18-Jul-2024 05:31 GMT.
Anonymous, there are 6 items in your selection
[Forum] Dvorak on Longhorn (and MorphOS)ANN.lu
Posted on 13-Oct-2004 19:56 GMT by Not Dvorak6 comments
View flat
View list
Sorry for this cut'n paste from morphos-news.de, but I thought it would be interesting to everyone else to:

In an article at ABC News which has been written by John C. Dvorak about Microsoft's Longhorn, MorphOS is mentioned as well:

The article is about why it's taking such a long time for Microsoft to complete the Longhorn. According to Dvorac, it's about backwards compatibility, and this is a serious burdon: the bigger issue was brought up by a number of readers recently: backward compatibility. The need for this has got to be the single biggest albatross around Microsoft's neck.

Quote: The long-term drawback of this legacy burden is that operating systems like Linux or something like open-source Solaris can develop and modernize faster. Whole new platforms, such as the MorphOS running on the PowerPC, might emerge. Microsoft knows this and worries about it.

There might be some openings for niche OS's in the gaps between the giants, like MorphOS?

Another quote (Doesn't this feel kind of familiar?): After the rollout of a new OS, it takes years before half of the users change over. Small software developers need to sell to as many people as possible, not just to the few new folks who get in early..

I agree with Dvorac here, continuancy is essential. This is what's works against AROS IMHO (there are NO AMIGA APPS because of the lack of emulation), and this is MorphOS current main strength over OS4, at least ATM, the Amiga compatibility.

Read the complete article here:

Dvorak on Longhorn (and MorphOS) : Comment 1 of 6ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 13-Oct-2004 18:19 GMT
How about link to original article.
Dvorak on Longhorn (and MorphOS) : Comment 2 of 6ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 13-Oct-2004 18:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (JoannaK):
Ah.. sorry.. My previous comment was written while it was moderated.... Now I see it fully..
Dvorak on Longhorn (and MorphOS) : Comment 3 of 6ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 14-Oct-2004 08:09 GMT
m68k compatibility is about the equal in the AmigaOS4 and MOS. MOS has WOS ja PUP support, but most of the Amiga software is m68k code. So I would not say MOS is so much more Amiga compatible. m68k emulation in the AmigaOS4 is already wery good, even if the JIT is not integrated yet. And sooner or later there will be WOS support in the AmigaOS4 too.

But I have to aggree with it that both MOS and AmigaOS4 might take some small slice from the IT-market. Maybe not yet, but someday that might happen. There is applications which do not nesessarily need monolithic OS like Windows or linux.
Dvorak on Longhorn (and MorphOS) : Comment 4 of 6ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 14-Oct-2004 08:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Anonymous):
Oh, how that happened :) I meant "MOS has WOS and PUP support" 'ja' is Finnish word which means 'and' :)

I don't remember whwn I mixed English and Finnish like that :)
Dvorak on Longhorn (and MorphOS) : Comment 5 of 6ANN.lu
Posted by MarkTime on 14-Oct-2004 12:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (miksuh):
it's called code-switching...which I found interesting yesterday, for some odd reason...which I told my wife all about, this 'code page switching' that I had read about....but actually code page switching is a computer term, so I guess I failed to code switch from computer lingo to normal english...

check this out:


interesting stuff...seems about 70% of english children think code-switching is rude, whereas 50% of polish children, don't really mind.

oops...I guess I should have warned you all to sit down first, before letting loose with that dramatic news...
Dvorak on Longhorn (and MorphOS) : Comment 6 of 6ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 18-Oct-2004 09:19 GMT
Mr Dvorak didn’t factor in MS Windows XP X64 i.e. chicken and egg issue.
Windows XP X64 (Anvil) must come first before Windows Longhorn.

>And surely the company cannot be unaware of Intel's stumbling each time it >tries to ditch the x86 instruction set.

Microsoft was a member of ACE i.e. MIPS based path in replacing X86 PC. We all know how Intel applies strongarm tactics against competitors i.e. DEC was member of ACE.

>The backward-compatibility issue is more complex than just trying to please >diehard DOS and Windows users

Plenty of DOS programs don’t work with Windows XP's DOS (with DOSX) anyway (e.g. games). Cmd is just merely a CLI for Windows NT.

>Creating patches for all old software would also work as a concept, but it >never works right in practice. The USB patches for Win 95, for example, never >seem to function correctly.

Mr Dvorak missed the purpose of Windows 98 SE release.

> believe Microsoft wants to do this, since it did buy Connectix, which has >virtualization technologies that might be necessary to make a layered OS work >well
Have Mr Dvorak factored in purpose of WOW32?
Anonymous, there are 6 items in your selection
Back to Top