New Longhorn Screenshots Leaked

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. "

Comments

Dumbing Down

[rwiedower]

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

[benzapp]

You don't understand.

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

[stratjakt]

So what? Cars have become less complicated, more feature rich, and require much less mainanance. I dont have to vulcanize my tires or crank it up or know how any of it works. You dont need to know about gears or clutches if you want to drive an automatic.

And that's all fine with me, I have no great interest in whats "under the hood". I just have somewhere to go.

My point being, not everyone, in fact hardly anyone in the big picture, gives a shit what's behind the UI. They use computers because they need to do something, not because it's fun and enjoyable to them.

That's as shocking to computer nerds as my apathy towards automotive technology is to my gearhead friends.

Re:Dumbing Down

[micromoog]

When I was 13 I was ultra-1337. Now my kid sister isn't, and I blame Microsoft.

Maybe, unlike you, she just doesn't give a shit?

Re:Dumbing Down

[Miguelito]

"...that leaves those of us who know how things work under the hood in a separate world."

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.

Re:Dumbing Down

[Delphiki]

It's not that people are stupid. That's an incredible arrogant and geek centric way to look at it. Get over yourself. They don't want to have to know how computers work because they shouldn't have to know how computers work. They should just be able to use one. It's called specialization. if everyone had to go spend all of their time learning about everything they needed in their life and building their own house and growing their own food and so forth, nothing would get done. Instead they should be able to do whatever it is that they do and have those things made as accessible as possible by whoever's job it is to do those things.

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

[DrCode]

Apple and Microsoft both understand this.

Maybe Apple does, but I think MS has an entirely different view of things. They profit by rolling out slightly incremental improvements over time, so they can keep selling people new versions. If an average person could walk into a Circuit City, buy a computer, and 'find the experience enjoyable', that person might hold onto the machine for several years.

I have a couple friends whe recently bought a new machine because Outlook kept crashing on their older model. That's the sort of thing MS likes to see!

Re:Dumbing Down

[switcha]

OK, now get under the hood of your car, find the TDC mark and make sure your timing is correct. Oh, and if it's not fuel injected, now might be a good time to test the richness of your carb mix.

What? As long as the car works you don't need to know how to do those things? Hmm. My mechanic friend thinks everyone should know how to do that. What are you, stupid? Do you distain work so much you neglect your car's maintenance until it quits on you?

For some people, it's fun/their job to make computers work well. Good on ya'.

For others, a computer is for getting other work done not directly related to the machine itself. Why, oh why do these people need to know whats 'under the hood'? Sure, it'll save em a few bucks if they knew some basic troubleshooting, but the same could be said for cars, and I think very few of us (I didn't all, Slash Goodwrench...) could do much more than open the hood of our auto's and stare at it.

God thats ugly

[splatter]

Does anyone else find this new interface Microsoft is leaning towards as being a eye sore? God the huge buttons and bright colors.. I thought XP had some ugly colors and fonts.

yikes

DP

Re:God thats ugly

[garcia]

I think of it as a children's software program. LARGE buttons, colorful pictures, and very little in the way of any "useful" interface.

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). 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 tell you how she would have even thought that she should click on these items.

I guess I am too used to being able to USE and INTERACT with a UI to think that these "new fangled" UIs with pretty pictures and hidden hints that you should click on them, are any good.

The younger generations are obviously being introduced to this at an early age and will be fine with it.

Me, give me the fucking command line and a few mouse drags. I am good with that.

Chewbacca Defence

[schwep]

Update the GUI and people will forget about the insecurities and DRM being pushed down their throats...

Cool

[stratjakt]

Whether you like the interface aesthetics or not (big deal, you can switch 'em back, no doubt, just like I do in XP), there are some nifty looking new features I saw before the site just got too slow to keep looking.

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.

Does Stability Sell

[FortKnox]

Honestly, if MS released a brand new operating system that looked identicle to XP, but was just ultra secure and ultra stable, would it sell?

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.

Re:Does Stability Sell

[antiMStroll]

You don't work in the real world, do you? My employer wastes more money and time chasing the latest MS vulnerabilities than they do managing systems. It's gotten so bad that three or four times a day ~10,000 desktops see pop-up messages from IT warning on the latest virus. "Big Kids" are very tech saavy, are the major buyers, and care very much about security and stability.

Honestly, if MS released a brand new operating system that looked identicle to XP, but was just ultra secure and ultra stable, would it sell?

In a second. Why on earth would you think lowering TCO and eliminating re-training at the expense of losing a few questionable "features" wouldn't be an instant sell to major corporations? Or was "Big Kids" meant to indicate "biggest server on the block"?

Re:Does Stability Sell

[Anonymous Coward]

TCO my ass. TCO seems like a valid cost metric on the surface, but it is, and always has been, a marketing term used to justify the purchase of more expensive solutions.

Not all IT departments have the same needs--not even remotely. Some IT departments have no servers that require ZERO downtime over a three year period. I envy those departments, because they have the luxury of choosing between Windows and Unix solutions. Some of them choose Windows, and I'm sure that for some of them Windows is the right choice.

A manager who gives even a passing thought to a TCO calculation done by anyone other than themselves is a manager who doesn't understand the business needs of their own department. Gartner, or MS, or whoever, throws out a TCO figures based on an organization that is guaranteed to be nothing like their agency, and they make a decision from that! It's irresponsible.

Yes, large companies use Windows. Large companies that turn off at night. Large companies with deep pockets and few incentives to cut costs (i.e. competitors). Other big companies choose UNIX. Not because it's better for everyone, but (usually) because it's better for them.

Huh?

[numbski]

You talk like there's a *wrong* time to grind your axe when I comes to M$. :P

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?

[Troed]

That's my take on this also. What will Microsoft do when EU tells them that they can't ship Windows with integrated MSN and WMP in Europe?

I fully expect that to happen.

Re:Huh?

[Eric Ass Raymond]

Microsoft has talked about security for too long, they're the boy crying wolf now

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 - it's the human factor.

Re:Huh?

[JWW]

Bullshit, the DCOM vunlerability should never have been in there in the first place, it was absolutely shoddy coding on their part. At my company the patch was not through testing yet, and I don't blame them for it either.

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?

[westlake]

*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.

Welcome to the real world, in which end-users have no trouble finding the free-as-in-beer software they want for Windows. (Can you say Kazaa?) and wouldn't touch source if you held them at gunpoint.

Re:Huh?

[4of12]

like they use VCR's

Exactly. It's more like how they don't use VCRs.

Consumers don't use all the fancy features that engineers spend time putting into the product and, according to some long-ago tirade about the computer illiteracy of the modern public, the majority of VCR's flash 12:00 because people won't be bothered to figure out how to navigate the menus to set the clock after the last power outage, or even since the unit was plugged in.

Considering the many demands on my time, I don't blame people for actively avoiding learning about how to configure yet another appliance (or software application) that ought to simply do its job.

Re:Huh?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It deemed to hard to do true engineering on software. Thats bunk, coders just want to be "artistic" and forget engineering

Software is not a car. If it were, neon colored spark plug wires would make your car go faster, and using the wrong color could make your wheels fall off.

Re:Huh?

[JWW]

A building isn't a car either, but its still engineered.

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?

[FatherOfONe]

His example isn't void.

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?

[uimedic]

Interesting comment. Let's explore some more...assuming the continued existence of Microsoft.

What if, hypotheticially, someone used a ptrace root-shell exploit in linux to compromise my mission critical servers causing unknown amounts of damage to my company's data without detection for as long as three months...hypothetically.

Who do I sue? (Ask the FSF?)

Also, should my friend's new company deploy Microsoft, now legally liable for the stability and security of their product, or open-source software from a company selling their support but, presumably, not legally liable for the quality of the software?

Re:Obligatory Statement - Apple Copy

[Polarcow]

I think the parallels go deeper than that. Look at the upper right hand corner of the screenies and you'll notice that the buttons are now colorless. Presumably, to keep with what I've seen of WinXP, they'll prolly turn colors when you mouse over them, similarly to OS X. Also, objects (like images) on the screen apparently are no longer "boxy", meaning they can overlap other elements. Funny how another pretty OS we know can do that and has been able to since ~2000/2001. Mind you, I'm no expert and haven't seen this in person so I may be way off base. Still, if the images are to be believed...

Screen Real Estate

[Synesthesiatic]

From a quick look at the screenshots, it looks like the interface has a lot of whitespace taking up screen real estate.

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?

Simplified UI

[Gilmoure]

Reminds me of the sort of front end you'd see on lab lockdown software in an elementary school. How come closed source OS developers (MS and Apple) don't want to provide variety to their GUI? Why does it fall to third party folks to write hacks that let you customize a system. Yes, 95% of regular users will never think beyond their desktop pic and screen saver but for the rest of us...make it an admin thing or something. I don't care what you have to do to keep grandma from fscking up her machine, just don't lock the rest of us down.

Re:Simplified UI

[GlassHeart]

95% of regular users will never think beyond their desktop pic and screen saver but [...] just don't lock the rest of us down.

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.

Bellyachers...

[kvaughn]

Everyone spends so much time griping about Windows. And why???

If Windows is sooo irrelevant and terrible, then don't use it. You don't even have to talk about it. Why the big deal?!?

Microsoft users don't sit around and bitch about Linux all the time. There ARE things to bitch about you know... Every OS has it's bad points.

fake...

[h4x0r-3l337]

The fact that one of the supposed screenshots shows a BeOS-icon tells me that somebody was a little too creative with PhotoShop...

Win over?

[sterno]

They aren't going to win any more of the desktop market by making it look fancier.
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.

Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

If you say that Microsoft can't improve on the interface of Windows, then you have certainly not used the interfaces available on MacOS (for any version, not just X). It's a heck of a lot easier to navigate around MacOS, and I don't say this out of experience; I say this because Apple specifies a Human Interface Guideline that Microsoft does not have for Windows (even Microsoft has to follow the HIG when they make Office v.X). Everything is placed in a tree-like heirarchy that is easier (compared to Windows' interface) to find things in, especially if you haven't had experience with the interface. I personally still use the classic view in Windows 2000 and XP, just because their new interface is NOT better than the old one. Their changing the interface only makes it worse and bloated, which requires more exploration and getting used to than it should be. With MacOS, nothing needs getting used to. If you want to change something, you just follow the yellow brick road. It's as simple as that. Microsoft has yet to make that step into improving the simplicity of their interface. You don't complain only because you've used it since Windows 95 and classic view is an option that you can find after having getting used to the insanity of the placement of functions/options like that.

Re:Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX

[schnell]

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 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.

Re:Yea, it's called Aqua from Mac OSX

[Jenova_Six]

I say this because Apple specifies a Human Interface Guideline that Microsoft does not have for Windows

What are you talking about? Microsoft most definitely does have a user interface guideline for developers, with very defined rules for the "look and feel" of a Windows application.

Re:Arghh!

[zootread]

When will the fluff end? I ASK YOU, WHEN WILL THE FLUFF END?

Here you go:

zootread@zoot:~$ uname -a
Linux zoot 2.4.21-3-k7 #1 Sun Jul 20 19:23:36 EST 2003 i686 GNU/Linux
zootread@zoot:~$

Fake?

[richmlpdx]

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/lh-win hec-03.png

The Information under the PC seems pretty far out... "Intel(r) XEON(tm), 80GHz RAM, 20GB1 Ultra ATA Hard Drive, Windows Longhorn Professional"

GUI didn't make it popular

[sterno]

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 closer but it's still in favor of apple. Basically at 95, the GUI became good enough to not detract from the system but it was hardly something that would convince people to use it.

I Disagree

[Obiwan Kenobi]

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.

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 /. is because, no matter how much we try to deny it, we probably envy the strides made in UI that just aren't being done in Linux (yet).

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

[rwiedower]

The difference is this: when I was a kid, computers were buggy. They hissed and spit. Much like cars several years ago, you had to know how to fix things in order to go for a trip of any decent length.

Dumbing down the user experience should, in theory, allow more people access. But in reality, unlike cars, computers still hiss and spit. The only difference now is that users have no idea what's going on. If my sister's internet connection goes down, she just waits for it to fix itself. If it doesn't, she has someone else fix it for her. Theoretically the shiny new interface should be accompanied by rock-solid reliability, but it's not.

Imagine if your microwave oven broke down. Most of us would simply cart it to the local service shop, because what goes on inside a microwave is too complex for most people to understand. This is what's starting to happen with computers, except unlike microwave ovens, computers break down quite regularly. Add in some media madness, and you get a culture of disinformation. My co-workers at the office I work at occasionally receive virii that have been stripped by the anti-virus software I installed on the e-mail server. Nevertheless, they attribute any problem to either a "worm" or a "virus" or the dreaded "firewall". This isn't a case of computer efficiency coming to the masses. My sister would be using a computer regardless of how fast/buggy/cool looking it was. That's life. But when problems crop up (and they always do) her first instinct is to give up, because the "magic" that makes computers work is beyond her.

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".

Benefit of the doubt long gone

[gosand]

Microsoft should instead be focusing completely on security, performance, interoperability, stability, and flexibility - you know, all of the things that are allowing Linux to kill Microsoft on the server side.

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 screenshots. Sorry, Microsoft lost their "benefit of the doubt" long ago.

ripping off apple is good

[asv108]

Personally, I think the screenshots looke like shit. I like the concept of the bar on the right with im, tasks, etc, but it will only work with MS messenger and Outlook for sure.

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..

Re:Wrong direction

[Eric Ass Raymond]

I bet you're one of the people who thinks that Gnome is great because it's different from Windows GUI and KDE sucks because it looks like Windows (which it does not).

Face it. Windows GUI is a de facto standard. Break it and you'll just have trouble attracting the crowds to adopt Linux on desktop. If you don't care about crowds, well, why don't you go and hack HURD or something as useful instead.

Correction

[niom]

Now we have a good guess on how KDE 5.0 could look by default. KDE's configurability means you can customize its looks quite a lot. Hopefully Longhorn's too, but in my experience Microsoft is not very fond of configurability.

Losing their main advantage of user famillarity

[unoengborg]

This GUI is very different from previous windows systems. It also contains a lot of new APIs that makes it likely to believe that many applications will have to be upgraded to run well on the new system and we can expect that that new software will be similar in style to the OS itself.
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.

Re:Wrong direction

[trompete]

You are totally right. Mod parent up please.
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.

And we thought XP was bad..

[Ogerman]

I don't use Windows, but several of my less geeky friends do. Just about every one of them has stated at one point or another that they hate the "new interface" of XP--especially Explorer. It's not surprising to me. Microsoft keeps designing interfaces that, by default, hide more and more information from the user while adding chubby new graphics and context sidebars. I get asked questions like "how do I make it just show all the files and directories on my hard drive?" Longhorn seems to be a step further in the direction of hiding more details to make the UI not user-friendly, but rather idiot-friendly. It may be more immediately useful to someone who's never touched a computer before, but it certainly isn't always efficient for the typical user. And if you look at those stupid interface studies that supposedly compare XP to KDE, you'll notice that most of them study near-illiterate users.

Chalk up yet another reason to convince people and businesses to switch to Linux / Free Software.

Microsoft's new GUI design philosophy

[tuxlove]

Make the icons as big and fat as possible. Make them shiny and cute. Then it will all look so much less threatening to your grandma, while the rest of us just get irritated at being patronized by our computer.

Re:Leaked Screenshots????

[leifm]

Intentionally leaked screenshots are the only thing Paul Thurrott is good for. If you actually read his stuff you get quotes like this:

"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"

Am I the only one?

[Alton_Brown]

... who thinks the "Longhorn Hardware" looks a lot like computers of the future would have looked like circa 1975-1980? They look like something out of an old Popular Science magazine to me! I just can't understand why a company the size of Microsoft can't have an industrial design team with the quality of Apple. I guess that's because Apple takes ID to the core of everything they do (i.e., the recent discussion on the quality of the box that G5's get shipped in).<br><br>--AB

Re:Wrong direction

[Eric Ass Raymond]

It has a GUI, and relies on it heavily. This is a monumental waste of resources for a server.

And yet it successfully competes with the stripped down command-line servers. What does this tell about the efficiency of the underlying structure?

I'd rather have an easy-to-administer GUI on a server than a use-your-unixmagic-to-edit-the-script-server even if it meant a slight performance drop

Dear god

[_KiTA_]

I work for tech support for a ISP. Oh my god.

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.

Re:Wrong direction

[buffer-overflowed]

Hi, I'll be speaking for the Linux fanbois[sic] in the audience.

As Mr. AC so kindly pointed out, Windows(including XP, 2003 server, 2000 advanced server, NT4, etc.) falls victim to it's GUI reliance in the server arena. It also falls victim to the bi-monthly virus, critical patch and/or worm attacks that MS is so famous for.

To put it bluntly, it's less secure then Linux, and no more warranteed then Linux. It has no place on any critical systems (and neither does Linux unless it's waranteed as fail-safe).

Yea, terminal services is pretty cool and all, but it doesn't have the speed, elegance and lack of overhead of something like ssh.

That GUI you windows people so rely on costs you, whether you admit it or not. It costs you hardware and performance for no real functional gain.

Second, XP is a home or workstation OS it shouldn't be comparable to a server OS. One OS does not fit all. I wouldn't run an AIX desktop, nor would I run a VMS desktop. Why would you run a Win2k3 Server desktop? For kicks or because XP doesn't cut it in the robust department?

Yes, things have come a long way since Billy G plugged in a USB device into a Win98 box and uttered the words "whoops" but they're still not perfect.

See also: releasing commercial software chocked full of overflow bugs.

See also: critical flaws in the MS API that allow escalation of privaledges. AKA: Shatter Attack

See also: not understanding the concept of a salt when encrypting passwords.

So back off MS Fanboy. Your OS isn't near as good as you think it is.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to reboot into Windows so I can play some video games.

Re:Aqua? Aero?

[kpaul]

Of course you mean "Fuego" and "Terra"

Typical of Microsoft... no real innovation

[Frobozz0]

Microsoft has once again proved that even though they're now capable of slapping some paint on an old house, they still can't fix the foundation.

I honestly can't believe how complex they've managed to make even simple tasks. These screenshots, aestetically, look great... but they still bury functionality in the wrong places, and put simple tasks under 3 different sub-menus.

How does this help anything? It doesn't. But what does it prove? They're scared of Apple's OS X. They copy basic concepts of functonality and pleasing look, while missing all the fundamental reasons why Apple's OS works like it should. SIMPLICITY. I'm not saying OS X is perfect, but Panther looks like a great stride and will be available in a month or two. Longhorn... which should be called "Shoe-horn" won't be out until mid 2005.

Does Monopoly Sell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, if MS released a brand new operating system that looked identicle to XP, but was just ultra secure and ultra stable, would it sell?

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.

actually...

[mnemonic_]

I actually think there's some truth to this. Far too many MS applications still use those tiny 16x16 pixel icons which looked decent sized on yesterday's 14" monitors, but miniscule when running anything above 800x600. Not only are larger icons more aesthetically pleasing due to the higher detail, but in my opinion they present a less intimidating interface by being more easily identifiable and just a bit easier to click.

Re:Aqua? Aero?

[NonSequor]

Because 3D virtual reality GUIs suck unless you live in a four dimensional universe (by that I mean a universe with a proper fourth spatial dimension).

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.

Support

[jeti]

Try to give telephone support to someone if you don't even know how the OS looks.
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.

Re:Wrong direction

[spacecowboy420]

I have to agree. Although I am migrating from NT4 to redhat 9 on my network, I am still running NT4 as the domain controller, mail server, and webserver (I inherited this network) with Win2k, XP, and Redhat workstations. I had exactly one instance of the blaster worm - and that was from a remote user with a broadband connection in Singapore. Not one user or server had this issue - although I could see the traffic on the firewall. I am not a M$ advocate, but I also do not believe in placing blame when it is obvious that the admins just need to be more vigilant in keeping their machines patched. On a corporate network, I could give a fuck if M$ looks at my apps - I'm legal, so I make sure the auto update feature is functioning and check on random users. It is really not that difficult - and it's your job as an admin. Earn your salary you lazy fucks.

I Work At Microsoft:These Are Not Screenshots

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I work at Microsoft. I have the latest version of Longhorn installed (that's Milestone 6 for all you MS folks out there.) The images on WinSuperSite are not screenshots.

Some of the posted images are authentically from Microsoft. However, they are simply UI mockups done well before the LH development effort began. I have no idea what Longhorn will look like in the end, but based on what I see every day when I come to work, I'd be surprised if this was it.

Importantly, many of these mockup "screenshots" appear to be fake. Like I said, I'm not in charge of longhorn UI design, but most of the mockups are provably fake. (For example, some have BeOS icons in them!)

You may now return to your regularly scheduled program.

These files are FAKE

[zim2411]

Unless there are some SERIOUS typos in the longhorn OS, (which I doubt) these pictures are FAKE. Look at the one for the Hardware Devices. It lists the system specs as "Intel Xeon, 80ghz RAM, 20GB1, Ultra ATA Hard Drive, Windows Longhorn Professional." First off, there is no 80ghz Xeon. Second. What does GB1 mean? Third. Wheres the ram? Another problem in a picture are the typos. For the Music Companion propterties, in shows that the MP3 player has 900 on board memory, and 100 meg flash card. It also says that 900 megs will hold 100 songs. What!?! The real one has 64 megs of internal. ( http://www.reviewmart.com/ele-philips_sa220 ) On the Rush Media Player picture, it says "Here's room for text but I don't thing we need it." (No spelling errors there,) What?! This is all a load of crap. Some one went through alot of trouble to photoshop in this stuff. The only pictures I believe are the real longhorn, are the 3 at the bottom.

Re:Wrong direction

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

This is not a troll. A rant, maybe.

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".
See if you can tell that this announcement:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS03-032.asp
relates to this disclosure by eEye:
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD200 30820.html
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.

All the UI's have their ups and downs.

[Nephroth]

A lot of things can be said for or against the windows UI. Personally, I have few complaints with windows 2000 and lesser in terms of UI. I dislike XP mostly because I prefer things to be compact and streamlined and that, my friends is something XP is not. I dislike frivilous graphics and frivilously large toolbars etc. I understand that some computer users may like that, but an option to shut off "all the fruity colors" should have been made available. Sure, XP is skinnable, but the "classic" skins are still bogged down by the fact that the windows XP environment habitually sacrifices user efficiency for initial usability. Sure, lil' sis can save and open files without any real help, but in about a year once she's matured a bit and knows a little more, will she not be frustrated by the fact it takes twice as long to do it than in other UIs?

Lets not leave out Linux, I enjoy Linux as a hobby, but as far as the most popular UI's go, it's just as bad. KDE and GNOME aren't horrible, but they could be a lot better. It takes just as long to accomplish something in either of them as windows XP simply because you often get too much detail, when I click my task bar, I don't want to be assaulted by the 8000 or so selections that you get even in a fairly bare-bones GUI install. Granted, they can be removed, but not easily. Linux will not take off as a desktop system until it can take reliability and combine it with ease of use. I'll admit right now, I'd MUCH rather install new hardware on a Windows system. Why? because even when installing hardware that I know nothing about and don't have the drivers for is a hell of a lot easier than doing so in Linux.

I know full well that this will get tucked at the bottom and ranked as a one because I'm reiterating a lot of points as well as being simply irrate, but the solution to all of this isn't Linux aquiring a few traits or Windows aquiring (or losing) a few others, what it amounts to is in order for the OS market to work there need to be more than two or three OSes available. (Fanboys, now is the time to mention WHEATONEX or whatever off the wall OS you run, but I'm talking mainstream here, not ecclectic little known ones)

The market should aim to be like that of cars, car companies produce many models, each one with a particular type of user in mind. Small economy cars are aimed at people who just need something reliable to get around, they don't have to be amazingly fast or have a lot of features, it just needs to work and be fairly safe. Larger family sedans are aimed at people who have a lot of things to do, they are more task oriented. They aren't necessarily fast, but they are very safe and very reliable. Trucks are aimed at the purely utilitarian user, they are durable and very powerful, but at the same time they are big and slow. Sports cars are aimed at the flashy user, they are fast and look nice, but they offer little protection in an accident and are really only suitable for city or highway driving, you can't drive them in the winter and you certainly should drive them in the country where stones and potholes will damage them. But most of all, more than anything else, no matter what kind of car you drive (bear with me, I know I'm about to get hit with "but I drive an electric" or "well, I converted my 1987 chevy celebrity to run on LP!") they all run on gas, they all take oil and other fluids. *in case you didn't get it, the fluids are the software in this case, not electricity or something*

The computer industry has a lot of changing to do before it truly matures, first thing that needs to be done is money grubbing organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, and others need to be put in their place and made to deal with the times just like all the other companies out there. Secondly, we need to dismiss socialist computing notions like networking every item in your house. I know it seems cool in Sci-Fi, but it's a bad idea unless computers are 100% safe, reliable, and infallable. Until then, we need to stick with, for the most part, having to flip the light switch ourself.
Lastly, we need to get it out of our heads that computers are just Microsoft vs. *nix, and that something as frivilous as a UI change will change the computing world, it's going to take a total paradigm shift in order to do that.

Re:Aqua? Aero?

[Have Blue]

You already use the third dimensions every time you place a window overlapping another window. All that's missing is perspective.

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".

Re:Toyish?

[Safety Cap]

There is nothing new here so compelling ~.

There is one thing: you don't have a choice from here on out thanks to Microsoft's Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support and Availability Policies for Consumers. Once XP end of lifes there are no more activations, so if your computer crashes or you upgrade enough of your hardware then you have an expensive coaster instead of an OS CD.

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

[nfotxn]

User interface within Windows has been at acceptable to good levels since Windows 95. They aren't going to win any more of the desktop market by making it look fancier. Microsoft should instead be focusing completely on security, performance, interoperability, stability, and flexibility - you know, all of the things that are allowing Linux to kill Microsoft on the server side.

Yeah, it's really too bad this is a consumer operating system. You know where linux is the underdog. There are a lot of home users who need an accessible and usable interface than there are expert users who need to run a fail-proof operating system.

I completely disagree that Windows usability has been at "acceptable to good" levels since win95. Ask anybody with a disability about that, you'll get an honest answer. Not to mention internationalization. But leave it to linux zealots to down-play the importance of being able to use the computer and stress the importance of securing it. Awfully elitist if you think about it.

Security and stability are similarly as important as usability and accessibility. They both are not static issues.

Re:Look, man, if it lets you hook it up as USB...

[Anonymous Coward]

Documentation that actually tells how to make this THEORY into a REALITY...PLEASE!

So where is the actual documentation to say exactly how to do this?!

I know "in theory" you can do that but since the documentation is PISS POOR AT BEST it's really rather impossible to make work.

As I was saying, in WINDOWS you don't EVEN NEED DOCS it JUST WORKS.

Now show me some docs explaining everything needed to get this working or I'll have to assume you are some full of shit fanboy.

In short, publish some fucking docs or shut your mouth.

Re:Aqua? Aero?

[OzRoy]

Actually I would disagree with you.

A couple friends of mine did their thesis on 3D interfaces. Given the right tools to interact with a 3D environment (not a mouse) it can be very intuitive. 3D environments are natural.

Imagine your office. Mine looks like a dump, but if I need something 10 seconds of searching will usually uncover it for me. Which isn't always true on my computer. I could save a file in any numerous locations and lose it for months. The search/find features don't always help because I can't remember what the thing was called. The last matrix trailer was called "final_640.zip" for example.

It's all about making an intuitive, real life, environment that is easy to learn. 2D/Windows environments are not natural and for some people, hard to learn.

virtual desktops?

[SHEENmaster]

I see that as a great 3d interface, available in Linux for quite a while. Rather than reinventing everything, just make several different layers of 2d environments, and stack them. Give them opaque backgrounds with a single interface for navigation on top. By flipping the slides, you can access different sets of open programs.

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:Wrong direction

[Geek of Tech]

Why don't you place the blame where it belongs, with shitty admins who don't patch their systems? If you never patch that little Linux box you're using, you'll have the same problems. I don't see you jackasses yelling about the insecurity of Linux every time a patch comes out for it.

Uh, yeah. I think he was placing blame where it belongs. Part of the blame does rest on the sys admins. Part of the blame rests on the people that actually designed the software. "Placing the blame" is a joint venture between the users and the maker.

(Unless of course you go by the EULA, then Microsoft never did anything wrong.)

The reason most people don't complain about the Linux patches is most of the patches aren't for Linux. The great majority of patches are for third party programs.

Oh, one more major reason we complain about Windows more, is that we pay $99-$199 per copy of Windows, so we expect it to be working right. Linux gets a little more headway, because nobody has upgrade it. They do it for "The love of the game".

a simple windows UI suggestion

[wdebruij]

I don't care how many eyecandy they put into their user interface.... just don't put everything in explorer.exe!

It's true, the OS windows xp seems to be more stable than win 9x. Instead of the OS hanging, it's now the user interface.

Software development 101 : modularize!