Slashdot Mirror
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. "
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
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
Update the GUI and people will forget about the insecurities and DRM being pushed down their throats...
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
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?
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.
I drank what? -- Socrates
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
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.
/. 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).
And to non-geeks, this is a bad thing. To the rest of the world, it's not a big deal. They don't really care if their hard drive has 8MB of cache and runs at 7200RPMs. They don't care how much space is on their hard drive as long as they don't get a scary message saying they've run out of it.
And they certainly don't mind getting told, step-by-step, how to do certain tasks.
The reason that "leaked" screenshots of the new version of Windows gets posted on
Case in point: you're 13 year old sister doesn't need to know about xcopy or directory structures or file trees in order to save or retrieve files. And better yet, a grandma can do the same thing and while we see them as childlike step-by-step shortfalls, the simple fact is that UI brings computer efficiency to the masses. Is it as efficient as we are (or can be)? Of course not. But it lets them use something that they had not been able to use before (I'm speaking mainly of the grandmas at this point).
Either way, I think that dumbing down is a great thing. Because this gives users a choice: You can go step by step and make something work. Or, if you're curious, or if you're a Power User (tm), you can turn that off and work with more control and finesse than thought possible. I know the Aero interface will be disabled the instant
I install the newest Windows, but at least it's there for those who need it.
And those are the people you seem to have forgotten in your posting.
Maybe, unlike you, she just doesn't give a shit?
"...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.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
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.
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
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.
More than enough BS
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.
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"
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
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.
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.
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.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
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.
Look. MS Win\2003 and future versions contain public-keys for encryption, for which the licensed user (not owner) holds no corresponding private-key. Who holds the private keys? Microsoft, for sure - and whoever they escrow to at Three Letter Agency.
Sony Pictures may well hold private-keys, distributing the pub-key to you by use of MS's APIs in a software installer. The implications of this is that your computer cannot be trusted by its user.
Oh, and the worm comments seem like flamebait? The DCom-RPC vulnerability is YEARS old in the code - 1997. Never caught by the people who had access and ownership of the source. Not after bringing in special tools for reviewing code last year, not after a 5-month security related delay for review of 2003 Server. This is an OBVIOUS place to look for flaws, being RPC, and automated tools for checking buffer code is not rocket science.
The newest (of many) problems in the IE use of the OBJECT tag was so downplayed in the MS announcement yesterday, that I have hardly heard a mention. This is not a joke to leave unpatched, and it is related to IE ignoring RFC compliance on 7-bit MIME-type headers, and weakness in the mechanism for defining "zones".n /MS03-032.asp 0 30820.html
See if you can tell that this announcement:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulleti
relates to this disclosure by eEye:
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD20
You think that Linux or Solaris or whatnot suffers equally? A regular user of an account on the box cannot establish the trust policy for code executed outside of his own shell.
We can go on for pages and pages in this vein - instead just manage to look through the relevant list-archives for Full-Disclosure and Incidents, etc...
Windows is a little, dirty-toilet OS.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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".
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.
Yeah, right.