Slashdot Mirror
Windows 'Longhorn' Kicks Off (On Paper)
gdeciantis writes: "NeoWin.net posted an article which outlines some of the new features that are currently planned for the the next version of Windows (codenamed Longhorn). With new features like seamless content transfer across devices, it looks like Longhorn will not just be Windows XP SE."
yay! another oportunity to have a whole bunch of threads bashing microsoft...
use sysedit
This does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that this is the next OS to come from Microsoft. Remember how 2000 was supposed to replace 98 and how it wasn't ready for primetime when Microsoft needed to fluff their coffers? Remember what we got out of that? Microsoft Me!!! It's goning to be near impossible for MS to mess up the NT line, but I wouldn't put it past them to slather on some new features on top of XP Home making it a useless POC and call it their new OS.
... but it may have something to do with integrating the Digital Rights Management scheme further, so that ordinary users cannot rip CDs.
I hope to be proved wrong on this. Wouldn't put it past MS, though.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Anyone else follow the link to the microsoft page from one of the first posts?
r ements.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/winlogo/hardware/HWrequi
The document entitled "Requirements for Client PCs" states that several new devices must be present for the Windows Logo program, they include:
Audio device that supports DRM
From the TV and Video section:
Video device that supports DRM
And a more vague listing in the "Home Entertainment " section that calls for a "Digital Media device that supports DRM".
On a side note, they are calling for BIOS makers to setup for being flashed from within the Win32 env, does anyone else see this as a way to open a hole for virus writers?
PC has appliance-like simplicity
And what does this mean for those who still can't program their VCR? Good one MS!
That's very funny. But that doesn't alter the fact that since the first soft-powered boxes came out a decade ago, I have never seen any OS, open source or closed, that consistently does the right thing on all machines by default when I push the button. Nor have I seen one that has power control settings that are both understandable and functional on all machines.
I don't think that the problem is as simple as you imply; otherwise somebody would have fixed this mess by now.
- Everything configurable via the command line for power users .reg file to apply the necessary changes to all PCs. Though in all seriousness do you have any idea how much work it would take to also make everything configurable from the command line. Almost as much work as it would take to make things configurable in a GUI for *nix.
> Everything is already configurable from the registry. For power admins they can just make a
- Non-integrated browser
> There are a lot of integrated components I want out of the OS (like fucking windows messenger) but the browser isn't one of them. I would argue that surfing the web is one of the core features of the computer and thus should be part of the OS. Since IE happens to be the best browser on the market you can't really complain. Its not like they are keeping you from using a different browser.
- Non-integrated media player
> Again, playing media is now a core feature of the computer. Users expect this functionality out of the box, thus it belongs in a desktop OS (server OS is a different matter). Moreover it should be as feature rich as possible, which will cause some intermingling with the OS. If you want to use a different media player, feel free, there isn't anything stopping you.
- Drivers for USB 2.0, Bluetooth, and Firewire
> USB 2.0 and Firewire are expected in a service pack to XP. Bluetooth would be cool though.
- 100% documented APIs
> I honestly don't believe that microsoft gains suppremissy by using special APIs. The reason MS products tend to be better then the compitition is that MS puts more people on the team, and hires brighter people. If someone from the office team came and asked someone on the platform dev team to add a special API to make their life easier I think the platform dev would tell the office guy to fuck off.
- No WPA
> Agreed. Of course the corperate version doesn't have it...
Honestly, there is a lot I would like to see change in windows. For example I don't want to pay for Windows Movie Maker or any of the other extranious applications MS has decided to bundle. Some stuff should be with the OS, internet and media integration is a good thing. It provides a richer user experience that most people will use.
- WeaselGod
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet turbines
I know it sounds silly, but this really is an issue. The general public wants to be able to use a computer like they do any other appliance. The power button is a simple thing, but across different computers the physical power button maps to different behavior. For instance, on notebooks, will it shutdown, hibernate, or go on standby?
In XP on my desktop, when I hit "Turn off Computer" (under Start, I might add) it asks me if I want to standby, turn off, or restart. But I just told the computer I wanted it to turn off. It was a lot simpler on older machines where if I hit the switch it would cut the power and I'd be done (with a defragmented hard drive).
Pretty much general users want to be able to use the computer like a TV: sit down, press a button, and have things immediately available. When the user's done, hit the button again and walk away. Not everyone leaves their computer on 24/7.
I have to refute a few of your points...
I would argue that surfing the web is one of the core features of the computer and thus should be part of the OS
I would have to strongly disagree with you. Perhaps this is because I miss the days when I could get all of my Internet fix through my remote shell account from my long-defunct local ISP. Web use (bah, graphics, waste of bandwidth!) may be something you spend a lot of time doing, but a core feature of your computer? Plus, this is certainly NOT the case in the business world.
IE happens to be the best browser on the market
Hardly. Go snag the latest release of Mozilla. Quicker, prettier, more customizable, more stable, and it doesn't spam me with pop-up windows. I only drag out IE when some dumbass web designer uses an old version of FrontPage and fills their HTML with non-compliant crap that only IE can decipher.
Playing media is now a core feature of the computer. Users expect this functionality out of the box, thus it belongs in a desktop OS (server OS is a different matter). Moreover it should be as feature rich as possible, which will cause some intermingling with the OS.
Playing media falls into the same category as web use as a "core" use of your computer. I use all my computers as MP3 clients (and a central MP3 server), and I STILL don't use it as much as my web browser, and I don't believe that web browsers are a core feature. Again, not the case in the business world. There is also no need for a media player to be integrated into the OS in order for it to be full-featured, I have been using high quality audio programs for years without them being integrated into my OS.
I honestly don't believe that microsoft gains suppremissy (sic) by using special APIs.
Go tell this to the Samba team. Go tell this to anyone who has tried to get a mixed-environment Kerberos system working. Go tell this to any one of the various office suite teams that try to decode MS's secret formats. Microsoft's "embrace and extend" policy (in order to make the origional spec incompatible) has been used sucessfully for years.
Just my opinions. I have no problem with Microsoft supplying free web/media/etc. components that system integrators can include if they wish (and NOT be forced to include, or suffer penalties if they do not), as long as I can easily uninstall them and replace them with components of my choosing.
Preface:
I been a linux user since Redhat 5.0. I hold professional certifications from SAIR, and am a MCP, and CNA.
Xp will run fine on 128MB and does not need 256MB "as a base to load smoothly". There are also several gui option you can turn off to speed up the gui's "responsiveness". Try running say Mandrake linux with 64MB and then tell me how great linux runs on low on machines. And no, xfce does NOT compete with XP as a desktop environment. Both XP and Mandrake run better with 256MB though.
Bottom line is today's most advanced GUI OS's take lots of memory. In exchange you get lots of great features that make it easy for newbies to use it. For example in XP attach a digital camera, and not only will XP recognise it, it will offer to print it out in 4x6, 8x10,etc formats, it will also allow you to order prints online. There are a ton of other great features like this in XP. Laugh if you want, but MS knows what consumers want and they are making sure that their OS is easy to use, and integrates with digital devices consumers own.
Regarding win32bios, why not? 90% of desktop users in the world use windows. This is a great way to avoid having to use a DOS boot disk. Yes it creates the potential that a user can screw up their machine, but it also makes bios flashing really easy. Got 500 identical machines, simply push out an update. Easy. Sorry but your the minorty here and most users would welcome this.
Regarding the anti-theft stuff I completely agree and am against DRM. As an aside in the larger scheme of things, I also happen to think that MS's needs to be forced to open their API's and file formats.
Bottom line is while MS as a company may need to be smacked down a little , XP is a great product. Its very stable and offers a shitload of ease of use features. Linux desktop distros could learn a lot from it. In fact they do, since most linux desktops are an attempt to copy MS products feature for feature.
But then I'm just a troll huh?
Because it makes sense. If Microsoft can program for hardware that works in a set, defined way they can get an OS that is works much more smoothly, actually other OS's could to. Look at MacOS X. Apple knows excatly what to expect from the hardware and can code accordingly. That doesn't mean that the OS will be more stable, just that it could be...
I honestly can't believe that I'm reading this.
The fact that you can't do anything with your old 486 (I'm assuming with Microsoft products) is exactly what's wrong with Microsoft products. I was using a 486 SX (older than yours!) until very recently as a firewall for my home network. I upgraded that to a P75, and everything is speedy. Try doing that with Microsoft. But I guess you would rather have to keep spending more money upgrading your computer every time Micorosoft comes out with a new O/S....
Hardware will continue to improve with or without Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft tends to lag behind hardware advances, requiring you to upgrade to their new version just to be able to use new hardware (USB and Win95). Microsoft is simply becoming lazy, and doesn't seem to realize the effectiveness of optimizing code. I wouldn't worry about hardware companies becoming lazy if Microsoft stops creating bloatware - consumers will always want faster/better stuff.
-John
OK, I've had a few serious responses to this (and some funny ones :), so here goes.
The points you're making are exactly what I was making fun of. A computer power button should work like every other power button on virtually every other piece of electrical equipment (and on most people's walls, too). It does a simple function that *everybody* understands. Why on earth did computer makers feel the need to start pissing about with it ?
TVs often have a standby button (usually on the remote control) and a separate power button. If computer makers want a "power" button to do something other than turn the power on and off, they should put another button there, and use it instead for the extra functions.