Microsoft Officially Shows Longhorn, WinFX 681
Theaetetus writes "Microsoft today unveiled its most detailed look yet at its new OS, Longhorn, due in 2006, during Bill Gates' keynote speech at the company's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles. An article at Internet Week describes some of the goals: avoiding viruses, worms, and 'building apps that are as smart as Outlook.'" The company "also unveiled 'WinFX,' which it described as a new application programming model for Windows that is the evolution of its .NET programming framework."
Not impressed yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't you do that with kappdoc....???
I'd like to see some screenshots of this 'new interface'.
The article rambles on a lot, but doesn't actually tell you anything. And..well.. I've never really tried it, but is Outlook that amazing
This means nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
These announcements are nothing more than vague future directions...
Can we please stop the FX branding theme? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the FX comes from effects, I can buy that on a video card (going for video effects) but how does that tie in to an application framework?
How about this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple has it right, they build incredibly intelligent apps, with a minimalistic approach to user interface that has only the options people want. The result is that the apps are very easy to use and they look pretty to boot.
Do yourself a favor, switch to Mac now, you won't regret it. You'll have a easy to use desktop system with strong UNIX underpinnings. Plus, three years between OS releases is a long enough time to significantly erode Microsofts market share.
Re:That's a goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
They mean smart as in crippling attachment functionality so that it's impossible to open anything even if you know the source and it can't possibly be harmful, like a PDF?
They mean smart as in built-in anti-competitive DRM designed to squeeze others out of the marketplace and stopping me doing what I want to do with my e-mail?
They mean smart as in the Outlook Web Access Client which doesn't work probably in any browser other than MSIE and uses (as always) their non-standard DHTML object model?
They mean smart as in so wonderfully secure that Napster script kiddie Fanning can reverse the password encryption with his new contact updater software?
Yeah I can see that's real smart. Microsoft Smart (TM).
Re:That's a goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Improvements (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's hope Microsoft also does things we have been suggesting for who knows how long: firewall enabled by default, etc. Oh, and go through your OS and disable useless things such as Windows Messenger! Yes, it might hurt Microsoft's feelings if they read Slashdot for 5 minutes but who knows, they might actually get something useful out of it!
Shooting fish in a barrel (Score:2, Insightful)
Insert obvious joke here.
Re:.Net Obsolete? (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, you didn't honestly think that they'd let that continue for much longer, did you? This way, when Longhorn debuts in 2006, and all the
Re:That's a goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a configuration issue on your end. I have no problems viewing PDFs, JPGs, or other non-harmful attachments. You can even tell Outlook to stop annoying you with the bogus "potentially harmful" message if you're sure about it.
On the other hand, we recently discovered that our Exchange backend is configured to automatically delete certain attachments. We couldn't send an Access
They mean smart as in the Outlook Web Access Client which doesn't work probably in any browser other than MSIE and uses (as always) their non-standard DHTML object model?
I call BS -- I use Outlook Web Access with Firebird from home with absolutely no problems. It works differently than it does if you use IE, but it still works.
There's plenty to bash MS for, and Outlook is a lovely example of overly complex, overly insecure software, but at least keep it to the facts.
Re:That's a goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? As it turns out it's because Bass are pretty smart fish. They can make generalizations. This thing has certain aspects to it that edible things have. Let's see if it's good to eat.
Who knew that such things as Red Devils, Rapalas and rubber worms would come along?
Trout, on the other hand, are primitive and stupid. They rely on hardcoded pattern recognition to find food. If the available food doesn't match the pattern a trout can starve among plenty. Or ignore your fly.
The problem with Outlook isn't that it's stupid. It's too smart. It makes decisions for the user ( who should, legitimately, be the sole source of intelligence when reading mail. Post your luser joke here).
It's like a Bass. Too easy to catch virii and malicious code because it recognizes that it's something that might be able to run. Well hell, let's try to run it and see what happens.
Gotcha!
KFG
Re:How about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPod is a great little piece of hardware, but honestly has some problems with the software. Almost every time I use it I think of minor changes that could easily have been made to give the user greater control, but were presumably left out because this method was simple and easy and the way they presumed everyone would want to use it.
The answer isn't minimalism any more than it is bloatware, you're either giving people too little (claiming it's only what they want) or far too much (and most of it being total crap).
Re:That's a goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't accept is virus that are automatically executed simply by viewing an email in the preview pane. As soon as you click on it, you're infected.
We've mostly got visual basic scripting to thank for that.
Re:Can we please stop the FX branding theme? (Score:3, Insightful)
WinFS (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:This means nothing (Score:2, Insightful)
So.. I just have to ask: Where's Linux headed next?
Re:That's a goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
And Outlook is to blame for this, because it LETS THEM.
There is absolutely no reason to launch an executable file from an email attachment. If you attach a non-executable document file to an email, sure, let the application that filetype is associated with open it up from within Outlook, but any attempt to execute an EXE/COM/BAT/PIF/SCR file should result in 'not allowed.'
User security policies are only as good as what the system allows the user to get away with. A system that tells you DON'T DO THIS but then lets you do it anyway is worthless.
Re:.Net Obsolete? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about this... (Score:1, Insightful)
OSS has always been better, now Faster! (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like Microsoft is already playing catch-up with Linux in some respects. The "sidebar"? What about Windowmaker's dock apps? What about gkrellm? What about the various panel apps for Gnome and KDE? I haven't seen any details about the WinFS file system, but I'm betting that whatever Microsoft comes up with could easily be done with some combination of MySQL, OpenOffice.org's document architecture, a pretty GUI and some glue to hold it all together. (It's an obvious point, but in case anyone has forgotten, developers have choices choices choices with open source: the GUI could be motif, Tcl/Tk, GTK, Qt, OpenGL,
In brief, unless Microsoft has a huge ace up their sleeve, whatever they want to do or come up with has already been done or can be done quite quickly with the enormous, comprehensive open source infrastructure that is available today.
Re:How about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you add the most frequently requested features... "OH MY GOD IT'S BLOATWARE! The preferences are so confusing! It takes so much disk space / memory / time to load!"
If you leave anything out... "WHAT? I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY SHIPPED THIS PIECE OF CRAP WITHOUT IT! They must either be retards, or they think I'm too stupid to want it, or they think they're smarter than me!"
Even if you try to find a balance, there's gonna be some guy who is pissed off that you omitted his pet feature and kept a bunch of crap he doesn't want.
Announcing WinFX is the Adam Osborne mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill Gates just made the Adam Osborne mistake. He announced "WinFX", whatever that is, as the improvement to
Adam Osborne's [bricklin.com] company made an early personal computer. Adam announced a new model long before it was ready. Sales stopped because everyone wanted to wait for the new model. Adam's company went bankrupt.
It was amazing watching the bankrupting of the company on TV at the time. Osborne's company went from being one of the fastest growing to having insufficient money for operations in about two months.
It was a sobering lesson. Computer companies sometimes die extremely fast. Novell, WordPerfect, Corel, Fifth Generation Systems, and Central Point are examples. There are many others.
Microsoft has not been managed well. The company survives and profits because of having a virtual monopoly on operating systems and on office suite file formats. Think about it, suppose someone had a monopoly on water. That person could soon be much richer than Bill Gates.
For most businesses, the free Open Office [openoffice.org] is all they need. There are significant benefits to Open Office. It is much less quirky than Microsoft Office, for example. Most people are not very observant about the software they use, and they hardly notice the difference between Microsoft Word and the Open Office word processor.
Right now, many businesses use software that runs only under Microsoft Windows. However, there are many desktops that only need software that is already available for Linux. Those can benefit from the increased stability of Linux.
People don't care about the cost of Windows. The cost is only a few dollars of the cost of the computers they buy. The biggest issue against Microsoft is its adversarial behavior toward its customers. Using Linux means never having to say "My operating system company is partly my enemy."
Microsoft is on the way down. Most people don't realize that yet, however. Microsoft is one of the biggest management failures the world has ever seen. If the company could make a few changes in its behavior, it could stay profitable. However, it seems that abusiveness is more important to Microsoft than money.
Note that WinFX [4mg.com] is someone else's trademark. WinFX is the most cracked and cheated [google.com] program I have ever seen. There are 50 times as many links to cheats as there are to the product!
Microsoft has scheduled an MSDN TV program about "WinFX" for November 6 [microsoft.com] (Subject to change by Microsoft, of course.)
Microsoft claims that WinFX is their trademark [216.239.53.104]. (The link is to a Google conversion of a
Microsoft has a history of picking inappropriate trademarks. "X" means unknown. It was inappropriate to use the letter X in conjunction with "Xbox" and "ActiveX". Aside from being someone else's trademark, WinFX sounds too trivial for use with an extensive programming product. Traditionally, "FX" has been used to signify "effects".
The Real Audience... (Score:1, Insightful)
This is a brilliant marketing move by Microsoft: the commoditization of the desktop. That bar is a freaking billboard, and the only way to connect to it will be Microsoft technology.
Imagine the following scenario, as spun to media providers, such as record companies: the end consumer (that's you, gentle reader) gets a direct broadcast to your Microsoft ProductPlacementBar(tm) that the Band Of The Week has just released a new album. Want to listen to it? Just click the tile. (Don't worry about the music being ripped, Mr. Record Executive, because it's DRM'ed.) Want to purchase it? (Of course you do!) Just click the 'purchase' option to use Microsoft's SecurePaymentSystem (tm).
As a record company executive, wouldn't *you* love to have direct access to such a large market? And you can only get it via Microsoft's Longhorn technology. Hell, you can't afford not to have it. Direct access to the consumers - you can have your own web 'radio' broadcasts, and skip ClearChannel entirely!
So when Longhorn actually comes along, the real functionality isn't applications: it's access to the market. And Microsoft controls both ends.
That's what this beta preview is all about.
Re:Goals? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, because Microsoft hasn't been [microsoft.com] researching [microsoft.com] and using [microsoft.com] natural language processing for years.
Re:That's a goal? (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem is that Windows infers that a file is executable based on its name, rather than something like execute permissions. This DOS-heritage behavior is dangerous and should be removed from Windows.
Re:OSS has always been better, now Faster! (Score:2, Insightful)
OSX is doing that with integrated search in FileOpen dialogs, but it isn't enough. This has to be a complete overhaul of the data storage metaphor. And I know that in itself, against the UNIX-type everything-is-a-file philosophy, will never fly. This new philosophy is everything-is-information that I can access.
I'm positive there would be an uproar in the open source/NIX community when you start saying things like there should be no
Re:That's a goal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's a goal? (Score:4, Insightful)
But don't forget (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft usually releases a patch about 3 months before the viri shows up.
I agree that these flaws should have never been their but I think much of the blame falls on the users.
Re:But don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
1. User gets email.
2. User clicks email to view it.
3. User is infected with virus.
Explain to me how its the users fault again? Maybe they should have been running some 3rd party antivirus software?
Oh wait, if VBS scripts didn't have the inherent ability to automatically launch scripts, it would be a non-issue.
Ok, that came off a little more condescending than I thought but the point stands: How in the *world* is that the users fault? Should they just not read email?
Re:That's a goal? (Score:3, Insightful)
So they took the normal windows file-extension stupidity, and added another stupid vulerability on top of that.
I've had to deal with the, "No, I'm IE and I know better than you, Mr. web app designer, and I say this file is [whatever], and not [whatever] as you contend" problem. It's maddening.
Four things really (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:That's a goal? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny... Locked-down by default has been preached here on Slashdot for ages and ages. Here we have an instance of Microsoft doing just that, and folks on Slashdot bitch some more.
Re:One little nitpick... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Novell is dead. But they were above that magic size for a corporation where you never truly die, you just become an undead dinosaur. But while feeding off of an ever shrinking installed base can keep the lights on for a few years, dead is still dead. When was the last time you heard of a NEW Netware install? And if there will never be a NEW Netware customer, and a few abandon it every year, the end result is forgone. Just like there are still sites using Token Ring or DECNet, it doesn't mean that they aren't both dead technology. Dead in this sense doesn't mean Chapter 11, it just means zero growth, an end to innovation (i.e. maintaince only mode) and a long slow slide to oblivion.
Novell isn't porting to Linux to spur a new wave of sales, they are doing it because hardware is changing faster than they can afford to port Netware to it and the days of every hardware vendor undertaking the driver development effort for Netware are long gone. So they think that by putting a Netware protocol stack atop Linux they can keep selling their captive audience of legacy Netware installations a couple more rounds of upgrades.
Re:How about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why didn't my document work on your PC?"
"Well, what did you use to make the diagrams?"
"Ahh, well, I used the extra super diagram maker plugin... why, don't you have it?"
"No, never heard of it."
"Ahh, well you can easily download it from , then just go to options, preferences, plugins, stock functions, diagrams, replace with that plugin... of course, you don't want to use it for everything as that plugin has a couple of bugs, so just switch between that and the standard one depending on what you're drawing... Easy mate."
"Errrrrr"
Nope... while plugins are great, and the ability to start with a relatively bare bones install and just add on as required this does lead to both:
"HEY! Why can't I edit this picture?"
"Oh, you must not have chosen to install it... easy, just get the install disk and update to include it... where's your install disk?"
"I don't know... the IT department has it"
"Ahh, well, that'll take a week or so"
AND
"Word is a piece of shit, it keeps crashing!"
"Um, actually it's that third party plugin you installed..."
The good thing about office is that you write up your word document, and someone with the same version of office (or a few versions back) can open it... no dramas... in fact I don't remember the last document I couldn't open, or didn't display properly on opening... it's just not an issue.