Ok, thanks for the info and links (about 30 posts back here), the links are pretty informative, just what I was looking for, I'll load them all in my palm and read them through tonight. My comment about MS's hardware efficiency issue is mainly because I am just AMAZED about what an "old" mac (G3-G4) can do with just a bit of ram and a much slower processor compared to a PC running XP, not to mention how much faster my tungsten (palm OS) is and loads compared to my cassiopeia (r.i.p. a tv fell on it, don't ask) running MS pocketPC OS though the palm has a procesor that runs only half as fast as the Casio did. There is no way around it, it's the OS, period. Anyone care to comment? (yes, yes I know, apples and oranges, but not really since they serve the same purpose). Peace.

I think you are partly correct, Stimpy. But some of it is software/firmware related. In the past 3-4 years I have gone from Windows 3.1 to Win95, then Win98, and then Win XP Pro, plus I use NT at work. All of these 'seemed' much better at first, but then I realized there really wasn't too much difference in speed. Things like HD saves and opens are about the same, even tho I now have ATA 100 hd's. Printing just takes forever. Those things are hardware-limited. Now, when I use my accounting programs things have improved considerably. But I think the biggest problem is that the OS doesn't make the optimum use of the processor. There is too much concern for being able to use mellenium applications. Generally, when there is an all new release of the OS we end up having to buy new apps, anyway. For best performance. So, why do they even worry about backward compatibility? At some point they need to say "That's it, from now on it's a whole new ballgame and here are your benefits..." With the new 64 bit machines coming online, this looks like the right time for it. I mean, anyone wanting to run 3.1 apps now, can still run Win 3.1! ( I have run 3.1 apps on XP, but that's another story.) They make so many trade-offs when they try to make it compatible that it just doesn't quite cut it. They need to sit down and design the best possible OS and then make it cross-platform; it works on anything. But then of course, what would MS have to offer? All their proprietary software, etc. They truly do believe that what's good for MS is good for everyone else, too. Tain't necessarily so. Sorry if I ranted, but I believe in good OS's, well written and fully debugged before release. Unfortunately, this isn't what we generally get. I hear all the raves about LINUX, but then I also read about problems. No piece of software, OS's included, is without bugs. They are written by humans and humans make mistakes. My first computer was a Commodore 16, followed by a Commodore 64, both seemingly perfect machines, especially now, in retrospect. When I went to my first IBM PC, it was maddeningly slow and hard to figure out. No Windows, just DOS. (DOS is FAST, tho!) But each upgrade since then has brought high expectations, and was thoroughly disappointing in the end. Oh well, maybe Longhorn will be 'The One"! You think so? LOL We'll see. :) Bob

Stimpy: Regarding your comment about the relatively long useful life of Macs, I do tend to agree. Just try getting OS8 application support from Apple though ;) PC Bob, I kind of have to take issue with a few of your remarks: "Things like HD saves and opens are about the same" From the user's point of view, maybe. From a low-level operating system point of view this is very much not true. Longhorn uses an entirely new filesystem: WinFS. All the userland stuff - file saves, printing, even the perception of "speed" - have very little to do with the underlying architecture of any operating system. If you use the UI as the sole basis of your assessment, you're not really assessing the operating system. You're assessing the shell. "OS doesn't make the optimum use of the processor" How in the world do you even define that, much less quantify it? "They need to sit down and design the best possible OS and then make it cross-platform; it works on anything" What does this mean? Should Windows run on Apple G5's? Should Mac OSX run on my toaster? "Works on anything" is not a realistic (or even a possible) design goal, nor should it be. And you contradict yourself here - you said earlier that at some point they need to abandon backward compatibility. That would imply that a subset of "everything" is explicitly not supported, right? "They truly do believe that what's good for MS is good for everyone else, too" This is just childish. Microsoft, like any other company, believes they make a desireable product. Like most companies they also attempt to influence public perception of what is desireable. This is called marketing. It is up to the consumer to be informed and make intelligent decisions. It seems fashionable to criticize microsoft for their, admittedly, aggressive marketing tactics. As far as I can tell, this is the same thing as saying "I am not able to intelligently evaluate the product Microsoft is trying to sell me." "fully debugged before release" There is no such thing. "But each upgrade since then has brought high expectations, and was thoroughly disappointing in the end." Is that the fault of the software, or your expectations of it? I would say that the overall trend in Microsoft's product line has been an increase in utility. If you want to pick and choose your criteria, sure you can make a case for "disappointment" with newer operating systems - the lack of support for windows 3.1 (which is not an operating system, btw) apps in XP or Longhorn, for example. But, in general, you can do more with NT5 than you could with NT4 than you could with 9x than you could with DOS. That doesn't disappoint me at all. "Oh well, maybe Longhorn will be 'The One"! You think so?" No. No I don't. There is no such thing, PC Bob. It's really clever to say though, isn't it! That you do say it, even jokingly, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how software is developed. If you have a criticism of Microsoft's code review policies, closed-source devlopment model, or maintenance cycle, for example, that would be valid and worth discussing. But snide jokes about how Microsoft (or Novell, or Oracle, or Sun, or any other developer, if you want to find the right forum for it) is releasing yet another "disappointment" are devoid of meaning.

WinFS will NOT be included with the new Longhorn OS according Microsoft. Larry

No WinFS Following up on the above post. Larry

Hey, Jimminy, I wasn't trying to start a flame thread there. I was just making some observations, based on my experience with MS over several years. (I go all the way back to DOS 2.1!) I don't have privelleged inside information on the workings of Microsoft. But I have done 'some' programming. I also realize that completely debugging a piece of software which contains millions of lines of code can be difficult. But, I believe, and I am certainly not alone in saying this, that MS has and often does release SW before it is completely ready for the market. That said, let me state unequivicably that I think that XP Pro is, so far, the finest product MS has ever released. I love it! It has it's quircks, yes, but so far it has done everything I needed/wanted it to do. And well. And yes, the functionality has increased with each release and update. WIndows 2.0 and 3.1 (Very early OS's) left a great deal to be desired, and was more in the line of "Hey. MAC has it, let's try it, too." I stayed with DOS 6.2 until Win98 came out. I dabbled with 3.11, because I knew that soon I wouldn't have any choice. As for trying to make MS the best choice for everyone, that is commendable, but it shouldn't preclude the efforts of others to do it a different way. Linux COULD be a strong contender, especially if it had the power and momentum of a Microsoft-like backer. Ultimately, I think MS will buy up both Apple and Linux. If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. I am waiting anxiously, just like everyone else, to see just how good Longhorn will be. It has already suffered through some compromises in it's original concept. Let's hope that what remains is truly usable/useful/utile, and not just another 'Well, it's almost there, but just wait for the next version!" We have been seen this time and time again, since Win95 came out. I am not against MS, per se. I work for a very large insurance company, possibly the largest in the world. Their attitude has been "We ARE the largest and most successful insurance company, therefore what we are doing is absolutely correct. Government, state prosecutors and SEC investigators are all way off base; they just don't know what they are talking about." That sort of arrogance prevails in many industries today, including software and hardware manufacturers. My company is now going through lawsuits and reorganizations that we small employees hope will not destroy the entire company, and our jobs. Microsoft, too, is fighting monopoly lawsuits all over the world right now. When a company becomes too large, they often become too powerfull, too. We are all locked in to Windows, of one version or another. The Linux crowd is an exception. Their OS was designed to make much better and more efficient use of the hardware (CPU) It isn't perfect, but, yes, it is portable and will work on many platforms, not just PC's. It will work on SUN workstations, as well, and many others. Linux is not perfect, either. No operating system is. Linux is good, but difficult to learn to use well. You have a head start if you are well versed in DOS. Most people today are not familiar with DOS, nor do they want to take the time to learn a whole new ballgame. Assuming they do, the problem of getting good, up to date applications crops up. Yeah, there are apps out there that work sort of kind of like Windows apps. But let's face it, Wimdows is currently where it's at. Even Apple wants to run them! How about this for an idea? One system that runs both MAC and Windows OS's as well as Linux. All at the same time! You say it's been done? But I mean do it WELL. Flawlessly and seamlessly. When MS buys Apple it may happen. Or Apple may just disappear. Controversy has flourished about this since 1995. A note to Stimpy: In reference to your original question. Your Tungston running Pilot OS, has a minimized version of XP running on it. A lot of extraneous stuff has been left out, making it inherently faster. It can be done on a desktop, too. You just have to decide what you don't need. XP uses a lot of geography (spelled HD space) On your old MAC you just have a faster and more efficient CPU. This is what I was trying to point out. MS builds OS's to work on Intel processors. And Intel builds CPU's to run on MS OS's. It's a catch 22 deal. MAC never got caught in that trap. They have designed their OS's to run on the best available CPU's for the price. Sometimes, they are a bit pricey, but the trade off is in performance. You generally get what you pay for. Generally. Case in point, look at AMD. Better performance, lower price. I think it's time for a sea change. My challenge to all the innovators, inventors, engineers and thinkers out there: Build us a better system. For the same or less money. One that just works. One we don't have to be geniuses and programmers and wonks to be able to use. One that doesn't look back at the past, but only to the future. After all, a computer is only a tool. Craftsmen need the best tools they can afford. I hope this helps. I hope it doesn't start WW4. LOL