Softpedia has an interesting article about Longhorn.  Is Microsoft's Longhorn design proactive or reactive?  That is, is the development of Longhorn based on Microsoft's own vision or is it playing "me too" to Google and Apple?  And as a result, is Microsoft gambling the future of Windows by seemingly hastily refocusing on these feature?

Personally, I think Microsoft has more than enough talent on hand to do what needs to be done.  Windows XP is a very solid OS, and SP2 makes it quite secure in the bigger scheme of things.  So what "problem" does Longhorn really need to solve? I can think of 3 basic problems in Windows XP that Longhorn needs to address:

1) Search.  It's ridiculously time consuming to find stuff in Windows XP.

2) Display.  Monitor resolution is being held back by the OS.  I want to be able to run at 2800x1600 someday but what good would that do me? I wouldn't be able to see anything on Windows XP, it would be tiny.  I want to be able to run at very high resolutions and have my GUI, text, icons, scale appropriately.

3) Security. SP2 does a pretty good job overall on tightening things up. But sometimes I feel like it's a bit hacked.  I just want my network stuff secure. I want to know I can surf the net and read my email without worrying that someone's installed a key-logger on my machine or something.

I think Microsoft can deliver on all 3 items.  But I too worry that Microsoft's desires to compete a little bit with everyone may distract it from these core things.  RSS integration? Who cares. Fancier Media Player? Whatever.