Helpful Information
 
 
Category: Geek News and Humour
Microsoft Windows 2003

Screenshots of Windows XP LongHorn.
Images credited to WinBeta.org
_________________________________________________

http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/cp.gif
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/explorer.gif
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/performace.gif
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/device.jpg
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/device2.jpg
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/settings.jpg
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/sidebar_options.gif
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/about.gif
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/apps.jpg
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/boot.jpg
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/bye.jpg
http://www.winbeta.org/images/4015/cool.jpg
_________________________________________________


It looks completely different, but the criticisms differ over the net, some like it some hate it (yes not all people like it).

Where do you guys think Microsoft is taking Operating Systems too? Any predictions of what they may do in a few years time?

I like the blue colour scheme, ( I am a blue person ), but it doesn't look like ( at a glance ) it would have anything on it that I would upgrade for.

Just my opinion ;)

I got to use a beta copy a while ago... its basically windows xp with a few changes. I believe this is the one that they are supposedly builing from scratch but I seriously doubt that even if they claim that they are. C'mon it would be 2010 before it would come out if that was the case. So if they aren't totally building it from scratch, they are going to be putting bits and peices together, and just think how good of security it would have *rolls eyes*.

There is a good thing about it in the last PC Magazine.

There is a good thing about it in the last PC Magazine.

interesting, just ONE good thing. Sounds like it wouldn't be worth the upgrade then. Just my oppinion, I don't even like XP that much. I still prefer 2000 over XP.


Jason

windows is a resource hog. If I was allowed to play Warcraft III on linux, I would dump windows out the window.

I ment as in a good article about it.

Windows XP Pro is a resource hog yes, but it has yet to crash on me... I have had it from 2 weeks after it was released.

XP has been pretty good to me. AND it has system restore, which is good.

Anyways, I've read that Longhorn (2004, NT 5.2) was being dropped in favor of Blackcomb (2006, NT 6.0), but that Blackcomb would be moved forward a bit, and wouls use some of the features that are in those screenshots. Perhaps they chose to keep the Longhorn name for the Blackcomb project.

As far as a rewrite, I don't believe they will, but they are supposed to be doing some massive tinkering to the NT kernal for the 6.0 update. There are supposed to be more upgrades between 5.1 and 6.0 than there were between 4.0 and 5.0.

There's no "re-write" of Windows going on. While they may rewrite a module or part of Windows there's not been any word of a complete re-write of Windows out of Redmond. What you may be referring to is that Windows Server 2003 is the first release of a Windows product after MS performed their review trying to find potential security problems.

Originally posted by ionsurge
Where do you guys think Microsoft is taking Operating Systems too? Any predictions of what they may do in a few years time?

Humm.... The same resource hogger with a more teletubbish interface?

lol. :p :D

gosh this drives me crazy how microsoft keeps changing stuff so much... i wish theyd stay with the same interfaces, and concepts of how it works (eg like networing (98/me/2000/xp all are lots different). The different fancier looking interfaces just end up hogging more resources, and even though some people think they look "cool" some (like me) just get anoyed with it. And most of the time when they change concepts of windows, and aplications it just creates confusion, and just endless glitch findings.
Not to say all of it is bad... just to say that they change stuff too much, in MY OPINION. and I do like windows, and use it myself.

Oh yeah and then microsoft just makes TONS of money by seling there new quickly made, highly glitchy variations at huge prices...
as for this new windows longhorn, i think the name is really wierd, and it looks "teletubish"
i wish theyd spend more time creating REALLY good products instead of trying to make tons of money with tons of cheasy variations

I believe the server version 2003 was released just recently.

Well, just looking at the pix above, it seems that there going for the OSX Aqua look.

Still waiting for something original from MS:rolleyes:

Originally posted by bcarl314
Still waiting for something original from MS:rolleyes:
Have fun ;)

Originally posted by bcarl314
Well, just looking at the pix above, it seems that there going for the OSX Aqua look.

Still waiting for something original from MS:rolleyes:

Yah your absolutely right...

Computers (as a whole) would not have gotten as far as they have if that dreaded Microsoft hadn't came up and stolen everyones designs and made a ton of money so that non-money charging but money-wanting/money-needing linux supporters could some day riot up and take the lead saying that computers got where they are because of them and what they did...

Why can't people fess up and at least give Microsoft the credit that they deserve for what they did and not the means by which they did it...

-sage-

A rare yet convincing reply... nice one Sage.

In a future os I'd like more control over my hardware; for example, if I have a process using close to 100% cpu time, I'd like to specify how much it can use so that other processes can operate. Switching priority isn't enough control for my liking. Similarly I'd like to be able to allocate memory and page file resources so that important processes aren't paged and when they are, they're paged to a quick disk, not necessarily the system disk.

Microsoft for me cares far too much about looks, looking radical, and network stuff, rather than the key thing an os needs to do which is interact with the hardware.

I think the interface is heading in the right direction; I can't believe how many people complained when XP was released about the new look, it seems with a future os it'll get even better. Hopefully more customisation, without the need for 'Plus' addons will be possible; there's no point in having flashy interfaces if people can't personalise it.

Ahh, but the real question is, can we credit MS with standardizing PCs? I submit that we cannot, rather it is a resut of IBM licensing thier architecture, once they were forced to give up their monopoly, which eventually lead to the creation of MS.

They got their beginning from nothing, parlayed alot of nothings into something, yet still cannot be credited with any original design concepts on anything.

Just my 2 bits. I don't want to start a war, just interested in some intelligent conversation. Which one of the reasons I keep coming here. Lots of smart people here.

Actually,

You are sort of right Carl...

IBM did standardize the ISA Architecture, and as you said attempted to keep it proprietary by introducing their own 16/32bit bus known as MCA... On the other hand, EISA began as Compaq's answer to IBM's MCA bus, and followed a similar path of development--with very similar results.

Compaq avoided the two key mistakes that IBM made when they developed EISA. First, they made it compatible with the ISA bus. Second, they opened the design to all manufacturers instead of keeping it proprietary, by forming the non-profit EISA committee to manage the design of the standard.

You are right in the fact that Microsoft did not standardize the architecture of the computer...

Now that being said, let me explain why I say what I say about Microsoft and clarify a couple of things... First all must agree that the first true mouse driven GUI OS was developed by Apple... Second to clarify on where M$ came into the picture, IBM contracted Microsoft to make a GUI based OS (MS-DOS was already out in the mainstream along with alot of other's DR-DOS, QDOS, PC-DOS, etc...)... This GUI was known as Windows (HA!!!)... IBM however decided not to use the design and being IBM, in an attempt to emulate Apple, decided to develop a proprietary OS for their proprietary hardware systems, this became OS/2... Bill Gates realizing the profit potential of his GUI (wasn't an OS) asked IBM if he could have the rights to it... IBM gave them over whole heartedly (if they would not have they would have had to pay Bill for them)... And the rest becomes history...

Now, that being said... What I credit Microsoft with doing is creating the API's that programmers use in order to allow many types of non-proprietary hardware to interface almost seamlessly together... I mean think about it this way, when things were DOS driven until Win95, you had to not only jumper (rather be hard-set or soft-set) your hardware and ensure that not only were you using a non-used IRQ but also in other cases a non-used DMA or Port Address and then if that all worked, you had to load the drivers, if any were created by the manufacturer... Still Win95 was not by any means perfect but it was a step in the right direction, you had the basis of the API's... Now if you look at it from a 2000 or XP perspective it's amazing building a system without setting a single jumper and having windows recognize and install the drivers, if any are needed, for each and every device, and if your device has no drivers windows will load the base API for that device until you load the drivers, if any are needed... It's just amazing...

My couple of Quaters, three nickels, two dimes and four pennies... ;)

:D

-sage-

touché

I agree that MS has made trmendous leaps and bounds from what others have developed. All I'm saying is, in most cases, it was not their idea. Bill (G) has a great knack of knowing what is going to be user friendly and making it better, however, I still feel that innovation is lacking at the big M.

Which is exactly what I meant when I said:

"Why can't people fess up and at least give Microsoft the credit that they deserve for what they did and not the means by which they did it"

;)

-sage-

Originally posted by mattover-matter
windows is a resource hog. If I was allowed to play Warcraft III on linux, I would dump windows out the window.

You can run warcraft 3 under linux using winex, it got a 4 out of 5 on usability. You might want to check out these links

http://www.transgaming.com
http://www.transgaming.com/gamepage.php?gameid=556
the second one is to the warcraft 3 section of the site, the first one is where you dl winex3.0. You have to use cvs though unless you want to pay for it.

Heh, did any of you see the screens of XP before it was released? Didn't look like it did when they released it. They had a few different shells before they chose Luna.

LongHorn won't be as big a step as XP was. I like XP a lot, and hopefully LH adds some more usability features like XP did (mainly the taskbar tweaks; I love how each app gets its own area on the bar. Open IE, Notepad, and then another IE window and the two IE window buttons go side-by-side. Why that wasn't the way it was done in the first place, I don't know...)

I am gonna stick with XP and test longhorn on my other machine that is just there to test stuff - a 2.5Ghz P4 machine.


There will be no way that I will switch before I am certain enough that it is reliable, and secure.

I think you just contradicted yourself ion, :D:D
I dont think XP is all that reliable and secure ...
but thats another thread ;)

Originally posted by sage45
First all must agree that the first true mouse driven GUI OS was developed by Apple...


lmao... hardly. Steve Jobs stole it off Xerox when he got a special tour of their PARC research center in Palo Alto (sp?), Cali. Apple isn't even innocent. Xerox was the first to have a GUI OS, they had ethernet and laser printers too which were all non-existant at the time. The guy that founded 3Com was a PARC researcher and invented ethernet. And at least one of the guys who founded Adobe was another PARC researcher too.

Then Apple tried their first computer using a GUI called "Lisa" which turned out to be an expensive flop.

If my memory serves me correctly, Xerox had the first system to use a mouse... but did not have a GUI... :p I do know that Jobs stole the mouse from them though... hehe... sneaky bastage... :D

-sage-

In fact, SRI was the first with a "pointing device" (prototype mouse) and Xerox Alto was the first with a GUI. Xerox didn't realise what a gold mine they had and let Apple in on their system. THat led to the development of the highly advanced Lisa and the GUI for the less advanced Macintosh.

About the mouse, see <http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html>, <http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/engelbart.htm>, <http://www.cs.brown.edu/stc/resea/telecollaboration/engelbart.html>

About Xerox Alto, see <http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/alto.html>, <http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/0-3-XeroxAlto-text.htm>,

And about early mac, see <http://library.stanford.edu/mac/earlymac.html>

How can you use a mouse without a GUI? I've seen footage from one of Xerox's promotional videos they made way back in the day, they had a graphical user interface with MDI, the whole deal.

Well colour me corrected... :D

-sage-

you can use a mouse without a gui, in linux they have the cui mouse interface, where you can highlight and paste with the middle click even before you "startx"!










privacy (GDPR)