In order to get the next update of its Longhorn operating system out on time, Microsoft will delay some planned feature improvements, sources close to the company said Friday. Also, now that XP’s SP2 has been released, Microsoft is considering what other changes are needed to the XP operating system.
Microsoft overhauls Longhorn plans
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
microsoft.public.windows.developer.winfx.avalon
“Ryan Dawson” wrote:
> It seems that back-porting Avalon to an XP machine would severely restrict
> its functionality. Is this correct? I just can’t comprehend how it is
> technically possible to concurrently run both GDI and Avalon. Can someone
> help me out?
“Keith Patrick” wrote:
Avalon sits on top of Direct3D and renders GDI+ as surfaces on Avalon
windows, so it shouldn’t be much of a technical feat. Longhorn isn’t an
architectural rewrite of XP, either. It shouldn’t be a stretch to get it to
run on XP/2003. Longhorn was branched off either XP or 2003’s code branch,
IIRC
What do you consider “impressive”….???
When they tell us exactly how many server units they ship compared to everyone else.
They make more cash on their shit than ALL of the Linux and Unix server systems combined.. We don’t need Gartner to tell us that….
Because they have a client monopoly, so it is impossible to tell what they class as a server and what they don’t. It is impossible to tell how much money they do actually make, but the revenue side is really unimportant in terms of the figures used. What is amusing is looking at how much revenue Gartner says they make, whilst at the same time telling us that Windows is so much cheaper!
What we want to know is how many units of Windows are sold and used relative to everything else. They fact that they steadfastly refuse to do that doesn’t reflect well.
No CAD programs for Linux? I beg to differ:
I have to agree with the first poster, your link has no enterprise quality CAD software listed. Further, in order to migrate from windows to linux requires either compatibility with already created drawings or a complete conversion of drawings, neither of which exist.
I have experience with this as I have followed linux for a while and one of the places I work had a boss who was interested in migrating from windows to linux due to instability and speed problems. It seems catia4 runs on linux, but its difficult to hook up with someone who will sell the software for this purpose, as they want to sell whole workstations, catia 5 is only available on windows, sun and sgi workstations.
I researched compatibility between catia and solidworks, which the company currently uses for its work, and despite the fact they are 2 products from teh same company, there is no complete migration or compatibility. I also attempted to install solidworks on wine, and it would not install. It left me at a dead end, and left the business with no choice but to continue using windows. Hopefully someday it will be possible, but this is the sort of thing that just keeps windows in a favourable position.
@benito:
CATIA and solid works use different kernels. catia uses a selfmade by dessault, solid works uses parasolid from unigrafics. moving data between two completely different architectures has always been tricky.
@A nun, he moos:
I believe you that qcad has improved, but even autocad is as good as useless when doing mechanical design.
maybe FOSS will get as far as autocad (i doubt it), but the will never reach solidworks&co.
and if you want to see a real beast take a look at ansys
I think I understand you well. I don’t think you understood me correctly, however. All these applications and enhancements that I listed will effect the user experience in a positive way.
For my money, most of the applications are already there, with some notable exceptions. But, adoption of an OS improves the amount of applications being developed for it, wich speeds adoption, etc. ANY enhancement (especially those as pronouced as the ones I listed) will make it easier for a user to switch. I don’t mean that I am incredibly exicted about kernel 3.0 (even though I am
), I mean that if a user’s initial experience with an OS is more end-to-end polished and integrated, that can only leave that user with a better taste in their mouth.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
[i]I don’t think you’ve got the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Yes, Longhorn is more advanced than Quartz “Extreme”. [i]
No. You are once again comparing one part of Apple’s graphics system to an entire OS. Which is fundamentaly wrong. Quartz + Quartz extreme already provides and has provoded for a three years what Avalon will provide whenever it is released. Infact, the Avalon team was founded a few months around when Apple demoed Quatrz Extreme at Siggraph in 2001.
Quartz provides a device independant graphics subsytem sumilar to Cairo and Avalon with hardware acceleration. What hardware acceleration is supported is a function of the capabilites of the graphics cards available in the market when the design decision and release dates were made. Obviously, something released or designed to be released in 2001 will have to make compromises depending on hardware capabilities available at that time.
Avalon is degined to work with tomorrow’s graphics cards. Where as Quartz and Quartz extreme was for 2001+ circa cards. Also the fundamental design of Apple’s graphics system doesn’t prevent them from implementing fully hardware accelerated drawing. The bitmaps rendered in software can easily be moved to the fallback mode and Quartz Extreme can be enhanced to incorporate hardware accelerated vector drawing without any userland APis changing.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen in the 10.5 time frame. So please stop comparing a 3 year old technology to things that are still in the works.