Recommended Posts

yes, yes; it's windows 7, but it does NOT do justice to what blackcomb was all about! it was a journey to recode windows from scratch! right?! that's what the codename proudly bestowed! all they have done is recoded the kernel and now from what i'm reading win7 is going to be just a changed vista!!! ooooo MinWin ooooo HyperVisor! so what!? what happened to making everything modular and changing the application platform so that windows developers and 3rd-parties don't end up making hundreds of DLL's flying everywhere and stuff? it was supposed to be revolutionary! that's what talks were all about when it was still in the early days of Whistler/XP......

yes, yes; it's windows 7, but it does NOT do justice to what blackcomb was all about! it was a journey to recode windows from scratch! right?! that's what the codename proudly bestowed! all they have done is recoded the kernel and now from what i'm reading win7 is going to be just a changed vista!!! ooooo MinWin ooooo HyperVisor! so what!? what happened to making everything modular and changing the application platform so that windows developers and 3rd-parties don't end up making hundreds of DLL's flying everywhere and stuff? it was supposed to be revolutionary! that's what talks were all about when it was still in the early days of Whistler/XP......

here here +1

They promised us flying cars "by the year 2000" and here we are nowhere close to that. That's 60yr old "promise" from like 1940s to 50s..

My point is that one can dream big dreams but getting them to come true usually takes lots of things to happen. There's things outside of your control too that influence your progress. So in a perfect world Microsoft would hire some guys and be like hey, this is what we want. The guys would slave for years and make it work. The planet would rejoice unanimously and name the day it's launched a worldwide holiday.

Too bad we actually live in the real world where wants and demands change all the time :) The flying cars need lots of different parts ot make it fly and also need the infrastructure inplace to handle that. Having a flying car now might have been a flop as maybe the world isn't ready for flying cars just yet.

Umm, it was around. It was never meant for commercial release. This was done in the MS Labs and was built as an experiment. So with all the millions MS spend each year on R&D on lots of different other things you DON'T hear about (so less things to b!tch about apperently) I'm sure what they've learned was incorporated into the release of windows.

"Blackcomb" was a codename, nothing more. A sparkle in Jim Allchin's eye, perhaps. There was never a "plan" called Blackcomb, and certainly no project. No one ever promised anything. Your expectations for "Blackcomb" were unreasonable by the mere fact that you had any expectations at all.

The name is gone because those who came up with that name are gone. And because times have changed so much since it came about that whatever ideas anyone had 7-8 years ago aren't terribly meaningful anymore. The flying car analogy is a pretty good one, I think.

They promised us flying cars "by the year 2000" and here we are nowhere close to that. That's 60yr old "promise" from like 1940s to 50s..

My point is that one can dream big dreams but getting them to come true usually takes lots of things to happen. There's things outside of your control too that influence your progress. So in a perfect world Microsoft would hire some guys and be like hey, this is what we want. The guys would slave for years and make it work. The planet would rejoice unanimously and name the day it's launched a worldwide holiday.

Too bad we actually live in the real world where wants and demands change all the time :) The flying cars need lots of different parts ot make it fly and also need the infrastructure inplace to handle that. Having a flying car now might have been a flop as maybe the world isn't ready for flying cars just yet.

you can already pre-order flying cars ;)

Longhorn and blackcomb were just microsofts attempts to reach for the stars, unfortunately technology and expectations kept them weighted to the earth - and so we moved from the philosophy of revolution to, evolution, in the platform instead.

Umm, it was around. It was never meant for commercial release. This was done in the MS Labs and was built as an experiment. So with all the millions MS spend each year on R&D on lots of different other things you DON'T hear about (so less things to b!tch about apperently) I'm sure what they've learned was incorporated into the release of windows.

...And I'm hypothesizing that what they've learned, is that having to lease a whole office building and fill 300 positions of programmers to go over every security bulletin in all of Windows history and attempt to check if each hole exists in the coded-from-Scratch Windows, would take decades to do (nevermind the money). lol.....

but hey.... didn't Apple do it? Isn't Mac OS X coded from scratch on FreeBSD as opposed to MacOS 9 or older being just RISC-type stuff? well I guess yea it is trouble; they had it standard to dual-boot between OS X and OS 9 until developers had time to make new Aqua-themed OS X-compatible apps..... imagine that happening on a Windows scale where it's the most used OS on Earth..... yea..... chaos...... meh......... i STILL think Windows from scratch would be a golden opportunity to make things right.... hmm... or maybe escape through the "window" into the "sky" and release a new OS called Microsoft Skies alongside Windows..... ok i'm rambling now so cya later lol but wait then you can't have application windows; you would have fluffy cloudy application skies; ok omg ok bye! lol

but hey.... didn't Apple do it? Isn't Mac OS X coded from scratch on FreeBSD as opposed to MacOS 9 or older being just RISC-type stuff? well I guess yea it is trouble; they had it standard to dual-boot between OS X and OS 9 until developers had time to make new Aqua-themed OS X-compatible apps

Mac OS X is based off NEXTSTEP, an OS made by a company Apple purchased, thereby gaining the rights to their OS. NEXTSTEP is based off BSD, but I remember someone saying to me Mac OS X is about as much like BSD as Ubuntu is (not very)

Windows 7 is really just going to be Vista Second Edition......

Oh please, nobody knows barely anything about it yet.

yep, I agree with thread starter.

MS is just continuing down the broken pot hole road.

It would be best to start clean...but with somehow making older versions of software run in some type of virtual space for backward compatibility.

you know like....Apple with their migration from PPC to Intel and their built in software that makes it possible....Rosetta.

That's the way it will have to go if they want to start clean....

But they should do it... Too much issues with Registry, DLL's, etc.... the bloated monster windows is becoming.

you know like....Apple with their migration from PPC to Intel and their built in software that makes it possible....Rosetta.

That was a CPU architecture change -- Not an OS architecture change. OSX is still fundamentally the same, just compiled for a different OS.

What you seem to want is a switch like Apple did from OS9 to OSX....but that's just silly. Apple had to do it. OS9 was a mess compared to more modern operating systems like Linux/Windows NT. It had no protected memory, multitasking, security concepts, etc.

There's no reason for Microsoft to make that kind of switch. Microsoft upgraded or flat out replaced many of the systems with Vista (Networking, security, audio, video, media, and so on) and look at how much people complained about that.

Windows 7 is really just going to be Vista Second Edition......

We simply don't know enough about it to be be able to make any judgement at this stage. From what we know so far it appears it's not going to be a radical departure from Vista but that's a good thing, imo. It took months for all my software and drivers to be updated and for the performance of applications to come to close to that of XP - I don't want that to be the case everytime Microsoft release a new operating system. However, Microsoft screwed me over with Windows Ultimate Extras and I'm going to wait a while to decide if Win7 is worth the money.

The flying car analogy is a pretty good one, I think.

100% agreed. It seemed like a "possibility" but now we see that "flying cars" are NOT the way forwards. Tichnology may eventually allow them, but the problems they would supposedly solve could be better solved in other ways.

Windows 7 is really just going to be Vista Second Edition......

Captain of the failboat!

Blackcomb wasn't ever supposed to be a complete re-write of Windows. It was supposed to be the successor to Whistler (XP) they ended up deciding they wanted an incremental release between XP and Blackcomb and thus Longhorn started. The longer it took, the larger vision they had for Longhorn, and ironically the less features actually made it into the shipping Vista.

Anyways, the complete re-write of Windows was called Microsoft Singularity. More on that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system)

Anyways, Blackcomb isn't technically dead, because it didn't ever exist. It was part of a larger roadmap Microsoft used to describe to developers and investors there future vision. The inital roadmap had Windows XP in 2001, Windows Longhorn in 2003 and Windows Blackcomb in 2006, funny how that worked out.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!