| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Longhorn and Tiger: Who's Copying Whom? | |
|
||
| Time: 12:32 EST/17:32 GMT | News Source: TheServerSide.NET | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
The competition between Microsoft and Apple is as healthy as it has ever been with both companies readying their latest operating systems: Microsoft's Longhorn and Apple's Tiger. A recent article at Microsoft Watch provides coverage on Steve Jobs' claims of copying and provides a feature by feature comparison of Apple's 'point release' release of Mac OS X and Microsoft's 'bet the company' release of Windows. While a comparison between the two might not be warranted it is interesting food for thought. Have a read of Robert Scoble's opinion on the copying claims and Mary Jo Foley's article on Microsoft Watch to get the latest on the Longhorn and Tiger. Do you think that Apple's Tiger can hunt down Microsoft's Longhorn? Is Tiger the best challenge to the Windows franchise since the days of Windows 3? And with the ever growing threat of desktop Linux, do you think that Tiger is Longhorn's biggest competitor? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:38:11 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.186.90.168) at 7/3/2004 1:35:23 PM |
| I don't know why people still keep talking about Apple. |
| #2 By 11888 (64.230.8.103) at 7/3/2004 2:43:42 PM |
| #2, if it wasn't for Apple there'd be nothing posted on activewin. |
| #3 By 6253 (24.1.219.150) at 7/3/2004 2:53:01 PM |
|
The sad thing is that the PC software industry is the only one which makes such a big deal about giving credit for the absolute first inventor of every stupid little thing. Every industry borrows and builds upon ideas.
Who had the first shampoo & conditioner in one? Who had the first tartar control toothpaste?Who had the first dye-absorbing laundry cloths? Who had the first one to be disposable? Do you care?? Who had the first cell phone with a camera on it? There was a brief moment when people cared, but there are now a gazillion camera phones, hardly anybody remembers who was first, and we're all better off from having lots of choices which arose from manufacturers building on top of other manufacturers' ideas. Even PC hardware manufacturers don't get all bent out of shape over who copied whom. Who had the first system case with USB ports in the front? Mac heads are the worst. If you're a Windows user and you truly believe the drivel about Windows being such a copy of the Mac, then try this: break off your right mouse button, and see how well you get around Windows. The Mac was an early mainstream example of "graphical" and that's it. Essentially, Apple put conditioner in the shampoo bottle and we're all supposed to worship them forever because of it. I once had a Mac head tell me that Apple really invented the web. You know, because that whole point-n-click thing was Apple's. Gimme a break. |
| #4 By 2459 (69.22.124.228) at 7/3/2004 4:19:05 PM |
| Who invited Phil Schiller here? |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/4/2004 12:05:52 AM |
|
I assess that the fundamental differences between Windows OS'es, including Longhorn and all others is pretty obvious - they each feature a known starting point, known and desired end points and that path is populated by familiar objects within a task based environment - that is, they are excellent examples of discoverable operating systems. I think as an industry, we tend to spend a lot of time on the periphery of modern systems and not nearly enough on their architecture. I do not assess the Microsoft receives enough credit for this and it goes way beyon the now irrelevant arguments over which windowing OS appeared/is modified first.
Windows, in my opinion is more discoverable, where competing OS'es are much less so - one either knows them, or one does not. The next fundamental difference [in UI, anyway], is that in Longhorn, the UI will be able to make use of hardware 3D acceleration. However compelling the UI, no other OS has this support presently, or has plans for such support. We are all aware of what HW acceleration did for games...so that argument seems to satisfy itself. Finally, the real differences are much deeper and rest in a much older and long concluded argument - Windows, including Longhorn use a micro-kernel architecture - vice a monolithic kernel where I/O, File System, etc... are all run from the Kernel - as in Unix, BSD, Minuces and Linuces. In the context of Microsoft and Apple, is that each has chosen to deploy on only one hardware class....a mistake each shares. Both are of course driven by real-world considerations - namely costs, but it would be interesting to see how the BSD/mostly Darwin implementation of OS X would perform on x86 hardware. I suspect it would reinforce the science that decided against monolithic designs in favor of current micro-kernel designs. What I fear is this, that Apple and the OSS community will continue to focus on Microsoft - vice driving their own race and truly presenting the competition that drives innovation. It is silly to assume that Microsoft obsesses about anything other than its supported users and their requirements - their race toward Longhorn and Blackcomb ignore both Apple and OSS - by design! All others need to do the same and focus on what people and businesses need. Thanks. As regards profit, we all need to treat it as a simple by-product of what our real goals should be - making things as best as we possibly can. |
| #6 By 17605 (24.18.158.181) at 7/4/2004 1:03:41 AM |
|
In response to msucks.
Microsoft looks everywhere for innovation. They will make it themselves, buy it, copy it, strong arm it, and do whatever it takes to get it, which is why they are more successfull than the competition by an order of magnatude. |
| #7 By 2459 (69.22.124.228) at 7/4/2004 9:44:35 AM |
| Quartz Extreme only accelerates composition. This does nothing for drawing of on-screen objects. That is still done in software. Longhorn accelerates composition and rendering with the GPU allowing desktop graphics performance that can scale with system/GPU performance just as with games currently. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/4/2004 10:02:42 AM |
|
Hi 21,
Yes, quartz renders some 3D content, but the difference remains in how it is achieved - e.g., with access to and use of 3D hardware throughout the UI. Yes, Amoeba, Chorus, and Mach all support the advantages of microkernel designs, but maintain perhaps too many processes running from a single file. Before hardware advanced as far as it has, for as little as it now costs, there were measured advantages in maintaining this; however, on hardware that is well below the most recent available, any increased overhead is easily offset to the advantage of the microkernel designs. An example of what I mean is that Darwin in OSX runs Mach, but maintains a monolithic BSD 4.x derived server process. This results in all the disadvantages of a microkernel (overhead on older hardware) and all the disadvantages of a monolithic kernel (different subsystems in the kernel contesting for resources). It relies heavily on Darwin, but retains the worst of older monolithic systems. Implementations, most especially those supporting HT/SMP with a solid driver signing model will continue to dominate other OS'es - e.g., NT based designs and commercial Unices specifically designed to more strongly support SMP - note one from each camp...which raises the real issue...cost -vs performance [we could go on a great deal more about management and operations], which is best reflected in market performance - where most decisions are made based upon objective considerations. Interestingly, the founder of Mach at CMU joined MS in 1991, in large part becuase of the more flexible modular implementations that were being delivered on a core that is still regarded as the standard amongst microkernel designs. It all speaks to continued development and advancement which will continue in all areas - it would be great to see OS X use a commercial Unices and .x86 hardware. |
| #9 By 2459 (69.22.124.228) at 7/4/2004 10:09:28 AM |
| Sure Quartz can use OpenGL to render 3D content (no different from Windows using OpenGL or D3D currently), but Quartz Extreme just accelerates the Quartz Compositor. Quartz 2D (the component responsible for drawing on-screen objects (like Windows' GDI/GDI+) is not accelerated. |
| #10 By 11888 (64.230.11.168) at 7/4/2004 3:29:53 PM |
| Has anyone else had the crap scared out of them yet by the sudden burst of "Hi, my name is Tina" |
| #11 By 2459 (69.22.124.228) at 7/4/2004 4:17:40 PM |
|
#27, Is that in response to my post or lketchum?
The inclusion of GDI/GDI+ in my post was not pointing out the accelerated nature or lack thereof of either of the GDIs. It was to say that they are the Windows equivalents of Quartz as a whole, and Quartz 2D in that they are responsible for drawing on-screen elements. As far as acceleration goes, I'm talking about using the 3D pipeline to accelerate such drawing as is done in Longhorn. The Mac does not do this currently. It only accelerates composition. None of Apple's technical documentation states otherwise, though their marketing materials try to make you think otherwise. #29, GDI is still in Longhorn primarily for legacy compatability. |
| #12 By 135 (208.186.90.168) at 7/4/2004 4:43:36 PM |
|
MrRoper - What would you like me to say?
Apple stole the idea of color graphics from Commodore. |
| #13 By 6253 (24.1.219.150) at 7/5/2004 1:44:13 AM |
|
soda, while I agree that Apple has done their fair share of stealing, the Apple II shipped in 1977 with color graphics (6 colors at 280x192 or 16 colors at 40x48) but Commodore did not ship its first color graphics until 1980. Even then it was only because MOS Technologies (Commodore's semiconductor division) needed to move their 6560 chip which nobody had been buying since MOS introduced it in 1978.
The 6560 was also known as the Video Interface Chip and featured a 20-column text mode which required little RAM and avoided aliasing when displayed on an ordinary TV thru RF modulation. Thus the VIC-20 was born. Nobody ever copied that 20-column display. Even the early Sinclair and TRS-80 Color Computers displayed a minimum of 32 columns and the laptop-precursor TRS-80 Model 100 had 40 columns on its LCD display. There is something I remember Apple swiping from Commodore: the original Macintosh implemented a modified version of GCR (Group Code Recording) which Commodore had invented as a way of achieving higher densities on floppy drives than traditional MFM. Apple's CLV implementation improved upon Commodore's original CAV approach, but GCR has been rarely done in any form, so it stands out like a sore thumb that Apple "borrowed" the technology from Commodore. Large Size, you proved my original point. You very much underestimate how familiar I am with the reality of events you describe but obviously didn't live thru. I go way back with Apple and the closest claim it can make for inspiring the web was HyperCard. NextStep and Berners-Lee came much later. HyperCard was introduced in 1987. I was writing commercial software for the Mac in 1987. Where were you? You only know about Steve Jobs because he keeps a high profile, and you only know the NextStep propaganda because he dragged it back with him. |
| #14 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/5/2004 3:51:26 AM |
|
No one. Each major player has both a vision [which differs greatly from the other], and resources for executing according to that vision.
Apple's vision is not as clear to me, as Microsoft's, which is clearly to deliver a compelling interface that uses task based discoverable sessions to support users as they perform desired tasks. MS's task orientation is consistent and I assess designed to provide users at all levels with the ability to succeed in a task without external assistance. Apple's user base is different...I support hundreds of them each day across several states [Ad and Media Agencies in AL and NJ/NY]...they tend to know the applications they use each day very well; have been trained on them and they rarely depart from the use of them, or explore new applications. While we process a lot of content generated on MAC's, we have never seen anyone develop on it - though we do develop for it [in the context of including it]. We do know that one either know's OS X, or one does not...it is simply not a discoverable environment. The same is true of the UI's for the Linuces, which we also run in production [Red Hat AS and Oracle 9i]...but do so as that is what a small group of developers are comfortable with - being trained formally on Unices. To be real candid, I don't think Microsoft cares a wit about what Apple is doing OS wise - I know that MS pours a ton of resources into Office for MAC and also into its server products to support MAC, but the focus in Windows is very different as it comes to what one comes away with when using one of their systems. Now, one has to be real careful about interfaces - this is where the Linuces and OS X have the most trouble [from what we have seen]. We maintain active labs for both and spend a small fortune making sure key applications work as well and look as good on OS X and the Linuces as they do on Windows XP and BETA Builds of Longhorn...some real sweet code and very granular splitting of the presentations layers being required. It's funny, but no matter how hard we work to get it right for OS X, we are most often met with an under-whelming, "oh..." All the while we're thinking..."Man, we just spent 50 grand and several hundred hours making it <the app> work on OS X." Perhaps the most ironic thing about the entire debate is this..."it appears to me that those in the OS X and OSS camps, who profess to be so open minded and tolerant...are in fact the most closed minded of all users...leaving it up to .Net developers and Windows networking engineers to provide for interoperability and seamless integration of systems..." Thanks to a very few supported clients and users, we have seen some modest movement here, but only a little. Now before MSUCKS or anyone else flames me, please note, I've bought G5's out of my own under-powered wallet for MAC users who were great workers and deserved the best equipment "they" wanted to run 9.2.2 apps in a shell [because "they" wanted to]. It really is like that out here...mostly people just doing what they need and want to do. I assess MS that way, too - just working hard to do the best they can and not really worrying about what others are doing. I must say, that is not true in the OS X and OSS camps - and based upon supporting both each day. Both OS X and OSS would be really wise to learn from that and focus on "their" goals, unique strengths and simply work to deliver for those in the market. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:38:11 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
