. If Apple maintains the constant, yearly updates to OS X and doesn’t start resting on their laurels again, MS may never catch up. If they sit around doing nothing, MS will eventually copy most of what’s in OS X and whether it works well or not, it will likely be “Good Enough” for most people, and “good enough” is all MS really needs.”
To prevent “Good Enough” from happening, two things, at least, need to happen. Steves’ focus needs to shift back to the Mac from the iPod to a very significan extent. Why would you spend time on something that has such a limited potential for profit? That is, to me, what iPod/iTms represents. iPods, yes, iTms, doubtful.
EVERYONE, (or the vast majority of people) NEEDs computers. iPods I don’t care about because I don’t have time for them. I work hard every day using my computer, and I think there are a lot more of me, then there are of them. The point is you go where the potential numbers are.
The second thing that needs to be done is that people in the real world need to be made aware of the very real daily benefits of OSX/Mac. Artsy-craftsy ads designed to appeal to the salon crowd, and to get you ad awards don’t do that. They don’t do much of anything except preach to a small choir.
That is not “Good Enough”
Otherwise, the “Good Enough” that we have been talking about will win.
If Steve does not show them an alternative, they will line up and by the dual core 6 gig Windows machine because they will see no other way. They must be shown an alternative, which comes close to existing now in the G5.
I have known many elitist people, hell, I have been one. What elitists do is say: I am superior to you and have a superior product, so you must
Come To Me, Kiss My Ring, and then I will allow you to buy my superior product. But I will not lower myself to advertise the facts that establish its’ superiority, since it should be self-evident.
Maybe it should be self-evident, but it’s not!
Steve Jobs, one of the smartest people in the world. He can run rings around anything Bill Gates supposedly has done. I know what it’s like to under-achieve. I think that is what he is doing.
End of rant.
Who wants to b*tch about hardware prices? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Okay, I will!
I just priced out a “bottom-line” Mac system and a Dell (Dimension 2400) system. Bumped ram to 1Gig, bumped the graphics card, HD to 160MB, wireless card, bluetooth, 17″ flat screen. The Mac system came out to about $3000 (from a base of $1799). The Dell system, which lists unmodded at $799, came out to about $2000. Oh, but that was with a 120MB HD (largest available), Dell’s proprietary video card (no other options available), and no bluetooth. So, the add-ons cost about the same but you get more for your money with the Mac.
So, sure, a Dell costs 2/3rds of what a Mac does … bottom-line comparable systems with reasonable add-ons to make them usable.
The thing is, that Mac will still be able to run whatever Mac OS is running in 2008. If you’re running a Dell and you want Longhorn, the machine you buy today will be obsolete in two years.
So, buy a Mac today for $3k, or buy a couple of Dells over the next few years for $4k … hmmmm, what to do, what to do…..
http://www.only4gurus.com/v2/longhorn.asp
For those who haven’t seen what longhorn look like… please, try to look at it without comparing the whole thing to OS X. It’s just impossible to compare it to Apple.
Can you guys imagine these screen in a 16/9 plasma screen? What a waste of hardware.
oh well.. now i don’t feel so bad about having to upgrade my 256 ram cuz the os x feels a bit slow..
2 GIG?!?! bwahahahahahahaha
and look at those screenshots.. thurrott says their way way better than panther.. well..they’re not..but at those specs, they better damn well be…
look at the windows, they’re transparent!!
uhh like STickies?
yea..
I’m running 10.3 on my 4 year old tangerine iMac just fine. I have a small upgrade (to 500 MHz from the original 266 MHz, upped to RAM to 384 MB, plus Firewire for an iPod), but it’s working just fine. Let’s see Longhorn run on systems that are 4 years old. Those numbers are insane.
I was speaking to our mac technical support guy today and apparently BSD (on which Apple’s OS X is based on) was around in the seventies!
If this is the case Apple had 30 years of open source R+D done before they even concieve OS X.
In which case that makes microshaft about 34 years behind unix.
Funny how people judge an OS before they’ve even seen/used it. Thats is exactly what is wrong with the Mac Community…and is also why the Mac will never dominate…All Show No Go…
“If this is the case Apple had 30 years of open source R+D done before they even concieve OS X.
In which case that makes microshaft about 34 years behind unix.”
Apple didnt do the R/D, College students, professors, MIT Guys and Att did…Apple didnt do shit..Its OpenBSD with old school UI enhancements, nothing new…
Actually windows is more like 40 yrs away..But you know..where will MS be in that same time frame of 50yrs…? I would say alot more advanced than *nix
Soon apple will be running the MSWinFXv2 Kernel which has been redesigned with Unix built right in…
Mwhahahaha
Raaaalff
And considering MicroShit just licensed Unix Code from SCO, Then Apple may be in for a Foot in the rear (Like Always) suprise…
Kung Pao anyone??
What? You think SCO’s claims have any merit, or that they have a chance of winning their suits?
And you expect people to think there’s any credibility to what you say?
BlowMacChunks … your last name wouldn’t happen to be Thurrot, would it?
Im not talking about SCO claims against the unix community, Im talking about MS Licensing Unix from SCO to combat linux…Hence the free download of bash for windows….Services for unix WILL be integrated into Longhorn..
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020472,2134917,00.htm
Speaking of judging before seeing. What are you doing yourself BlowMacChuncks? Are you using Longhorn to speak from experience? Longhorn is available and anyone can have it. The current codename version tells a lot about how the final product will end up looking like. + Why would MS now integrate Unix in Longhorn? A Unix Integration is not like a unix based OS Mr. It�s not the same I�m afraid.
MacOS X has integrated Windows through VirtualPC and for your information, that doesn�t make OS X a Windows Kernel based OS does it?
Microsoft has to re-write from scratch its OS core if they want a solid and consistent Windows (if they want windows to survive).
We’re not judging here Mr. We’re just laughing at the “system requirements” for “future longhorn” + the fact that its GUI is one of the worse I’ve seen so far.
Peace is upon you Mr.
It seems that MS is determined to “build” upon its existing OS rather than develop a completely new OS. If MS were to opt out for a Unix-based system this would put them in a direct head-to-head battle with Apple. It seems likely that MS would be in serious trouble competing with Apple with its 7 years of potential Unix experience. MS has dug a huge hole and it can’t get out of it without admitting that must follow Apple’s lead in OS development.
Burp
The hardware builders must be loving Latehorn because millions of pc lemmings will have to buy new computers just to run this.
Rich b, exactly. That is why it will be a success – the usual MS monopoly partners will want to sell a loada machines on teh back of the next “upgrade” – eventually, that greed will be their undoing.
When the price of Lorghorn and a new PC is greater than a Mac with OS 12.2 PC owners may finally see the light to switch.
If Microsoft creates Longhorn from an entirely rewritten code, you can be sure that it will be full of the worst bugs a person can imagine. As I recall when the source code for Windows was leaked, the total code came up to about 46 million lines. You can bet that Longhorn will contain far more than that. Each line will be a potential flaw.
I work in manufacturing and in all my years, I have NEVER seen a perfect product released to the public. The desire for perfection is there, but the reality is that there WILL be some flaws. The more parts a product contains, the greater the chance for error. There are simply too many lines of code in Longhorn for it not to be a public relations disaster, especially when you look at Microsoft’s history of quality control. With as many people working on the Longhorn project, there are far too many independent minds, and the probablility of making a cohesive operating system is really slim.
I suppose that M$ could borrow a bunch of code from the existing releases of Windows. I don’t give that much hope either since it is so buggy and patched. When I think of Windows and see all the patches, I think of a patched tire. There are more patches in the tire than the original tire material.
Ooohh… Now if OSX were ported to such a system!
dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz
2 gigs of RAM; terabyte of storage;
1 Gbit Ethernet-wired port; 802.11g wireless link;
GPU that runs three times faster than those on the market today
That’d be sweet! Machine fast enough for Longhorn that runs OSX.
Ooohh… Now if OSX were ported to such a system!
dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz
2 gigs of RAM; terabyte of storage;
1 Gbit Ethernet-wired port; 802.11g wireless link;
GPU that runs three times faster than those on the market today
That’d be sweet! Machine fast enough for Longhorn that runs OSX.
Mac & PC Guy:
If Apple sold a computer as you described the Mac would run Longhorn in simulation faster than Longhorn could run in native code. All in all, the elegance of well written code is very beautiful. Windoze and Bloathorn cannot be described as elegant.
Microsoft is so silly. They are just doing this to get people to buy new PCs, which always come with Windows installed, which makes Micro$oft more money, and so on.
Using Windows is like being stuck in an abusive relationship. Free yourself! You deserve better!
AVG Mac Zealot, How do you figure? OS X w/ vpc is totally slow..No Way no how, Besides apple wouldnt ever support so many devices. From a native standpoint, I know for a fact that these Sys Requirements are bogus. The System they describe would be practical to use as a full featured OS (ie: Full Visual Themes aka: Avalon)..Secure communications Via Indigo…& So on and So on..You will still have the ability to use the clasic interface (and slate, luna, etc)that you are used to today…Of course You guys didnt mind sacrificing your Classic OS 9 right???Its funny cuz 3 years ago you would defend 9 but now its sucks right? Same concept here..If MS is to push the envelope with a new OS that actually rocks, but you have to pay more for hardware (hence apple hardware prices)and isnt a buggy bloated piece. Then they may have something.
Im am running the latest build of Longhorn. I downloaded it using my MSDN Subscription. I know for a fact that even this alpha works considerably well under good hardware by today’s standards…If they improve on that? Then in 2 yrs it w/ blow away aqua and everything else ive seen on the mac…You know how Apple is, they start with a bang and leave empty handed…Always..
The new programming api (WinFX) is superior to Win32 and that will change things. I think MS is heading in the right direction…We (all of us) should have the hardware resources at the time to market…All in all I think the competition from apple is great..It keeps a fire under their ass..and it gives me a job…
Happy Cinco De Mayo
Cheers!
Go here for a demo of what longhorn does now.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/productinfo/conceptvid/
IIf the alpha version of Longhorn is as wonderful as you purport it to be with current hardware then why is Longhorn (or some other variant of Windows) not available now for the general public? What�s the hold up? Why the delay? Is MS withholding something?
The obvious lack of a commercial release of any sort speaks more than your single opinion. Sorry, Blow, ya gotta do better to convince me that Longhorn is the real deal.
Yo, blow. The link is for Longhorn “concepts”. This means some mental image and not reality, that is, someone’s imagination.
Welcome to MS science fiction theater peoples. Any resemblance to actual MS OS is purely wishful thinking.
2 gigs of RAM; terabyte of storage; ? check
1 Gbit Ethernet-wired port; 802.11g wireless link ? check
The above is already there today on a G5 with external Firewire 1TB and you can have internal 2X250GB 7200rpm NOW, not in 2006.
With those type of hardware requirements, we should see Longhorn on Dell and IBM lap-tops by at least 2015 or later
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Seahawk:
The point is one needs this level of hardware design to optimally run Bloathorn. Apple customers, however, do not require these specs to run OS X to its full capacity.
You can run OS 10.3 on a 4 year old iMac jus’ fine. All this extra stuff available for Mac users is to run sophisticated applications software not just the OS.
MS customers may require V. Tech. level of hardware sophistication to do what Mac users can do elegantly with one machine.
‘Microsoft is expected to recommend that the “average” (emphasis on average or entry-level specification) Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage…’
Then add:
4 more GB RAM and a second terabyte of storage to run scientific or enterprise-based software and Dulls will cost at least 75% more than the likely current Mac variant. Oh my, looks like the performance to price ratio has shifted to Apple.
“Mommy, daddy, I want a Dull.”
“Sorry, Jimmy, we had to get a second mortgage to get your sister a computer from Dull and MS.”
“This is the Longhorn Pro version, I am sure that the “home” version will be sooo much better… I cant wait…”
The same requirements to run 10.3 at Virginia Tech are the
same requirements my second cousin uses to run 10.3 on her iMac.
Are you suggsting that MS will offer “Longhorn Lite” for “average” users? Are you suggesting that there will be more than one version of Bloathorn “specifically engineered for your hardware needs.”?
What a joke. You, Sputnik, will be able to buy Bloathorn, just not with all the touted bells and whistles unless you want to drop an extrax 2 grand for hardware upgrade. Loser! Dull will have to install 10 memory slots and space for a second terabyte of storage to accomodate all the upgrade and patches. Loser!
Absolut_Mac:
It seems that MS has conceded the laptop war to Apple. I have yet to read any articles suggesting how these hardware specs can fit in a laptop design, unless, of course, Dell, HP, and Toshiba want to be the first compnaines to sell a laptop with a 38 inch LCD. Gotta up to first class airline seat, too.
hey huh
That is the real deal running a higher version that the public has yet to see. If you think for a minute that these are graphically generated, think again…I think you will be suprised when it is released….
I think the issue that m$ faces has more to do with Linux. If people are going to have to upgrade all their hardware just to run longhorn, there’s a good chance they’ll just move to Linux. By the time longhorn hits, there will probably be a “good enough” Linux desktop with “good enough” applications. Who knows, m$ may even have a Linux version of Office out simply cuz they could make a ton of $$ (though I tend to doubt it at this point). When people are suddenly looking at replacing their entire systems, especially to these specs, they will either keep what they’ve got or they move to something that lets them keep their hardware. As much as I’d like to see it, I just don’t see Apple benefiting in a big way from these longhorn specs for the first few years of longhorn’s life (if at all).
And, Chunks, if people really cared about all the stuff you’re touting, they’d already be using Macs. People (outside of Macdom) tend to get a new os when they buy new hardware, not anytime sooner. That’s why a “good enough” linux desktop could do more to hurt m$ than anything else. If someone goes to the dull site looking for a computer and they see the $400 hardware runs linux and the windoze hardware starts at $1000, guess what they’ll buy? Either the linux or nothing. Most of these people are looking for cheap computers, or they’re IT people on a budget.
OK, so I’m here by myself now. PCMag basically stated that the Longhorn preview at winhec had the Apple look and feel. See http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1585533,00.asp
Please, Excuses excuses..All the stuff longhorn is touting isnt available in OS X…Features in OSX have been available in XP since its release…
How about sending some a link with real news…
Average Mac Zealot: maybe was not clearly stated:
the point is that average PC users – in many posts and threads – see those specs as futuristic, having no idea that *their* PC of the future is essentially the Mac G5 of today. So much is the lack of knoweldge of anything Apple.
Chunks, you apparently missed my point. People in the windoze world (and many in the mac world) don’t tend to buy operating systems. They buy hardware that has an operating system on it. As long as people don’t see the need for new hardware, they won’t adopt longhorn. My organization is about to get new pc’s. The features are pretty much irrelevant as long as we’ve got Office and the internet (and, since it’s windoze, we can’t forget Adaware and AV software, ugh). Most of the “features” aren’t used here. Most of the “features” aren’t used at home. For most people, XP is more than enough. The only thing people want out of it is fewer viruses, fewer popups, and slightly less hassle. That’s why I don’t think OS X will really benefit one way or the other. Most of this stuff is for geeks, and most people aren’t geeks.
And no, xp doesn’t have an equivalent to Aqua. If it did, m$ wouldn’t be touting it for longhorn. I don’t know that it carries an Apache web server, postfix (or sendmail, in Jaguar) mail server, or a Unix core and all that goes with that. It still doesn’t have the reliability, though that doesn’t mean it’s bad, it just isn’t to the level that OS X is. Of those, the only thing the average user cares about is the reliability.
Yo, Blow:
When will Bloathorn be released?
How much do you reckon it will cost to replace your antiquated PC with the “average” level of hardware required to run this OS?
If Bloathorn is not Unix-based please describe the nature of its native code.
A person as savvy and connected as yourself ought to have clue, right?
Also, please, do not run and hide from questions asked of you. If you can’t answer them please say so or shut yer pie hole.
in another thread there is the picture of the 5 videos shown simultaneously on Longshort.
ROFLMAO, on one of them one can clearly see: 5.38 fps. LOL, I get more on my 667 MHz G4 laptop with 5 QT movies on at same time.
I guess 5.38fps is – again – good enough for PC users, or barely (if ever) usable for Mac users.
Something I really can’t wait to see it Longhorn’s version of Expos�. How funny will that look!
Oh, but you need a graphics card with 768MB of VRAM to use the “Light Version”, if you want to use the “Pro Reloaded” version of Expos� you need 2TB of main memory and 1TB of VRAM.
Bloathorn will be realeased in 3 – 4 Qtr 2006.
The cost of a pc to “run longhorn will be equivelant to todays prices…The higher cost hardware will be needed for advanced features. I dont think that hardware prices will be any different than they are today…
Longhorn isnt unix based…However they will have available extensions to run unix shells like Bash and so on…
The native code it will run on is WInFX which is a complete rewrite of NT using the .Net CLR v2.0…
Also, Many features will be implemented entirely in managed code with no need for any help from lower levels of the platform at all.
There are already many examples of pure managed features in the shipping versions of .NET Framework. For example, you can make extensive use of the XML functionality in the current versions of .NET without the framework ever making a call into Win32. Likewise, although ASP.NET integrates with IIS in the Win32 world, the vast majority of the value that it adds over the unmanaged ISAPI extension mechanism is implemented in managed code. The ASP.NET page caching mechanism has no Win32 equivalent, neither do the key parts of its object model. (HttpRequest, HttpResponse, and friends may look reminiscent of the classic ASP objects, but they are not wrappers. They were designed to look very similar to the ASP object, in order to ease the transition to ASP.NET, but they are all implemented entirely in managed code.)
The same will be true for much of the new functionality in Longhorn. There will, of course, be some things which involve new platform features all the way from WinFX’s public API right down to kernel mode– the new ‘Avalon’ graphics model being the most obvious example. However, there will be many more features implemented entirely in managed code. For example, although Avalon relies on platform support at all levels for performance reasons, a considerable amount of its functionality will reside entirely in managed code. (It would be rather inefficient if every single interaction your code had with Avalon objects caused calls all the way down into the lowest levels of the OS.)
Blow: How can ya wait till 2006?
Micro$oft is afraid of the whole open source movement – they always have been. Longhorn is merely their latest desparate attempt to delay the inevitable dominance of open source software. The architecture of Longhorn is so complex, so utterly dependent on expensive Micro$oft development software that the adoption of Longhorn prevents anyone from having any time or money to consider any other platform. Rather than improve reliability and security, they are just adding new features and growing more proprietary all the time. Mac OS X has a symbiotic relationship going with open source, while Micro$oft is battling against it in a titanic yet futile manner.