Welcome to the blog of a Stanford CS major. Please give me feedback on the new design, and ideas on what to call this blog .
Tristan was worrying about Microsoft Longhorn this morning, and how it might have a real chance of competing with Apple based on technological merit, not just competitive advantage. I think that it is good for somebody to bring out an OS as good or even better than OS X because it would drive competition and result in both systems improving.
Unfortunately I do not believe my reasoing holds true for Microsoft, because Longhorn will most likely also contain tons of unwanted DRM features that will not become well known until it is too late to get rid of them. Therefore I do not believe it would be good if Windows overtook OS X in innovation, though I dearly want Microsoft to innovate but forget about the planned DRM features. DRM will be important in some way, but the way in which Microsoft is
However, I do not really agree that there is so much reason to worry. I always find myself thinking that particular Microsoft will have more devastating effects than they actually end up having, and right now it seems as if Microsoft will have difficulties selling Longhorn.
It presents the second large API change within a short time, and while the change to .Net might have been needed, this new one will just upset most developers. Longhorn might turn out to be successful eventually, but it has a very long way to go, and I am sceptical if all the proposed features will be in the final version, and whether these features are really that innovative.
Just as with every other major Windows release, it is preceded by much hype touting vastly improved interfaces, tremendous new innovation. Once it arrives, it doesn't work well, isn't as spectacular as promised and still not as good as the competition.
Until MS actually out-innovates Apple or Linux, I personally won't be worrying about it.
na
Posted by Neema Agha on October 29, 2003 01:48 PMMan, I can't get over what zombies Windows people are.
There are a few articles on the web today about a sneak preview of some parts of Longhorn, and everybody wonders if Longhorn will leap past Mac OS X.
Here's a few FACTS (as opposed to PR) to chew on:
1. Longhorn won't be out for almost THREE YEARS. At *best* (assuming NO slips between now and then). I can't even *imagine* how much farther ahead Mac OS X will be by then. Panther is *fabulous* and we haven't really explored it fully. Even if Longhorn existed (as it's been described) TODAY it doesn't sound like it would hold up well against OS X. Three years from now is an entire GENERATION in this industry.
2. Nothing that MS has talked about being in Longhorn in three years isn't already IN Mac OS X *now.* Bill Gates was going on at length in a recent c|net article about how the Address Book would be integrated across applications -- like your email program would use the same Address Book as your Fax program. He touted this and things like XML data structure as the type of major innovations you should expect from Longhorn. Really. You mean the kind of integration and XML data structure we've had in OS X since it debuted three years AGO??
And now you know WHY Longhorn got pushed back to 2006 -- it's because Panther just came out and they haven't had time to copy everything yet.
3. Trying to justify your dawning realisation that Windows ain't "all that" outside of gaming by hyping a THEORETICAL os upgrade that's THREE YEARS away against today's competition is really, truly pathetic.
You don't see Mac people theorising over what OS X will be like three years from now, and do you know why? Here's why:
1. We don't need to PROJECT INTO THE FAR FUTURE to get excited about our OS. It's got cool stuff aplenty RIGHT NOW.
2. Given the INCREDIBLE rate of progress in Mac OS X, where we'll be three years from now is very difficult to even IMAGINE.
Maybe it's time to make your next machine a Mac, people.
Posted by Charles Martin on October 29, 2003 08:32 PMI wouldn't worry too much about Microsoft DRM -- look what happened with the xbox. There are just too many mistakes to be made for it to work well. Also, note that Microsoft XP today isn't bad at all as an OS: it's probably as stable or moreso than my Linux or OSX on the desktop today, and it works with a huge variety of drivers. Linux competes on customization, source to everything, and the simplicity of turning your system into a server; OSX competes on similar terms (a little less source, a little more desktop functionality). Nobody (except people arguing linux 2.6 over linux 2.4) says, "My OS has the better scheduler/VM subsystem." You'll notice there are very few technical arguments for and against OSX and Windows.
Also, Secure Computing isn't necessarily bad; it could be used to fight viruses, game cheats, etc., so long as it doesn't turn the computer against the user. I don't think Microsoft will sell very well if they forget that, and they'd be stupid to give up their profits at the insistence of recording studios.
-michael