Panther vs. Longhorn: The Rematch!

hulkaros

hulkaros

The Incredible...
Read more here:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,,1112787,00.asp

And here is a piece:
"Since the resulting flare-up seems to have generated more heat than light on some message boards focused on the companies' platform prospects, we thought it was worth restating our basic premise: If both companies accomplish most of the competitive feats they're contemplating for their next major OS upgrades, Mac OS X will be running a couple of years ahead of Windows by next fall.

Specifically, some readers took issue with what they described as an apples-and-oranges comparison between the Panther version of Mac OS X (a k a Version 10.3 and due to reach developers in June and end users this fall) and the Longhorn upgrade to Windows (which won't ship until 2005). But that's precisely the point: If Apple sticks to a yearly cycle of product updates between now and 2005, it will be going on Mac OS X 10.5 by the time Longhorn delivers GUI enhancements and other features designed to take on Mac OS X 10.2. Even if Redmond comes through with all of the capabilities it's predicting, it will still be choking on dust kicked up by an additional couple of Mac OS X revs."

Oh, and let's try not to start a flame thread :rolleyes: :p

:D ;)

:)
 
why bother comparing 10.3 (mid-2003) to longhorn (late-2005)? that's like comparing a shiny, luscious apple to a budding orange blossom...
 
I don't think this thread is a good idea. It looks like the kind of thing that will only degenerate into a flame war, especially if certain people get involved.

If you really want to make a comparison, it's like building a Lincoln (owned by Ford, of course) to be released a couple years from now that will compete with something Mercedes has now. In a couple years, Mercedes will be past where they are now, much like Mac OS X will be, and Lincoln/Microsoft will be left in the dust... I think this has been said.

I'm wondering what Microsoft will do in the meantime... will they let XP languish, or will we see XIP and XIIP?
 
yeah arden - windows 98 was the main home windows system for about 2 years, wasn't it? in the time between win 98 and win 2000 i think ms released win NT, but that was more the predecessor of win server?
xp will be an incredibly stagnant os if ms doesn't release a new version until longhorn, but ms has said that it isn't planning to release anything between xp and longhorn.
i did a little research and found this:
Microsoft last week said on the record that it won't RTM (release to manufacturing) until 2005. And contrary to rumors circulating as of last year, there won't be any kind of "Shorthorn," or interim Windows release, between Windows XP and Longhorn. It's true that the Longhorn "technical preview" alpha release that Microsoft is expected to distribute at the Professional Developers Conference in October could have some kind of chilling effect on Panther. But let's face it: Panther will be going head-to-head with XP, not Longhorn. And XP shipped in 2001.
from here
Click to expand...
haha ms is weak, i bet they put 4 years of intense dev into longhorn, and it won't even be as good as panther {crosses fingers}
 
Originally posted by mr. K

haha ms is weak, i bet they put 4 years of intense dev into longhorn, and it won't even be as good as panther {crosses fingers}
Click to expand...

well, it will at least have the fancy graphics of Mac OS X! :D
But it doesn't seem M$ figured out how to use them - I seriously don't see the worth of having a window fly around on the screen :p
Where was that thread?
 
Originally posted by mr. K
yeah arden - windows 98 was the main home windows system for about 2 years, wasn't it? in the time between win 98 and win 2000 i think ms released win NT, but that was more the predecessor of win server?
xp will be an incredibly stagnant os if ms doesn't release a new version until longhorn, but ms has said that it isn't planning to release anything between xp and longhorn.
....
Click to expand...
WinNT is the predecessor to Win2000. Win2000 is really WinNT 5.0. The original release of WinNT was nothing more than OS/2 with an incompatible API, save for command line apps, and the Win 3.x GUI. Win2000 was originally supposed to unify Windows9x with WinNT. That didn't quite work out, but Win2000 did become M$'s most robust OS. M$ attempted to unify the two forks again with WinXP. However, WinXP was never robust enough to takeover from Win2000 in mission critical enterprise applications. Now we see that M$ has abandoned its [near-term] plans to unify its OS's. Windows 2003 Server follows Windows 2000, but seems to ignore WinXP.
 
Microsoft has a weird way of naming their OS's too. They went from Windows 1, 2, 3 to 95... a jump of 92 revision numbers! Oh wait, now they're naming it after the year it comes out in. This is great up until 2001-ish, with Windows ME. ME? Oh, Millenium Edition. Wait, why not just call it 2001? Oh well... it's sort of year-related. But what's this? Now we have XP? That's not a year at all! It's "Windows eXPerience"! What the hell is that? And in 2 years, Longhorn? Where do they pull these names from, their asses?

Now, Apple has a better way of doing it: they name their OS's like regular applications. Let's see, so far we've had Systems 1-7, then Mac OS 8-10. Wait, now they're calling it X! But X is 10 in Roman numerals. Well, that's okay, I guess. At least we know what it means... and it's a good way to differentiate from "Classic" OS's, since it's a totally different OS (yes, it's totally different: it's UNIX, through and through). Sure, we have names like Jaguar and Panther, but that's just the codename, so it doesn't really count for much except to help differentiate the various versions of X. Hopefully Apple never goes through the naming scheme for their OS's that M$ does.

Now if they would only label their computers as differentiably.
 
Originally posted by MisterMe
...
The original release of WinNT was nothing more than OS/2 with an incompatible API, save for command line apps, and the Win 3.x GUI.
...
Click to expand...

FYI, NT is completely different than OS/2. NT is written on top of a microkernel that allows you to have different OS api's. Two were developed in the beginning, the OS/2 32bit API and the Win32 api.

Now there is one way that you can think of it as "just OS/2", it was originally intended to be OS/2 3.0, but technically it's completely different. It's sorta like saying that OSX is just classic MacOS with a new API and gui.
 
Originally posted by ksv
well, it will at least have the fancy graphics of Mac OS X! :D
But it doesn't seem M$ figured out how to use them - I seriously don't see the worth of having a window fly around on the screen :p
Where was that thread?
Click to expand...

can you say tech demo?
 
Interesting article with good insight. I am not here to flame anything. To me, windows is "dumbed down" for unexperienced users", not a put down. I like the way X works, fits my experience level, and the way I like to work. Even my Windows friends are tried of the same old interface of Windows, and the redundant way it works. I agree with the comment made earlier, it is hard to compare X with M$. To me it is a preference, I chose MAC.
 
Originally posted by arden
Powermac: Window's isn't "dumbed-down," it's just dumb.
Click to expand...


Well, yah it is. It is overdone, always asking if you want to do something. I am waiting to see if Apple develops an Office suite, Man I hope so.:D
 
AppleWorks is cool!
I tried to use Word on a PC last week to print something out, I got so pissed off that I just used NotePad instead. Office just seems bloated, way over complicated and ridiculously priced (like most professional applications I guess.)
I suppose if you spent your life on it, you would get used to it, but honestly, I haven't ever been able to not do something in Appleworks. :rolleyes:
 
I use Apple Works, been using since it was Clarisworks. Is it sadly in need of updating. Interface and some features.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top