Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Officially Shows Longhorn, WinFX
Theaetetus writes "Microsoft today unveiled its most detailed look yet at its new OS, Longhorn, due in 2006, during Bill Gates' keynote speech at the company's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles. An article at Internet Week describes some of the goals: avoiding viruses, worms, and 'building apps that are as smart as Outlook.'" The company "also unveiled 'WinFX,' which it described as a new application programming model for Windows that is the evolution of its .NET programming framework."
Especially when he was just shitting on Outlook about 5 seconds ago with the "clunky" comment.
Marketing, marketing, and still more marketing.
El riesgo vive siempre!
The goals of this OS seems pretty much the same as the last one. The productivity gains of having a "sidebar" are probably the same as the MSN website sidebar, which is kinda like having a billboard blinking outside your bedroom window all night : a distraction.
An XM-based FS is going to be a meta-data nightmare, with more churning than one thought possible. The pagefile size will need to be quite large to cache all that crap. But they'll use the extra-speedy Intels to compress is on the fly anyway.
Most of *any* speech recognition is going to be from research done on [cough] *nix machines of the past decade.
Revamping the graphics system is just what the DirectX doctor ordered: new APIs! Everything can be antialiased, from busy dancing icons to cursors to controls. yawn.
By keeping everyone busy adopting the new platform, form ignores function and we get the same stuff in a new box. I hope they keep pushing it out. Then again, we're talking about people who confuse an OS with their desktop images.
mug
"A demonstration of WinFS featured a method to "stack" documents by author in a window, with the heights of the stacks corresponding to the number of documents, as well as file views that showed snapshots of documents, rather than just file names."
... In addition to those snapshots posted of Longhorn over the weekend, isn't it a bit odd that Longhorn is essentially using the brushed metal look from OSX 10.3? The only difference being that MS made the grey a bit darker. Kudo's to the MS UI team.
And ten years before this, Apple patented Piles:
"Apple holds a patent on this one. Developed by Gitta Salomon and her team close to a decade ago, a pile is a loose grouping of documents. Its visual representation is an overlay of all the documents within the pile, one on top of the other, rotated to varying degrees. In other words, a pile on the desktop looked just like a pile on your real desktop.
To view the documents within the pile, you clicked on the top of the pile and drew the mouse up the screen. As you did so, one document after another would appear as a thumbnail next to the pile. When you found the one you were looking for, you would release the mouse and the current document would open."
From the article,
.Net code, which is supposed to help prevent developer errors that can lead to unsecure applications, according to Microsoft."
"Everything that gets written for Windows will be
Everything I read in the article from this to the talk about the file system and how it allows "searching for an array of files...strewn across ever-larger hard drives" and creating all these "smart" programs that "automatically sniff out network connections," really makes me wonder how secure this OS is going to be. Am I the only one who reads this stuff and thinks that a security vulnerability at any point has the potential of corrupting an entire system or even LAN?
Having easy lines of communications between the OS, apps, files and networked resources is great, but who's doing the gatekeeping between all these resources to keep them secure? And how is it being done? Or is it just assumed that once something is "trusted" its trusted to do anything it wants?
Or am I just paranoid?
I know I'm going to get slammed -5 redundant, but there are just so many things wrong with that statement.
Unless you are an MS zealot, the Outlook program was among the worst examples of a computer program. It was slow to start. It did a few different tasks, and it did them marginally. It took forever to shut down. It hogged resources so the whole system bogged down. It was dreadful!
This part is a bit off-topic, but back when I still used Windows, I recall installing Office, and it was an imparative to custom install only Word, Excel, Access, and Power Point. The default office install was a sure fire way to suck the life out of any PC.
BTW: Did anyone notice that the new Explorer looks suspiciously like a Mozilla skin?
These are all from the PDC build (#4051) of Longhorn:
Gallery 1
Gallery 2
Gallery 3
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
1) Managed directX has, at worst, a 10% performance penalty against the exact same C++ code. People are always complaining about how we have an excess of performance in todays' CPUs. This seems like a good use of it to me, thanks to #2:
2) Managed code does not have buffer overflows. How many bugs in Windows and Linux, especially rootable bugs, are a result of a buffer overflow? 50%? 75% 90%? I don't know, but it is a lot. Dotnet code has zero buffer overflows.
3) Managed code avoids DLL hell: the GAC and side-by-side execution ensure that programs will continue to run on versions of libraries that they are designed to support, since minor/major version upgraded files will not be fed to these applications (although revisions still can for bug fixing reasons.) Neither the user nor developer need to even THINK about these issues - the runtime simply takes care of them.
4) Managed code upgrades to 64-bit in a neutral and architecture-independent way. Apps that are "bit neutral" will run on a 32-bit system JIT'd for 32-bit mode, and those same EXACT EXE files will run in 64-bit mode on a 64-bit system, including making use of new registers and other such things. No recompiles - the JIT takes care of it. This also means that much of the code Microsoft writes - mountains of it - to handle all kinds of things from Office to [insert favorite feature here] can be transported across 32/64 bits and architectures. No more Mac version of Office if they want - Abstract any platform-specific calls into one or two classes and have everything else be managed bit-neutral code. Notice that no one is being silly enough to suggest write-once-run-anywhere for useful apps; that is and always was a pipe dream.
I would not doubt that the dotnet runtime on Longhorn is not going to call the Win32 API much; They might just be doing it internally and only using the Executive (NT/2K/XP's kernel native API) when necessary. That would explain part of the time length. Not only do you have to upgrade your existing code to C#/VB.NET/Managed C++/whatever other dotnet language, but you need to rewrite the new runtime to completely rid it of any dependance on the Win32 API. In this way, you also make the runtime a little bit more platform neutral, vs having to convert it from Win32 to Win64 for other platforms. But this is just a guess.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Are you talking about that developer beta release for a product not due out for another two years? It sure would be silly if you were making judgements on it.
"Sufferin' succotash."
> Bill Gates just made the Adam Osborne mistake. He
> announced "WinFX", whatever that is, as the improvement
> to
> WinFX, and Microsoft will lose the profits it would have
> had from those who wait.
But unlike Osbourne MS has LOTs and LOTs of cash and
other sources of income.
What longhorn is right now is Freezeware. They are
going to keep hyping it for the next two years. The goal
is to keep people who are on the fence about switching
from doing so. "Look!" (they'll say), "Linux doesn't
have any of these nifty features that are going to
make you so much more productive! (Please ignore the
Mac just to your right, thak you)."
IBM used to do it. MS learned the lesson. Remember the
build up to win 95? NT4? 2000? etc... the hype started
years before anything was released. IIRC win2k was supposed
to have the db based filsystem too. But at some point in 99
they just dropped that feature from the list.