Slashdot Mirror
Windows Longhorn Screenshots Available Online
The Fred writes "I found this website that seems to have screenshots for the next version of windows. Everything from a new start button, extended task bar, display options, .NET capability, and a bigger clock." Fair number of UI changes, some good, mostly irrelevant, but it's interesting. Wonder if it's real.
Could you guys link to the URL with the ADVERTS, rather than the frame. The poor guys have to pay for their bandwidth somehow. It even asks you to expressly do that at the bottom of the page. Cruel cruel people...
s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).
Why isn't it important? Because you think it's inefficient?
Anyhow, I think it's amazing how much _more_ like Mac OS X this looks than XP. And it's even more impressive that even though it looks _more_ like Mac OS X, it has more of the awful aspects that are further evidence that MS just doesn't get what it is that makes people like Mac OS X. At least that's how I see it.
All of these god-awful directories as web pages, wizards, and other strange abstractions to keep the user away from his computer will only serve to confuse him all the more when it comes time to fix something or take action that isn't already anticipated by the software designer. It should be easy to use the computer, not easy to use the interface abstraction. That's what MS just doesn't get, and it's why Windows will always be frustrating and always work in unexpected ways.
Those are so faked.
For example, the copyright in the IE About Screen is (whatever) - 2001, not 2002.
A few things that are clearly out of whack here - some of the screenshots have inconsistent antialiasing of text for one, which often happens when screenshots are photoshopped. The artwork is hilarious, some of the title bars have gradients but the minimize/close/restore boxes don't, making them stick out like a sore thumb.
Why are the hard disk sizes measured in KB when everything else in Windows is megabytes? Why does some of the text overlap the borders of the containing window (an api impossibility). The last screenshot is just taking the piss totally, this version of Windows won't install on that version of DOS? That's not even trying to be real.
Look, guys, if you want screenshots of cool new features that you know are genuine, look at the stuff the Linux teams post - if they're real you can get them soon, if they're faked they always tell you. This kind of slobbering over crude mockups gives Microsoft a bad name.
not to mention that UI changes are pointless anyways with modern day's customizability, who cares if the mouse cursor is big honkin billy face or the clock is bigger if they can be very simply added to older systems as well? nobody except people who think that makes their system honkin faster and preorder it because it's so cooooool. it has been pointed out earlier that these screenshots running around the net could have been pretty easily generated with windows xp, or 2k, or christs sake even with win98.
j pg
http://jussila.adsl.netsonic.fi/~glass/desktop.
an just as real prediction of mine what longhorn will look.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This is available in Windows XP as a PowerToy.
Cute, but methinks the public would be even more interested in what they weren't allowed to see.
The coolest voice ever.
Damn, Microsoft continues to prove they can make their interface look sweeter than anybody else. My X11 window manager, even when tripped out with themes doesn't look as smooth and as polished as that. Is it the anti-aliased fonts or what? It's just sweet looking. MacOS X's Aqua interface also is lacking IMHO compared to that. Maybe I will just wait for Longhorn and succumb like the other 95% of the population and just run Windows. It looks SO cool. OK, I'm done. I'll go back into Linux advocate rant mode now. Microsoft sucks. :-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They could still be real. I don't believe it, but it's possible.
... see my point?
1. It's a technology preview. It's not a widespread beta release - it's all internal at this stage. that means things might be uneven or rough. Don't believe me - read some old magazine reviews of the pre-beta IE4 releases with shell integration. Flip back to an old 1993 magazine (December issue of Windows Sources I think it was) and you'll find screenshots of a Windows UI that looks a little different to Windows 95 - but it was the Chicago Beta (around buld 200 or thereabouts - release/RTM of Win95 was around build 600 but they bumped it to 950 to sound cooler).
2. They could have changed the anti aliasing capabilities of Longhorn. Oh no! My OS X 10.2 screenshots are fake, they use better antialiasing than OS 10.1
3. Yes, the sidebar doubles up on a lot of functions. How many ways can you run a program or copy a file in Windows XP? Microsoft love making it as easy (and confusing) as possible to do stuff, even if it means making it possible to do it in slightly less than a million ways.
4. The screenshots still say Windows XP. My Windows 98 betas still said 95. My Windows Me builds said 98 in their early phase. Microsoft don't care too much about polishing things in the pre-beta/development release stage.
5. No mention of object oriented FS. it's coming - I've had two Microsoft developers personally assure me that it's coming RSN - in the next release of Windows. So yes, fake, but I call upon different evidence for that decision.
and early screenshots of WinXP looked like Win2k with minor 'photoshop tweaks'
and early screenshots of ME looked like 98
and early screenshots of 98 looked like 95
Your point isn't one.
Of course early longhorn screenshots are going to look like XP. They take a stable version of their product and work from there. Plus they just invested heavily in this new look and feel that sets XP apart from 2k, and the previous 95/98/NT. They aren't going to abandon it that quickly.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
You know, you're completely right. I have been using Linux/*BSD/... for 5 years almost, no windows whatsoever, but nothing beats the look - or better, the quality of the look of Micro$oft's desktop. It's not really my taste, but I have to admit it looks damn beautiful.
:)
Luckily we (opensource-side) have more quality in software-coding (the performance of some of the more mature programs is just way better - it's not about selling, but about producing good software) and definately more stability. Because we are really lagging behind when it comes to intuitivity and niceness of the GUI... even something as basic as fonts.
The reason it looks so good, is because every little detail has been designed to fit in the look (next to superior anti-aliasing and fonts).
We need more not-geeks using linux. Micro$oft has hundreds (?) of people working on interface design, hiring specialized companies and designers for certain tasks (their core fonts, for instance)... Something that opensource can't do, really. So our only hope is that enough artistic people start helping opensource projects, and reach a common vision of consistent design throughout all of (Gnome's/KDE's/...) software.
The problem is that those arty people are seldom really interested enough in computers to spend their free time designing computerstuff. Or even just to learn to use linux (or a computer in general). Geeks and graphic design... it just doesn't add up (with a few exceptions that confirm the rule).
It's called a double standard. Kernel hackers' field of study is considered sacred, yet when usability people of equal expertise in their field try to explain how to correct some very bad usability problems with free software, they are told by technically-inclined linux zealots that their field of study, put between a sarcastic pair of quotes, is BS. A prominant kernel hacker once told me that he couldn't believe that "[usability] people get paid to criticize the work of others". I think of this quote everytime someone poses the quote "why linux has had such extraordinary success on the server yet such a hard time on the desktop?".
Technical expertise is lauded and user interface expertise is devalued and mocked. There's a reason why there is such a dearth of usability people in the free software community. It's attitudes like these, people.
I often say that Bill Gates doesn't have to lift a finger to crush desktop linux because so many people in the linux community are doing his job *for* him.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
When I try to buy a laptop, and find out there is no "unbundled" option for that laptop.
Imagine if you tried to buy a portable CD player. Rather than buying just the CD player for 100$ or so, you have to pay 115$ for it and 2 Backstreet boys CDs (a savings of 15$!). You try and tell them that you don't want the Backstreet boys CDs, because you have a collection of your own music to listen.
"We can't, sir. It's bundled. It represents a savings to you anyways, so you are getting a good value. Since every player is sold with CDs, only people who are commiting music piracy would have music separate from the players anyways."
But the thing is, I'm paying for something I don't want and won't use. If I disagree with the licence and try to return Windows for the money I paid for it as a bundle price, I end up having to deal with the retailer, OEM, and Microsoft all pointing fingers at each other. "Talk to them, they're the ones who should give you your money."
Microsoft gets my money without my consent. This is robery -- they are stealing from me.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I was looking for the Cool Desktop for Linux, and halfway there, I realized I don't need it.
It was sort of a moment of deep realization. What am I looking for? Something that looks good, or something that does the job?
WindowMaker does the job.
WindowMaker works. I don't care what it looks like. It can be made look nice, too, but I don't need good looks, just something that doesn't make my eyes bleed. It works. It looks decent enough. It works.
"I have this cool new dock", said the MacOS X user. "Oh, that, I had a NEXTSTEP dock years ago, because the Window Maker folks made a desktop that works", I replied.
"Oh goody! The application finally drew its window on screen!" quoth the WinXP user. "But I already finished my work by this time, because this thing works", I replied.
Window Maker works. It may look cool, but it actually works.
You can't get a laptop unbundled from Windows (or at least, you couldn't for many years). What are your choices? Well, you can use a Macintosh laptop (great if your task works there), but the fact is that Microsoft is a monopoly. They shouldn't legally be able to remove choice to the point where I can't not get Windows on an x86-based laptop.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.