off topic

[xdownfornowx.livejournal.com]

off topic, about longhorn

So I was conversing with my supervisor about getting a new PC and we both agreed that his system will be fine for quite a while with XP Pro (2.4 GHz HT P4 and a 1 GB RAM). We figured he really shouldn't look to buy a new desktop until Longhorn is released (or until Apple releases some intel desktops and then he can dual boot :) ). Then we started to get into a discussion about the ever prolonged release date and all the features that keep get stripped and spun into independent projects so MS can hit the release date. So, I have the following questions for my fellow techs:

- What features have you read about being stripped from longhorn?
- do you know any sites that have a list of the features that have been removed?
- Do you honestly think that MS will hit the release date of late 2006?
- If it is released by then will it be worth the wait or a disappointment?

Comments

[gholam.livejournal.com]

From what I understand, Longhorn will ship without WinFS, but it will feature a completely new user interface - wrapped around MSH, hardware-accelerated, and based on WGF - compliance with which is required of graphics cards to run the OS. Say goodbye to all those 845G/845GE/845GV/865G systems, and most likely 915G as well, probably even 945G. At least a graphics card upgrade will be required, from what I hear.

[xdownfornowx.livejournal.com]

MSH got pulled and is an independent project. I think it will have longhorn and xp support.

[gholam.livejournal.com]

Really? Hearing them talk about how GUI will be wrapped around MSH, with every GUI function being an MSH script, it sounds hardly plausible that Longhorn will ship without MSH, for it will mean the new UI will have to wait until next major revision of the OS - it's too big a change to put into a service pack. I doubt they'll do anything major with the kernel either, after XP x64 there's small chance they'll want to do another complete driver overhaul, so what will differentiate it from XP?

[dukesnorre.livejournal.com]

Nah, I've heard the same. They said MSH would take 3-5 years to develop and took it out.

[gholam.livejournal.com]

Well, on the positive side, they sure aren't rushing it out to release. On the other hand though, what features will Longhorn have that they'll charge us a brand new $150 for? Probably a host of minor enhancement, and maybe a comprehensive 64-bit driver database, but I somehow doubt that.

[dukesnorre.livejournal.com]

And no longer admin as the standard user account. :>

[gholam.livejournal.com]

Now that, is something that just ain't happening, will break compatibility with too much old software.

[mawz.livejournal.com]

Don't bet on dual-booting Windows and Mac OS X on the new Intel macs. I'd be bloody surprised if they dual boot. Apple has no interest in making Windows work on their boxes.

[mawz.livejournal.com]

Actually, WinFS was looking to blow EXT3 out of the water (NTFS 5 generally has EXT3 beat anyways). WinFS is pretty much a BeFS clone on top of NTFS 5, which has some significant advantages, and is only matched by Apple's new HFSX filesystem (Which is the full metadata version of HFS+)

[mawz.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's looking to be released about a year after longhorn, with support for XP, Server 2k3 and Longhorn.

[mawz.livejournal.com]

And as to XFS, it's a damned nice FS (As is RieserFS) but as far as I'm aware it doesn't have the native metadata search capabilities like BeFS, although it does have Metadata support.

[xdownfornowx.livejournal.com]

I'll bet a bunch on that one.

From http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10765 (http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10765), important part of article, "After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.""

Also the mactels being shipped to developers now have no problems booting XP. The video drivers are a bit out of whack, but it is a fully usable system. Apple could only gain from windows running on it. The option to run either OS on Apple's strick quaity of hardware would be great for any user. Apple just doesn't want to support windows on their systems, which doesn't mean it isn't more than capable of running it. Linux has been running on PPC macs for quite a while too. Also there are sites popping up (http://www.twinmac.com/) exclusively to help support, develop, and make windows run on the new intel macs.

[jenocyber.livejournal.com]

Actually Phil Schiller(VP of Marketing) said that Apple wouldn't take any meausures to prevent people from installing Windows on the Intel Macs, they won't however support it.

[pleaseremove.livejournal.com]

I know I’m not answering your questions (as this seems to have been done)

I am far from impressed by the news system as it stands...there seems to be little to set it apart from xp other than the GUI...and some silly ways of dealing with files which I don’t like....

but i think its a given that no one will really get it...well not in business anyway...I mean will have most businesses on 2000pro or lower...and the only reason they would change is if some of the new features would come with it...like winFS

Myself, I think MS should stick it in a bottle and hold it until they have done what they said they were going to