Meanwhile, even as Mac fans get ready to drool all over whatever Tiger turns out to be when it first greets its eager public next month, Windows enthusiasts-- yes, contrary to all logic, they really do exist-- are getting all worked up over Longhorn. Longhorn, you may recall, is the next major version of Windows-- or will be, when it finally ships a couple of years from now (optimistically speaking). But despite the fact that a release version of Longhorn is still ages from seeing the light of day, the embryonic operating system is apparently the talk of the town at this week's Windows Hardware Engineering Conference.

Not that we're criticizing, mind you; don't forget how late Mac OS X was to market, how incomplete it was when it finally got there, and how many years Apple had been seeding developers with prerelease builds and technical info before 10.0 ever hit store shelves. It would be downright hypocritical to bag on Microsoft for hyping Longhorn so far in advance of it becoming an actual shipping product; not that we're above committing sins of hypocrisy, mind you (see, look: "We hate 'net-based soap operas that always broadcast late!" Piece of cake), but given our own forty years in the desert waiting for Mac OS X, we're actually willing to cut Microsoft some slack on the whole Longhorn ship date thing.

The system requirements, however, are a whole 'nother wad o' wax. Faithful viewer Dan Ward noticed a Microsoft Watch article last Friday which describes Microsoft's idea of the "average" computer to run Longhorn: "a dual-core CPU running a 4 to 6 GHz; a minimum of 2 GB of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today."

No problem.

Now, okay, granted, Longhorn is probably at least two years away, and there's all that great stuff about the advancement of high tech: Moore's Law, the irrepressible march of progress, etc. Nevertheless, even bearing all that in mind, we still have to offer the observation that-- and we mean this in the strictest technical sense, you understand-- holy crap.

Seriously, just think of it: Microsoft's idea of the "average" Longhorn-capable system is a computer that won't even be available for ready money for at least another year yet, and when it does ship, it'll probably cost two or three grand. Imagine if, when Mac OS X 10.0 had shipped, it had required a minimum of a dual-500 MHz G4, half a gig of RAM, an 80 GB hard disk, and a GeForce 3. Apple would have sold about three copies.

Maybe we're seriously underestimating the coming advancements in computer technology over the course of the next two years and Microsoft's average Longhorn system will be readily available in 2006 and priced to move at $400 apiece, but somehow we doubt it. In fact, we strongly suspect that with system requirements like these, the transition to Longhorn won't exactly be a cakewalk. In the meantime, we Mac users have Tiger to look forward to, and possibly Cougar, Leopard, and/or Lynx as well. Things are really starting to get interesting, aren't they?

And I guess we can all officially stop whining about beige G3s not being supported in Panther...