MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Talking about search, I hope Google can keep the new MSN search at bay....

Windoze is better now!

Hit search and watch the flashlight and the dog for a few minutes it is really a lot of fun weeeeee!


?

I have never been able to get results out of the search dog in XP. I am already plenty happy with Panther's search functions.
I think Tiger will be a great OS.

But I think its ridiculous to think that MS would delay shipment until 2007 or beyond, they just can't afford to do that. MS might suck, but obviously they aren't idiots.

Is there a site for Wintel systems like MDN is for Macs? I wanted to go to one and see their comments on Tiger (if any)... and maybe make a comment or 2

Wingsy,
Try Microsoft Watch. One of their columnists, Mary Jo Foley, keeps an eye on all things OS X, and is usually surprisingly complimentary. Her latest column pits Tiger against Longhorn.

Microsofties are not idiots, but they are also crippled in what they can do. they can't displace every existing PC. there is just too much software momentum. most of what they are doing right now is probably making sure most of what works in XP also works in Longwait. So, the difficulty is making sure Longwait will be compatible with most things without sacrificing all those supposed advances they are trying to make. As Apple said, it takes a lot of time and work to make your software compatible across vendors, environment, and legacy soft/hard wares. that's the reason for the delay. if Microsoft's installed base was more willing to upgrade or simply smaller, they could have done something closer to Mac OS X, but they're not. that's their disadvantage, and Apple's advantage. it's always easier to turn around a smaller ship than an oil tanker - simple as that. something you need to ride an oil tanker, but something the smaller yacht is way, way better.

The only bad thing about wishing for new Apple products is that I am wishing myself older at the same time.

It is interesting to conjecture how history would be changed by relatively small changes in the timing of certain events. For instance, what if MacOS X 10.3 was the original version of MacOS X? Would that have kicked off an earlier migration to the Mac? Or did that have to wait until the insecurities of MS Windows were repeatedly exposed to the world? What if the G5 had been released a year earlier? It's a good way to waste some time.

Anyone know how many lines of code OSX has compared to what XP and Longhorn? I would imagine the difference would be considerable and only further proving MS bloated style

Apple has aprox. 1000 engineers working on Mac OS. Ms has many times that amount and takes many times longer to produce a product. Ms will redefine "bloat", and as such they'll have a million more locations for a virus to enter.

MS also has tons more money to do what they have to do.

Lines of Windows code version(n) = Lines of Windows code version(n-1) * c ^2

> Try Microsoft Watch
Creepy place, sometimes funny... I go there after Joy of Tech:

How to negotiate with Microsoft -- is a good spooky example.

I was figuring that I would have to replace my b/w G4/500 to enjoy the next MacOS. However, Tiger will support all Macs with native Firewire, i.e. the b/w G3s and iMacDVs.
Tiger will ship in early 2005 and will be the up to date MacOS until at least Fall 2006. The G3s will be 8 (eight !) years old and still supported by the current OS! Now, that is ROI.
Longhorn, by contrast, will only run on machines that aren't even developed yet. Let all the Win apologists try and install Longhorn on a Pentium III @ 350 MHz!

Apple spends between $400-500 million/year on R & D and Micro$oftopoly spends approx 10x as much on average. Makes you wonder what the problem is.

michael said:
"Microsofties are not idiots, but they are also crippled in what they can do."
While this is true, one must really understand Microsoft's motives. They only care a little bit about whether or not OS X - or any other OS - is better than Longhorn. What they care is that Longhorn is "Just Good Enough" to fool the average consumer, and get the majority of folks to upgrade. That's it. Excellence in engineering is not a goal for them. Making money with the least possible engineering effort IS the goal.

The browser wars are not over. Safari rocks.

Wow...i am so excited...wow...all the hype about finding a file on a computer...wow...hoo-hah.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As if the computer is going to find my photo file named:
"1adf930faa93ser02.jpg" (and i can´t remember the name) any faster...give me a break.

The os developers have just run out of ideas and hyping stuff hardly anybody really, really cares about so that they can get you to justify spending $249 for the next version.

Totally disagree with you there Skreptik. OK, it won't help you much for pictures unless you add the metadata but I work in science where much information is stored in reports and so on and it is a major hassle to try to keep track of everything. Being able to search reports and so on stored on your hard drive would be great. What would be even better, however, would be able to do the same thing on large network shares which are commonly in a total mess organisationally because so many people use them. There is vast quantities of data on there that is almost lost if you don't know where it is, a technology like Spotlight could revolutionise the way people find old documents - it was a report about subject x and was from a conference last June. Easy.

I also do a fair amount of web development where it can often be a pain to remember how you implemented some feature in the past using a certain function. I currently keep a Filemaker Pro database where I put bits of useful code so that I can search for them later, rather than try to remember the page in which I used it. Being able to instantly find an example file for a given function would be brilliant. Sure, I could do it in OSX now, but it needs to be almost instantaneous and that is not currently the case when searching file content.

So anyway, roll on Q1 2005 is what I say!

'almost lost if you don't know where it is' - from the John Motson school of English Language that one!

And what's with the "going to" in the title to this story? Hasn't Steve Jobs already shown us, earlier this week, that the lead is very real, since he displayed the working demo of Tiger? Apple's Tiger is, from my perspective, so far ahead of Longhorn at this point. Is there anything comparable out there that shows what Longhorn already CAN and WILL be able to do rather than what they are SAYING it SHOULD do, if and when released?

Re: Buried Caesar..

Only when the product is released.

Re: Buried Caesar:

Beyond the eye-candy Avalaon demo, I have not seen a demo of "Search" in Longhorn!! Does anyone else know whether MS has demoed?

PhilC....maybe for a large scientific data base like you describe...but how many Mac customers are in the same situation as you?

I remember a shareware program a long time ago (OS 8 time frame)that would search for documents based on words or letters. Can´t think of the name, but worked amazingly well.

And what is wrong with the search engine already in the OS...?

Seems like another hyped up gimmick that most will never need.

It can´t find what I can´t remember what it is I called it.

"The os developers have just run out of ideas and hyping stuff hardly anybody really, really cares about"

OK "Skreptik", I'll bite. What, in your considered expertise, do computer users "really, really" care about?

It's true that Microsofties aren't idiots, however they are taste-deficient.

Skreptik,

Just admit it, you have no clue. It doesn't just search on the name of the file you dolt. To explain more is beyond your capacity to comprehend, so I won't belabor the point.

(Belabor, by the way, means beat a dead horse. Beat a dead horse means to waste one's time. Is that still too hard for you to understans?)

"Microsofties are not idiots, but they are also crippled in what they can do."

There's a lot of variables here. The existing M$ engineering culture is in pretty bad shape but M$ may have started a whole new division to do Longhorn in which case it could turn out really great.

The problem for M$ right now is that they are under a lot of pressure to produce, they have an immense installed base that they must be compatible with (that 95% market share and cazillions of apps cuts both ways) and they need to write a completely new OS from the ground up in order to rid themselves of these troublesome security problems.

M$ is making the big transition that Apple made four years ago right now when Apple is finally picking up a good head of steam. Not only that but think about how bad OS X was when it first came out. M$ is going to have the same problems or worse when Longhorn ships and it will take them at least a couple of years to get it all together.

The idea that Apple will be really rocking with OS X when Longhorn first ships with all the inevitable problems that version one of anything has must really have M$ worried. Oh - and let's not forget that Longhorn may require hardware that Intel can't deliver because of this wall that everyone seems to have hit in chip design and production.

"And what is wrong with the search engine already in the OS...?"

Skreptik,
The current search function is nothing like Spotlight, it just looks for matches in filenames. Take a look at how searching works in iTunes (the basis for the Spotlight search engine). Search in iTunes doesn't just look for the name of a tune, it looks for matches in all the data fields, updating live and narrowing the search as you type. This is what Spotlight does, search metadata, data about data, across the entire filesystem, and the breakthrough with Spotlight is that the metadata index is updated within seconds of adding a file. Formerly, updating the filesystem index could take hours, depending on the number of files.

In your earlier post you said 'As if the computer is going to find my photo file named:
"1adf930faa93ser02.jpg" (and i can´t remember the name) any faster'. Actually, yes it would find your find your photo faster if, for instance, you remembered when you took the picture, or if you took the time to populate the metadata fields, where, or on what occasion. Think iPhoto keywords, but extended into Address Book, Mail etc. This is nowhere the snore you make it out to be. Read more about the potential before you dismiss it out of hand.

I forgot to mention the ability to save search results as a virtual folder like BeOS, or the ability demonstrated in Mail to have smart mailboxes. Spotlight makes this possible. I suggest you read a bit about the Be filesystem, or talk to someone who has used BeOS to fill you in on the enormous possibilities such a search system affords. Cheers.

thanks virdian for taking the time to educate us all.

However, as a fulltime owner/daily user (graphic design) of macs since 1992 I can not see the need of such a powerful search machine for the average user.
I guess I just keep my files fairly organized and have never had a problem finding anything...except when I deleted it by mistake or too soon. But then no search function would find those files.

And as far as your comment: "OK "Skreptik", I'll bite. What, in your considered expertise, do computer users "really, really" care about?"
I said few will really care for this advanced search-type function, not what I thought users are looking for in an OS. Personally, I think the OS is fine as is.

Although I would like to see an OS that could take advantage of all the G5 power it has to offer. 64 vs 32.

And as far as search and find....with files strung over 50+ different CDs, plus 10+ DVDs, several hard drives (internal and external) and other storage media I doubt any search engine is going to find which CD or DVD I am looking for quickly...they have to be each inserted in the computer and searched one at a time.
Advancing search engine sounds cool, but in practical use I doubt it does not add much speed.

Skeptik, I challenge you to go to Apples site and stream the Quicktime keynote of Tiger and Spotlight...I also was unimpressed when I heard about it, but after I saw what it really did at the keynote, I was really blown away.
It's just another one of those things that has always been a problem for us, yet we never realized it was a problem. It really is awesome!

er... how long did it take apple to make os x perfect? geez... this site is full of mac fanatics... all looking like idiots

If you've been a graphic designer since '92, then you probably need Spotlight much more than we do, skeptik. Imagine instantaneous results to choose from any possible metadata surrounding the file you're looking for. You more than us should appreciate the immediate preview images to choose from.

"I can not see the need of such a powerful search machine for the average user."

Skreptik,
The thing is, no one can really say offhand what new features we'll find useful until we actually use them. In your case, I think you'll be surprised how useful such a search feature would be for you, with many, many graphic files. It is a huge advantage for you that you already impose some discipline on your file organization, but think about how convenient it would be to find disparate files in different branches of your file tree without having to drill down several levels in completely separate folders. You could for instance search for jpeg pictures of animals, between 500k and 1MB in size, color only, taken between 1999 and 2003, butnot 2001, and save the results in a virtual folder on your desktop for your current project, deleting it when you were finished.

The point is that Spotlight would not replace your current method of filing your pics, it would enhance how you find the ones you want, when you want them. You keep your files well organized so you can find them easily to work with them; that hasn't changed, except that you don't have to mouse down to the ones you want.

Sorry if I seemed sarcastic with the "Skreptik" comment; I was a bit suspicious that you might have been our old pal Sputnik trolling under a slightly different nom de plume.

"I would like to see an OS that could take advantage of all the G5 power it has to offer. 64 vs 32."

I couldn't agree more.

(Continued)

"...with files strung over 50+ different CDs, plus 10+ DVDs, several hard drives (internal and external) and other storage media I doubt any search engine is going to find which CD or DVD I am looking for quickly...they have to be each inserted in the computer and searched one at a time."

As long as your drives are connected to your computer, Spotlight, from what I understand, will find them. Clearly, with removable media, the disc has to be inserted in the machine for the files to be found, but I'm reasonably certain that there are ways to maintain an index of your files so that a search would tell you which disc they're on, so you could hunt down the relevant disc. It would probably be to your advantage to keep all your files on internal or networked hard drives (they get cheaper every month), and maintain CD's as backups.

BeOS was touted as "the media OS", and from what I've heard, creative professionals became enamored of it precisely because of the flexibility of the filesystem search features, which have been replicated in Tiger by the very same engineer who designed it. Skepticism is a valuable and worthwhile attitude to cultivate, but I urge you to keep an open mind as well. Cheers.

Regarding hundreds of CDs, etc...

There is an invaluable little program I use called "CDFinder" by Norbert Doerner ( http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/960 ) and I believe that once Spotlight shines there, I won't have any trouble finding a file amongs all the data that this program gathers when cataloging a CD. And what about those programs that catalog your DVDs? I think Spotlight will help those programs out, too. Sort of your own, personal IMDB, without the need to connect to the I...

Skreptik,

You make a very valid point that with existing libraries of media files with no metadata attached spotlight isn't going to be much use. I don't think that there is any search technology that is going to help there! The two key points to me are:

1. 'PhilC....maybe for a large scientific data base like you describe...but how many Mac customers are in the same situation as you?' - er, macs are used extensively in science, and it is not just science where much data is stored in report or other textual files rather than graphically. I would argue that more data is stored as text than graphically - think email, ichat logs, powerpoint slides etc etc etc.

2. When storing files on one's own hard drive it is relatively easy to keep things organised, although I do have files from years back and it is hard to maintain an organised file structure over time. Maintaining a decent organisation both over time and when other people are involved soon becomes next to impossible! I work for a large pharma company in R&D;and in our group we have 100 or so people all using the same (windows) network share that we've had for 6 or 7 years. That filesystem has long since descended into chaos and it is a daily frustration experienced by everyone that it is impossible to find anything quickly. I'm sure that there are many, many other groups in a similar situation.

One thing that isn't clear as yet is how spotlight will apply to network shares, especially Windows network shares, so it will be interesting to see how that works out. I'm an avid mac user but IMO the ability to search such large network shares instantaneously in a spotlight-like or google-like fashion whether in Longhorn or OSX would constitue a killer app in many enterprise areas. If I could offer such functionality to my colleagues they would be biting my arm off to use it.

At the end of the day I don't give a damn about longhorn and 'how great is may be'.

I have chosen to use Mac OS and Macs I will use regardless of what OS features and innovations redmond copies from Apple and the computer industry.

Unfortunately I seriously doubt Tiger's lead over Longhorn is going to have much effect on increasing it's adoption rate. Apple's had the lead for years and it's install base has not grown noticeably due to that fact.

I'm afraid us Mac users will continue the be the vast minority for quite some time.

It is as simple as, if you don't
want it, don't buy it. If you can't
see it's importance, don't buy it.

@ mac_user

So we're idiots. Well, these "idiots" don't need to worry about inherent security flaws and glitches. They work and have fun with their machines and get things done. So Mac OS X took it's time. So what? If Longhorn is released 2006 it'll be no sooner than 2008 when it's finished. We've seen that with W95 -> 98SE and NT -> XP.

"I would like to see an OS that could take advantage of all the G5 power it has to offer. 64 vs 32."

I couldn't agree more."

Huuh, what about Tiger and sequel? Was not hyped but with Tiger support for 64-bit starts.

Seahawk,

From what I understand, the 64-bit support has improved dramatically, and Xcode 2 builds apps that take advantage of the 64-bit extensions, but that the OS itself is not fully 64-bit. Probably I misunderstood, and would be grateful if someone who knows more about this than me would be kind enough to elaborate.

There is more evidence for the existence of Nessie and Bigfoot than Longhorn.