Reader Comments

So it's a lot like what Mac OS X can do today then? Editor's note: Not even close. It's far more advanced and powerful. Sort of what you'd expect when you compare a PC to a Mac. --Paul

*YAWN* Mac OS X has had this for years. It's really funny to see Microsoft continue to copy the Macintosh as fast as Apple adds new features and effects. Unfortunately, this stuff is nothing but eye candy and usually gets in the way of getting work done. Editor's note: Not true on both counts. I'll have a detail write-up with screenshots on the SuperSite as soon as possible that will explain why. Don't belittle what you haven't seen and don't understand. --Paul

Wow! A product at least 2 years away will have caught up to OSX. Hardware rendering of OS graphics? Amazing! Translucent window effects? Groundbreaking! Wish MS would spend time on useful projects like actually getting SMS2003 out the door or making a version of Outlook that enables form printing. Editor's note: Actually, Longhorn's graphics go far beyond anything you can do in Quartz. --Paul

This WinHEC capability of next Windows release (codename Longhorn) it seems to be based on ex Be Inc. leading OS called...BeOS...you know, the Desktop rendering engine...Am I wrong ? Cheers ! Perhaps BeOS isn't absolete after all. Cheers.

Query: Will the Longhorn graphics do full-motion video on rotated displays? With flat panels getting downright cheap, and Tablet PCs setting the example of how useful portrait computing can be, it is annoying to have to turn to landscape for video display. Comment: Seems MS is applying their old mantra of abstraction and virtualization to the Windows APIs themselves. Which makes perfect sense in these days of $1 a Gb drives and 256Mb video cards, especially for an OS intended for a 2005-2010 lifecycle. The implications of hardware-assisted virtualization (Palladium-friendly chipsets, Hyperthreading, and DirectX9-level graphics chips) on commodity hardware should open up a whole new set of application development options. This should be fun.

Hi. This sounds like the Quartz Extreme graphics capabilities from Apple utilizing the latest Graphics cards to render each Window as textures. It is quite surprising that MS is utilizing this similar graphics display technology. Would be interesting to compare one to one once Longhorn goes into production. Wonder what Apple would have by then?

BEOS could render movies on all sides of a rotating cube, a long time ago.

Note to the editor : we got your point, no need to repeat it another time - you think it's better than OSX. Still, what you present is nothing which sounds very new or very useful. I am not a Mac fan at all, but still it was also my first thought. The icon at bottom and more eye-candy animation... it smells like MacOSX. If there is more, ok, tell us about it !!

I'm not too hopeful, given the hideous appearance of the standard Windows XP themes, but the key is whether this graphic power improves usability. Mac OS X looks nice, but making the window tabs translucent was stupid. I'll be reading closely to see whether you can really justify the claims that Longhorn is going to be so much more advanced than OS X. Certainly there isn't a thing in your description today that OS X can't do.

Just for those that say MS is copying OS X with translucent windows and hardware rendering, I direct your attention to Windows 2000 which supports windows translucency. Look up the Windows API called SetLayeredWindowAttributes that first showed up in Windows 2000. The other technology is GDI+, which, amongst its other features, uses 3D hardware to render 2D desktop elements. Both predate OS X.

WOW Paul, what a Windows lover, just like those loyal mac fans.

You don't "compare a PC to a Mac" in terms of mghz. Nice "low end machine".

And the "relatively low" hardware configuration includes ATI Radeon 9700 ~ $300 I should, probably, invest in a WARP drive for my system HDD, so that it spins fast enough. How much HDD space does this highly advanced system occupy? And the Editor's note is:

It does sound like a catch-up game (like the initial version of Windows, which couldn't display any overlapping windows at all, but could only tile them). In any case, there are some great texts out there about how Quartz and the graphics layer of Mac OS X work to display the desktop. It's the same thing described here - the display is no longer built up of simple grafports, but is instead composited dynamically in the same way layers of a Photoshop document are composited. I think Mac OS X uses the flexibility this gives in useful ways. It's easier to convey certain types of information (ie - giving the front-most window a bigger drop shadow to really make it feel like it's "on top") while making it all look good (a smooth blending drop shadow is better than a harsh block). I hope Microsoft can use this technology to make that humongous new Sidebar feel less intrusive. While I like the concept of the Longhorn and MSN sidebar, they force themselves too much into the screen real estate and distract my eyes from where they need to be on the screen. Maybe through more natural blending this effect won't feel so harsh.

Paul, I don't see the difference you mention to the other posters here. Your artcle describes the Apple Quartz Extreme technology experience perfectly. Check out: www.opengl.org/developers/code/features/ siggraph2002_bof/sg2002bof_apple.pdf If I missed something that was explained in your article, please explain. Since your audience seems to have a lot of Mac users (4 comments, all Mac users) perhaps you should have described the differences between Longorn and OSX? Pete

Note to Editor: "Not even close"? This turns out not to be the case. "Every window will have its own, full window-sized surface to draw to." Microsoft innovates buffered windows. OK, these were stock items in NeXTSTEP back in 1988, and shipped in Mac OS X right from the start. "The desktop will be dynamically composed many times a second from the contents of each window." Microsoft innovates the compositor. A version shipped in NeXTSTEP, and in Mac OS X it applied to inter-window compositing, the Quartz Compositor. It's hardware accelerated in Quartz Extreme, shipping in Mac OS X 10.2. I have a nice PDF slide show explaining this in detail. "The Windows Longhorn Driver Model allows for the visual effects seen on a user's desktop to scale relative to the available graphics hardware." Microsoft innovates the transformation matrix. Again, in NeXTSTEP from the start, and in Mac OS X. It's hardware accelerated in Quartz Extreme, shipping in Mac OS X 10.2. If you need any more detail, I'll be happy to address any questions or points you might raise.

Comment to the editor - sorry, but your responses to the three above messages just sound like the knee-jerk reaction of a Wintel fanboy - my response is: prove it! Everything that you have described in your article can be done with Quartz + Quartz Extreme: 1) Each window in an app already has its own port to the display system, and can update the window as much as it wants. Quartz then composites the results from all the windows to the screen, with full transparency. Quartz also stores the resulting image in backing store, so that any app that does not need constant refreshing just refreshes from backing store - no need to force the app to display all the time! (and is one of the many things that speed up wake from sleep so dramatically on Macs). 2) Window Shuttering? Playing a movie on a window spinning all over the screen? Sounds like Quartz Extreme depositing a window on a texture map on the 3D card, and playing with the texture map. Ever saw a Quartz Extreme demo of a Quicktime movie playing while the entire window minimizes into the Dock with the Genie Effect? Same diff. 3) Displaying a miniature version of the window - sounds like the miniature version of the window displayed on OSX's dock, although who knows if Microsoft's miniature window will update dynamically, like Quartz Extreme's can... So where are the "more advanced and powerful" features? Up to now it just looks like Longhorn is reaching parity with OS X. I'm all ears! Editor's note: again, there are two aspects to the Longhorn UI, and we're only see one of them. Those are the underlying graphics capabilties, which I've described and will later provide pictures of (Quartz Extreme on the Mac) and the second is the actual GUI, which will be extensively updated compared to what we see in XP (Aqua on OS X). The Longhorn graphics architecture is more advanced than that in Quartz Extreme, and I will discuss this in a long-form SuperSite article as soon as I can; right now, I'm in New Orleans at the show with a full schedule. --Paul

The differance Paul is that MS will still incorperate that great product activation we all love and allow you to install only one copy on one machine. Their paranoid about piracy. Unlike OSX or Linux distros. Even Apple considers activation archaic. And to get these great new technologies you always have to wait 2 to 4 years for a new release, instead of adding them to service packs of the current operating system. The interface still looks XP'ish. OSX is way more stylish and refined. And by the time longhorn makes it out, who knows what Apple will have added to their future operating system. Alot of people posting replies hear still like OSX as a whole better. Apple did something right. MS needs to figure it out.

I'll be curoius to see if Longhorn or MS will allow you to customize the interface, without the need for thirdparty software like Windows Blinds or Style XP. With SuSE 8.2 I have complete control of my user interface, when it comes to customization right out of the box. And I DON'T NEED. additional "third party software" that you have to buy to do it. And with SuSE 8.2 customizing the desktop does not have an affect on the operating system at all.

Professional graphic artists still prefer Mac OSX or Linux over anything Microsoft produces. Look at what ILM and Pixar use as their primary operating systems. Or just look at a professional graphics magazine. Alot more Apple stuff than MS stuff. Editor's note: How do you respond to the fact tha more professional artists, videographers, and photographers use Windows than Mac OS? --Paul

So the new windowing is more advanced and powerful than Quartz Extreme? If all we have to go on is what's on this article, I'm wondering how one can say that. Honestly when I have my Longhorn beta machine next to my OSX machine... the resemblance is amazing. I'm a windows and a mac weenie, so I'm just telling you my opinion from a neutral point of view. Granted Longhorn is a year or so away from release... but Apple will have already release Panther and who knows what else in between. Let the race begin! WOO HOO! Us consumers benefit :-)

In fact Apple copied the interface from Xerox so they shouldn't brag so much. Apple takes advantage of Xerox's incompetence. As does Microsoft of Apple's. Kind regards.

Not just is Longhorn a product that keeps getting delayed, but... it is also a product that MS representatives have hinted may be delayed until 2006-2007. In addition, these amazing new UI graphic capabilities are so... "amazing"... that you can notice in the screenshot how it has totally screwed up transparencies in handling edge/corner full transparency. And so many of these "new and exciting" features already exist and are actually either being licensed - or stolen from others (as is always the case with any new Win release - and the cause for literally hundreds of source and technology theft lawsuits against MS every year). Stardock being one of the companies assisting MS yet again. So far, in the last few releases, MS has touted "great new features" - of which all have already existed as 3rd party tools, apps or upgrades, and most of which have actually been done with the help of Stardock or IBM (do you have any idea the staggering amount of bugs MS pays IBM to help them fix? MS has gotten so poor at fixing their own bugs they are ever increasingly asking IBM for help to do so) - or help from others (some unwittingly) who had also released the "new feature" years before MS announced it. Why cant even ONE reviewer actually come clean on this stuff? MS didnt write these "new" features. They've been available to some extent or other for in many cases, numerous years. So yeah, you may be accurate in saying that they are new features to be *in* Windows, but they are far from new features available to add to an existing install.

Don't be silly, this isn't even comparable to what Quartz does. In actual fact it's probably the opposite. Quartz basically pastes everything down to a single PDF style image. Which is what gives it a nice crispness. This on the other hand will break all the elements down and make them look after themselves a little better. Quartz is hardware accelerated rendering only in that the drawing is so hungry that it needs a certain type of accelerator to run it. This is accelerated in that it uses the tremendous (and at the OS level, wasted) graphical power of modern computers to allow new levels of graphical detail and interaction. Personally I hope they don't go too crazy on the effects. I am a professional user and don't much WANT my window to flutter like a goddamned flag when I move it. I want it to move quickly, cleanly, neatly. I want it to draw in instantly, or better still, never draw OUT. I want it to not have to delay drawing in so it can spin up my goddamned CD-Rom drive so it can tell that the PR0N23 CD is still in there. Errr... what was I saying? Yeah. Apples. Bear in mind people that this is still two years away. Do you honestly think Apple are that far ahead? Do you honestly think MS cannot innovate? In my opinion MS genuinely innovates as often as Apple. That being... not very often. I'm really sick of Apple people harping on that XP was basically a screen shot of OSX with Apple scribbled out in crayon. Grow up people. This is (more or less) verbatim a conversation I had with a mac zealot friend recently. "Why does your OSX look so much like XP?" "Ha ha ha... why does XP look so much like OSX? They just stole all of OSX and made it crash!" "No, seriously. Your desktop image is Bliss.jpg. It's the default desktop for windows XP." "Oh. Really? I found it on the net. I liked it." I think that says something, folks. Have MS been inspired by some things Apple have done? Probably. But I don't think much beyond "Let's make it prettier". And I'm fine with that. In much the same way Apple looked at Win95 and said "hey, lets steal that bar thingy at the bottom." They saw something that works, and they improved on it. Good on them. And from the looks of it, MS will take that a step further. It's worth pointing out at this point that a lot of the things that happen in technology are not new. They're just possible. People said MS copied XP because it's buttons weren't square. Seriously. That's about the only similarity I can see. And the reason for that is not because they copied, but because hardware is only now at a point where non-square, alphaed bitmaps can be effectively used. As far as I can tell, the only realistic comparison is that "OSX looks better than the previous version, and XP looks better than the previous version, therefore they must have copied Apple." Ummm... questionable at best. Anyway, my point, lost in rant, is that this will be interesting and important technology. Don't lose sight of that in brand based bigotry. MS will release this. Apple will look and go. "Hey that's neat." And the cycle of plagiarism will go on eternally, as it should. This and quartz are not comparable. Quartz is the present (for Apple, anyway), and Longhorn is the future for microsoft. They both have their place. Matt

wow, i guess it will have a zoom-effect when you minimize a window, and i'm pretty sure it will play even videos in a minimized view. like osX :-) and by the way, as in osX, the graphic is usually provided by the operating system, so there's no need to adapt software to take advantage of the new graphic layer. but as far as i know MS, they still have one and a half year to sc**w it!

"It's far more advanced and powerful. Sort of what you'd expect when you compare a PC to a Mac. --Paul" You are not prejudiced, Paul, are you? Oh, I know, you just forgot to include the ironic-smiley. ;-) Julian Editor's note: it's not bias. I run both OS X and XP. It's called "real world experience". --Paul

Paul, that's strange, let me quote your own words from an article last year: "Want an Early Peek at the Longhorn 3D Display? Check out Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" Speaking of similar but not the same, one of the more confusing features of the next Windows version is its 3D-based user interface, which some people have taken to mean that Longhorn will somehow incorporate a bizarre spatial UI, similar to that depicted in the Michael Crichton's novel Disclosure. That'd be nice, but it's not true. Instead, Longhorn will feature a desktop-based, task-driven UI based on that in XP, but substantially updated. Where the 3D comes into play is through Longhorn's incorporation of Direct3D, Microsoft's 3D display technology (used today primarily in games), which will be used to render desktop objects. Interestingly, this display approach is also being incorporated into the next Mac OS X version, code-named Jaguar, which will ship later this month. Of course, Jaguar uses Open GL instead of Direct3D for what Apple calls its Quartz Extreme display, but the net effect is the same: Under each OS, the desktop is essentially a 3D scene with objects rendered as textured polygons. And while users with low-end hardware will see desktop effects similar to today's OSes, Longhorn and Jaguar users with decent 3D video cards will see dramatic performance and display appearance improvements, similar to the effect such users would expect when playing 3D games. Good stuff, and yeah, Apple's delivering it first." (http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=26142 ) Paul, i have semi-transparent OpenGL-Teapots here with environment mapping rotating directly on my Desktop, smoothly, hardware-accelerated all on a 3 year old G4-400 with Radeon8500 (so much for the "low-level" P4 1.5 GHz with Radeon9700!)! What's this "far more powerful" you're talking about? It's certainly not in your Article, cause what you describe in there is an *exact* copy of Quartz (2001) and Quartz Extreme (2002)!

Ok, so the rendering might be a bit cleverer than Quartz, but what about BeOS / Zeta? That can run multiple videos without problems on *far* lower spec'd hardware than a P4 with a 9700 graphics card! Editor's note: What about the Amiga? I think it's only fair to compare it to products that are actually being sold today. --Paul

"Sort of what you'd expect when you compare a PC to a Mac." --- What? The PC of the future compared to a Mac today? This is what I expect: When Longhorn finally is out, the Mac already has some features that MS can copy again. Same procedure as every year.... Editor's note: I meant, PCs perform better than Macs, so obviously, Longhorn's graphic effects perform better than those in Mac OS X. --Paul

Didn?t you write this: "Want an Early Peek at the Longhorn 3D Display? Check out Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" last year?? Editor's Note: Like most people, hopefully, I know more now than I did a year ago. --Paul

Hey, "Editor", MS *is* ripping off Apple... it's called "Quartz Extreme", and it does EXACTLY what MS demonstrated. http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/quartzextreme.html This is NOT new... and it does not "go far beyond anything you can do in Quartz", nor is it "far more advanced and powerful". And in terms of comparing a PC to a Mac, it seems as though MS & HP like what Apple's doing... http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58745,00.html Get your head out of your ass. Thanks for the kind words. I've used Mac OS X for two years, am familiar with Quartz and Quartz Extreme, and again, what Longhorn can do is superior. --Paul

Totally lame excuses Paul. As stated by others, pretty well everything you described about Longhorn in your article has been available in OSX from it's introduction. Maybe you lack the skills to adequately convey these wondrous superior features through words or perhaps you're being blinded by your Microsoft-coloured glasses. Whatever, your "just wait until you see it" just doesn't cut it. From off-loading video processing to levels of transparency to scaling to mini versions of windows in the Task bar (Quicktime windows still running)... all and more are in OSX today. You do a disservice by pandering to the Windows minions by not being honest about MS always playing catch up (particularly with Apple) and by not pointing your audience to OSX today to see where Microsoft is going tomorrow (and MS has even stated some is just testing and bottom line, is still a couple of years off). You exhibit the classic "if I ignore it (Apple), it's irrelevant and will go away". And I thought you more honest and open-minded than that. Fortunately for Windows users, your beloved Microsoft does just the opposite and follows Apple's every move :-) (Even photos I've seen of the new Athena desktop looks eerily like the Mac/OSX (variation of Quantum Foam). Microsoft... things never change.) Editor's note: I've never discussed the Athena desktop, I'm talking about Longhorn. I'll have better shots up on the SuperSite as soon as I can. In the meantime, I've seen both the Longhorn UI and the Mac OS X UI, and you haven't, and yes, the Longhorn version is technically superior. --paul

May I ask why this site allows reader comments when the editor insists on criticising them all? His level of fanaticism for Microsoft software is really quite amazing. As for not understanding the subject, a harsher person might suggest that this indicates a failure on the part of the article's author... Editor's note: I guess if I was a real loser, I'd just delete the comments I didn't like. As we allow anonymous posting, I feel this is a fair tradeoff.--Paul

I´ve seen the preview on winsupersite - and i´m very impressed. M$ has created a whole new OS without groundbraking new developements. Oh - i´ve forgot the "long awaited clock" in the login window. With all this goodies it can´t match todays Jaguar neither in technology nor in usability. And again: todays OS X! A editor wrote two years ago "Seeing todays mac is seeing windows in two years" It has never been more true. I´m pationly await MacOS XI (on 2004/2005) ;-). AW Editor's note: Sorry, you're wrong. --paul

The first thing I do with a new XP system is turn off all the animation effects: they're annoying and distracting. Why would I want windows to go flippy-floppy like a wet dishrag when I drag them across the screen? P.S. I've been using Windows since version 2.1, and have never used any flavor of Macintosh.

Any of you who would like to see what may be possible in longhorn, look at todays Mac OS X. Microsoft is just copying again, this time its quartz extreme. So don't be too proud of microsoft. By the time longhorn is released this will be very old stuff.

shut up, paul! Don't belittle what you haven't seen and don't understand! Editor's note: I haven't yet done that, and I'll try to refrain from doing so in the future --TheManWhoIsPaul.

One flaw in Quartz Extreme that has yet to be addressed is font smoothing. Quartz Extreme cannot render crisp text below 12pt, this at the system level. It really has a deleterious effect on the user experience. In addition, not all apps take advantage of Quartz Extreme. Editor's note: So you've just listed two of the many ways in which Longhorn's graphics architecture is superior to Quartz Extreme. See how easy that is? :) --paul

Interesting. Like many have said, this sounds a lot like Quartz Extreme on the Mac. Paul says its not the same. I await a full explanation as to why. It certainly looks the same from his article. That's not to say it's a bad thing, of course, it's a logical progression now that graphics cards often have more (specialized) power than the CPU. What I find interesting is that MS is not moving away from GDI(+) and WM_PAINT as a way of doing the drawing. The article states: "each window acts as if it's always 100 percent visible, forcing it to redraw itself constantly". Hmmm. Sounds like it's actually Quartz Extreme without the Quartz. I've not used Quartz, but as a Win32 programmer that's done a fair amount of graphics code, I always thought it sounded nice. The idea that the Windows still requires my program to keep track of what needs to be redrawn when my window is uncovered (for example) strikes me as a bit backward. Surely *everyone* is re-writing this sort of thing all the time. I like the idea of rendering to pseudo-PDF, and letting the OS take it from there. Oh well. Editor's note: I'm not sure how anyone could get enough out of this article to compare Longhorn's graphics architecture to Quartz Extreme, as it's just a news article/overview, not an in-depth examination of the technology. I'll have more detailed information as soon as I can. --Paul

I'll reserve final judgment when Longhorn ships, but then 10.3 will probably be available when Longhorn is available. Currently, it's a product demo vs. shipping OS X Quartz Extreme. Doesn't matter if it looks more advanced--_it_ain't_shipping_. Guess it will be interesting to see what WWDC 2003 has in store in a month or so. Editor's note: First sane note from a Mac fan here, I think. :) And yep, you're right. I expect Apple to keep pushing ahead and do some great stuff. Frankly, right now, the big problem with Apple's hardware is the CPU: If they can fix that, you guys will have some valid arguments. Right now, though, the Mac is just treading water. You can say what you want about innovation, Apple-had-it-first, or other often-incorrect assumptions about the relationship between Apple and Mac wares, but if Apple doesn't jump on the right CPU ship this year, the 1.42 GHz boxes its pumping out now in record low numbers isn't going to help at all. in any event, yeah... I'm eager to see what Apple can come up with at the WWDC. And one thing that gets lost in all this is that I really do like their stuff. I'm surprised when people have such violent reactions to anything that challenges their assumptions about the way the world works. Apple isn't always first, best, or fastest. It's OK. --Paul

"ATI's RADEON 9700 3-D graphics card." Paul, the system you mentioned is definately not "relatively low level". Currently a 9700 is a pretty ninja-spec graphics card. Even by the time Longhorn is released, it will still be pretty good technology. Editor's note: Longhorn is shipping in two years. How much does an NVIDIA GeForce 2 MX cost today? I think they give them away in Cheerios boxes now. --Paul

One of the previous commenters spoke of the high expense of a Radeon 9700 card. This fails to take into account that such a card will be well under $100 by the time Longhorn reaches the market. By then DirectX 9 class video hardware should be quite common and it would be very disappointing if it weren't properly supported. Microsoft has a very different set of problems than Apple when it comes to rolling out new hardware support. Apple has a monopoly (ooh, that word!) on its hardware and can easily dictate what willbe the minimum system shipped with anew S generation. Microsoft doesn't enjoy that level of control over PC vendors, many of who still shipped machines with anemic 810 graphics when XP became their standard OS and thus crippled some of the new functionality. Microsoft has to keep supporting older stuff that still ends up on new corporate desktops long after its passed into the bargain basement of consumer PCs. Does much of this sound like what Apple has been doing? Sure, get over it. You could have a dozen completely separate teams starting new operating systems from scratch to run on current and near future available hardware and you'd very likely end up with similar descriptions of the graphics functionality because that is what modern makes practical. (NeXT tried to do a lot of this long ago but it surely wasn't practical with what they had available then and could become torturous in realworld use.) The real issue is in implementation and how well the result applie to realworld use. Quartz Extreme has impressed a lot of people but only sold computers to already dedicated Jobs-Ade drinkers. I used BeOS for a while and it was quite spiffy but you'd expect a lot from something that no legacy issues at all to overcome. Those legacy issues are also where the value of existing systems lie, in that they have substantial libraries of software that make the system useful to people with work to do who don't care about technical aesthetics. Be Inc. completely failed to make a compelling argument to anyone who wasn't a techie like me and thus offered no reason for major software companies to view it as an opportunity. Microsoft's job is not to be the first anywhere with the new features. It's to deliver something that runs the majority of what people are already invested in while offering environmental improvements that lead in turn to better applications and more stuff sold. This is vastly more effort than just doing it from scratch and not having to worry about breaking stuff.

Oh boy... When will these guys ever start to innovate? Why not admit it: the Mac is just sexier and stop copying all the stuff it can do? After all, Microsoft have now ripped everything from the trashcan to the animated minimizing from the Mac OS. Why not do something new and fresh for a change? (PC User with secret Mac desires) Editor's note: Sigh. Look, Mac hardware is nice. They are saddled by slow processors, and hopefully that will change. Microsoft isn't "copying" Apple here; they've been working on this technology for years and need to wait until there a large enough base of users with the appropriate hardware before they can use this tech. It's not like the small, controlled Mac market where you know all about the 11 configurations that are used by 90 percent of the users. The PC world is huge, dynamic and infinitely malleable, and it's amazing that any company can make an OS that runs on all those different systems. Certainly, there are places were Apple has copied from Microsoft. --paul

How does this come even close to objective journalism? Nothing of what has been said comes close to convincing me that Longhorn's graphics subsystem is anything other than a copy of Quartz Extreme. Protestations of "it's better on a PC" that are not backed up and only serve to reinforce the a perception of bias. QE has been universally praised as nothing short of revolutionary - it's completely different (not to mention superior) than anything on the market. I run OSX and XP side by side on a daily basis - I try to spend as much time in OSX as possible). If Longhorn is somehow better or offers capabilities that QE does not currently support, back it up. It's still more than 2 years behind Apple's efforts, and 10+ years behind the original inspiriation, Display Postscript. I don't trust *ANYTHING* Microsoft does. They are at best tolerated. I have yet to understand how anyone can see them as anything other that arrogant peddlers of mediocre software. How much has Microsoft paid you for your press credentials?

Help! I was looking for WinInformant comments area and got diverted to a Mac site ;-) Seriously, though, whether the Longhorn compositor + renderer walks and talks the same as Quartz or not is beside the point. The fact is, it only makes sense to use hardware rasterization where it's available, if for no other reason than to let the CPU do more 'actual work'. In that regard, since I'm considering a PC purchase this year (obviously it won't have Longhorn to start with, but nevertheless it'll probably see it in its' lifetime), I'll be interested to see how the performance is at the three levels, and what new features will be 'commonly available' to applications. And, as MacOS X has already shown, well-placed effects can add to the appeal and functionality of a system's UI. A question: Did someone mention that the rendering would come to existing applications automatically? The applications you saw running are all Microsoft ones, and *could* have been altered for the Longhorn demonstration at WinHEC. Anyways, looking forward to seeing more screenshots and more details of this technology. Editor's note: Here's what happens. God forbid anyone make an accurate comment about the relative speeds of PCs and Macs: The Mac brigade jumps on the bandwagon and slams things they don't understand (Longhorn graphics and probably Quartz Extreme for that matter) and people they don't trust (me) despite the fact that I actually use Macs regularly and am very honest about the experience. But hey, this is America. I won't edit or delete their comments, but I will throw in my two cents worth. To your questions. Yes, the rendering is applied to any window on the screen, any app, from any vendor. The performance of Longhorn's GUI is very much 3D hardware accelerator based: So you can have a fairly slow CPU (1.5 GHz, which, ahem is a faster clock than any Mac, but a low-level machine at best in the PC world), but if you have a cranking (64-128 MB) GPU, you're all set. --Paul

>In addition, not all apps take advantage of Quartz Extreme. This is simply not true. QE is handled at the Window Manager level. The "taking advantage" of part is a function of the hardware in your machine. Furthermore...I believe that ALL currently shipping Apple hardware (and all hardware shipping since QE was released) is QE capable. Editor's note: Not quite. But today, all Macs can take advantage of QE, yes. However, Apple only sells about 2-3 million Macs a year so, at most, 3-4 million Macs are running QE effectively or at all. --Paul

> In fact Apple copied the interface from Xerox so they shouldn't brag so much. Incorrect, revisionist history. Sorry. Editor's note: No. This is actually correct. I recommend reading "Dealers of Lightning" for a detailed explanation, but this is accurate. --Paul

Alright look... Microsoft copies Apple. Apple copies Microsoft. This is what the software industry is all about. Someone comes up with a good idea. Someone else improves it. On and on. Innovation... sometimes. Imitation... you bet. Plenty of examples on both sides. So is Longhorn a Quartz ripoff? Who cares. Even if it is, MS will throw in a few ideas of their own. Then Apple will improve on that design with their own extensions. On and on. Guess who wins? Yep. You and me.

You lot a very sad. I thought i read the comment for some interesting info on longhorn yet it's just full arguments about how apple had it first. Who cares?

>> Incorrect, revisionist history. Sorry. > Editor's note: No. This is actually correct. I recommend reading "Dealers of Lightning" for a detailed explanation, but this is accurate. --Paul No. Wrong. I suggest you read the following: http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html. Apple took many of the basic IDEAS from Xerox...but they developed them WAY beyond what Xerox did (in many ways). Not so much in other ways. Editor's note: Naturally, Apple went beyond PARC, noone is suggesting otherwise. To say that the Lisa and Mac would have looked anything like they did without the PARC visit, however, is laughable. --Paul

This is simply not true. QE is handled at the Window Manager level. The "taking advantage" of part is a function of the hardware in your machine. Furthermore...I believe that ALL currently shipping Apple hardware (and all hardware shipping since QE was released) is QE capable. Editor's note: Not quite. But today, all Macs can take advantage of QE, yes. However, Apple only sells about 2-3 million Macs a year so, at most, 3-4 million Macs are running QE effectively or at all. --Paul "Not quite" what? You said exactly what I said. All CURRENTLY SHIPPING (and shipping since about May 2002) are QE enabled.

Re Matt Burgess 1. Why do people assume Paul is biased because he likes the products of a company? If someone writes an article saying "OSX is rather good" people don't jump up and down yelling "APPLE PAID YOU!". What is with you people? It's one man's opinion. And it's worth pointing out it's an INFORMED opinion, unlike most of his critics. Gee... do you think the fact Paul runs a couple of in-depth Window's sites and often has direct contact with the MS mother ship might have something to do with possible bias? In one breath, Paul casts faint praise on Apple or claims he has nothing against it, then in the next, throws deliberate barbs and insults. He is either schizophrenic or a deliberate s**t disturber (he does make mischievous appearances at Mac sites too... hint, hint) (The number of replies in this thread alone must be setting a record... a coincidence?) 2. I am a graphic designer. Many of the people I know are graphic designers. Not.... a.... single... one... uses... a... mac. Let me make that clear. Not one. The only people I know who use a mac are two Zealot apple sales people and an idiotic american. Excuse the redundancy. And I play the drums... that doesn't make me Buddy Rich. Maybe you run in an unusual (uninformed, "bigoted"?) crowd.... and perhaps the Mac users you insulted think highly of you too. I know I don't. (re your "idiotic american " remark... hope you're not Canadian because, being a Canuck myself, IMO that is a shameful comment to make but is, in any event, still quite revealing about you) Some people try to use a hammer and chisel when they really need a wrench so you using Windows for graphics proves nothing re Mac usage for graphics. I've seen shops that had, or know, nothing other than Windows and tried to make them work... sometimes successfully but only after much hair pulling. Rather than use the right tool for the job (A Mac in this case) and avoid all the trouble, they fought with Windows (Or are you claiming Windows is always best at everything? Are you Bill Gates in disguise?). These self-imposed heartaches lead me to believe many Windows users must be masochists (witness the almost weekly MS bug & security fixes you love to endure). An independent, professional graphics magazine ran a poll a couple of years ago and the results showed over 75% used/preferred Macs. You'll probably claim only Mac users likely to respond. It's unlikely the numbers have gone from 75%+ to the few you claim. I also find Paul's earlier claim to be suspect (reply to Bob - Editor's note: How do you respond to the fact tha more professional artists, videographers, and photographers use Windows than Mac OS? –Paul). Yes, how does one respond as where did he get these numbers? From the Microsoft Ministry of Truth? A wish pulled out of a hat? Where??? Final Cut Pro is a hit with many video pros (especially when used on a TiBook... an editing studio/suite on the go) and many magazines/newspapers/designers use Macs for art, layout and photos. Macs are also popular in the music industry or did Paul forget to cook those numbers too? Maybe he confused those numbers with the self-taught amateurs and do-it-yourselfers at home who have Windows (thus the high user numbers with MS's 90% market share) because many pros in the media industry still employ Macs. 3. How can people get so fired up about mocking things they haven't seen? Seriously. Everyone here who has seen both Longhorn and OSX, please raise your hand. No? Alright, then, shut the f*** up! Maybe it's because Paul went into great detail describing Longhorn's look and workings and from that, it's apparent similarity to OSX in underlying functionality? Or do you not believe what he's telling you? I may disagree with his subsequent claims of supposed superiority to OSX, but I do trust his technical info and working description even if IMO his eye-witness account may be jaded :-) 4. Let's be clear here. Quartz and Longhorn ARE NOT COMPARABLE. They are not the same. Longhorn is not "catching up" or chasing. Its totally different. The fact that it makes the pretty pictures is the only connection. Again, this comes down to shut up until you've seen it. Certainly they are NOT THE SAME but how can you say they're not comparable when much of what Paul described about Longhorn parallels OSX ? (video off-loading, transparency and visual effects, mini windows, etc... see other postings) And how is MS not "catching up" since what it is claiming for the (possible) future in Longhorn is available now in OSX? (Even if you disagree with the actual, behind the scenes techno-workings, the visual presentation, functionality and effects are basically the same.) And why wait until we've actually seen it? If you didn't know Paul was describing Longhorn, you'd think he was taking about OSX (if you'd seen or used it at all). Flame away :-) (Don't say I never do anything for you Paul... this should bump your hit numbers up for you even more :-) Editor's note: LOL. Well thanks man. I'm not sure how I get in the middle of these things. Sometimes spilling your guts doesn't pay, I guess. --Paul

First off, I would like to comment on a couple points that "rico" brought up: -I don't know if I'm addressiong the same thing you are, but Quartz can antialias text clearly down to about 8 point. You can adjust the text sizes that OS X will antialias in the General preference pane. You can also specify the degree of antialiasing so it looks best on your particular monitor. -To my knowledge, Quartz Extreme is at the system level, so all applications should be able to take advantage of it. Secondly, the key difference I see is that OS X always will give you most of the transparency/animation/fade effects even if you don't have a graphics chip that can support Quartz Extreme. In this case, theprocessor will be used to drive the effects. Quartz Extreme adds more niceties (like the ability to cycle through desktop background pictures every hour, minute, of 5 seconds with a nice fade effect between) and faster graphics preformance. (Though even without Quartz extreme, I can run 4 looping QuickTime movies at once without any dropped frames) The only flaw I see in Quartz is that window resizing can be a little slow (I think it has something to do with it having to render a drop-shadow for each window). Drives me nuts. Which graphic engine's better? It's too early to call. Let's see how Longhorn shapes up and compares to whatever OS X version is out in '05. Quite frankly, I don't care what platform others use as long as they feel comfortable and productive with it.

"...was a relatively low-level 1.5GHz Pentium 4 with 384MB of RAM and ATI's RADEON 9700 3-D graphics card." Low-level? A 384mb, p4 1.5ghz machine with ati's fastest video card to date, faster than nvidia's geforces, and you say that's "relatively low-level"??!? Editor's note: Uh, yeah, actually. The PC is low-level, the video card is high-level. That card should cost about $40 a pop in 2005 when Longhorn is released, and the 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 will be a historical footnote. --Paul

Apple *bought* the privilege of visiting PARC and taking a look at the research Xerox was doing, along with the privilege of building things based on that research. Xerox got a chunk of Apple stock as part of the deal, and the Apple people weren't allowed to physically touch anything at Xerox, they could only watch demos. There's also a huge difference between what the Apple people saw in their visit to PARC and what was shipped on the Lisa and the Macintosh. (For instance, support for refreshing overlapped windows, and a menu bar.) A good overview of the differences and the process of innovation is in "Inventing the Lisa Interface," a paper by members of the original Lisa team that originally appeared in ACM Interactions. I bet you didn't know that some of the inspiration for the spatially-oriented desktop metaphor came from work done at IBM.

Paul, you wrote on September 20, 2002: > It turns out, however, that the 3D UI in Longhorn is much more complicated and capable than anything in Jaguar. Then you wrote on May 6, 2003: > The Longhorn graphics architecture is more advanced than that in Quartz Extreme, and I will discuss this in a long-form SuperSite article as soon as I can[...] Now, I sort of enjoy your Mac musings, but don't you think people in this discussion have a point when they basically tell you to "put up or shut up" when it comes to you dissing Quartz Extreme in favor of Longhorn graphics? I mean, you just can't keep insisting for months that Longhorn will be more advanced than QE, while admitting that since September 2002 you haven't been able to dig up enough info about Longhorn to support your claim! And if you did know all this time, why haven't you written about it yet? Editor's note: It's going up today, actually. We didn't see it until last week, and I was at WinHEC all week and hardly had the time to write a long-form article. My Longhorn preview, however, will be up today and yes, I spent half the weekend on it. Enjoy. --Paul

About the never-dying Xerox-Discussion: Here's the facts, and you can read them up straight from the horse's mouth, from the People that used to work at Xerox AND later on Apple, namely Bruce Horn and Jef Raskin: http://humane.sourceforge.net/published/holes.html I see the Mackido-page has already been mentioned.. I'm sorry, but those are the facts! Not some badly researched drivel from Robert Cringely, who originally wrote "triumph of the nerds" which got turned into "pirates of silicon valley" for TV and which is the root of these false "facts" that just won't die! As much as he wants to make you believe: Cringely WAS NOT THERE! Jef and Bruce were, very much! They're the people that MADE what's being questioned! Oh, and to Matt Burgess: You *do* happen to know that the OS X dock is actually NeXTs heritage, which is OS X' forefather and has had this dock since its release in 1987, 8 years before Win95? Jeez, I just can't stand when people keep saying the Dock was copied from the makeshift-Windows-taskbar! Even some Mac-Journos do that, cause they've never seen NeXT! I also used to think the Taskbar ist a great feature, but when i switched to Mac i realized it's just a lame makeshift because with most Windows-apps running fullscreen and no global menu-bar you's simply have no other way of switching apps without the keyboard! And now please someone tell me what exactly i need a GUI and "Windows" for if i run 80% of my apps in Fullscreen anyway? Multitasking fullscreen-Program-switchers were around for DOS aswell! You can't even drag stuff onto that friggin Taskbar and minimizing 5 Webpages gives me 5 nice "Internet Exp..."-Bars that don't tell me *anything* about which is which page! Windows makes you scream in pain sometimes... Did i say 'sometimes'? I meant 'always' really! Rico: Quartz does super-small Text perfectly. I assume you are using Camino, which only does proper DisplayPDF with the two main fonts! Try using Omniweb with super-small fonts to see what i mean! And all Carbon/Cocoa Apps take advantage of Quartz Extreme, since the last Java-Update even Java-Apps do, as well as Apples X11! So what exactly are you talking about? Oh, and "I'll-soon-tell-the-secret-on-the-Supersite"-Paul: Where exactly has Apple copied from M$? I'm most keen to learn! Also about this new "far more powerful" Longhorn-GUI you're constantly talking about! And i find it most ironic that you blame the Mac-ppl here for "slamming a Longhorn-Graphics-System they don't understand" when you just wrote an article whose contents unfortunately leave us no other choice than to see an exact copy of QE! You blame your readers for not knowing stuff you failed to tell them/told wrong? Paul: "Here's Chrysler's new car, and it's amazing: (picture of a BMW)" Readers: "Damn, that looks 100% like a BMW! Why did Chrysler copy BMW?" Paul: "No, it's way way better than a BMW, it's not comparable at all, please don't judge what you don't know! Some day in the distant future i will actually explain why!" Actually, Apple sells more like over 4 Million Macs a year, and has been selling QE-ready Macs since way before QE was introduced, and there's also the option of upgrading older G4s with QE-ready cards. So your "at most 3-4 Million Macs running QE" should not be quite correct. Apple now has about 6 Million OS X users, and i guess over 90% are running 10.2 with QE.. Editor's note: Untrue, and I can prove it. (and Apple hasn't hit the 4 million mark in a few years, but whatever.) The Jef Raskin account of the PARC event has already been debunked by many, many people, and Raskin is an unbelievable rewriter of history and grabber of credit. Here's one excellent and credible example, also from MacKido: http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_horn1.html It was written by Bruce Horn, a guy who, like Raskin, was there and knows what happened in the early days. He references an article by the NYT which also addresses this issue, but unlike Raskin, tells the truth about it. http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/5601198.htm The key points, in Horn's words: "I do consider that the Mac (and the Lisa before it) is a distinct descendent of the Alto ... Raskin's history is, to put it bluntly, skewed and in places simply incorrect. Iconic displays, popup menus, windows, modeless text editing, direct manipulation user interfaces, etc. were all developed at PARC and SRI well before Raskin ever visited PARC. The Lisa project shifted directions dramatically after Apple visited ... (I was there at that meeting too)... To credit Raskin with these concepts is to fail to credit the original innovators at PARC and SRI, and the people who came from PARC to further their work at Apple." No offense, but Jef Raskin is hardly the person you want to rally around. The truth is out there. --Paul

Just a quick response to a few things. First, Timbob - Yes, in the professional world a 384mb P4 1.5 gig is not even CLOSE to high end. It would be slightly below the middle. I personally use a 1.1ghz athlon wth 500meg of ram and I consider it a junker (nearly). I'm not sure if you're from an Apple background or not, but for a PC the top end is at 3Gigaherz, with a faster bus speed than the 1.5 is capable of, faster ram, and Hyperthreading. So you're looking at double the clockspeed off the bat, plus new technologies and improvements. And frankly not only is 384 meg of ram not a lot these days I'd go so far as to say not ENOUGH. XP alone will take a big bite out of 256meg. Ditto for OSX. That being said, the video card is excellent. The point being that they are discussing direct X 9 technology, and those features are not available in many older cards. Admittedly it IS a bit misleading, though. Still, Paul's point is valid. Today's Render farm is tomorrow's Ipaq. Joe - You've made some good points. You're right. Paul clearly has interest in Microsoft. I'm not talking PAID, but professional. What he says should be taken with that in mind. Same as Linux stuff on slashdot, or mac stuff on macrumours. What I object to is people's inability to believe that people might like and use MS software by choice! That while most people frankly use it by default (and I'd like to see a viable alternative myself, to keep the bastards honest) there are a lot of people who are active, enthusiastic supports. I'm not really one of them. But I appreciate his point of view. Anyway, on with the show. My personal background. You're right, my crowd is a little unusual in that a lot of them are WEB designers, not just graphics. That tends to have a lot greater lean towards windows, for exactly the same reasons you mentioned before. Many of them are self-taught. There's nothing wrong with that. Some of them are exceptional. I'm not so great, but hey. I can't blame the OS for that. And by the way, I'm Australian. My comment was not intended as a viscious racial slur but a light jibe. We do that. I know smart americans, and dumb americans. Smart australians and dumb australians. I think this particular guy actually lowers the US average, but hey... So consider that comment withdrawn. Your comments about a hammer and chisel and the windows problems are interesting. But ultimately wrong. You make it sound like using windows is WRONG. But it's a choice, and a valid one. If a hammer and chisel cost half as much to do twice the job they'd surely be worth a look? Apple just aren't cutting it any more. Don't get me wrong, they make some fine stuff. Their laptops particularly are streets ahead of PC based laptops, in style, features and performance. But Apple hardware is behind. Their clockspeeds aren't up there, and before you say "Megahertz Myth" their overall performance is getting poorer and poorer. Bottom line - price for performance on a PC is better. Ask Adobe. Look at any independent benchmarks. On a series of recent video editing and photoshop demos a 3 gig Dell Pentium 4 beat a dual processor 1.25Ghz (not the fastest, but the fastest at the time) Powermac, with nearly DOUBLE the performance, and a THOUSAND dollars cheaper. As for a professional graphics magazine stats, you're probably right. Graphic design is the one industry that apple still have a death grip on, though the numbers are slipping in this area, same as education, another Apple stronghold once upon a time. But is it because the Apple products are the best tool for the job? Or simply mis-placed and single minded brand loyalty? I don't mind brand loyalty, but I DO mind brand snobbery. Don't assume that the Mac is the only choice for graphics professionals. It's not. It's just one. I don't think people are stupid for chosing a Mac. They have their reasons. But I definitely dispute that the Mac is the best tool for many jobs now. Possibly video and sound editing, but only because good software design compensates for the limitations of the hardware. Also because Apple has a foothold in those industries from a time when it WAS undisputably better. As for people having tremendous problems making Windows work, what the hell were they doing? It's not hard. There are a few factors here. One is cost. While PCs are cheaper than Macs anyway, you don't want to buy TOO cheap. Something like a Dell, Alienware, etc will have a greater degree of performance, lower cost and same (or better?) reliability as anything from Apple. Networking, etc, should be the same. Too many people try to save money by shaving quality off PCs. Or sometimes just cutting chunks out. You buy a crappy PC, you get crappy results. This is just a fact. People complaining about how PCs just don't work, are unstable, etc. Always sound to me like the old infomercials, you know where they show "are you still using that OLD vacuum cleaner?" and they show someone struggling with some 30 year old peice of garbage, obviously deliberately making it seem difficult. Wouldn't be the same if they used a Dyson in the ad :) I knew a girl who used to claim that her 600 mhz G3 Power Mac was soooo much better than PCs. Based on a comparison with a Pentium 90 running windows 95. This was a few months ago. When I showed her MY computer her opinion changed rather a lot. Anyway, my point here comes down to two. a) live an let live. Taken an active interest in movements on "the dark side" wherever you stand, because todays "their technology" will be in YOUR computer tomorrow. IDE, PCI, Taskbar, Hypertransport, USB, Firewire have all made the switch from one side to the other as the best technology was used by manufacturers. 2. Accept that things are different, not better. I'm used to PCs, so how windows does things makes more sense to me. When I install programs, for example, I know where they are. On someone ELSE'S computer, I go to the start button and there's all the programs listed for me. Want to start programs on MacOS I get lost really easily unless someone's put all the aliases in a nice place for me. I don't like that Mac windows can't go to a docked full screen. Just mostly. Personal preference and how I'm used to working. I don't like the fact that closing windows doesn't quit the program. Just what I'm used to. I don't much like the interface. But that's just personal taste. I don't think XP's is exceptional either. c) I'm not Anti-Apple, I'm just anti-zealot. Apple make some good products. THey also make some products that are NOT as good as people (or they themselves) claim. The megahertz myth is NOT a myth as the numbers draw further away, and in my opinion Apple have made a big mistake by going to LCD screens, as they are more expensive (even still) than CRTs. While they're theoretically better (I personally don't like them. Low saturation and refresh.) they add on to the final cost of the product making it yet more expensive. I quite like their laptops but the iBook which I'd prefer only has a G3, which I would avoid considering the G3 ain't great at OSX. The problem is that to me, I really don't see any reason to buy a mac for most people. They're more expensive and less powerful, less supported, and have less software, especially games. I'm talking about the average consumer, not professional. And no matter how much you talk about the OS superiority, which I would dispute anyway, those issues will not change for Apple. Matt Editor's note: There's a lot here, but let me address something very clearly. I do *not* have "an interest" in Microsoft. I tell the truth about the company, as I do about everything else I write about, and I take that very seriously. I have a relationship with Apple too, BTW, and they supply me with review hardware and software. That doesn't mean I'm in bed with Apple. It means I'm doing my job. --Paul

> To say that the Lisa and Mac would have looked anything like they did without the PARC visit, however, is laughable. But I never said that. I did say that they did not "rip off" Xerox. They PAID (in Apple stock) for the privilege of coming in and taking notes. They also hired away a handful of people. Then they expanded greatly on the concepts they saw at PARC. Editor's note: If you read the history of this event carefully, you might actually word that as "paid off" and not "paid," it was sort of a cute last minute allowance for AT&T to buy Apple stock at an agreeable price before the company went public. No matter. Apple wasn't granted a license to use PARC's technology, they were simply granted permission to see it. You're right, they expanded on it. But you're also wrong, because they clearly stole from PARC as well.

To all those Mac-people "Longhorn is copying OSX etc etc"...read here: http://www.joeuser.com/Articles/MacOSthesourceofallinnova.html WindowBlinds and WindowFX (from Stardock) were doing all this stuff years before OSX, even on Windows98. So in another words, all Mac OSX eye-candy "innovations" are actually rip-offs of several years old Windows shareware progs!

IMO, It's not that Apple necessarily 'invents' anything really new - they just do it in a visually appealing way. It's all in the approach, and this approach seems to resonate with the artistic side of people. I believe Mac users tend to become attached to their Macs because of the personality infused in the design. Editor's note: Apple does make attractive hardware and software, no doubt about it. However, after almost two years of daily work in OS X, I'm still way more productive in Windows than I am on a Mac. It's infuriating. I think the big problem with the Mac UI, from a broad perspective, is consistency and completeness: If you can do it, it's going to be easy. If it's not obvious, it's probably impossible. --Paul

Matt, you wrote: > Ask Adobe. Look at any independent benchmarks. On a series of recent video > editing and photoshop demos a 3 gig Dell Pentium 4 beat a dual processor > 1.25Ghz (not the fastest, but the fastest at the time) Powermac, with nearly > DOUBLE the performance, and a THOUSAND dollars cheaper. I agree about the price difference, and most of the power difference, BUT... Adobe was EXTREMELY biased. They were comparing THEIR software (Premiere and After Effects, although they did discuss Photoshop of which parts are optimized for the G4 and dual CPUs - straight Photoshop tests are MUCH closer). Both of these (Premiere, After Effects) are POORLY optimized for Mac OS X, and for dual CPUs. After effects barely registers a difference with dual CPUs - and that is because the system itself and threads are offloaded to another CPU - not because they have done ANYTHING on the Mac to take advantage of the dual CPUs. On the other hand, Final Cut Pro IS optimized for the Dual CPUs and Mac OS X, and that would have been a much more valid comparison. However, Adobe is not in the business of selling hardware - they are in the business of selling software - and people who have Macs do NOT buy their software for digital Video (anymore - Apple wanted them to make software for DV, but they declined, so Apple bought Macromedia's great Final Cut Pro and made it their own). This is a problem for them, because when they do use the Mac, they tend to choose Final Cut Pro. If they buy a PC to begin with, they will not have this choice. You also wrote: > When I install programs, for example, I know where they are. On someone > ELSE'S computer, I go to the start button and there's all the programs listed > for me. Want to start programs on MacOS I get lost really easily unless > someone's put all the aliases in a nice place for me. I assume you have used OS X - applications tend to have a default install folder - Applications. Just like Windows uses Program Files. Of course, people can always install elsewhere, and you are not referring to where the applications are installed but rather where the shortcuts are. If someone moves the application in Windows on the machine you go to, you would have the same issue. Just because someone customized their Mac to suit their tastes does not mean a PC user may have customized their PC to suit their tastes (removed the Program Menu item since they installed a single app icon on their desktop - oh, nevermind, Windows does not have the concept of a "Package" so most applications NEED to be installed in the Program Files Folder because there are so many associated files that you cannot just move the application icon without breaking it...). The bottom line is, if you go to Someone Else's Mac, it is expected you will log on as guest, and all the Applications they choose to let you use will be listed when you click the "Applications" icon in their Finder Toolbar. All the application supplied by Apple will be aliased in the Dock. I really do not see how this is any different. Eytan Bernet P.S. I am a software developer and use Mac OS X, Windows XP, and unfortunately Mac OS 9 on a daily basis. I do find I am much more productive on Mac OS X, and I really cannot place a finger on exactly why. Sorry my discussion has diverged a bit from the point of the thread I was responding to, but I hope you find what I wrote enlightening. P.P.S. There IS too much damn zeaolotry going on here... Chill out everyone. I am sure Longhorn WILL kick ass, as will whatever Apple has up their sleeve two years down the line. We are all (me included) are getting way worked up....

I love the whole "Apple stole a broad idea from Xerox a long time ago, so this negates Microsoft continuing to steal several specific ideas every year from Apple" argument. Sometimes I actually wish Apple would go out of business, just so that those other 97% of computer users could see how mind-numbingly WEAK Windows "Innovation" would be without them. Could you imagine if the "iLoo" actually *WAS* the coolest idea you heard this year? WIMP, Color displays, CD-ROMs, Plug-n-Play, USB, Firewire, DVD-R, 802.11b... all that stuff on your PC is there because Apple made it happen. They didn't invent all of it, but they are how it became accepted by the market. You say Apple stole the "dock" from Microsoft's "taskbar"? Pleeese... Microsoft stole the taskbar from NEXT. NEXT came from Apple. OSX came from NEXT. But I digress... Editor's note: Please. Apple didn't "make" any of that happen. Do you really believe USB took off because Apple used it (and no, they weren't first)? Do you hate Saab because they use steering wheels, which were invented elsewhere? --Paul

What an incredible waste of time. I read two of these posts and realized, oh wait I have work to do. So clearly whatever you are using on this site, you aren't using it for work. ;) Matt Burgess, I would like to say - thank you for your input - some folks don't get it. People choose what they are comfortable with, or what suits them best. If its slower, faster, silver or blue - whatever works works. I don't know why Mac people (and no I am not choosing a side here) even bother posting on this site? You wouldn't walk into a Harley Davidson bar and pick a fight stating that the Honda is better would you? Why bother, they won't listen, people like me that just wanted to take a quick read will get annoyed its just not worth it. Call them what you like, PC DRONES, Mac copiers, etc. etc., again Matt said it best when he spoke of the technologies being used everywhere. Its just reality kids - if you want to talk about rip off's take a look at Gnome with that CDE style "dock" on the left side of your screen with icon magnification on :)... Wonder where Apple got their idea from... Anyhoo - pick what works - and just, what did someone say on here ;) OH right Matt did "live and let live..." Warmest Regards, Chairman Mao People's Republic of *Nix

Paul... a small point that highlights your blind Windows bias, in this case USB popularity. In reply to Swordfish..."Editor's note: Please. Apple didn't "make" any of that happen. Do you really believe USB took off because Apple used it (and no, they weren't first)? ..." Short answer... YES. As was stated, Apple isn't always the first and doesn't necessarily invent all the "features" it introduces or makes popular but your point about USB popularity is classic Windows revisionist history. USB was indeed available on some "new" PC's in the mid-90's (post Windows 95?) but it wallowed in relative obscurity. There were a few peripherals available but it just was not that popular or very widely used (except perhaps by a few technophiles) UNTIL Apple introduced the original iMac. (Though USB's relative lack of use in the PC world may have had as much to do with the scarcity of devices and the crappy USB drivers and the many resultant conflicts/usability problems). The iMac standardized on USB for it's basic low-level interface (for keyboard, mouse, printer, etc... dropping the proprietary Apple Data Bus (ADB))... it wasn't just another interface connection sitting on the back of the machine ala the Wintel clones. Suddenly USB popularity exploded, matching the introduction and the "buzz" generated by the iMac or are you saying it was just a coincidence? Are you claiming all the iMac-coloured and matching, semi-transparent USB devices that suddenly appeared were based on the colours of the "flying & flapping" Windows logo??? All those bondi-blue (and other iMac coloured) mice, keyboards, printers, hubs, speakers, drives, scanners, etc were Windows inspired? Sure... (Completely off topic... I noted on your Super Site a mention of another MS "innovation"... ClearType.... which just happens to be an MS variation of sub-pixel font rendering technology developed and used by Apple in the late 70's on the Apple II. Another "innovative" technology from the great minds at MS. Where's MS Bob when you need him??? :-) Editor's note: USB took off because of Windows 98, not the Mac, sorry. The plastic color craze died pretty quickly, even at Apple. --Paul

Concerning USB - I think the revisionist history is the Mac user POV, not from the Windows folks. USB was out and available for nearly 1-1/2 years before it came to the iMac. There was not a dearth of peripherals - USB keyboards, mice, scanners and printers were available. Many manufacturer's such as Dell and Gateway were shipping computers with USB keyboards and/or mice prior to the iMac shipping. The problem is that Mac users simply paid little attention to USB until Apple adopted it. In fact, USB was one of many Intel technologies that Apple adopted eventually that were either ignored or dissed by Mac users - that is, until they were brought to the Mac platform. IDE, USB, the PCI bus, are but three examples. How did Apple users react? They made claims about how Apple had "improved" those technologies so they were now better than their PC counterparts. In some cases that was true, in some cases not. However, it makes you wonder what this need is of Mac users to stand up and make proclomations such as those. Is it little-man-syndrome? Is it a form of pen*s envy? Hard to say. Hey, if you're happy with your platform, use it and enjoy it. But please, plese, check the smugness, elitism, and the "My dog is better than your dog" attitude at the door. It makes Mac users look foolish and turns off a good many PC users who might be interested in checking out the Mac as a tool. If you want people to use your tool of choice, don't be act like a tool trying to convince them.

Paul... I am surprised that any reputable publication will continue to allow an obviously biased, uninformed, writer like you to remain on staff. As a tech geek I recognize the need to be thoroughly familiar with both Mac and Windows; only then can I sit back and evaluate the pros and cons of each platform objectively. While one would think that a technology writer would also back this apporach, you obvious don't share the same appreciation for facts and objectivity. Based on what you have demonstrated in your previous articles, your technical knowledge is scant, your ability to communicate ideas to readers is marginal, your journalistic credibility is thin, your views slanted and generally ignorant...which baffles me as to why you remain so arragont while being a failure at what you do? Editor's note: It baffles us all, Jason. --Paul

Woohoo... MAC OS-X is already there. Linux is on the way, & so is just about everyone else.. Big deal...Longhorn is already obsolete by OS standards before it even hits the market. Editor's note: Aside from proving that you don't know anything about Longhorn, what's obsolete about it? Is is the database-based storage system, the completely new .NET-based APIs, the thoroughly ingrained Web services, or the Aqua-busting graphics system you're talkinga about? --Paul

How can I get Windows "Longhorn"?

Interesting and exciting to say the least. I appreciate the Time taken to share your story and information Mr.Thurrott, it serves many with boundless accents. I am interested in recieving a Beta version myself- as a creative person, it suggests a turn toward the areas in which i yearn software to grow. Thank You, Luke

I have Longhorn, but the beta release. Windows.Longhorn.3718.3in1.ISO.PROPER.Internal

I would like to set a couple things straight. Firstly. No system is free of bugs or virus threats. Viruses are possible on any system, so dont you mac or linux fans waste your breath. Security holes are always possible and can always be revealed. No one can say different cause that would just be called hiding the truthe of matters. Secondly. I have a 2GHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 80GB HDD, 64MB video card. Start up time from boot is 40 seconds and shut down is less. I very rarely get crashes and Im able to run programs and software easily, that often drain CPU and RAM. I can run Photo Shop, over 20 Internet Explorer Windows, I can run Movie Maker and even play Medal Of Honour full screen, with very minimal lag. Can you mac do that? No one can tell me that macs dont crash, cause I have seen it happen. I have seen it happen on what you mac lovers would call the newest and best. Third. I love Windows XP, why? Cause it just works and thats the bottle line. Lets not talk anything about GUI design. Lets talk about the Internet Cafe I own, for a moment. All computers are running Windows and it will not be any different. Mac's are extremely expensive number one. Number two, you cannot just build your own with parts you buy. Everything is basically put together by Apple. Talk about being really cornered and locked in to something. Number three, I have a T1 connection at my Cafe and I often have mac users come in with the odd new iBook or Powerbook ect. Unlike Windows, they just dont plug into the network and we have conectivity. Often the iBook user will fumble around trying to change all sorts of settings and putting in crap... Isnt that just annoying? I mean, for a people that believe so strongly that the computer systems and software they support are so great and mighty, why cant it do simple things, like plug in and have connectivity? It happens all the time. Fourth. As I spoke briefly about during the "Third" paragraph, "being cornered..." I had an experience that just really turned me off to Apple. I went to my local dealer because I was actually interested in having an Apple Mac. Im not the typical user, I wanted to basically buy some new parts from the dealer and build my own, to my own specifications. I asked the "technition" and he refused to sell any parts. Though he did suggest complete systems. I dont think he understood that I was from the PC part of the woods and wanted to be able to customize my system, hardware wise. Most of the prices on Macs are outragious! Which here we go with the Apple hard ware standards crap, its silly. "You either take the hardware we put in the box, or we wont sell you it, cause we over price our computers..." Thats basically what I heard the guy say, when he refused selling me brand new parts. Now, for people that want to have a sense and feeling of customization, in my opinion Mac isnt the road to turn to. Most Macs at the local Apple dealer I visit, have three different systems on a flyer. All three systems will have basically the same components however they go up dramatically in price with a upgrade of the HDD or RAM. Whats up with that? I built my current system recently and spent under $400AUD and I am positive that my computer can out preform currrent mac systems easy. Just think, I have a 2GHz and a 80GB hard drive, apple would charge you out the a-hole for something like that! Fifth. Just because Longhorn decides to take hold of high end graphics, they just must be copying Mac right? Wrong! Thats like saying, Oh! I built the first computer that used multi threading! Na Na Na Na! Childish. Every computer system in the world will eventually go down that road. Even Linux is going to be taking hold of such 3D enviroments, that is, if they follow through with their work with Project Looking Glass with Sun Microsystems. Though I guess they are copying Apple Mac too, huh? Wrong. You see, Apple Mac users have issues. They understand that their systems arent used by as many people so they try to put down Windows to make it seem bad, so more people agree with them. Thats more bullying than what a lot of people make Microsoft out to be. Microsoft mostly fights for the legality of software and values the expertise of professionals that put hard word, blood and sweat into programming. If Mac OS's could run properly on PC's, Im sure they would redally be available and then Apple Mac would start getting fussy about Product Activation and sueing people left and right. Thats the business and if you dont like it, go be a cheap skate, use Linux, cause, its free right cause, well, you can Customize it and, and, it doesnt ever ever crash!? Keep your customizations! I would much rather have a system that "just works" than to fiddle, fumble and worry about going through settings after settings to get my system running, just so I can here a couple sounds come out of my speakers. Linux crashed and crashed till it just couldnt, crash any more! Six. Linux, Mac or Windows. For something to play around with and wish better for, Linux is the OS to go with. If you dont want to pay for anything and you want to be a cheap skate and get little to nothing, Linux is for you. If you want a computer that is eye candy but doesnt allow hard ware customization, realy customization, Mac is for you. If you want to be a hypocrite, either Linux or Mac will do for you. If you want a system, that you can install and it "just work" then Windows is for you. If you want a system that you can actually put to work and run really well while taking full advantage of the speed and power of the latest hard ware technologies, Windows is for you. If you want an OS that is compatible with the real world, then Windows is for you. Dont worry Linux, you still lagging behind, keep up the work and you might make a system that might rival Windows 2000 ease and stability of use. Never! Linux is free and cheap, thats why there are so many people using it to run servers *giggles* Dont worry, if IBM wins the battle, Linux will be an estimated $650 a ticket and will include lots of good law suites to make it interesting. Also watch out Linux, Mac users will call you a copier soon enough... Soon as they read more about Looking Glass and see that "Sun is reinventing the way you think about desktop computing." Gosh everyone will just be pissed off wont they? Please post replies, I would like to hear all comments regarding my comments. By the way, Im 21 and Studying Diplomacy in Information Technology, Multimedia and owner of an Internet Cafe. Also Music Producer, Web-Developer and Graphic Designer. Never would I use Linux, how could you, no good tools to make music. How could I use Mac, when they are so stuck in their own little world they dont want to leave it to be compatible. Technology is awesome! I want an operating system that, looks great, runs smoothly, is compatible, functional, customizable! Why dont we all get together and make an operating system. Lets think about that... Maybe something like OS Winux 10 or OS Lindows, wait, Linux already copied Windows!!! (and got sued, lol)

Ok, I am a PC person just like all of you including the few who use Mac OS as an operating system. I like my Windows and Linux. Sorry. I think Longhorn will be another big improvement from Microsoft. I had to do it though... I needed to just silence some of the Mac vs. Windows hatred. I recently had a little experiment with a iMac and my own PC with an Intel chip. Since Mac finally decided to standardize like everyone else it was no suprise to me when we opened the iMac to see a Serial ATA Hard Drive. This is the same brand as the one I have. Well the difference was that the one I had had Windows XP installed. The iMac of course had OS X. I decided to see what would happen if we swapped HD. We did I put my windows HD into the Mac and put the Mac HD into my PC. The the big test after some switching of BIOS and such. We pressed the button and the results were stange. As soon as we turned on my PC the boot sequence started and we told it to boot from C: which it tried to do but then Mac OS 9 told us it would not work without an approved Apple Motherboard or Processor. Interesting I thought. Then we tried the modified Mac. Turned it on and Windows started right up. It told me it had to install drivers which it did. Of course the normal reboot. It came backup and asked me to logon. Looks like Apple's Mac OS is not as standardized as they said. Don't forget. I ran windows off of a Apple Board and Chip. Just thought I would share to get the crazy people going. -Brent

I'm not even particuarly sure of the details of the whole debate thats raging on here, but for the love of God... you're an actual paid technology writer? And you're writing some of the 'editors ntoes' that you are? Regardless of how one sided or infalmmatory the comments are, the solution is not to shot back 'haha I have seen it and you haven't lo3er'. What are we, ten?

Mac OS X's font rendering may look "blurry" below certain sizes, but there's a good reason for it--whether you like it or not is irrelevant for technology comparisons. Mac OS X effectively renders a font the way it would render anything else; if a line is less than a pixel wide, the antialiasing renders it at one pixel, but with reduced intensity to simulate the smaller size. In fact, glyphs are re-rendered for each instance, and positioned with sub-pixel accuracy. Incidentally, you'll find that Mac OS X's font rendering is on par (and better in some ways) with what, say, Photoshop does, in terms of both accuracy and quality. Other systems, such as Windows's ClearType and FreeType treat fonts specially, preventing lines and spacing from being rendered at below one pixel by drawing them as one pixel at full intensity. This practice may make the lines more clear, but visibly distorts the shape of glyphs and their spacing. Unlike Mac OS X, they effectively render each glyph into a cache and use that same image for each instance, resulting in additional loss of accuracy.

If, editor, you wonder why some fool posted to this article in January of '05, it's cause someone linked to your article from a slashdot story on the mini mac. I'm curious to see the promised screenshots, though.

Hey Mack, I guess it is terrible that it will only cost me 200$ to get this new WinOS rather than the 2000$ I would have to pay to get that Flashy Mac OSX uber eye candy you are so fortunat to have and use. Mack, make OS whatever run on truly cheap hardware and I will give it a look. It may be good but it is not good enough to justify the purchase of an entire machine when I can make a quantum leap with a 200$ upgrade. It may be an OS or it may be hardware but there is an upgrade path available. PCI-Express that's a 100$ upgrade on a WinTel platform. What does that cost on the Mac? It is easy make things look great in a propritary environment, but in the end the user has to pay for it.

hi guys! I'm into the PC stuff since the " good ol' " DOS days and Win 3.1 and I had to learn to love...ehm not really LOVE but anyways ... and hate microsoft and windows! let me tell you why....and I'm pretty sure most of you know what I'm talkin'.... and might even feel the same..... first - it has to be - what I really HATE HATE HATE no matter how new and fast and fed up your PC system was and is you have to wait from 30sec to 1min and more until that f**kin OS is loaded!!! WTF do they coders do dammit! They seem to do it on purpose. Nobody can tell me that it's impossible to simply load the kernel, the needed dll's with the OS functions and the drivers for the hardware installed in the nick of time. ..... where is plug and play, if you can't flip the switch and start playing or working instead of waiting.... with this I come to another extreme annoyance windows is freakin' me out with: why does this mof**kin OS write my HD full with tons of garbage I don't need!!?? If I dont have the super duper coffee making interface card installed in my system I most certanly don't need any of its drivers and dll's with apis and transfer protocols and stuffed animals on my HD! so keep it on the install CD and bother me with it when I bought that card man! ...and I really wonder..and would be pleased to hear from an MS Programmer guru or from the allmighty microgod himself, why I need several hundreds of megabytes (!) of code just to run the Operating System?! what are those hundreds of thousands of codelines doing anyways???? ...to become one of those paranoid comspiracy theorists maybe isn't that bad idea after all or what...... imagine, I heard of some linux derivates shipping on disks..... ....remember there were days when windows could fit on jst a few 1.4M Disks!!!! even if HD space became very cheap these days I just don't see the need for such a blown up operating system....(even backward compatibility and stuff is insufficient to explain that) and for christ sakes let me decide during install if I want that neat tool and this nice app instead of filling my HD with crap that opens all gates (pun intended) for intruders and hackers .... 90% of the tools and gadgets a standard PC user don't even know about, not to even consider starting them... and really really really why the hell is it allowed for every, really every f**kin program to rewrite the windows registry, ini-files and write dubious files into the system directories??????!!!!!!!!!!!!! so many of them leave their dead bytes even after deinstallation on your HD wich lets the windows dir grow bigger and bigger until it blows...... why is none of those gazillion lines of programmcode able to track and limit that properly??!! or are you ( MS ) telling me, I have to get me an extra tool for that?! one thing I like about windows and hate at the same time is that it has an easy and usually intuitive user interface (meaning the windows and the icons..it's not a microsoft invention, but anyways...) that made computers accessible to everyone..... I hate it because the programmers at MS seem to love to implement all these nice Eyecandies as you allready called them in previous posts..... those things are often useless and can even become annoying and they for sure blow up the code and the ressource hunger of the OS. ...not to mention all the new crash possibilities..... ...don't get me wrong, now and then I like to change the color themes of my windows and the desktop bg and I like handy buttons and drag and drop stuff..... ... as a digital fx artist I'm none of those purists claiming that you need a clean boring UI, but it must be possible to create a user editable interface that consumes only resonable ressources in RAM and on HD...... another thing that is part of the forementioned "problems" is that microsoft seems to implement anything without bothering about security and stability......making dozenz of patches nescessary... even if it might have sounded like I'm naggin' about the HD hunger of windows my main concern is about security and stability! and windows has had ever since a big big problem with both..... one thing I allways liked about microsoft is that they did a lot for programmers. (it of course is not entirely unselfish but who cares) when I write a win application MFC and visual c++ helps an awful lot. and when I write c++ all those API's and the DirectX stuff is extremely handy..... nowadays, IMO, it has become pretty simple to write 3D Applications or video and audio tools or a nice lil' game even for one person or a small team..... ....well ok, you need to have "some" skills and it helps if your not an idiot but WTF... ....even if them apis and dx are not without errors and some things might seem a little overcomplicated first(and second ) another plus I have to give MS is for its Mouses! they obviously often use them mouses in redmond I had a lot of'em,both, cheap and expensive, but the MS Mouse I bought a few years ago still does a good job,even after I don't know how many millions of performed clicks and it fits just perfectly into my hand.... well ok, it wasn't that cheap, but thats no surprise from microsoft.... So to come back to longhorn I think it will be not very much different to all the other versions full with usefull, new, good and fast stuff and garbage and errors and security leaks.... and as it was allready pointed out, some of the new features longhorn wil have aren't so new at all.... but at least they'll eat up even more ressources, so what the heck.....let's go crazy about 'em... all those new programming gadgets like XNA and the web stuff will continue to make programmers life easier.... the internet explorer is a shinig example for this from the programmers and webdesigners point of view it is just simply great to create homepages controllable by fancy IE specific filters and stuff, JS and c++ code etc. but is also a major pain in the *** when it comes to security. the same cool implementations, the programmer in me loves make it for them bad bad hackers easy to access my operating system and my data on my HD and worse do them virus things.... and if you ever made a homepage by coding html and javascript yourself, you for sure hate the fact that every f**kin browser seems to have its own interpretation of implementations of W3 specifications plus its own gadgets....that makes developing web based applications and websites harder than it has to be and another thing: even if I often thought of it, switching to apple seemed not to be a solution for me first of all a lot of software packages I need for my work simply weren't available for apple or linux for that matter and second I didn't like the fact, that there was only a small ammount of hardware available for mac. this has changed, but once you have a certain toolset of applications it becomes very hard to completely switch to another platform..... and speaking as a gamer sadly windows was pretty much until now the only platform for most of the games..... one thing that comes up my mind speaking about games is that stupid policy of virtually kickin' DOS! I have so many games for DOS I just cant get to work anymore....that really *******me off! I know a lot of the things I said might be because a company that sells a certain product of course wants to place itself in front of competitiors, if any and feels the urge to maintain its market position, not to mention to "re"generate costumers for further releases, but such a company has to face the fact, that angry costumers look out for alternatives. ...and if there are none mentionable existant, than they sooner or later will be created .... a simple rule of free market..... sorry, that I made such a large post, but after I spent over all uncounted days or weeks simply waiting for my PCs to boot and really months of reinstallations and error searchings it all had to come out....... c.ya fellas

oh and I forgot, I pretty much agree with jeremy about the hardware issue with apple. THE reason why I bought my first PC in the first place was because I could scale it to my use and customize it with hardware I neded (including the AWE32, wich was brand new at that time.....) another thing that I think about right now is the following: suppose you have an application like softimage or any other window based 3D application..... those nice cool mega hyper sper fx from longhorn suck away 3D performance from my application I intend to work with!! an operating system should be in my opinion an OPERATING SYSTEM !! and not a 3D ego shooter with fake 2d flying windows! ..dont get me wrong. the operating system should not only provide apis for installed hardware and third party software but also an interface for us humans. so a good looking and responsive User Interface is crucial! but maybe it is overkill to switch the UI into fake 2D in virtual 3D space. (but thats pretty much because direct x is way faster than gdi) and I think the guys at MS again made this with the programmer in mind.... think about it, you are familiar with 3D transformation matrixes etc. used in 3D games, now the whole desktop is nothing more than a D3D Scene....with all the manipulation possibilities and easy access...... ...it would be a different story by the way, if it would be a real 3D user Interface in wich you can navigate in some sort (like in some SF-films like jhonny mnemonic for instance, but I don't think that longhorn will be even close to that) but who knows, the first holographic laser displays are currently in development, so in 5 to 10 years they might be the standard display....eventually thats the reason why longhorn publication has been shifted (; nah.....(8=

Sounds a lot like Project Looking Glass... http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/ man Microsoft can't seem to lay off other people's ideas!