VISTA and OS X are not the same. 2852

Peter Hayes

You speak out of ignorance, apparently not knowing anything about Vista. Of course, Mac fanatics know even less about Leopard and are already orgasming over it, so making judgments out of sheer ignorance is not a surprise.

BTW, you really hurt your argument by bringing Linux into it. LOL Linux doesn't make XP look like last century. Get real. Yep, having to recompile the kernel to install a piece of hardware is the mark of a state-of-the-art system.sarcasm Oh, and Linux was introduced in the early 90's. Windows and Mac have made orders of magnitude more progress from 1991 to now than Linux has over the same period of time. OSX and XP both make Linux look quite primitive.

(BTW, OSX doesn't make XP look "last century" either. XP blows OSX away on 3D graphics, for example. NTFS blows away HFS+. .NET blows away Cocoa (which really needs to be updated; hell, at least add decent namespace support; oh, and fix the idiotic object construction mechansim too (designated initializers are such an ugly hack compared to modern object oriented frameworks)). OSX doesn't even have anything to compete with COM, which was created in 1994 or so. OSX has nothing to compete with OLE either (Apple abandoned opendoc (with good reason, as it was focused too much on OLE-like functionality which made it too inflexible to compete with COM (on which OLE was built) or even SOM; and end off Publish-Subscribe (with good reason again, as it sucked). OSX has advantages over XP, but if you think it's a one way street, then you are a true fanboy.)

You believe wrong. Let me take that back. I have no idea what you mean by, "had all the technology in place". What, they had the tech to implement WinFS, but didn't? Doesn't help your argument much. Not that it matters; I've been following the recent presentations on WinFS, and it blows away whatever was in BeOS. (Not to mention that BeOS was never used enough to tell whether it was any good or not. It was never put to the test. I get the feeling that if it were used as much as Windows or even Mac (i.e. if it were actually stress-tested), the problems of that OS would've been apparent, which is why Apple rejected it in favor of NeXT.)

I don't know exactly, I'm not on the development team. I'd guess Vista SP1 or SP2 (depending on whether SP1 is simply working out the inevitable kinks of Vista's initial release or not). Or, it could be released in an incremental upgrade. Microsoft is going to adopt Apple's upgrade strategy of milking the customers every 12-18 months with incremental upgrades. WinFS will be in one of the early upgrades.