Longhorn Alpha Leaks

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp">http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp</a><br /><br />This was just too interesting to pass up - I'm a Windows geek, I admit it. I feel a rush of adrenaline when I rebuild a machine, install Windows, and tweak it to perfection. Longhorn is a long ways off, but it's interesting to see the kinds of things Microsoft wants to incorporate. How does Paul Thurrott get his hands on this stuff? Amazing.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/longhorn_avalon_promo.gif" /> <br /><br />The two most exciting things from my point of view are <a href="http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha4.asp">Avalon</a>, a new graphics engine that will be based on DirectX and allow for any part of the OS to play media. Imagine icons that are actually Flash or video files. :D I always cringe when I see the words "legacy support" - sometimes I wish Microsoft would make a clean break from the past, even if it meant breaking 1000's of applications. Yeah, yeah, I know how angry that would make some people, but I look at what Apple was able to accomplish with OS X and I think "Sometimes starting over is a good thing."<br /><br />The other cool thing about Longhorn will be the way the file system will work - it will be a giant database. I don't know exactly how this will work, but I've heard reports of Longhorn being almost like a GUI sitting atop a Sequel Server engine. Crazy? Perhaps. A significant change to the way Windows works? Definitely.

[Mike Temporale]

The other cool thing about Longhorn will be the way the file system will work - it will be a giant database. I don't know exactly how this will work, but I've heard reports of Longhorn being almost like a GUI sitting atop a Sequel Server engine. Crazy? Perhaps. A significant change to the way Windows works? Definitely.

From what I have heard SQL server will be built into the OS, and EVERYTHING will be stored in a database not just the file system, the registry, etc...

I'm really looking forward to Longhorn. Too bad it's a ways off still. :(

[Perry Reed]

From what I have heard SQL server will be built into the OS, and EVERYTHING will be stored in a database not just the file system, the registry, etc...

I'm really looking forward to Longhorn. Too bad it's a ways off still. :(

Yep, that's what I've heard as well. Sounds VERY powerful!

[adamz]

What DID Apple accomplish with OS X?

[Jonathan1]

Use to care about the next great thing from MS when it came to Windows. Not any more. Monday I installed Redhat 8 and the install was flawless. I then installed CrossOver Office and loaded Office 2000. HEH imagine that Office on Linux. Yesterday I got it up and running on my home network to the point that it could see my shares on my W2K box thanks to Samba. This evening I'm going to work on getting the network printers set up and more importantly ;) getting Unreal running on Linux.

I've found that I've had more fun playing around with RH then with Windows simply because you can dink around with more right out of the box. Any new version of Windows use to be fun but ME, 2K, XP are all rehashes of the same thing with cool things being added on. There is nothing as fun, from a techno geeks point of view, then learning a new OS and even a new GUI from scratch. Windows has gotten stale. Bring on Linux. :D

Gotta admit though getting use to having your "driver letters" integrated into the file system has been hard. I keep looking for the dang A or D drive. :P

[Jason Dunn]

What DID Apple accomplish with OS X?

Perhaps nothing in the grand market share scheme of things, but from a purely "geek" standpoint, OS X is impressive. I spent some time playing with a Mac recently, for the first time in years, and I have to admit I was impressed with quite a bit of it. The animation, the smoothness of the GUI, the tight integration...it appealed to me. And, believe me, that's not easy for me to admit because I generally loathe Macs.

Of course, the insulting fanaticism of some Mac users is keeping me from considering getting one - watching TechTV is a good solution to wanting to get a Mac. If being a Mac user means sneering and making Windows jokes all the time, well, a pretty GUI isn't worth it. :roll: (I know not all Mac users are like that, but the ones on TechTV are)

[ThomasC22]

I've found that I've had more fun playing around with RH then with Windows simply because you can dink around with more right out of the box. Any new version of Windows use to be fun but ME, 2K, XP are all rehashes of the same thing with cool things being added on. There is nothing as fun, from a techno geeks point of view, then learning a new OS and even a new GUI from scratch. Windows has gotten stale. Bring on Linux. :D

You should read this:

New Windows could solve age-old format puzzle--at a price (http://news.com.com/2009-1017-857509.html)

Linux may be more fun for you but I can't see how you can say that Windows has grown stale in reference to this new file system schema. I admire the Linux movement for it's simplicity and all but I think more what it proves is simply that, for servers, more paired down is better.

But as for GUI I don't think Linux (the various GUI camps of Linux that is) have done anything really that innovative and Microsoft is slowing moving into 3D GUIs which should add a lot to the landscape.

[jweitzman]

I think BeOS was a good example of an operating system where everything was in a database. (You didn't think Microsoft actually innovated did you?)

If nothing else, Mac OSX gave us Mac users the ability to hang out on Slashdot. :-)

Jeff

[Janak Parekh]

I think BeOS was a good example of an operating system where everything was in a database. (You didn't think Microsoft actually innovated did you?)
Can you provide a link to this? I know BFS was a nice 64-bit filesystem, but I never recalled it being anything resembling an ACID-style database. MS's SQL-backed filesystem is still quite a new idea in a practical mass-market operating system, IMHO.

Perhaps nothing in the grand market share scheme of things, but from a purely "geek" standpoint, OS X is impressive.
Indeed, what's nice about OS X is, as Jonathan puts it, the ability to drop down to the low-level command-line and treat it like a UNIX system, and yet keep the slick GUI on top--while RedHat 8 is nice, you're still dealing with a host of weakly-interoperable GUI toolkits in Linux. I wonder if Apple should rein-in the zealots... OS/2 had those - and the most extreme hurt the movement when many in Team OS/2 were only trying to help.

In fact, I'm still tempted to buy a PowerBook G4 as my next laptop, but only if I can test and make sure PocketMac works well--I'm not giving up iPaqs anytime soon ;)

--bdj

[jweitzman]

Here's a lay-person level article from 1998 that discusses BeOS and its approach to file metadata:

http://www.zdnet.com/products/osuser/boj/hacker17.html

[Janak Parekh]

Here's a lay-person level article from 1998 that discusses BeOS and its approach to file metadata
Thanks for the link, it was quite informative. I'd agree with your assertion that BFS was one of the most advanced filesystems of its time, and was more database-like than anything else on the market, but it was still a canonical filesystem with attached metadata. If you look at a filesystem like NTFS, it also has metadata, although its accessibility is far more buried.

I think an SQL-backed filesystem is the next step in evolving filesystems: having a fully concurrent, transactional database as the underlying metaphor is very attractive. While it isn't revolutionary, it's a very interesting evolutionary step from BFS-like technologies. Being able to do a SQL SELECT query on my files would be a great thing - especially for email :D

Let's see how well it evolves. I believe Paul Thurrott's site admitted that the SQL backend is nowhere there in the first alpha.

--bdj

[Mobile Bob]

Use to care about the next great thing from MS when it came to Windows. Not any more. Monday I installed Redhat 8 and the install was flawless. I then installed CrossOver Office and loaded Office 2000. HEH imagine that Office on Linux. :P

Have you tried ActiveSync yet? Please be sure to let us know if you are successful syncing your PPC with Outlook on your Linux rig. That would be very cool.

I enjoy both Windows and Linux (Redhat 7.3), but I havn't been brave enough to try what you are doing (yet!). Best of luck to you. :)

[wiredguy]

I know how angry that would make some people, but I look at what Apple was able to accomplish with OS X and I think "Sometimes starting over is a good thing."

One point to note is that Mac OS X is fresh, but still maintains support for OS 8/9 applications to a semi-satisfying degree. Of course, once you use an OS X application, OS 9 apps seem pathetic :D.

[heov]

isn't this avalon thing just like quartz for mac, that came with jaguar (10.2) a while back?

[wiredguy]

isn't this avalon thing just like quartz for mac, that came with jaguar (10.2) a while back?

Sounds like it's the same concept. Quartz first showed up in OS X 10.0 (as in, first release)... but has since been improved upon. If they are similar in purpose, that puts Mac well over a year ahead and MS isn't close to launching Longhorn yet :).

Yeah, Jason... guess Mac users can be MS bashers... but it goes both ways, and it's all in good fun :D.

[revolution.cx]

I think BeOS was a good example of an operating system where everything was in a database. (You didn't think Microsoft actually innovated did you?)

Jeff

The file system as a database "idea" has been around for a long time. It's been in and out of MS OS plans for many many years. Making it actually work is the problem because of the performance and legacy issues.

And yes, I think Microsoft innovates quite a bit. It takes longer to test and ship a product that goes out to 100 million joe-average users than to 500 alt-OS enthusiasts.

BeOS, Newton, NeXt, etc. all had good ideas but you can't just change the Windows OS arbitrarily and break literally hundreds of thousands of programs.

[wiredguy]

I think BeOS was a good example of an operating system where everything was in a database. (You didn't think Microsoft actually innovated did you?)

Jeff

The file system as a database "idea" has been around for a long time. It's been in and out of MS OS plans for many many years. Making it actually work is the problem because of the performance and legacy issues.

And yes, I think Microsoft innovates quite a bit. It takes longer to test and ship a product that goes out to 100 million joe-average users than to 500 alt-OS enthusiasts.

BeOS, Newton, NeXt, etc. all had good ideas but you can't just change the Windows OS arbitrarily and break literally hundreds of thousands of programs.

I don't think MS innovates at all... and I don't think they care... they are smart to take working concepts, add an MS interface, and sell it for more.

I guess it is due to MS taking "longer to test and ship a product" that has made them famous for their bug free software :D. Oh, come on... you had to see that coming :P.

[Janak Parekh]

I don't think MS innovates at all... and I don't think they care... they are smart to take working concepts, add an MS interface, and sell it for more.
OK - if that's the case - how did Linux "innovate"? Or OS X?

Innovation doesn't mean "revolution" -- there is much innovation in evolution. Both Linux and OS X are descended from a long line of SysV and BSD Unix platforms...

I guess it is due to MS taking "longer to test and ship a product" that has made them famous for their bug free software :D. Oh, come on... you had to see that coming :P.
Name one piece of software that came out bug-free as a version 1.0.

I'm all for calling Microsoft on the ridiculous number of buffer overflows that their code has, but general MS-bashing doesn't convince anyone.

--bdj

[revolution.cx]

Oh, you're one of those, never mind.

I think BeOS was a good example of an operating system where everything was in a database. (You didn't think Microsoft actually innovated did you?)

Jeff

The file system as a database "idea" has been around for a long time. It's been in and out of MS OS plans for many many years. Making it actually work is the problem because of the performance and legacy issues.

And yes, I think Microsoft innovates quite a bit. It takes longer to test and ship a product that goes out to 100 million joe-average users than to 500 alt-OS enthusiasts.

BeOS, Newton, NeXt, etc. all had good ideas but you can't just change the Windows OS arbitrarily and break literally hundreds of thousands of programs.

I don't think MS innovates at all... and I don't think they care... they are smart to take working concepts, add an MS interface, and sell it for more.

I guess it is due to MS taking "longer to test and ship a product" that has made them famous for their bug free software :D. Oh, come on... you had to see that coming :P.

[wiredguy]

I don't think MS innovates at all... and I don't think they care... they are smart to take working concepts, add an MS interface, and sell it for more.
OK - if that's the case - how did Linux "innovate"? Or OS X?

Innovation doesn't mean "revolution" -- there is much innovation in evolution. Both Linux and OS X are descended from a long line of SysV and BSD Unix platforms...

I guess it is due to MS taking "longer to test and ship a product" that has made them famous for their bug free software :D. Oh, come on... you had to see that coming :P.
Name one piece of software that came out bug-free as a version 1.0.

I'm all for calling Microsoft on the ridiculous number of buffer overflows that their code has, but general MS-bashing doesn't convince anyone.

--bdj

I was being sarcastic... read the whole post... I know MS doesn't release bug free software, and that was my point.

Apple innovates in many areas. iCal, iSync, iPod, iMac, XServe, Quicktime, First to standardize on USB, First for Firewire, First to CD-RW, first to DVD-R, and a lot more.

Please don't turn this into another XP vs. OS X thread. They both have their benefits, etc... I'm outta this thread now.

[sponge]

Am I the only one who's worried about using Flash files as icons? THe potential system holes, when you look at XP? What happens if your system is in an unstable state, how will safe mode function, since all of this is being tied in so closely? I don't like some of the things I hear about Longhorn, parts of it seem cool, but others greatly worry me.

[Jason Dunn]

isn't this avalon thing just like quartz for mac, that came with jaguar (10.2) a while back?

Same concept, but that's like saying "Isn't that Xbox thing like that PS2 thing?". There are many, many different ways to go at this, so I'm interested in seeing what Microsoft comes up with. They've had enough practice with DirectX to make a good go of this - if you've ever seen the UI on the Media Center, I think you'll get an idea of where they're headed...

[ThomasC22]

Indeed, what's nice about OS X is, as Jonathan puts it, the ability to drop down to the low-level command-line and treat it like a UNIX system, and yet keep the slick GUI on top--while RedHat 8 is nice, you're still dealing with a host of weakly-interoperable GUI toolkits in Linux. I wonder if Apple should rein-in the zealots... OS/2 had those - and the most extreme hurt the movement when many in Team OS/2 were only trying to help.


WHOA THERE BDJ! Lets not go bagging on Team OS/2 :)

Seriously though, its funny you brought up OS/2 in this discussion because I think OS/2 makes a good point as to why Windows is still and will probably continue to be the primary OS on PCs.

I used to love OS/2 (USED TO, these guys sadly, are phreaks! (www.os2ezine.com)), thought it was 200 times better than Windows '95, and technically it probably was. But what MS gets is that interface is the most important component of the OS. Note that OS/2 wasn't smart enough to wrap the OS/2 interface around Win 3.11 programs. I used to love the fact that I could change individual document icons with the bitmap editor.

But see, the "joe-blow" user really drags the rest of us along for the ride and Windows might not be "fresh" but it's an evolutionary product and it does get incrementally better. Which is...what your average user wants.

[ThomasC22]

Apple innovates in many areas. iCal, iSync, iPod, iMac, XServe, Quicktime, First to standardize on USB, First for Firewire, First to CD-RW, first to DVD-R, and a lot more.


Are you kidding? All the apps you just mentioned are evolutionary products or not Apple's creation.

iCal's a calendar app., it might be a pretty good Calendar app, but still.

iSync - ActiveSync by another name...

iPod - It's an MP3 player with a hard drive

iMac - Mac did not make the first designer Personal Computer.

XServe is a server.

Quicktime - A media codec? It's just a media codec

USB, Firewire, CDRW, DVD-R were all other companies technologies that were also available on the PC.

The truth of innovation in technology is that rarely does a company actually create something new and even more rare is a company that manages to sucessfully commericalize on it (ask Xerox). So going over and over on this gets pretty pointless simply because you end up tracing things back to ENIAC in the end.

[ThomasC22]

Same concept, but that's like saying "Isn't that Xbox thing like that PS2 thing?". There are many, many different ways to go at this, so I'm interested in seeing what Microsoft comes up with. They've had enough practice with DirectX to make a good go of this - if you've ever seen the UI on the Media Center, I think you'll get an idea of where they're headed...

Sorry, one more thing. I just wanted to point out that Microsoft is at least going somewhere with their incremental improvements. I would be willing to be Avalon is the first stepping stone to this:

The Task Gallery (http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/index.htm)

[jweitzman]

to paraphrase an old saying (which paraphrased an ancient saying): if some companies have seen farther it is because they are standing on the shoulders of giants.

The only reason I tweaked MS on "innovation" is because they must have some corporate mandate to use "innovate" in every sentence uttered out loud. Ever since the antitrust action started, and they hung their PR hat on not stifling their incredible "innovation" engine, they can't shut up about how innovative they are.

MS is no more (maybe less, maybe not) innovative than any other huge company in the space. The real breakthroughs will probably continue to come from smaller companies with less to lose, and even those breakthroughs will necessarily be based on prior work.

Maybe now that MS has essentially won on the antitrust front they will go back to being happy with their 95% market share and not feel they need to justify it with claims of the amazing innovation it creates!

JW

[spursdude]

iPod - It's an MP3 player with a hard drive

iMac - Mac did not make the first designer Personal Computer.

Quicktime - A media codec? It's just a media codec

USB, Firewire, CDRW, DVD-R were all other companies technologies that were also available on the PC.


Although Apple may not create new products, they sure make them well. Although I can't stand using Apples, the products they make are fairly good. The iPod is just an MP3 player, yes, but the fact that Apple managed to squeeze in so much storage, make a great navigational system, and make it compact and nice make the iPod quite amazing.

The iMac was also one of the first computers that actually appeals to a large public base. For example, we almost got my Grandma an iMac. Would we have gotten her a powerful and bulky Dell? No way.

And don't underestimate or undervalue Quicktime. Sure, it's just a format, but it's my favorite format - small files, smooth and clear video, and just easy to use. Also, it's proliferated across the internet, between movie trailers and personal videos and much more.

[heov]

USB, Firewire, CDRW, DVD-R were all other companies technologies that were also available on the PC

actually, didn't apple jointly create firewire? I know they hold a lot of the patents for it... also, the fact of the matter is that apple had them first.

not to further fuel the flame ;) but let's talk about MS's innovation...
they're hardly ever first, but when they're second, they (some times) do a good job with it...

palm > pocket pc
ps > xbox
OS X > XP
quartz > avalon
iMovie > windows movie maker

just to name a few ;) i'm sure apple and other companies have pursuited on some of MS's creations...

Also, don't most people think of apple as the most innovative computer comany? maybe followed by sony?

Also, just a question, why is it that apple is always first out with new HARDWARE, like CDRW, superdrive , USB, firewire (they helped create it, so i guess that's easy), superdrive laptop (slot loading too!), etc?

Anyway, i guess it's hard to stay on topic about an off topic post ;)

[Janak Parekh]

OK, here comes the massive-reply post :D

Oh, you're one of those, never mind.
Thanks. :roll: Obviously, I don't know how to run Debian Linux on a Netwinder (which acts as my personal server - really cute machine, and Debian rocks). Or I haven't used RedHat Linux for several years (since version 4.2). Or that I never used SCO or Solaris. And I'm obviously not contemplating getting a Powerbook G4 1GHz.

I'm a firm believer in using the right tool for the problem. In addition to administering and using the above, I use XP and Pocket PC - and both work very well. Every solution has its advantages and disadvantages, and to blindly criticize one is naive IMHO.

Please don't turn this into another XP vs. OS X thread. They both have their benefits, etc... I'm outta this thread now.
I have no intention of doing so, sorry for the angry response. While the comment in your sarcasm was subtle (which I'm belatedly noticing), it's really so cliche and tired, ain't it... :?

WHOA THERE BDJ! Lets not go bagging on Team OS/2
I shouldn't, should I, since I was a member of Team OS/2? :D Not an active one, at all, but I did run 2.0, 2.1 and Warp... and I agree with your points, largely, but would also like to add that lack of Win32 support killed OS/2 utilization -- that's why I, reluctantly, switched to Windows 95.

The truth of innovation in technology is that rarely does a company actually create something new and even more rare is a company that manages to sucessfully commericalize on it (ask Xerox). So going over and over on this gets pretty pointless simply because you end up tracing things back to ENIAC in the end.
THANK YOU! You summarized my point more succintly than I ever will. And you can go further back than the ENIAC, to the Babbage differential machine, to the slide rule, to the abacus, etc.

The only reason I tweaked MS on "innovation" is because they must have some corporate mandate to use "innovate" in every sentence uttered out loud.
OK, this is actually a very good point, well put. I'd blame this fact on MS's marketing group, as a response to the antitrust lawsuits. However, I think MS's tech people, and MSR (MS Research), have been doing some fantastic original research. I know a couple people there, and they're absolutely top-notch people; MS doesn't hire anyone but the best. Realize MS is a huge company...

Although Apple may not create new products, they sure make them well.
Well-put. This is why I'm so tempted to get an OS X device - sure, it's any old 32-bit OS - but it's so well put together, has wonderful aesthetics, and it's a UNIX underneath, which is great for the geek in me. :)

palm > pocket pc
ps > xbox
OS X > XP
quartz > avalon
iMovie > windows movie maker
I debate some of these.

- Pocket PC is an evolution from PSPC which was an evolution from the original HPC/CE 1.0 devices. MS has been in the mobile space for many years. They did take the form factor from Palm, but so did Royal, Sharp, and a bunch of third-party companies. It's not like the handheld form factor is patented... (could you patent that?)

- XP is an evolution from 2k, not OS X. You might debate that the Bliss theme is a rip-off from OS X, but if you've used the two OS's they're hardly the same.

- Windows Movie Maker is part of MS's media vision too for a while. Neither it, nor Windows Media Player is all that new. iMovie is still a better application, admittedly :)

--bdj

[Tungsten]

Quicktime - A media codec? It's just a media codec

Wrong. Quicktime is a container format, which describes a storage mechanism regardless of its compression. Much like AVI.

The truth of innovation in technology is that rarely does a company actually create something new and even more rare is a company that manages to sucessfully commericalize on it (ask Xerox). So going over and over on this gets pretty pointless simply because you end up tracing things back to ENIAC in the end.

Insightful, but irrelevant. I suppose, when most people speak of Apple's "innovation", they mean just that. Not the re-invention of the wheel (who has, recently?) but repackaging current ideas in ways no one has done before.

[Janak Parekh]

Insightful, but irrelevant. I suppose, when most people speak of Apple's "innovation", they mean just that. Not the re-invention of the wheel (who has, recently?) but repackaging current ideas in ways no one has done before.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's all relative. What do you define as "never having been done before"?

--bdj

[ThomasC22]

Although Apple may not create new products, they sure make them well. Although I can't stand using Apples, the products they make are fairly good. The iPod is just an MP3 player, yes, but the fact that Apple managed to squeeze in so much storage, make a great navigational system, and make it compact and nice make the iPod quite amazing.


Well, let me just say, I wasn't faulting Apple or saying that they don't innovate I was simply saying that they, by the definition that had been presented (which I believed to be incorrect), also "steal" technology. The point is, regardless of who does it better, both Microsoft and Apple are doing the same thing as far as innovation is concerned.

To be honest, I'd probably use an apple if not for the fact that (A) I'm a system administrator and believe in using what I run (helps with providing tech support and such) and (B) I really think the Aqua user interface is a step backwards in a lot of ways and it bugs me. But Geez, I WISH just ONE PC manufacturer would put the thought into hardware design that Apple does.


actually, didn't apple jointly create firewire? I know they hold a lot of the patents for it... also, the fact of the matter is that apple had them first.


This always bothers me, they did create firewire in a consortium of companies, not alone. Anyway...as for the rest, see the above point.

btw as for the Quicktime point, you researched it after you mentioned it Tungsten (that user names going to make you popular around here) and you're right and it is very interesting. Thanks (although it made my point no less valid)

[Tungsten]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's all relative.
Yes, it's all relative. The definition (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?innovation) of innovation is vague, at best.

People tend to think of it as a reserved word for the elite. It's not. To say how "innovative" something is, it's just like saying how beautiful or ugly it is.

What do you define as "never having been done before"?
You'll probably disagree with my definition. What's yours?

[LarDude]

OK, This is definitely NOT flamebait, but I've got a couple of (stupid?) questions:

1) Filesystem is actually one big database.
Isn't the PalmOS also one big filesystem?
(Purely innocent question, I've been a PocketPC user since it first
came out).

2) Has anyone read the Microsoft "Halloween" document?
Is this MS first step in "decommoditizing" protocols to try and kill off
the Open-Source Software movement?

3) If question#2 is way out to lunch, what about Digital-Rights
Management?
Is this MS's first step to redefine things in such a way that we won't
be able to move our "legitamately-purchased" content around our
hard-drive as we please? I don't want to have to phone up MS to ask
for permission everytime I want to move an MP3 file from one
directory to another.

Having said all this, I guess I don't really care even if the above
concerns (paranoia) turns out to be true. I've been a "dual OS" user
(Windows and Linux/Unix) for many many years, and can easily
(and often have) live without Windows if necessary (although I would
surely miss my iPaq).

[LarDude]

1) Filesystem is actually one big database.
Isn't the PalmOS also one big filesystem?
(Purely innocent question, I've been a PocketPC user since it first
came out).


Oops, typo. I meant to say:
Isn't the PalmOS also one big database?

[LarDude]

1) Filesystem is actually one big database.
Isn't the PalmOS also one big filesystem?
(Purely innocent question, I've been a PocketPC user since it first
came out).


Oops, typo. I meant to say:
Isn't the PalmOS also one big database?

Sigh... :roll:
OK, Third-time right:
Isn't the PalmOS filesystem also just one big database.

[Janak Parekh]

Isn't the PalmOS filesystem also just one big database.
No, it's a collection of smaller databases. I believe those databases are stored in a proprietary file-based filesystem; someone correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't done Palm programming for 3-4 years now. Mind you, those databases are simple, flat-file, packed record files; they're nowhere near a fully relational, transactional SQL-backed database.

As to the rest of your post: yes, it will be interesting to see how a permissions-capable SQL backend affects our "control" over what a hard drive contains. I'm sure everyone will be watching it very closely.

By the way, you can edit posts instead of quoting yourself.

You'll probably disagree with my definition. What's yours?
Being a Ph.D. student, I like to equate this as to academically-accepted "new" work in a field. This tends to be very broad, and evolutionary ideas can often be published and considered "original" in one fashion or another. I do consider a definition that says "Apple is original, Microsoft is not" to be rather strangely drawn.

--bdj

[LarDude]

By the way, you can edit posts instead of quoting yourself.

Oh yeah, right....thanks BigDaddy (a big Duh!) :oops:

[ThomasC22]

BTW, you can edit your post with the edit button in the upper right hand corner of any given post (by you that is). Anyway...


2) Has anyone read the Microsoft "Halloween" document?
Is this MS first step in "decommoditizing" protocols to try and kill off
the Open-Source Software movement?

3) If question#2 is way out to lunch, what about Digital-Rights
Management?


This might be the first steps to that, yes, but I don't think it matters much. The thing about Microsoft is that alot of people slip into the "they think they can do whatever they want" mentality about them and it just isn't true. Microsoft is very much paranoid about falling down.

So, even if they try to say, integrate Digital Rights Management into the OS, if the consumer backlash is significant enough (which is our part of course) they'll back off. Pleasing the recording industry isn't worth losing their monopoly in Desktop Software.

Further, by the time Longhorn rolls around I figure Microsoft will realize that the RIAA isn't going to give them the time of day as far as selling digital music through MS technology (and giving them a cut of the profits) and when that happens the RIAA can pretty much say good bye to any favorable help from Microsoft.

As for Open Source, Microsoft is going to do everything they can to destroy Open Source Technologies, you might as well learn to accept that. As long as the technology industry forces them to embrace open standards, it won't do a bit of good.

[Ed Hansberry]

Sorry, one more thing. I just wanted to point out that Microsoft is at least going somewhere with their incremental improvements. I would be willing to be Avalon is the first stepping stone to this:

The Task Gallery (http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/index.htm)
Didn't they try this a few years ago with a lower res app - Microsoft Bob?

[ThomasC22]

Didn't they try this a few years ago with a lower res app - Microsoft Bob?

:lol:

Well, you did know that Microsoft Bob was run by, and the brainchild of, Melinda Gates right? So, expect it to keep coming back! :roll:

[Jonathan1]

Linux may be more fun for you but I can't see how you can say that Windows has grown stale in reference to this new file system schema. I admire the Linux movement for it's simplicity and all but I think more what it proves is simply that, for servers, more paired down is better.

But as for GUI I don't think Linux (the various GUI camps of Linux that is) have done anything really that innovative and Microsoft is slowing moving into 3D GUIs which should add a lot to the landscape.

I mean current versions of windows. XP is really just an integration of ME’s features with W2K’s core. That may be simplifying things but it’s essentially true.

It’s great that MS realizes the registry is a pile of rotting dog dung and are upgrading it. But simply put the word FREE is a huge word when it comes to consumers. And that's how much I paid for RH8. I downloaded all 3 CD's from www.linuxiso.org and amazingly it’s not illegal. I can burn a copy for my friends and again it’s not illegal. I can install it on as many computers as I want and once again its totally legal. I'm sorry but I'm really getting somewhat sick of shelling out $200+ every 2 year or so to stay on MS's latest and greatest. Its not that I'm cheap but the upgrade cycle to maintain a high performance OS is starting to hurt. I spent $200 on W2K. I was considering another $300 for XP on my laptop but decided to try RH one last time. (I’ve had bad luck with Linux in the past.) Free is so much better then $300. Again, even if I went and bought RH at CompUSA I’m free to install it on as many computers as I like with no activation.

There are certain aspects of Linux that have become very appealing to me. The core being that RH and company most likely AREN’T going to try stuffing .NET or services down my throat. I have the distinct feeling the Longhorn is going to start doing that “services” thing and that is where I jump ship. SQL or no SQLish core I think I would like to stick with a system not controlled by such a large company with highly questionable business practices.
OK so my tiny rant above sounds like a MS bashing post doesn't it? It’s not meant to be that. It’s meant to express my continuing concerns about how MS is planning on "playing" the market in the future. Time and again MS has shown that they will do anything to protect their cash cow. (i.e. Windows and Office.)
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-966219.html
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-966696.html

Microsoft will do anything to push and extend its reach into the OS market. Normally I wouldn't care simply because any company has the right to push its product right? The problem with Microsoft is that it's got a conflict of interest going on. They have their hands in EVERY cookie jar. Not just the OS market. This causes problems IMHO. Take .NET for example. Supposedly MS is making .NET available for all OS's right? That's great....on the surface. The problem is that MS is also competing with these other OS's, other browsers, other pieces of software so there is an inherent completive push to make .NET maybe just a tad more compatible on Windows. Just a tad more stable on Windows. This is NOT a good thing when it comes to competition and this is why I’m not a fan of .NET which Microsoft is starting to push harder in its OS’s. Microsoft has been known to dink around with standard. Just do a search on google for “embracing and extend” and Microsoft. Everything from Java, to Kerberos, to HTML. In almost all those cases MS adds their “own” features and specifications to the “standards” causing problems when you aren’t using a MS product.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,15497,00.asp

That doesn’t mean I’m not still interested in XP. Esp the Tablet PC. As long as I’m not required to get some sort of “service” to use all the features on MY device I will continue to use Windows.

It’s great that MS is advancing tech. *Hold up a little foam #1 finger with “Go Technology” on it* I’m just concerned that they are going to eventually get us on a treadmill that forces us to shell out some more cash every month to get something that in the past was always free. Hence the reason I’m hedging my bets by using Linux.

And if you guys think oh its just another trash talking Linux user think again. Up til 2000 I defended MS's business practices tooth and nail. I swore up and down Windows 9x and the pile of crap that it was. But when MS finally came out with W2K I thought it was like the second coming. Anyone who hacked on MS I pointed to W2K as testament to MS being able to make superior products.
Soon after that the games started in Redmond. I don't know why but to me it seemed like just because MS came out with a very stable, very fast, fairly secure OS that they had the right to be snooty. I'm not a fan of arrogant companies and as of late MS has arrogance to spare. You can be sure that now that MS dodged the Antitrust bullet, thanks to Bush, that this air of arrogance is going to increase. Just watch.

[wiredguy]

Apple innovates in many areas. iCal, iSync, iPod, iMac, XServe, Quicktime, First to standardize on USB, First for Firewire, First to CD-RW, first to DVD-R, and a lot more.


Are you kidding? All the apps you just mentioned are evolutionary products or not Apple's creation.

iCal's a calendar app., it might be a pretty good Calendar app, but still.

iSync - ActiveSync by another name...

iPod - It's an MP3 player with a hard drive

iMac - Mac did not make the first designer Personal Computer.

XServe is a server.

Quicktime - A media codec? It's just a media codec

USB, Firewire, CDRW, DVD-R were all other companies technologies that were also available on the PC.

The truth of innovation in technology is that rarely does a company actually create something new and even more rare is a company that manages to sucessfully commericalize on it (ask Xerox). So going over and over on this gets pretty pointless simply because you end up tracing things back to ENIAC in the end.

iCal is completely different than any other Calendar software. If you did some research, you would realize that.

iSync is nothing like ActiveSync... it is an open sync standard for Macs that allow you to sync multiple programs, devices, etc. (eg. sync bluetooth phone, address book and calendar on mac, Palm device, an iPOD, etc).

iPOD... yes, an MP3 player with a hard disk... with Firewire syncing... extremely portable size, and ease of use that blows everything else out of the water (touch-pad wheel control, etc).

iMac was still a revolution in and of itself. It may not be the most hi-end computer, but it had it's use and was innovative.

XServe is so much more than just a server... but I can clearly see you have done zero research... and I don't intend to type pages of data here when I can see you are not ready to accept Apple as an innovater anyway.

Yes... Firewire, USB, CD-RW, etc are available on PC... it's just that PC was years behind Mac on each of these standards... and that the only reason they made it big on PC was because they were first proven on Mac.

Quicktime... yes, just a codec now... but they lead the computer industry in PC video. They got it started, and they are still fighting big with MPEG-4 leadership.

Oh yeah... and what about Airport... sure the 802.11b standards were there... but Apple was the first to make use of them. It was years later before we saw anything solid come into the PC market.

Each time I reply to a post like your own... I get more clarity on this... PC users simple don't take apple seriously, and make claims without doing the research. They assume Apple is at the same place they were years ago, and that PC is ahead.

Think about this... can you get a superdrive on PC (CD, CD-R, DVD, DVD-R), how about slot load CD/DVD drives on laptops, OS-wide Address Book, Mail software with built-in spam filtering that gets smarter the more you use it, Rendesvous networking for instant connectivity... watch for PC to copy these technologies soon.

Gateway and HP are already copying the new iMAC style design, Toshiba copying the iPOD design, and more...

[Janak Parekh]

So I did a little research on Apple's site...

iCal is completely different than any other Calendar software. If you did some research, you would realize that.
iCal's unique features are the ability to overlay multiple calendars and to publish/subscribe calendars online. Yes, those are pretty neat, and quite original. The other features mirror almost any existing PIM on the market, though.

iSync is nothing like ActiveSync... it is an open sync standard for Macs that allow you to sync multiple programs, devices, etc. (eg. sync bluetooth phone, address book and calendar on mac, Palm device, an iPOD, etc).
How is iSync "open"? It doesn't say that anywhere on Apple's site. As to multiple-platform sync'ing, third-party companies have been supporting that for Windows for years. Microsoft is also working on supporting ActiveSync across platforms as their Bluetooth strategy evolves. .Mac syncing is pretty useful, and I could see using that.

iPOD... yes, an MP3 player with a hard disk... with Firewire syncing... extremely portable size, and ease of use that blows everything else out of the water (touch-pad wheel control, etc).
While it may be revolutionary in usability and size, it's strictly an evolutionary concept. The Nomad Jukebox, and before that, the Personal Jukebox, showed that there was broad consumer demand for such an item.

iMac was still a revolution in and of itself. It may not be the most hi-end computer, but it had it's use and was innovative.
How? Aesthetics, if you liked the iMac, were a nice evolution (color + transparency). The rest of the iMac was a strict evolution from the previous unified Macintoshes.

XServe is so much more than just a server...
OK, I am totally stumped here. I combed Apple's site the day XServe was announed. I just did it again. I've seen one in action. It is one darned sexy 1U unit. But how exactly is this a revolution over already-existing 1U, SNMP-manageable servers?

Yes... Firewire, USB, CD-RW, etc are available on PC... it's just that PC was years behind Mac on each of these standards... and that the only reason they made it big on PC was because they were first proven on Mac.
Mixed bag. Intel developed the USB standards themself. USB chipsets were available on most mainboards in '95. Blame MS for being lazy with driver support, and credit Apple for that. As to Firewire, Sony has been just as aggressive with Firewire support on their devices as Apple. My 4-year-old Sony laptop had full Firewire (i.Link) support on it. All Sony computers have i.Link support, and it works very well. CD-RW support was not first on the Mac, it arrived on both platforms at nearly the same time. Pioneer developed the DVD-R, and Apple was very fast to adopt it, but it's also been available for PC's for years.

Oh yeah... and what about Airport... sure the 802.11b standards were there... but Apple was the first to make use of them. It was years later before we saw anything solid come into the PC market.
Not years. Not even months. In fact, 802.11 standards were largely developed by Lucent, and were available on PC's well before Mac's.

They assume Apple is at the same place they were years ago, and that PC is ahead.
Says who? NO one assumes Apple is far behind. If anything, Apple has been progressive in mass-marketing the units. But that does not mean that Apple invented them. They deserve credit, but so does Microsoft for bringing many products to market.

Think about this... can you get a superdrive on PC (CD, CD-R, DVD, DVD-R)
Yes (http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/CDA/Industrial/IndustrialProductDetails/0,1444,21838,00.html).

How about slot load CD/DVD drives on laptops
True, that's currently a Powerbook exclusive. That's one of the reasons I love the Powerbook's form factor :)

OS-wide Address Book
Yes (http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/wab/wabentry.asp), and it's been around since '96.

Mail software with built-in spam filtering that gets smarter the more you use it
Not Microsoft, admittedly, but there are third-party spam plugins.

Rendesvous networking for instant connectivity... watch for PC to copy these technologies soon.
PC's have had Rendezvous-like technology for years -- it's called NetBIOS. True, the underlying IETF standards for Rendezvous are much better, and it will indeed come to PC's after Apple... but the IETF largely deserves credit for developing those standards.

Again, I'm not trying to criticize Apple here. I love their stuff. My point is: you can credit Apple for consumerizing a lot of these, taking technologies and making it easy, but to say they "invented" them is misleading--they evolved them, just like Microsoft has evolved various technologies available on the market and is putting into Longhorn or Pocket PC's. Both "innovate" in my opinion.

In any case, we should probably move further debate on this to comp.sys.mac.advocacy (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=comp.sys.mac.advocacy) :)

--bdj

[sweetpete]

iCal's unique features are the ability to overlay multiple calendars and to publish/subscribe calendars online. Yes, those are pretty neat, and quite original. The other features mirror almost any existing PIM on the market, though.

Actually, Outlook 2002 has had the publishing of free-busy time to the internet for some time now(check out http://freebusy.office.microsoft.com/freebusy/freebusy.dll?subar=introduction). Outlook 11/.Net will have overlaying of multiple calendars, so notch that one to Apple :wink:

[Janak Parekh]

Actually, Outlook 2002 has had the publishing of free-busy time to the internet for some time now(check out http://freebusy.office.microsoft.com/freebusy/freebusy.dll?subar=introduction). Outlook 11/.Net will have overlaying of multiple calendars, so notch that one to Apple :wink:
D'oh! I wish I knew that! I've used Outlook in Exchange/MAPI mode for many years, so I've never noticed a web-based free/busy calendar. Coool. :)

--bdj

[adamz]

What DID Apple accomplish with OS X?

Perhaps nothing in the grand market share scheme of things, but from a purely "geek" standpoint, OS X is impressive. I spent some time playing with a Mac recently, for the first time in years, and I have to admit I was impressed with quite a bit of it. The animation, the smoothness of the GUI, the tight integration...it appealed to me. And, believe me, that's not easy for me to admit because I generally loathe Macs.

Yes, the backend is finally on par with NT, but it's been my experience that the OS X eye-candy does not appeal to many of the Mac users that actually have jobs involving a Macintosh computers. The dock makes it more difficult to find things, and often obstructs the use of other applications. The animation slows productivity, and the transparency makes things more difficult to read. Many of the die-hard Mac Addicts I know have expressed interest in switching to Windows for these reasons. The eyecandy that appeals to home-use-consumers has proven to alienate proffessionals. OS 10.2 has attempted to solve some of these problems. Perhaps after a few more revisions users will have the capability to shut off the UI annoyances that reduce productivity and performance.


Of course, the insulting fanaticism of some Mac users is keeping me from considering getting one - watching TechTV is a good solution to wanting to get a Mac. If being a Mac user means sneering and making Windows jokes all the time, well, a pretty GUI isn't worth it. :roll: (I know not all Mac users are like that, but the ones on TechTV are)

The smart Mac users admit that they don't know much about the Windows platform and they'll refrain from the Windows jokes usually. I know what you mean though. It's quite humorous reading some of the windows-bashing articles in Mac Addict magazine.

[Ed Hansberry]

The smart Mac users admit that they don't know much about the Windows platform and they'll refrain from the Windows jokes usually. I know what you mean though. It's quite humorous reading some of the windows-bashing articles in Mac Addict magazine.
Martin finally got Patrick to admit the only reason for wanting OS-X was for the Unix back end and when pressed, Patrick admitted most mac users don't really have a clue about it, which means the only reason to get OS-X is that it isn't Windows, which is an emotional choice, not a logical one.

[peterwor]

Wow, what a thread... I just joined and somehow stumbled on this thread that has taken me all the way from BeOS (which by the way finally ran ON TOP OF windows) and Object File Systems to OS X and back.
Gee...
I have only this to add. I used to work for MS during the big bad 90's and early 00's. I love Windows, I've been on all their OS development teams until just very recently and I'm, at heart, a windows guy BUT I recently bought a 1Ghz. G4 PowerBook w/Superdrive and WOW! I'm sold. I've always liked *NIX, not very fond of Linux cause they just haven't done the GUI right and talk about set up quirks...
So now OS X 10.2.2 comes along and I have a hard time getting psyched about Windows stuff.
OS X does it FOR ME
(yes, emphasis on the FOR ME, cause you guys gotta realize OSes are like underwear and editors, mine's always the best and your isn't)
I LOVE BSD Unix with the AQUA/Quartz/Carbon layers on it.
Bravo Apple. So now I have 6 PC's and two Macs.

Just my $.02 worth on this long thread.