good article i think :) good job J. Shapiro

Where has this author been all these years? Everyone, even the courts, recognise the success of Windows has been its monopolisation and domination of the industry. Nobody "chooses" to use Windows because of anything other than having no other viable alternative.



So the author is claiming that when Mac OSX, an entirely new Macintosh operating system from the ground up (UNIX based infact), was released in 2000 (and obviously in development years prior) its Aqua GUI was designed to compete against Windows XP which came out TWO YEARS AFTER? Even more fascinating is that the entire OSX GUI is vector based - something Windows is now developing for Longhorn (ie 2005-2006). When Longhorn comes out surely you're not going to suddenly think that Mac OSX copied that approach from Windows as well? You do surely realise that 90% of Microsoft "innovative" ideas are just copied from elsewhere? Let me guess, ActiveDirectory was a unique idea that MS did first as well - even though though took LDAP and hacked it up (like they do virtually every open standard they take).


That product was NT - initially released with the Windows 3.1 interface (NT3.1 & NT3.5x), then Chicago's interface (NT4), and now it has become Windows 2000 (NT5), Windows XP (NT5.1), and Windows 2003 Server (NT5.2).

I think your article was nice.

After XP, what's next?

I think I'll agree with Bill. Once you've created a graphical/mouse-driven interface, what's left? Perhaps the singular extra development in OS in the last few years is the right-click. Any further development of the operating system is eye candy. All windows are about the same.

A significant step in the OS would require a change in the computer technology. When we come up with the "next BEST thing" (3D displays? Glove as mouse? VOice operations?) then a different OS/GUI will be developed to make it easy to handle an interface as different from Windows as Windows was from command line.

The real story I think is hinted at - OS irrelevance. In future, the disk/ display/ audio/ whatever plugs into the network and works (like USB or Firewire) and nobody cares what the software is that drives it - much as today almost nobody cares what software drives a website - it just works. Extra storage, or DVD reader-writer? Plug in a drive - it has the elementary smarts to connect. Extra display? Plug in a browser KVM unit (Keybd/video /mouse, that is). The processor will be just another web or ICA connection. A disk storage unit or basic web server does not need a full OS, and nobody cares what it runs- as long as it plays nicely with all the other units.

The new "Windows" will instead be the defined/de facto standards (like HTML, FTP, ICA) that let all these units interact.

Longhorn and Blackcomb are codenames, like Chicago was for Windows 95.

Wow, not only this article doesn't go anywhere and doesn't say anything, but you even rewrite the story. Mac OS GUI "fruited to measure up to XP" ?? Where did you learn that ? Which one was first on the market ?
Overall what you write is just confusing. What did you want to say ?

I think the problem with Longhorn, the reason it's delayed, is trying to find something that distinguishes it from Windows-so-far. As I said in the earlier post, Windows is about where it can go. So many people still use W98, the only reason to upgrade is (a) you bought hardware that comes with it or (b) you bought something that 98 doesn't support.

MS is trying to come up with features that distinguish longhorn. The file system as database is one... but once you start thinking about it, it creates as many problems as it solves. Database design is not trivial. (Ever tried finding things on Google? Some days it pops right out, somedays the trick is to ask just the right questions, and it take an hour of searching). If you don't paln the file categories ahead of time (or select right when saving) will you find it again? And anyway, when the main selling point of the new windows is "it lets you google your file system" what does that say about the rest of the OS?

I still say the future of the OS is the established/coming standards for interfaces; your disk or camera or MP3 player or screen or DVD-ROM will interface to the home network with (upgradeable?) minimalist embedded code and nobody will care whether it is a stripped down version of WinCE or Linux or whatever.

And Bill Gates will have find something else to stay rich on.

all the posts about the OS becoming irrelevant are at least somewhat correct, but i worry that these are the same people who would build homes without foundations. Frank Lloyd Wright did, and now his structures are sinking into the Earth. a more cogent statement would be that applications and operating systems will cease to exist as separate entities. by that, i don't mean that you will boot up your computer to run Office - we've already been there, remember? it was called Lotus 1-2-3. rather... applications will require less hacks to work properly and in a more integrated manner with the OS. look at Mac OS X, which has PostScript rendering built right into the OS. those are the sorts of things that will pave the way to the future. open standards that allow developers to make applications that actually DO something, rather than having to build your own framework just to get something done. OpenGL, XML, and other open formats are great examples of this. developers don't have to work as hard to reinvent the wheel each time.

i disagree with the article's statement that operating systems aren't growing. Mac OS X is light years ahead of Windows XP and each major OS revision puts Redmond further behind. things like having PostScript rendering built into the OS, wireless connectivity with a minimum of fuss, etc. Windows XP is in a sad state compared to the current Mac OS. just goes to show that, like bad pop music, popularity and public acceptance is often a sign of poor quality.

ROFL... windows is broken, but it is far more open than mac software. I think not one person who has replied so has ever written code before. I like Linux's ideas but until that can come up with a installed you can load on top of any version of linux, which can look at your system and figure out if you have the right rars or take code lode it into and ide and create an application from it, Linux is not ready. Also most software that doesn't get ported is because they don't want other to have access to the source, which could be thousands of man hours of work. OS can evoled in many ways beyound the GUI, and most people don't even realize that the GUI is just a browser like netscape or IE... It has nothing to do with how the OS works. I know someone's going to whine over that last statement but until MS decided it didn't like netscape it was an application that loaded on top of the OS now it just loads as the last step. I do like the ability the GUI's provided I'm not nocking GUI's but some stuff would work better if the GUI was something that wasn't required. As long as the OS has control of the hardrive OS won't get to the next step. But the hardware has at least ten years before we can do what need to. also if MS has a choice we will never get there.