Slashdot Mirror
Looking at Longhorn
ShinyPlasticBag writes "Paul Thurrott has an excellent preview of Longhorn milestone five over at his Supersite for Windows. It looks like this may be Microsoft's equivalent to OS X -- the next version of Windows will have a 3D accelerated desktop and other graphical goodies. In addition to this, it will include a journaling file system, so us mere mortals can enjoy what Linux Geeks have had for years."
In addition to this, it will include a journaling file system, so us mere mortals can enjoy what Linux Geeks have had for years.
The big question is if like NTFS it will be proprietary. Even after years of reverse engineering the NTFS nut still hasnt been cracked, and if FAT32 support is not included then people may be put off from dualbooting longhorn and another OS.
I'm similarly opposed to the 'eye-candy for the sake of eye-candy' line that Microsoft seem so fond of. But having a 3d accelerated desktop is far more than that. Even if it _looks_ exactly the same, you should expect a performance boost, since much of the drawing work is now being done in the GPU, rather than your CPU. And if you do happen to like eye candy, you get it basically for free (computationally).
Apart from this image the new trend of making next generation operating systems which have giant interfaces really worries me. I always felt the advantage of running 1600x1200 (or 3200x1200 in my case) was to have more workspace, not a higher resolution interface. When OSX came out I installed it on my iBooks, then immediately uninstalled it primarily due to it's absolutely intrusive interface (secondarily due to lack of support for the software I was using at that time. My PC recently suffered an HD crash and I couldn't find my Windows 2000 Pro CD so I installed XP (yeah, I tried linux... Redhat to be exact, and the out-of-the-box ceased to function after two reboots), and came across a similar issue... the interface is too big, too audacious, and clamors for attention.
In Vegas the person with the biggest, brightest, flashiest sign will make the most money... but when it comes to OSs small, fast, and unobtrusive is the key, too bad nobody else sees that.
sig.
Not to bash Microsoft in general, but the dialog in this screenshot demonstrates incredibly retarded user interface design.
"OK" to terminate the application.
"Cancel" to debug it.
???
And this isn't new either, AFAIK the same dialog has been around since the Windows 9x days.
These sorts of questions apply to all devices, in the end.
Take a look at your car. Do you really think it's design makes it much more aerodynamic, or do you think it's just the same eye-candy?
What about the paint? Paint jobs are pretty silly things, by your logic. They cost money and all they do is act as eye-candy.
What about the hubcaps, the flashing lights on the interior that never serve any real purpose, the leather, the...
The point is: People like things that glitz.
3d effect play simmilar roles. the tranparency and shadowing of foregroung and backrgound windows is something you immediatly grasp abd grasp without think about it becuase your brain already knows how po process those clues. like wise throbbing or size changing 3d icons can be subtle ways to grab your attention. Dialog boxes that drop down out of windows again clue you into what window they are refering to.
now done wrong they could also be wizbang distractions. This is of course what has always distinguished say apple products from others. Apple tends to follow a consisten and understated GUI that just directs your eye where it needs to go.
3d effects can clrify what is or is not a button, and even what you are supposed to do with it (twist, rock, slide, press)
no you dont need 3d. heck you dont need a gui. Dos didnt have it even though it did have a graphics mode.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
None of the things you mention about cars get in the way of, or slow down driving.
The things humming mentioned get in the way of computing.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
New parental controls let parents determine when and how kids use the computer.
This is one of the things I truly hate about windows : control, control, control !
They drive it so far that a parent (me) has to control how kids use the computer. That's insane. We have 1 iMac at home for our kids (age 10,7 and 5) and they have to figure outTHEMSELVES when and how to use it. If they have a quastion, they can ask away. If they have a fight, i turn off the machine. It took 3 weeks to find a balance, and now they manage perfectly. No control needed.
Control is like a handbrake on kids efforts to solve conflicts. You'de be amazed how intelligent the remarksof a 5year old can be if he is forced to find his own words. Quite often, he's capable of handling his big sister better than I ever could !
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Well the majority of computer users are still susceptible to all the thrills & spills that electricity can throw at you. Surges, spikes, and powercuts are still common place - and not everyone has a UPS under their desk (despite their low cost these days).
Plus, and lets be honest, Windows isn't THAT solid still.. whilst I think Windows XP is one of the best systems Microsoft have ever produced, I have still seen a few random resets and blue screens since using it. I think journalling filesystems definately still have a place.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
"Windows Longhorn will offer sweeping changes over its predecessors and be the most significant release of Microsoft's desktop operating system since Windows 95"
Isn't this how they describe EVERY iteration of their desktop OS's?
The article goes on to describe a bunch of features that would make little or no difference to most users.
Regardless of what you think of their technology, you have to be amazed that they can get so many people to pay ever-increasing amounts of money to "upgrade" their systems to the latest OS.
and charge an arm and a leg for it.
They have that one covered.
One thing that you can bet Longhorn will be way ahead of Mac OS X and Linux on is obnoxious license terms, activation woes and spyware.
The article refers to a UI feature called "stacks". From the article:
"But there's more new to My Contacts than just the Carousel view. In My Contacts, you can arrange contacts by Name, Email, Work Email, Personal Email, Home Phone, Work Phone, or Online Status, but you can also utilizing a new feature called Stacks. Because you can't actually work with stacks in 4015, it's unclear what the feature does, but you can stack contacts by the same list of criteria by which you can arrange them, and you can also unstack them. Stacking and unstacking might be related to the Carousel view but, again, that's unclear right now."
Here is a screenshot of the view.
Recently, there was a Slashdot article here about a "piles" feature that Apple had patented in June 2001 that sounds very familiar. Screenshot of piles here looks different, but the concepts appear similar:
"In addition, sources said Panther will finally mark the debut of the much-discussed "piles" GUI design concept, which Apple patented in June 2001. According to the patent, piles comprise collections of documents represented graphically in stacks. Users can browse the "piled" documents dynamically by pointing at them with the cursor; the filing system can then divide a pile into subpiles based on each document's content. At the user's request, the filing system can automatically file away documents into existing piles with similar content."
Adi Gadwale.
Where did I say a 3d accelerated desktop is required to accelerate 2d graphics?
:)
And why do you think I've never heard of 2d acceleration? What did I say to imply that?
But to say more on the topic, 3d is a superset of 2d: So 3d acceleration is necessarily also going to be able to handle 2d acceleration, while 2d acceleration cannot necessarily handle 3d acceleration.
Here's a trick: Lets say you have to manage 15 windows. With 3d acceleration you can take advantage of the Z/height buffer to keep track of all of them, since they all live on different levels. Without 3d acceleration, you have to create a data structure and window managment system, which necessarily requires the CPU and memory subsystems to deal with all the windows.
See, if only for that, 3d acceleration trumps 2d acceleration. There are more situations like that too
GPL Deconstructed
"In addition to this, it will include a journaling file system, so us mere mortals can enjoy what Linux Geeks have had for years."
4 years from now Slashdot will have a headline about how KDE's 3D accelerated desktop finally reached version 1.
"Derp de derp."
Dude, read the post. He doesn't think a 3D accelerated desktop is required to accelerate 2D graphics. And 15 windows on different levels is not a 3D desktop. I can cascade 15 IE Windows and the way the human brain interprets them they are on different levels, one on top of the other, yet they are still 2D.
"Can someone tell me why I need a 3d accelerated desktop?"
Yes, the graphic load is moved off your CPU to your 3D Card, thus improving GUI responsiveness. If that's not a good enough explanation, then try using a dual machine. You'll be surprised at how much more responsive it becomes.
"Would it be easier for me to navigate my windows if I could move between them as if I played Quake, instead of just clicking on the particular window I wanted?"
Where does it say that the Windows shell will be like that? + 1 Imaginitive, -1 Offtopic.
"Would I get more girls if my mailbox spun in cool 3d, instead of just opening?""Would my productivity improve if it took 5 more seconds to open a window just because it had to be animated, instead of just appearing?"
Would you be more productive if your UI was more responsive while the CPU is busy? (you know, that little thing called multi-tasking?) Meanwhile, animations like that give you more visual elements to 'reflex' off of. I mean, if a light turns red at an intersection, do you start moving because you see the light or because the other cars start moving?
"Would it be easier for me to read text if all windows were transparent?"
You don't understand the value of transparency? I have an 'always on top' app on my screen right now that allows me to rapidly switch between desktop and apps within those desktops. It's all icon based, so I made it transparent. I can read text underneat it *and* see what apps I have running without having problems with clashing. You're right, transparent text on transparent text is bad. Icons and transparent text give your screen an added dimension of real-estate. Instead of assuming the worse, look at it's strengths.
"Is the human mind better trained to cope with windows if they are rotated 45 degrees along some axis?"
Were you able to read the scrolling text in the intro to Star Wars?
"I simply don't get the 3d desktop, but then, I prefer stuff that work, instead of stuff that looks good and doesn't work."
The whole point of it is to offload the graphics processing to the unused 3D Card, and free up CPU stuff for other things. The result is a more responsive UI. To boot, they can add features that some apps will find rather useful, like the task switching app I used (it's called AltDesk btw). The extra graphic goodies are actually quite useful. Imagine running at 1600 by 1200, but resizing a web page window with small text very smoothly. (Current methods create nasty nearest neighbor artifacts.)
You may or may not care about this, but some of us that spend a great deal of time making good use of our UI find it rather exciting. If I can smoothly resize windows no matter what their native resolution is, that's damn cool.
"//H, just realized he has another flamebait post on his record. Damn that karma!"
You made some good points. It's sad, though, that you didn't just ask so you could learn. I mean, if you have to ask so many questions about why somebody's investing a lot of time and resources, then doesn't it strike you that maybe you just don't get it?
For example, I think Bablyon 5 is stupid. I think the fans overrate it. But I don't go on long-winded rants about it because I know they enjoy it in a way that I haven't discovered. See my point? I'd sound like a total dumb-ass to them if I said "I don't see why you guys are so immersed in such a corny show."
Heh I hope I made my point instead of pissing everybody off.
"Derp de derp."
I resent idiots who use "M$" as if it's insulting or clever in any way.
How dare a company make money! Let's put a dollar sign in their name! That will show everyone how mature Linux users are.
Your idea for laws that prevent hardware deals is fascism at its worst.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Journaling file systems are, what, a couple of decades old? Microsoft didn't invent them. Apple didn't invent them. The real question is: what took either of them so long to incorporate them?
Of course, the real question is whether or not you really want all the extra eye-candy this brings.
In the short period of 2 years since the initial release of Mac OS X, Apple has produced 2 major and numerous minor upgrades with significant performance improvement and lots of new features, in addition to shipping an impressive array of innovative hardwares (iPod, Xserve, Xserve RAID, LCD iMac, 17" PowerBook with slot-loading DVD burner, FireWire 800, BlueTooth, 54 mbps 802.11g AirPort Extreme, Gigabit Ethernet) and highly sophisticated software tools such as iLife, iSync, iCal, Keynote, Safari, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Shake, Logic, WebObjects, FileMaker Pro, AppleWorks, Rendezvous, QuickTime 6, iTunes Music Store, and so on.
But what has the biggest software company done in the same time frame? Surprisingly, very few. Other than the countless security patches plus a Win XP Service Pack and Windows 2003 Server, the only things that come from Redmond are hypes.
Longhorn is officially a 2005 product with very few features to brag about, and may well be delayed to 2006 or later if the track record of MS is anything to go by.
It's just incredible that a small hardware company like Apple has somehow developed a bigger and better software portofolio than the most powerful company in the world , and frankly embarrassing when considering that MS is 60 times bigger than Apple.
Ignoring the poor grammar for a moment, I would like to know why Microsoft would need more than one filesystem that does the same thing.
Easy! Of course there's more than one way to do this, but to state blatently that this system is more powerful than GNU/Linux is uninformed at best, trolling at worst, and wishful thinking either way.
Wrong. The filesystem is indeed more powerful than GNU/Linux.
Using your theoretical system, Grandma still has to save her files in ~/photos. If not, you get to sit through an entire hard drive search. Fun.
Longhorn will take at most a few seconds, no matter where the files are. See those "Library" folders in the Longhorn screenshots? Picture Library, for instance, will display all the pictures on your computer. All Explorer windows will be filterable in that way.
You don't need special features like you suggest in a filesystem to manage your files properly.
When you're dealing with gigabytes and gigabytes of data, yes, you do.
I wonder how many years it will take for Linux to play catchup to these kinds of features that I imagine will be commonplace by the time 2005 rolls around. Heck, I'm still holding my breath for a hardware accelerated X replacement, but the Linux zealots are too afraid of change for that to happen anytime soon...
"Sufferin' succotash."
Why does the average joe user, need several different journaling file systems for a desktop OS?
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/4015_15 1.png
Microsoft still needs lessons in GUI design.
Don't waste 2 lines in a dialog box describing what buttons do. Push cancel to debug? Since when does cancel mean debug? Instead, have the buttons say "Terminate" and "Debug," eh? And is it me (I only glanced), but is there a clock in the task bar and another one in the right bar thing (which is a little big IMO). I think one clock would do...
Granted it's pre-alpha, but these screenshots make Longhorn look like it should have been released about 2 years ago (the screenshot showing how icons can't be resized without getting pixelated). OS X icons are 128x128 and look great even resized to be bigger. And yet Longhorn won't be out until 2005 did I read?
It's quite obvious that windows was developed for the end user in mind and might lead the market for many years to come in the PC market.
On the other hand Linux was built for the developer in mind and strangely enough still leads the market in the server area...Don't you recall the recent slashdot article that quoted the microsoft exec saying that windows 2003 is still playing catch up with the thing linux has had since it's arrival?
Different users in mind. Different leads in different markets
Okay then, M$ 2005 will be Mac OS 2003...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin