New Longhorn Screenshots Leaked 1037
Badgerguy writes "The Supersite for Windows has some shiney-blue looking leaked screenshots of LongHorn. The new screenshots of the 'Aero' interface mainly seem to be concerned with Digital Media integration - which has become deeper still. A new 'SyncManager' screenshot is up there (copying of iSync?) as well as some pictures of LongHorn prototype hardware, which looks like a cross between a desktop PC / Notebook / Tablet PC. "
Wrong direction (Score:4, Interesting)
**For the Windows users that are going to inevitably say "Well my XP box never crashed and I don't have to reboot for a week! I play mad gamez and it stays good! So it's stable, you are just a open source zealot!", just shut up. When the big kids talk about "stability", they mean that a server remains stable indefinately while performing multiple critical tasks. If one task fails, the OS is capable of maintaining peak levels of performance despite the failure of one component/application/process/whatever. Not having to reboot your Win2K Server for 20 or so days when all the box was doing was providing file sharing and running a small Active Directory domain for a measly 100-200 users is not "stable". That kind of stability was surpassed by UNIX over 20 years ago (and every other mainstream OS since, as well). This post was first.
Re:Wrong direction (Score:5, Funny)
But I thought windows boxes were for only playing games
Re:Wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows machines are best used as gaming machines. The only way I ever hook mine up to the internet is if it is behind my trusty DSL router, which has protected me time and time again.
If I didn't play games, I would have bought an I-Book or a G-4 a couple years ago.
Re:Wrong direction (Score:5, Funny)
And the Advanced Server version is Screwtape?
Re:Wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
Look. MS Win\2003 and future versions contain public-keys for encryption, for which the licensed user (not owner) holds no corresponding private-key. Who holds the private keys? Microsoft, for sure - and whoever they escrow to at Three Letter Agency.
Sony Pictures may well hold private-keys, distributing the pub-key to you by use of MS's APIs in a software installer. The implications of this is that your computer cannot be trusted by its user.
Oh, and the worm comments seem like flamebait? The DCom-RPC vulnerability is YEARS old in the code - 1997. Never caught by the people who had access and ownership of the source. Not after bringing in special tools for reviewing code last year, not after a 5-month security related delay for review of 2003 Server. This is an OBVIOUS place to look for flaws, being RPC, and automated tools for checking buffer code is not rocket science.
The newest (of many) problems in the IE use of the OBJECT tag was so downplayed in the MS announcement yesterday, that I have hardly heard a mention. This is not a joke to leave unpatched, and it is related to IE ignoring RFC compliance on 7-bit MIME-type headers, and weakness in the mechanism for defining "zones".n /MS03-032.asp [microsoft.com] 0 30820.html [eeye.com]
See if you can tell that this announcement:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulleti
relates to this disclosure by eEye:
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD20
You think that Linux or Solaris or whatnot suffers equally? A regular user of an account on the box cannot establish the trust policy for code executed outside of his own shell.
We can go on for pages and pages in this vein - instead just manage to look through the relevant list-archives for Full-Disclosure and Incidents, etc...
Windows is a little, dirty-toilet OS.
Toyish? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Toyish? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Aqua? Aero? (Score:5, Funny)
They're installed in the flying cars
Re:Aqua? Aero? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being able to view data in three dimensions isn't useful when you must view it straight on in order to interact with it usefully. A 3D interface will not accomplish anything special unless you actually have to work with data that can only be displayed in three dimensions, which is relatively rare and where this is necessary, specialized interfaces have been developed.
A lot of people think that 3D interfaces are the natural progression from 2D ones since three is one better than two, but few of these people actually stop to think about it.
Re:Aqua? Aero? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also remember that there are always the things that are built on top of a technology that are assumed to be impossible or sometimes can't even be imagined until the technology itself is widespread. Desktop publishing was not possible until the 2D GUI was established. Mac OS X's Expose depends on its abstracted window system and hardware-accelerated "renderer".
virtual desktops? (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite implimentation of this is that of OpenBox(and the other boxes). I can wheel on the empty background to switch desktops. No wasteful program runs as a background, and I can move a window from one desktop to another by dragging it across the edge. With this method, I can keep my editor and compile on one desktop, and instantly flip to a web browser if I need to check documentation.
Mac OS 9 and Linux(by which I mean XFree86 w/ a decent wm on any platform) also have the ability to shrink to just their titlebar upon a double click. Not as essential as virtual desktops, but definitely worth the ~30 lines of code it takes to impliment. Panther's Expose uses a different approach by which all windows, or all those of the current application, are resized to fit on the screen. Clicking on one exposes it. The idea has potential.
(Windows has kept the same interface for the past 8 years, but not because it's the best.)
Re:Toyish? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think you'll upgrade then? What about your mom?
If you are on NT or W2k, you have some time, but consider that although NT EOLs in June, 2004 and Wk2 EOLs in March, 2008, it is doubtful that patches will be written for W2K for much longer--NT is dead as far as patches are concerned; anyone who still runs NT can go pound sand for all the support they're going to get.
Ching, ching! Bling, bling! -- that's the sound of money flowing into Bill Gate$'s pockets.
Re:Wrong direction (Score:5, Interesting)
Who says they aren't? UI design and security are not mutually exclusive.
These are leaked screenshots, not final feature checklists. You are grinding your axe at the wrong moment, pal.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree with the parent though. They are moving toward higher media integration, which is copying Apple to the hilt. Interoperability and security have ALWAYS been low on their hit list. They don't care if what they make works with anyone else, because they have so much market saturation that they can more or less say "screw the rest of you".
*sigh* I always have to explain to people that 90% of the OS's out there are great, standards driven, and work well together...there's all sorts of free software out there, that you can even modify the source code to make work the way you want.
The problem is, Close to 90% or more of computers are running Windows instead. I still have some people I encounter that have never heard of the concept of a computer without windows, and get downright defensive of the concept of a computer WITHOUT windows.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Though frankly, they still dont have a decent competitor for everyday desktop computing, which is a shame.
WRT Linux, I'm inclined to agree. But Mac OS X is way more than a "decent competitor." In fact, I feel it surpasses Windows in every aspect of desktop computing. The *only* thing that Windows has over OS X is games. Other than that it can't hold a candle to the user experience that Mac OS X offers.
Oh, and I thought this even when 10.0 was released, and switched to Mac because of it.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither LoveSan or SoBig is not Microsoft's fault. They had the patch ready months before a potential exploit became reality - the idiot system administrators who do not read security advisories are to blame.
I'll keep saying this until someone proves me wrong: if Linux were as prevalent and popular as Windows is today, we would be in exactly the same position because of the stupid system administrators.
It's not the OS - i
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that in your little world administrators have nothing better to do but sit and wait for the latest patch and then immediatly go install it, oh and with no ill affects either.
In the real world many companies have half the IT staff (or less) than they used to and they're overworked even before having to install patches on EVERY machine.
The exploits in Windows were DEFECTS in the product. My company pays millions to put that product on thousands of machines, and it was defective. I plan on asking IT higher ups if we are planning any legal action against Microsoft for selling defective products.
When Ford gets sued because Crown Victorias explode when they are rear ended by another car, Ford doesn't get out of the lawsuits because "someone else ran into the car" they pay through the nose because their gas tanks are defective. Microsoft deserves the same treatment in the courts. Its the only true way they will EVER take security seriously.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
And how would Linux, FreeBSD or even OpenBSD be different in this sense? Do you think that they are secure out of box? No. Install a vanilla RedHat, expose it to the net and you're just asking for trouble. You'll still have to up2date and then "wait for the latest patch and then immediately go and install it" with all the possible ill effects that might bring about.
Microsoft deserves the same treatment in the courts. Its the only true way they will EVER take security seriously.
The fact is that software engineering cannot be compared to nuts-and-bolts engbineering because of its complexity. Your example is thus void.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
It deemed to hard to do true engineering on software. Thats bunk, coders just want to be "artistic" and forget engineering.
You don't see Fords engineers going "but building a car is really complex, cut us some slack."
My example is not void, Microsoft just doesn't want to work on engineering their software enough.
Oh and the remedy should be based on what you pay for the software, therefore your including Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD is void.
BTW: the Enterprise version of Linux that are sold for a price should live up to this level.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a cop-out of software engineers.
One of the main reasons that software is not truly engineered is that everyone makes up their own specifications. When you look at RFC's they look very much like engineering specs, and older technonogy like TCP has engineering like specifications too.
Now Microsofts problem was in the implementing of DCOM over TCP/IP and the security they used. Its their own specification, and not subject to proposal and being reviewed as the above mentioned RFC's are. Sure other protocols and implementations have had holes and exploits, but new RFCs can then be written and the hole fixed. This is exactly the same as saying the bridge design used for the Tacoma Narrows bridge will never be used again.
But it is that propietary code Microsoft writes and hides and does not publish full specifications for that is making their OS vulnerable to worms. It is their defect, they should own up to responsibilty for it.
And yes, if they did publish full specs for their system calls and interfaces, or God forbid, released their code for all to review, I would cut them more slack.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I will change it, so you will hopefully understand it better.
What if someone figured out to hack in to the OnStar system by GM and shut every GM car down? At first people would be mad at the person who did it and some would probably sue GM at this point (they may or may not win, my guess is that they would get some money from GM). Now picture if this happened every month or so, and GM said that ALL people who had this OnStar SOFTWARE installed needs to press an update button on their car every so often to load security patches. Now to keep with this analogy, some people that press the button have such major problems that they have to have their car towed back to a service station just to get it running again. This makes people nervous about pressing the button... Then a big attack comes and because a large percentage of people were too lazy or to nervous to press that button, their cars get shut down while driving. Some die and some GM cars kill other people. Now GM would be put out of business so fast it would make the breast implant thing look like a small claims case. This ALL would be because of a software error.
Am I saying that some admins don't share some of the blame? No! But this isn't the first or even the 50th severe security patch that Microsoft has released.
Now I will not keep saying this.
Gartner and company MUST start factoring this in to the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP of running Microsoft software. If you need an admin that must do nothing but patch your companies OS (testing included) all the time, then that hard cost MUST be included in TCO!!!!
As for your comment about Microsoft owning the lions share of the market and that is why they are attacked, I disagree. The real issue is that Microsoft has, from the beginning, tried to make their applications easy to integrate. They developed DDE and OLE. Both with NO real security built in. This was great for their users because it enabled Microsoft to get products out faster and made it far easier to work with them (from an API viewpoint). But look at Java Applets VS Active X controls. Java has the lions share of that type of market and yet you don't hear about security problems with it. Now ActiveX.... well lets just say it is an abomination with little to no security design. You got to love the fact that stuff can get installed on your Windows system without your approval over the Net!
Also look at some of their more recent products. Windows95 sent passwords over the network in clear text!!! No other operating system at that time even thought about doing that!
The last issue is that Microsoft is the worlds largest software maker with around 40 BILLION in the bank. What if they took around say 5 BILLION and really focused on their products security. I guess the question is why didn't they do that? The answer is that it would have taken cash off of their bottom line....
Kind of like an automotive company that cuts corners on stuff to save money... but then they get sued if things go bad and people get hurt....
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, there is no such thing as a perfectly written program. Most software is written to what is known and capable at the time - programmers are not omniscient and cannot possibly foresee all potential security holes in code. In addition, what may seem like a good idea or feature at the time, may later turn out to be a mistake, but there is no way of knowing that.
Secondly, you also open your company up to lawsuit. By the same idea that you can sue Microsoft for not being omniscient, you can also be sued for not foreseeing that there were possible security holes and providing appropriate protection. If your company was harmed, you could open yourself to a lawsuit for failure in due diligence.
Thirdly, there is a difference between a physical product such as a Crown Victoria and a software program. A Crown Victoria is the sum of its parts and systems, and as such, when parts or systems fail, it can and has killed people. Unless you can say the the same thing about the software you run, you are making an invalid comparison. Of course, if you can and can prove it, you can be sued for failing to provide physical backups - that is the tack I would take.
Finally, lest you think this is defense of Microsoft, it is not. This is a defense of software programmers everywhere (who are all of varying skill levels and abilities). Your bitter refusal to accept that there is only so much anyone can do will probably bite you in the end.
Enjoy your day, if it is possible.
Leaked Screenshots???? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Leaked Screenshots???? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Windows Me (as in the dreadful, "get to know Me" tagline)--is a lame duck technologically, but it offers enough reliability improvements and new features for me to recommend it heartily to most Windows 9x users"
Benefit of the doubt long gone (Score:3, Insightful)
Who says they aren't? UI design and security are not mutually exclusive.
Given their history, I'll assume that they aren't until they prove that they are. I haven't seen any announcements about Longhorn's newly designed security. Instead, we hear about DRM, multimedia capabilities, and pretty
Re:Wrong direction (Score:5, Interesting)
Here, for the first time, is a gallery of UI prototypes that I believe accurately portrays the "Aero" user interface in Longhorn.
So are these leaked screens, an accurate estimate, or a wild 'Guesstimate'?
Does Stability Sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Or would managers and housewives just say "its the same thing!"
Plus you want to keep pushing the GUI that made it popular in the first place. Why give Linux a chance to gain in the desktop market?
**For Linux Zealots that are going to inevitably say "Well if MS is going to sell secure and stable OS everyone would want a copy!, just shut up. When the big kids talk about "selling software" we are talking the major buyers, here. Which aren't necessarily the tech saavy.
Yes, that last paragraph was an insult to the parents obvious troll-paragraph. I run a SuSE server and an XP box. Both have been up the same length of time without a crash.
GUI didn't make it popular (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus you want to keep pushing the GUI that made it popular in the first place.
No, what made it popular was that everybody's software runs on it. Macintosh was ahead of Microsoft for a long long time when it came to the GUI. People kept buying Wintel boxes because that's what they had at work and, generally speaking, they were cheaper.
Look at an early 90's macintosh GUI and compare it to windows 3.11 and tell me that the window GUI would win over anybody. Then compare it to windows 95, and it's close
Let Me Guess (Score:3, Funny)
You live in New York, right?
*rimshot*
Re:Does Stability Sell (Score:3, Funny)
So, how is weather in New York these days?
Re:Does Stability Sell (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, if MS released a brand new operating system that looked identicle to XP, but was just ultra secure and ultra stable, would i
Does Monopoly Sell? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS Windows has always sold past a certain point in time, regardless of fucking quality. Because MS has a recognized illegal monopoly which hasn't been remedied.
Jesus Christ.
This will never get posted, because I'm just an AC. But what the hell.
The problem with MS at this point has nothing to do with how shiny the GUI is or how stable the OS is. MS has sold its OS without consequence for some time. Stability, security, usability--none of it matters.
We could argue until we die about whether or not Linux GUIs are comparable to those of Windows or MacOS, and then our children could continue the argument about whether or not Windows is as stable.
The issue isn't that Windows isn't stable, or that it has the best GUI. The issue is that we will never fucking know given the status quo whether or not users really want the added GUI features, because there are no consequences for MS that would motivate them to build a better GUI.
Honestly--really--does anyone here want more bloated GUI? Does anyone here know anybody who wants added bloat? Let's rephrase that for MS apologists--does anyone know anyone who wants the added GUI features?
I don't know anybody. The Joe Sixpacks I do know get pissed because their system is so laggy, and are astonished whenever I manage to speed it up by getting rid of the crap.
Of course, you'll come up with some anecdotal answer otherwise. And you might be right. But right now, all you'll be doing is accepting MS Longhorn post hoc as satisfactory, because you have no other realistic choices of OS. And all I might be doing is complaining about it.
I get so frickin tired about these arguments on Slashdot and elsewhere about whether or not Linux has a satisfactory GUI, or Windows has satisfactory security and stability.
The question isn't "if MS built a universally recognizably stable OS, would it sell?" Because of course it would sell. It sells right now. Because it has a monopoly.
The real question is "if MS were forced to compete in a diverse OS market, what other OS features might we see? Would MS then sell?"
When will we stop equating "satisfactory" with "optimal"?
What other market is like the OS market? If the OS market were like cereals, you would walk into the grocery store and see only corn flakes. Your choice would be "do I want the new corn flakes or not?" We would be having arguments about whether or not the corn flakes are crispy enough. A group of people would be saying "people like corn flakes; they don't need or want other cereals that might have dried fruits or some other wierd thing in them."
Sound silly?
Of course it does. It's not about MS being good enough. MS will never be as good enough for me, because I know there would be something better if it actually was forced to legitimately compete.
And you can't prove me wrong. If you want to, demand consequences for MS.
I get so sick of these screenshots being released every couple years, when we have the same discussion in which we rationalize why we have little choice of OS.
Re:Does Stability Sell (Score:3, Funny)
Did anyone actually purchase ME to find out what it looked like?
From what I heard, ME was a buggy mess that was shipped because they want to have something for the consumers to upgrade to every other year. I have read that ME ranks up there as one of m$' bigger mistakes, right up there with micro$oft bob.
Re:Does Stability Sell (Score:3, Funny)
Jaysyn
Re:Does Stability Sell (Score:4, Funny)
Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX (Score:3, Interesting)
In my opinion, I think that Mac is a little too addicted to the mouse for total computer operation. Yes it's possible to operate a Mac off a keyboard, no it's not feasible.
Re:Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything is placed in a tree-like hierarchy that is easier (compared to Windows' interface) to find things in, especially if you haven't had experience with the interface.
I'm a rabid OS X fan. I significantly prefer OS X's look and feel to WinXP, and I agree that Microsoft has failed to dictate sensible UI conventions to its developers. So many Windows apps seem to be duking it out for the "worst interface of all time" title (currently held by the main menu screens of Madden NFL 2004).*
However, I have to say that this [winsupersite.com] is a pretty damn clever UI for non tech-savvy folks (which is the vast majority of them). Contextual menus are provided for each piece of hardware, allowing inexperienced users to visually identify their system components and then click on them to bring up service or configuration options. Assuming that this view can be hidden for more experienced users, I think it's a significant improvement over current desktop metaphors for beginners (even with OS X, my parents would never know to click on the Apple menu to find system preferences if I didn't tell them).
It pains me to say this about Microsoft, but this is an innovative (as far as I can tell) interface. Even though it breaks conventions (bad), it seems to be leaps beyond anything that Apple has done recently in terms of "can your grandmother use this?" user interfaces (good). If nothing else, it gives Apple some real competition in the UI department (and some much-needed "grandma-centric" inspiration to Gnome and KDE).
* Yes, it's worse than QuickTime 4 [libero.it].
Re:Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Microsoft most definitely does have a user interface guideline [amazon.com] for developers, with very defined rules for the "look and feel" of a Windows application.
Re:Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX (Score:5, Informative)
I think so. System Preferences > Dock. Uncheck "Maginification." The Apple menu access to that setting is for convenience. OS X isn't perfect, nothing is perfect. But, that's a bad example.
I like this and it makes sense to me. Plus, when you open System Preferences, every preferences applet is right there in front of you. But, I'm confused as hell by the XP control panel. Everytime I've tried to use it, it seems to throw barriers in fron of me to get at what I want.
Re:Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX (Score:5, Informative)
"Example - how do you stop the dock from zooming in and out? "Right click" on it? No."
YES!!! Right click (or ctrl-left click for the one-button mouse) on the dock (not an application or file in the dock) and a menu pops up. Click "Turn Magnification Off". Admittedly, it's a bit tricky to click the dock without clicking on an application/file...but it does work just as you described it should work.
"Control panel? Don't think so."
YES!!! That's another way to do it. The Mac equivalent of Control Panel is "System Preferences". Within System Preferences is "Dock". I'm not sure how much more intuitive it can get.
"Try clicking on a broken X11 app link some time. Does it tell you it's broken? No - it just fades in a nice question mark. Of course if you don't know what that means"
It means it's a broken link. I don't think that's very unintuitive...but I guess that's my opinion. Do other OS's give better info in a similar situation aside from that fact that it can't find the linked file?
"There are lots of little things like that, that in my opinion make an OS that is pretty straightforward and predictable"
You may have a different opinion after playing with it a little more. I "switched" about 6 months ago and have been amazed how much more intuitive it is (among other things). Admittedly, some things are different than Windows, but that doesn't make it less intuitive.
Re:Wrong direction (Score:5, Funny)
*blink*
This is almost like hearing someone say, "Look at the sleek and sexy lines of that Honda Element."
Yeah. Car analogy. Deal with it.
Mirror (Score:5, Interesting)
Dumbing Down (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time new screenshots come out I'm reminded of my 13 year old kid sister. When I was 13, I knew a decent bit about computers. I had played Zork and could throw together a program in basic if I wanted to.
When I ask her how things work on the computer she has now, she's used to XP and having almost everything explained in simple, child-like steps. If I ask her to save something "to the hard drive" she doesn't know what this means.
While I applaud the M$ goal of making computers as easy to use as toasters, a ever widening gap is occuring thanks to pretty UIs that leaves those of us who know how things work under the hood in a separate world. I only hope that with Longhorn you can disable the absurd glossification and get it to run 10% faster. Or maybe to have ssh built into the telnet command line. That would be nice.
Re:Dumbing Down (Score:3, Interesting)
While I applaud the Apple goal of making computers as easy to use as toasters, a ever widening gap is occuring thanks to pretty UIs that leaves those of us who know how things work under the h
I Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
And to non-geeks, this is a bad thing. To the rest of the world, it's not a big deal. They don't really care if their hard drive has 8MB of cache and runs at 7200RPMs. They don't care how much space is on their hard drive as long as they don't get a scary message saying they've run out of it.
And they certainly don't mind getting told, step-by-step, how to do certain tasks.
The reason that "leaked" screenshots of the new version of Windows gets posted on
Case in point: you're 13 year old sister doesn't need to know about xcopy or directory structures or file trees in order to save or retrieve files. And better yet, a grandma can do the same thing and while we see them as childlike step-by-step shortfalls, the simple fact is that UI brings computer efficiency to the masses. Is it as efficient as we are (or can be)? Of course not. But it lets them use something that they had not been able to use before (I'm speaking mainly of the grandmas at this point).
Either way, I think that dumbing down is a great thing. Because this gives users a choice: You can go step by step and make something work. Or, if you're curious, or if you're a Power User (tm), you can turn that off and work with more control and finesse than thought possible. I know the Aero interface will be disabled the instant
I install the newest Windows, but at least it's there for those who need it.
And those are the people you seem to have forgotten in your posting.
Re:I Disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever tell a user (like my sister) to download a new program? Inevitably, they do so and then ask, "so where did it go?" Not knowing about filesystems may make life "simpler" but it doesn't make it any "easier".
Theoretically the shiny new interface should be accompanied by rock-solid reliability, but it's not.
Perhaps this is where someone can surpass Microsoft? There were probably points in the history of most complex devices that a user really had to understand how it worked to actually operate it.
Re:Dumbing Down (Score:4, Insightful)
The very foundation of our entire society is to crave simplicity and convenience. People no more want to learn to use a computer than learn to build a house, or walk to the store, or a host of other important and healthy activities. We have been trained to desire as little work as possible in every possible way. For most people in America, the ideal world would be to be able to buy as much useless shit as they want, never have to work, and sit in front of their TV for all eternity.
We have been raised to DISDAIN work forever. How would our society function if people didn't WANT to sit in school until they are 25, so they can work hard for 40 years then retire for 60 years.
People aren't just stupid when it comes to computer, they are stupid regarding everything. What if our houses, roads, and office buildings were constructed with the same passion as the average geek feels towards computers? By training us to despise work, people do not put their heart and soul into their work. Look around you.. our world is dull and lifeless, and its no wonder why.
Re:Dumbing Down (Score:5, Insightful)
UI simplification is a good thing. A very good thing. A lot of people loathe computers, because of software which was built on the mentality that it's not that hard to learn, so people can just read the manual and figure it out.
People should be able to buy computers, use them, and find the experience enjoyable. That means they shouldn't have to worry about reading the manual. Apple and Microsoft both understand this. The geek community and especially the open source community need to catch on now.
If I go to buy a steak, I shouldn't need to know how to birth a cow, I should just have enough money to pay for the steak, and maybe an understanding of how to use eating utensils.
Re:Dumbing Down (Score:5, Interesting)
And I don't really like your stance that "simplicity and convenience" is a bad thing. At least not, in and of itself. I think that, ideally, a computer should be easy to use as a toaster, yet it should still allow me to fiddle around "under the hood" if I want and get my hands dirty... or even shocked. I think that OSX and modern Linux distros are a positive sign that such a balance IS achievable.
I mean, isn't the original point of computers to let us get stuff done, by doing the number-crunching for us? Some "hardcore" users like you who decry simplicity and ease-of-use have, I think, begun to view computers as an end, and not a means.
The operating system, software, and hardware should be totally out of the way when I'm trying to draw a picture, write a paper, or play a game. It really should be as easy to use as a toaster for most tasks.
What if our houses, roads, and office buildings were constructed with the same passion as the average geek feels towards computers?
I don't know, man- the average archetect is pretty motivated. At least the ones I know of. The main problem is budgets- most people don't want to pay for more than boring "box" architecture when building a new strip mall or whatever. You can be the most passionate archetect in the world, but if your clients will only pay for boring concrete slabs 99% of the time, what can you do?
Re:Dumbing Down (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, unlike you, she just doesn't give a shit?
Re:Dumbing Down (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, look at it this way... it's job security.
Not that I want to spend my days fixing windows machines (I get enough frustrations with just fixing my family's systems). I'm a Unix SysAdmin.. but of course to everyone else, I can fix all computers (and sometimes they think, anything electronic). Sure, I usually can fix all their computer woes (which almost always turn out to be windows problems) but when it comes to failing hardware they still think it's a simple fix... when, in reality, it might be extremely hard to narrow down and will likely require buying replacement parts.
The tired analogy of comparing us admins to car mechanics and the like is becoming more and more accurate. My brother-in-law happens to be a mechanic. We're almost opposites to each other in respect to cars and computers.. I know computers intimately, and fix theirs, or help add new things when they need it. He knows everything about cars and fixes mine when it needs it. Neither of us knows anything about the other's area of expertise. Works out for us in the end.
Gnome / KDE infuence (Score:3, Interesting)
It looks so radically different from two versions ago (2000).
Re:Gnome / KDE infuence (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say that Microsoft has been paying attention to Apple as well as the Gnome and KDE. If they "innovate" some ideas from all four projects they won't be copying anybody.....
right?
--ken
Re:Gnome / KDE infuence (Score:3, Interesting)
God thats ugly (Score:5, Insightful)
yikes
DP
Worst...scheme...EVER! (Score:5, Interesting)
I know they have really shitty design interface people, but would someone, for the love of god, tell them that pastels are really bad for eys strain over significant time intervals (or with that ugly shit, 10 seconds)? Please, ditch the pastels. I'm NOT a machead, but Apple's done a good job of picking colors with slightly lower saturation levels, with the result being a very pleasing interface. WinXP (and evidently this crap) make me want to slit my wrists.
Also, what's with the 800 pixel menu bars? Were these screenshots taken from a computer for the legally blind or will those using windows really have to look at that shit?
Re:God thats ugly (Score:3, Insightful)
I was recently (May I believe) visiting my family, and the youngest member (age 5) came down w/my Aunt and Uncle. She sat down w/me on the couch and fired up her favorite site (some disney webpage, see here [go.com]). Where she had a screen full of large, colorful, cute, pictures. She was FLYING around the UI like it was nothing.
I was looking at all this "noise" and couldn't te
Spelling error (Score:5, Funny)
Did Microsoft hire a Slashdot editor?
That's some hardware it's running on (Score:5, Funny)
Is that what's going to be required to run Longhorn?
(P.S. I know it's just what the developer typed in as a placeholder)
Re:That's some hardware it's running on (Score:3, Funny)
What I like most about computers of the future is that they only have 20GB of hard drive space, and can some how use 80 Giga-Hertz of RAM.
its a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
finally, and end to the tyranny of productive screen usage!
Chewbacca Defence (Score:5, Insightful)
Neat (Score:5, Funny)
Time Flies... (Score:4, Funny)
Let's see here... (Score:5, Funny)
Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
I notice in the audio properties box, you could dynamically mix the volume level of any running application - that's friggin cool. Now I can watch a movie or something and not have every IRC notification in the background blare over what I'm watching, I can turn it down.
Oh well, bash away, I'm sure you all hate it for completely non-technical reasons.
TiVo (Score:5, Interesting)
Aero the chocolate bar (Score:5, Funny)
Screen Real Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
In particular, look at the one in the bottom-left of the first batch. It's a simple autoplay dialog, but it takes up 640x492! There's no excuse for that kind of waste.
I know I'm probably in the minority, since I'm not one of those people that maximizes EVERYTHING (my roommie runs IE maximized at 1400x1050!), and I'm not opposed to a little eye candy, but why should a simple dialog with all of five choices take up that much space?
One question... (Score:5, Funny)
Any word on how they'll avoid a Fischer-Price look-and-feel lawsuit?
Simplified UI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simplified UI (Score:4, Insightful)
How much extra are these 5% (I'm being generous to just use your numbers; it might be much smaller than 1%) of users willing to pay for the extra code Microsoft has to write and test? I don't like Microsoft at all, but it makes perfect business sense to ignore this 5% who probably would rather use Linux anyway.
Support (Score:5, Insightful)
It also is nice if people are able to sit at different machines and don't have to relearn or reconfigure everything.
Customization is fine as long as it's not just a weak excuse for not setting up stuff properly in the first place. And sometimes it's better if beginners don't have to deal with it.
Win over? (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have to win over anybody? They just need to avoid losing them. Ultimately that will most likely happen through continuing to make people need windows rather than choose it on its merits.
IP (Score:5, Interesting)
Changing the look and feel (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting details (Score:3, Interesting)
The one thing I saw that I really liked was a data syncronization utility. The ability to keep your contacts in your PDA, phone, email and whatever else all synchronized without using multiple computers strikes me as a good thing. Presently you usually need dedicated syncronization tools, and they tend not to play well with each other. Now since Outlook Express isn't going to given out anymore, and there not about to include Outlook itself, it makes me wonder what they are planning to do address book wise, and how this ties into syncing, presently a pain with phones and PDA's typically needing different software.
MS discovers WIndowMaker (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a complement. The Opensource community is always accused of copying and not innovating. Now MS is the one copying.
ok ok I admit Next was first with this.
New hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
Victory by forfeit (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like somebody at MS looked at OS X and noticed that things were shiny a lot and dialogs were sparse, and decided that the answer resided in making *everything* shiny and sparse.
Hello, you've missed the point!?
Re:Victory by forfeit (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, a little respect, if you please. That's "MS Bob 2005" to you, okay?
bigger buttons == easier (Score:5, Funny)
ripping off apple is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of posts are complaining about ripping off Apple, but I consider that to be evolutionary. Taking the good stuff from Apple and implementing it for use in standard x86 hardware is great. Too bad MS can't even steal right..
Digital Media integration - who wants this? (Score:4, Interesting)
But what use, if any, does this digital media integration have in Microsoft's largest market, the business world? I can see that maybe PowerPoint presentations will become spiffier, with video footage spliced in and stuff, but that doesn't really have a whole lot to do with the OS. And beyond that, most people are NEVER going to put AV segments in their powerpoint presentations. It's cool at first but the bloom quickly fades. So, my question is: How do any of these digtial media enhancements actually enhance Windows, how do the ADD VALUE to the product, what kind of USEFUL functionality will they provide? Very little if you ask me.
It seems to me that they should be more focused on building a better mousetrap, not adding niche features to a rickety mousetrap. For example, if I'm playing Enemy Territory in 800x600 and my desktop res is at 1024x768, and I ctrl-shirt-esc to jump out to the desktop to queue up more songs in Winamp, I can't see winamp because my screen in still in 800x600 and winamp is in the lower right corner, off the screen. And you can't alt-tab to it either. Now maybe that's winamp's fault, but something like switching between apps is what a OS is supposed to be good at, and I can't do it, so I don't really give a rat's ass about a more integrated digital multimedia experience if I can't even perform a simple act like listening to my MP3s while fragging nubs!
Did anyone else notice... (Score:3, Interesting)
As they said on the Simpsons, "It's the Shinnin', boy, do ye want to get sued?"
Branding... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if providing pictures of your product and logos will become part of the Windows software/hardware certification process. I also wonder if MS is going to make non-partnered products appear with some kind of friendly warning or desparagement, thus making Joe SixPack think that they're unsafe to use or won't work completely. I bet that $15 digital camera's drivers or that $5 mouse's drivers are literally going to look like shit and not just work like shit in the future.
The UI needs explanation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Another interesting point from the MacOS user experience: the original incarnation of OS X's Aqua interface was candy-colored almost to the point of distraction. From those Longhorn screenshots, obviously the Windows UI folks saw that & said "I'll bet we can out-shiny that!" However, in the two years since the original Aqua, the OS X UI has been toned down considerably based on real user's feedback & common sense.
How long before Longhorn's Aero interface does the same? Two years after it's (finally) released? Screw that; even my X11 windows served back to my laptop from the Solaris box are easier to work with....
--Mid
Losing their main advantage of user famillarity (Score:3, Insightful)
There are also new file and networking systems that make an upgrade difficult.
Given the big differences I expect that users will need a lot of training before they can be productive with the new system. My guess is that a KDE or Gnome desktop would look less foreign to existing windows users than this new windows.
Especially, since Gnome and KDE will have evolved considerably by the time Longhorn is to be released.
I also believe that most users don't like their OS control panels to become advertising areas for hardware and software venders. To me the GUI looks more web like than current windows versions. This is probably a mistake. This development started already in IE 4 that introduced the active desktop, but I don't see many people running that weblike interface today. And most people I know set windows XP in classic mode.
Longhorn GUI = MSN GUI (Score:5, Interesting)
That's more right than you know. To me, it looks like a super-mutated version of MSN.
And I say this as someone who spent 6 months not too long ago doing freelance design work for that same company... trust me, those aqua-like buttons, all the gradient mayhem, drop shadows on absolutely everything... it's all MSN.
Used to drive me nuts, too. MSN, a web company, chooses nothing short of the entire spectrum of colours in gradient form for all their branding, right down to a logo that incorporates that same spectrum. So much for 'web safe colours'.
(It's like the iMac all over again. The idiots looked at it and thought 'i guess transparent computers are popular now', without pausing to realize how the iMac's transparency was just one facet of the design. You slap a semi-clear enclosure on your old product and it'll just look like the Princess Phone Radio Shack garbage that it really is.
And we thought XP was bad.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chalk up yet another reason to convince people and businesses to switch to Linux / Free Software.
Innovation! (singular :) (Score:3, Interesting)
On the volume control dialog, they have per-application volume settings. I think I would find that amazingly useful; I know when I'm watching a movie in mplayer, it seems like the audio is quiet (just the way it was recorded), so I turn up the volume, and then the sound effects in gaim become uber-loud during the movie. Yeah, bad example, I can mute gaim so it doesn't interrupt the movie, but my point still stands. If you don't like that one app is being too loud relative to another, you can control their volumes independantly. That's cool! I wonder how long it'll take OSS to implement this
Dear god (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought WinXP and it's "Categorial" Control Panel was hard to explain and keep track of for users.
This is a new form of hell.
Does MS specifically *try* to make support's lives miserable? Dear god. There's something to be said about some stability. Between Win 95 to 2000, at least I had the capability to tell people "Oh, go into control panels, and double click the one that says "Networking"" when I needed to get someone's DNS settings fixed.
XP it wasn't that simple -- I had to make sure the user had their control panel in "classic" view, and I'll be damned if Microsoft didn't "help" me by making the button to switch between the two a fake hyperlink. At the very least, they could have made that hyperlink underlined so an average (or below average) user could figure it out, but no, they won't even go that far.
Longhorn looks like it's going to be even worse. Now I'm going to have to waste money buying Longhorn right when it comes out (or waste time and a CD-R downloading it) and waste time memorizing it so I can walk people through the brain dead Fisher Price system designed for 5 year olds. And I'd be willing to wager money that they'll make it "helpful" by hiding DNS, IP, et all settings under 50 pages of wizards and candy sheets.
I already had to answer phones for 2 weeks for Microsoft for free because of MS Blaster, and will have to for another week or two because of SoBig.F.
Now, come next year, I'm going to have to memorize an OS that looks like something from Clippy's wet dreams?
I'm sick of cleaning up Microsoft's messes.
On the flip side, it looks like they've stolen enough MacOS X and Linux GUI ideas to make it so slightly above average users won't need to bother me, so I guess it's not all that bad. Some of it is almost interesting, like having sound volume -- FOR EACH PROGRAM. Some of the extended stuff looks like it might be pretty useful, if a bit sugarcoated.
So, in Summary:
1. Tech support is hell.
2. New GUI + Confused Users = bad news.
3. Longhorn looks interesting, but I don't want to have to support it.
4. 3 may change depending on future screenshots.
How much did the license cost (Score:5, Funny)
Longhorn approved PDA [hasbro.com]
Longhorn/RIAA approved MP3 player [hasbro.com]
Longhorn control panel [hasbro.com]
Longhorn/RIAA approved CD player [hasbro.com]
And, last but not least, introducing the ALL NEW Longhorn approved WORM [hasbro.com]..
but... but... but... (Score:5, Funny)
Crapppp! What happened? *fixed* (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not ripping off of Apple at all! [winsupersite.com]
I mean really. The prototype machines look much like an iMac with it's screen pushed down to the desk, and that wallpaper doesn't look ANYTHING like Apple's default.
Okay, so there are only so many form factors to make an LCD/Keyboard desktop-type computer, fine. But the rest is just more innovation taken from Apple. Apologies if any OSS predates anything I've mentioned about Apple in this case.
Re:CPU/memory intensive (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Official: OSX death (Score:3, Interesting)
-uso.
Re:Great! Wizards everywhere (Score:5, Funny)
I REALLY long for the old behavior of Ctrl-F bringing up a useful little search in its own window, not taking over my current explorer window. It's stupid how many clicks that adds to my everyday user experience.
You know, I NEVER want a sidebar appearing in explorer, file or internet or otherwise. Like when I hit ctrl-F on a page that hasn't finished loading, it pulls up a useless OEM-branded websearch...a chance for all kinds of retarded branding and useles portalling when all I want is MY FUCKING SEARCHBOX. (which is braindamaged anyway, pulling up random previous searches. Considering that the Address box and other autocompletes are pretty good, I'm appalled at what crap the ctrl-F search is. It must be some form of primitive protoDRM.)
Re:Charging for advertising? (Score:4, Interesting)