<p>What’s so great about longhorn? And when is it going to be available for the public?</p>
<p>Longhorn is suppose to be the next big Microsoft operating system upgrade. It will have a lot more animation and eye candy in addition to features such as desktop search.</p>
<p>It is also suppose to be more reliable and more secure. Basically the “next big thing.” XP has already been out for like 3-4 years, so it is about time for something new. Longhorn supposedly will come out sometime in 2006, that is if it doesn’t get delayed again.</p>
<p>hook em horns!</p>
<p>and we all know that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger is the best operating system, and when Apple releases the next upgrade of OS X, we’ll still see that Mac OS X is better than Windows.</p>
<p>Sorry, had to say that :)</p>
<p>Let’s have a battle of the animals:</p>
<p>Tiger vs. Longhorn Bull</p>
<p>Who do you have?</p>
<p>Such unusual names for OS. I’d have to say LONGHORN, only because i detest Macs =)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fear of the unknown is needless :)</p>
<p>Longhorn is expected to be released in the latter half of 2006, so there is much time still until its debut. Most of the features that it claims to have at the moment have already been implemented by Mac OS X Tiger, which came out 6 days ago, and some features such as an Expos</p>
<p>Microsoft has one advantage that Apple with never have and that is compatibility. Windows is so widespread that most developers develop for the Windows operating system first, and then port over to other OS afterwards (if they port them over at all).</p>
<p>One area that people don’t give Microsoft for is their hardware compatibility. Look at all of the different types of components that the Windows OS has to be compatible with. Then look at the hardware that the Mac OS has to be compatible with. Apple controls their platform and knows exactly what hardware is in their computers. Microsoft on the other hand does not have that priviledge.</p>
<p>It’s not going to be called Longhorn, that’s just the code-name for it. Also, Microsoft keeps dropping features for it (like WinFS and the search function), so it will probably end up being a small upgrade, rather than a revolutionary new OS. I’m a Windows guy, but it’s tough to get excited about Longhorn, especially with Mac’s excellent new OS.</p>
<p>I love Tiger (and wish i had a powerbook) but if i’m still stuck with my windows laptop when longhorn comes out, i’ll likely upgrade to that</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is true to some extent. For gaming, office applications, CAD, and programs for financial management, things like that, it is exactly true. I know many people who absolutely love Macs, but will not switch because of the limitations of compatibility in the gaming department.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Adobe and Macromedia (who recently merged with Adobe) have been known to develop for the Mac in parallel for the PC recently because much of their following is on the Mac side. Photoshop was one of the first non-Apple applications to have a specialized build for the 64-bit G5 chip. Additionally, the entire CS offering is designed on the mac side to expand the power of dual processor systems.</p>
<p>It is common knowledge now that Apple owns the video-editing industry, which is another compatibility sector that Apple has near complete control over. Final Cut Pro HD, DVD Studio Pro, and the newly-released Motion are all Mac-only and are revolutionary in their respective video fields.</p>
<p>But because graphics and video (and audio) are not what the average computer user needs their computer for, Macs are often overlooked.</p>
<p>I was drawn to Macs initially because of their looks, and then after purchasing a Powerbook I realized what I had been missing for so long, and I also spend a lot of time with Adobe CS now, so I don’t see a reason for having all that compatibility. To each their own…</p>
<p>I run fully on FreeBSD. havent used windows in 8 years</p>
<p>screenshots:
<a href=“http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=150617&p=1&s=26945&a=150625&po=1&i=1,00.asp[/url]”>http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=150617&p=1&s=26945&a=150625&po=1&i=1,00.asp</a></p>
<p>I dunno if I like it</p>
<p>visual improvements are just a bogus way of getting you to spend more money. you can make XP look like whatever you want as it stands now. Personally, I immediately switch any system back to windows 2000 clasic mode because the XP colors suck (screen elements should be neutral colors if you ever want to so much as touch pictures).</p>