Slashdot Mirror
Longhorn Skinning A Reality
AlphaAlien writes "AlphaAlien of HardwareGeeks.com has figured out how to skin all of Microsoft's upcoming Windows release codenamed Longhorn. We can now skin Longhorn in the same manner we can skin Windows XP. Here's a picture of a very early copy of the first ever non-Microsoft skin for Longhorn. The only possible issue at this point is that Microsoft appears to be planning to move away from BMP based skinning altogethor and move to PNG based skins in which case any skins made for Longhorn at this point in time will not work far into the future. Also the patch to allow the skins to be loaded may not work many builds from the present as well. But for now we'll be able to hack away at the skinning engine at our leisure. in co-operation with BetasIRC.net we will be releasing the first few longhorn skins and a guide on how to get started on creating your own Longhorn skins."
That, more than anything, tells me a lot about how people feel about Microsoft's operating systems. Past, present, and future.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams: "It is no accident that there is no single word in any language that means, 'As pretty as the Longhorn OS.'"
It's good to see Microsoft supporting free file formats! Along with using PNG, I predict that future versions of Microsoft Windows will use OGG .
- Jax
Skinned Longhorn = Circumsized OS?
-el
Perhaps PNG support in IE will have been improved then; this is good news for web designers.
( http://entropymine.com/jason/testbed/pngtrans/ )
I want to skin my windows crash screens, can I do that too? It'd be great to skin the crash screen to look just like the regular o/s, so I get the impression that everything is fine.
stuff |
I hope this means they will support full PNG transparancy in new versions of IE in preparation for this new feature - that would make it worthwhile for other purposes too.
...for me isn't how pretty I can get an OS to look, but how well it works. If I can put all kinds of skins on Longhorn, but it runs as slow as molasses and crashes at the drop of a hat, then MS will have wasted their time developing this thing. On the other hand if Longhorn turns out to be a nice, stable, functional OS that happens to be skinnable then Linux will have some real competition (which is good for both OS's).
get started on creating your own Longhorn skins.
How about I get the OS first?
I'm no fan of M$, but I'd hope that, for once in their product line, their actually concentrating on getting the guts right before making it pretty.
Not likely, but I can hope.. :-)
Besides, I guess that at this point there's still large chunks of XP code in Longhorn so it's not surprizing that it's not looking all that different yet.
..why are we so interested in "skinning" LongHorn prior to its release? Are we all already tired of just slagging it? :
http://efil.blogspot.com/
With my copy of XP the first thing I did was put the Start menu back to windows 2000 format and turn the blue task bar into the classic gray one.
Funnily enough, the Desktop Environment != The OS, however antitrustingly integrated you may think Windows components are. Has it occurred to you that they may be making *shock horror* kernel changes?
I don't get it. This is news about a feature in an OS that's not available yet, and when it's available, that feature will have changed? Excuse me, but what the heck is this about? (I'm not trying to sound like a troll - I'm really confused)
Underholdning.info
1. Buy Sun, use as tool to claim *nix compatability
2. Release some unimportant software under open/shared source license
3. Allow skinning of crappy m$ OS windowing environment
4. Spread more patently false FUD about how Linux suX0rs, make outrageous claims saying m$ is better
5. Have m$ OS be able to look like Linux
6. $$$!
Is this feature really going to be popular? Honestly, I'd love to hear what makes customizable skins so desirable.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
He!!
Finnally LongHorn will come with 1 new real feature!
Will be cool If Microsoft finnally implement full PNG support, with all the alfa thing. Its a nice format.
Also is a open-source friendly format, so a png based skinning will be good for OSS.
-Woof woof woof!
PNG skins? Eh? Wasn't Longhorn's GUI supposed to be vector? XAML (Microsoft's SVG "clone") and all that, remember?
Okay, I didn't RTFA.
But, with monster monitors coming out and some people already squinting, aren't they planning to move to scalable icons?
I recall hearing of SVG icons for Gnome and KDE and of some, uh, SVG-like XML language that MS was developing...
"Provided by the management for your protection."
It took users years to get used to the Windows 95/98/ME/2K UI, and then that got turned on its head by XP's scheme. It was supposed to be easier, but it was mostly confusing for novices: I know, because I had to help people get used to it (to this day, I still run XP in "classic" when forced to use it). I don't think it would be a terribly good idea to make Longhorn look much different from XP, at least at the default level.
I'm sure most of the good stuff is behind the curtain.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
How is this news? It's almost made to look like Longhorn has this great new feature! But it's just able to have a different look for the controls/windows. Wow. that's pretty innovative!
I mean, that's cool, Longhorn will be able to do this, but I still fail to see why this is a news story on Slashdot.
What's next? "New DVD player from Sony will play music CD's also!!!!"
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
I don't know... maybe it's just me but... that looks like Windows XP with a different layout. It's not remarkably different. It doesn't even begin to approach true flexibility in UI layout and functionality. When you can theme AND chrome Windows, call me.
Un-news
While this is all very nice and pretty, if this is based on the PDC build of Longhorn (which is painfully slow on any of my systems, but that's besides the point...) then it doesn't have the new fangled hardware accelerated bits that are going to be part of Longhorn (Indigo? or is that something else). The GUI that comes with the Longhorn betas is just a testing one that won't be useful in the final release, so I can't really see what use skinning the gui in the beta that'll never actually be used is....
well... maybe... juuuuuust maybe. Those new resource files will replace the standard ones, having them cached, and all will be well. If you think the default XP themes are hard-coded into the source... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I don't want Windows to waste my CPU cycles with hardware-accelerated graphics crap. I don't need fading menus and rotating icons.
The whole point of hardware accelerated GUIs are that they save CPU cycles by offlaoding GUI rendering to the graphics card, hardware designed for rendering graphics.
Microsoft finally adopts PNG? Microsoft becomes friendly with Sun? Microsoft releases WiX as open source...on SourceForge, no less? What the hell kind of bizzaro world did I wake up in today???
Quick, someone check Bill Gates for a stylish alternate-universe goatee!
Arrrgh no way would i want hardware-accelerated crap everyware (except in games) XP runs so much better whens it's stripped back to a basic looking display and so will longhorn. i reckon all the fancy graphic "improvments" are what increas the hardware requirments more than most with little to no benefit.
so why the fuck is it taking them another 2 years to get this on the shelves? They have yet to work out how to force upgrades from XP.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Seriously, you think GUIs are good now - just wait.
I like the fact that the skinner's got a "backup" of Vice City in the F: drive... :-)
Slashdot posting a positive article about a Windows OS? [regardless of the fact its years away from release, and still in extremely early alpha stages]. Slashdot, this is so unlike you. Where are the backhand comments against M$? Where are the links with Better Operating systems? I'm ashamed of you. Where's your prejudice? Where's your bias?
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
that's what i thought. either putting one on, or taking one off.
My droning, long hours in highschool agriculture class covered the Longhorn cattle. Transporting anything with horns that big was dangerous and cumbersome. "Polled" or hornless cattle came into fashion in the cattle industry in short order.
Why has Microsoft's marketing team picked the name of an animal that was proven in the marketplace to be 1. difficult to transport (picture horns sticking out of cattle cars or OS boxes sticking out of Fed Ex trucks) 2. difficult to maneuver without being gored?
I guess Longhorn isn't as new of an OS as we might have been led to think This is all beginning to sound rather familiar if you get my "point" :P
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
Does that mean there is a chance there will be proper support for PNG in the IE version that will be shipped with Longhorn ?
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
Yea, I know This will send my cool-karma to the pits but at least I can say I focus on getting the job done...
<obvious>
Well, this might come as a shock to you, but I'll cite some examples:
Simply because you like your speakers in black, doesn't mean everyone does. I, for once, prefer mahogny.
And as computers become a common thing, you might expect people to want to alter their looks and maybe even behaviour to suit whatever needs they may have.
</obvious>
If you really needed this answer, I think you spend way too much time alone in your room, boy. (Perhaps <obvious> as well...)
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
No, this is your basic 'look at me, look how cool I am and you're not' type BS. Much in the same way a dog wants to impress its owner.
Afterall, if this person were truly part of the Longhorn beta, they would be bound be a NDA and not able to speak of it.
Little features, not really adding to the complexity, but using HA to move the workload from the CPU. Surely a good thing?
See. Was it the marketing department that picked this name out? Do you think that it will be called Longhorn when it's sitting on the shelf at the brick 'n' mortar down the road?
Or was it the development team working on the project?
Why are you guessing that Longhorn isn't as new of an OS as you've been led to think? Because of the 3rd party WinXP looking skin that appears on a beta (or alpha) test version a full two years before the real product hits? Or because cows are difficult to transport?
Bitch about security, bitch about stability, but don't bitch about a codename or what it was or was not based on. that doesn't even make sense.
so why the fuck is it taking them another 2 years to get this on the shelves? i would assume because they are doing away with the registry
On XP boxes, I usually put the UI into Windows Classic, but I do leave the start menu in XP mode, as the new start menu can actually be useful.
Microsoft does make it possible to create new themes. People do create them, in fact there are thousands and thousands of them out there.
No reason to lie.
Actually, harware-accelerated does not mean fancy schmancy. It just makes it a LOT easier to be fancy on lower end hardware. However, I wouldn't mind Windows Classic to be hardware accelerated, myself.
Um, I thought it was an, um, phallic allusion...
Which probably tells you what MS's marketing drones hope "Longhorn" will do to Tux...
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
And the whole point of a server is to provide....services to other computers, not to provide pretty eye candy for some newbie admin.
This is one of the things Microsoft doesn't get. When I build a Sun or Linux production server, the only software on it is the software needed to provide the services the server was built for. Web servers don't neeed GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. Database servers don't need GUIs, , browsers, or media playsers. Application servers don't need GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. I might use a GUI to attach and manage them, but the servers themselves don't need one.
This type of thinking will continue to be Microsoft's security and performance nightmare. If there is a security hole in Mozilla, I don't need to worry about it on my production servers because it ain't there. If there is a security problem with Apache, I don't need to worry about it except on the webserver because it ain't on the app server or DB server. It doesn't take up memory, diskspace or CPU cycles either.
Even offloaded CPU cycles take up CPU cycles at some point, either to issue the instructions or to move on to the next ones. Something has to tell the server the mouse just oved over that pretty icon and to use a few CPU cycles to tell the graphic card to make it flutter in the breeze.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
It's been established previously in this thread: the supposed Longhorn skinning is ugly. Artistically speaking, it has some commendable points. That said, we who use and understand computers are generally rooted in logic and efficiency, and this set of schemes disregards that.
I'm a firm believer in F/OSS and use Linux always. I still maintain a Windows partiton on the lappy for Uni-related projects &c. I'm very much partial to the Windows 2000 desktop. It's barren enough to be effecient, and complex enough to be useful.
All stability issues aside, Microsoft has a strong advantage against Linux DE's largely because they implement functionality with the 'newly acquired user' in mind. KDE is a magnificent testiment to modern programming, and that team has accomplished UI capabilities I never thought I'd see in a UNIX environment. IT IS STILL MISSING that edge, that edge that beginners can grab a-hold of and incorporate into their daily lives.
I'm off on a tangent, which is inherent when a textbox maintains only some ~24 lines of previous text. Many appologies. Long and the short: if you are a power user, fuck the themes. Gnome and KDE have truly done programming wonders. But, like the currently efficient battery-gas driven cars, I'd rather move quickly, than be hampered by an ugly designed monstrosity (EV1?).
A forward thanks to you who have the forsight to buy an environmentally efficient car.
-pararox-
Anyone else remeber what Microsoft tried to do with Java, by "adapting" it.
Perhaps there is a new "better" way to get transparency in the microsoft implementation?
See I totally thought this article would be about cattle mutilation, I hear it's up this year.
Never confuse volume with power.
By default maybe. KDE (don't know much about Gnome: yeah, I always got the impression everything (buttons) was clunky too, but that was ~3.5 years ago when I used it) window themes can be super thin and minimalistic. It's easy and very versatile to customise how you want literally every aspect of your desktop to look with the Kcontrol centre.
I don't know why they make default setups look so ugly either. Perhaps it's to prompt the user to change it to suit them.
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
It will have a fully-direct3D9 accelerated GUI, allowing all sorts of craziness
or read as....
It will have a fully-direct3D9 accelerated GUI, allowing all sorts of crashiness
All spelling mistakes are in my mind and are faithfully reproduced by my fingers
5. Have m$ OS be able to look like Linux
In fact, there's so many window managers trying to look like Windows UI!
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
Why has Microsoft's marketing team picked the name of an animal that was proven in the marketplace to be 1. difficult to transport (picture horns sticking out of cattle cars or OS boxes sticking out of Fed Ex trucks) 2. difficult to maneuver without being gored?
While I know your post is meant to be funny, I thought I'd point out that MS's recent projects have been named after skiing destinations: Blackcomb, Longhorn, Yukon, Whidbey(not sure about that one), etc... Though it's definitely not as funny as the image of somebody getting run down and gored by a software box, I just thought I'd point that out as an FYI.
"so why the fuck is it taking them another 2 years to get this on the shelves?"
Because Longhorn is more than a skin.
Yeah, it's actually true, believe it or not...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
> People do create them, in fact there are thousands and thousands [themexp.org] of them out there.
Just a friendly warning, but themexp.org is filled with all kinds of lousy spyware. Their frontpage links to a javascript on http://webpdp.gator.com/4/placement/475/, which presumably tries to install GAIN under IE. They also have the audacity to wrap (!) all the themes that they offer in spyware. That's not nice.
Stay clear of this worthless site and get your themes on good sites like Neowin or DeviantART instead.
My technial knowledge of this is limitied, but IIRC Styles XP feigns the system into thinking these 3rd party themes are part of the original msstyles set shipped with Windows XP.
From a forum post on the web:
You do know that green isn't a primary color, right?
RGB is the three additive primary colors (and monitors use additive primary colors since they emit light, not subtractive).
XP uses by default in G and B in its color scheme.
Wikipedia article about primary colors
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Wait, wait... they're moving towards using PNG images in their skins? Does this mean Microsoft is FINALLY recognizing the PNG image format? Does this mean that maybe, just maybe, we'll finally see proper PNG support (i.e. alpha layers) in their web browser and website designers won't have to cripple their websites to support the lowest common denominator? (ignoring for a second other things IE doesn't support right now)
I'm just saying, is all. That possibility intrigues me. Not that my web design skills are hot enough to really employ it, but...
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
And the whole point of a server is to provide....services to other computers, not to provide pretty eye candy for some newbie admin.
:-)
And that's because Windows 2003 Server doesn't use visual styles like XP.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Just a small addendum:
They only have spyware in the downloads marked with a red star. It still sucks though and the site should be shunned, in my opinion.
And the whole point of a server is to provide....services to other computers, not to provide pretty eye candy for some newbie admin.
And the OS release commonly reffered to in media as "Longhorn" is a client OS release, where eye-candy is appropriate and in some sense needed to catch-up/differentiate from OS X.
Longhorn server is a different story. I've heard rumors of Microsoft moving towards a componentized approach to OS install. Something similar to building Windows Embedded images, where you've got about 10,000 various modules which comprise the OS and a package manager making sure dependencies are satisfied. If that's true, system builders will have far greater flexibility in purposing their servers. Monad shell seems to be the solution Microsoft is banking on to provide robusts CLI. That being said, GUI still has its place on the server for newbie admins. Even Linux distributions are putting more and more work into adding GUI tools to configure various services. Like it or not, newbie admins make up a large population of small business place and these people will buy/use whatever makes their lives easier. GUI is a crutch very much needed in that space and there's too much money at stake to not provide that crutch.
Why is PNG a good format to use? This has already been discussed on slashdot but for those of you that are new to: PNGs
First PNG is an open standard that doesn't rely on proprietary formats like LZW for compression like in Gif that is owned by Unisys. PNG has a better compresses algorithm than GIF anyway.
PNG is a loss-less compression method meaning that you open and save and get back to original data. Think of it like a ZIP file, you can always get the data back from a ZIP files as you stored it in.
PNG supports three main image types: true color, grayscale and palette-based. Good for Normal Pictures, Documents and Web Based Images.
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
HA! HA! yes, a revolution in consumerist loyality! HORRAY for BRAND MARKETING! YEAH! My brand is more revolutionary than yours!
When have they ever bothered to make it pretty, either?
Windowblinds is the most popular Windows skinning app, and Stardock has created a pretty strong skinning/customization community for Windows users.
I think they'll be ready for Longhorn.
Microsoft has two distinctly different target markets - Server and Desktop. This one is fairly obviously being targeted as a WinXP follow-up at the consumer/workstation, I'm not quite sure how "server administrators" come into play there...
This is one of the things Microsoft doesn't get. When I build a Sun or Linux production server, the only software on it is the software needed to provide the services the server was built for. Web servers don't neeed GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. Database servers don't need GUIs, , browsers, or media playsers. Application servers don't need GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. I might use a GUI to attach and manage them, but the servers themselves don't need one.
Me thinks you never used Windows 2003 Server. Windows 2003 Server comes locked down to begin with...So the browser cant go anywhere except trusted sites. It, last time I played with it, didnt come with media player (but even if it did you got issues if thats your problem with the server). If you're playing movies on your servers then maybe someone should talk to your boss about having too much time on your hands. Generally servers sit in a data center where its meant to be rarely used at the console. There is a GUI because its called "Windows" not "Text".
This type of thinking will continue to be Microsoft's security and performance nightmare. If there is a security hole in Mozilla, I don't need to worry about it on my production servers because it ain't there. If there is a security problem with Apache, I don't need to worry about it except on the webserver because it ain't on the app server or DB server. It doesn't take up memory, diskspace or CPU cycles either.
You do have some good points here...but what about OpenSSH? Thats on all your boxes and that has vulnerablities...or what about a Kernel vulnerablity? If you dont get what I mean, those two things are comparable to what you said to windows. Granted windows has a lot more ports open for more exploits but IIS isnt installed at all unless you install it on Windows 2003. I'll grant you that the Unix/Linux operating systems have less vulnerablities when compared to Windows. I could then make the case that Unix and Linux are both crappy software when it comes to vulnerablities when I compare it to like OS/2 or MacOS 9.
Even offloaded CPU cycles take up CPU cycles at some point, either to issue the instructions or to move on to the next ones. Something has to tell the server the mouse just oved over that pretty icon and to use a few CPU cycles to tell the graphic card to make it flutter in the breeze.
Yeah maybe for a desktop, but as its been with Microsoft's latest products, they dont use the nice eye candy for their server operating system, only the desktops.
I dont want to sound like I'm starting a war with you, but reading your post I can make a fairly educated guess that you've only used their desktop operating systems and not the Server versions (or atleast just Windows 2000) otherwise you'd know what I'm talking about.
what does it all mean basil?
Try this fix. It uses a CSS and some javascript to fix IE's handling of PNG images.
It sucks that one has to play these shennanigans to fix such basic functionality. It also begs the question if javascript can fix IE's mishandling... what's the hold up from Microsoft themselves?
And it's the first .org site I've seen (ever or in awhile, I don't know) with blantant ads across two sides of the page.
Go to www.belchfire.net if you want good themes. You have to register, but there are a ton of bootscreens and good themes if you're into that sort of thing.
I'm a geek girl. Seriously.
So you'd rather have all of your hardware sit idle and unused leaving you with the satisfaction that you're getting the most for your money? Fortunately, Longhorn will take full advantage of your hardware-accelerated graphics card. If you say this is bad, you obviously have never tried to move a large transparent window around in windows xp.
Therefore I will take performance over 'wasted cpu cycles' for my eye candy, thank you
-dk
I was under the impression that Longhorn would be using vector graphical extensively in its UI. Mind you, I don't follow Microsoft hype very closely so I may well be totally wrong.
AFAIK, Gnome and KDE are both going toward SVG vector graphic for icons/UI elements (correct me if I am wrong). Building a UI on bitmap graphic in 2004 seem quite retarded to me.
:wq
Skins are to user interfaces what Type-R and VTEC stickers are to Honda Civics.
Isn't that a DMCA violation?
But my cow-orkers thought it was kewl!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Servers do not require GUIs to be part of the server OS. Period. My servers are in another room that I don't even have access to. Why does the SERVER need a GUI OS? I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation, other than to make it easier for newbie admins. I have yet to find anything in Linux or Solaris server that requires a GUI to administer it. This makes for very tight and small servers that can ignore 95% of security issues because the software simply isn't installed.
Windows IS a GUI OS, there is no way to separate it. GUI OSes take up resources, even if it is only disk space, and introduce unnecessary security risks.
Why include a browser if you can't use it anyway until you configure it. Here is an idea, make it an option at build time so if I never need it, it is never installed. Oh, I forgot, it is part of the monolithic OS and can't be separated. Which is exactly my point. MS doesn't know how to, or chooses not to, build an OS that uses plug in components. My guess is that is one of the reasons why Longhorn is taking so long. It is hard to fix security issues when one change can impact every component.
The point about kernel and Open SSH are almost right on, except if no one has access to the command prompt then kernel hacks are irrelevant (which is how my servers are setup, and if someone gets root I'm toast anyway, no matter what kernel hacks there are) and I have a choice which SSH software to use. While I can install any browser on my desktop, I can't remove IE. And that is true of all MS products.
An 'Operating System' manages resources, like memory, disk, etc. It does not provide telnet, ssh, browser, media player, or even directory listings. These things should not be coupled to an OS, rather the OS provides the environment for these things to operate in. This then provides the skilled admins of the world the tool sets to truly administer a server based on business requirements rather than Microsoft's.
Let's look at Unix systems. I can completely replace evry single command and shell in the system if I chose to with whatever I want to use. I can strip down the OS so far that it will only run on one specific hardware configuration and only with a subset of commands. I can completely eliminate the ls command if I chose (not that that would make any sense.) I can remove the hardware auto-configure option. I can make the box a web server and only a web server, which is what security is all about, minimizing risks.
You simply cannot do that with MS products. You must install numerous software components that you will not use, and depend on the OS to lock them down, as was your point with IE. There are exactly three open ports on my webserver, 80, 443, and a non-standard SSH port (that only responds to a specific IP address). Do a netstat on your most secure web server and tell me how many ports are open. I'll bet it ain't 3.
And that is the real problem, having an OS do my work their way.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Actually, it has had a lot of delays already. The Millennium project was going on at Microsoft Research back in the late 1990's. Judging from technologies like Yukon, "Longhorn" is the marketing code name for Millennium. It has hit a lot of roadblocks since then:
It doesn't matter how you skin it, or how many obstacles Microsoft has to overcome, Millennium is coming. Will Millennium be the key to Microsoft's thousand year reign over the computing world? Or will Microsoft die the day its reign begins? Hm, sounds like the plot for a great monster movie...
"New machines, network links, and resources should be automatically assimilated." Microsoft
Shinoda: "The age of Millennium."
Io: "What does that mean?"
Shinoda: "A thousand year kingdom. It wants to create a home for itself. There is one flaw in its plan: Godzilla."
Godzilla 2000 (vs) Millennium (Japanese version, US version cut most of the Microsoft and Millennium references)
(Note: Palladium is a soft, shiny white metal. The Millennium alien in Godzilla 2000 (vs) Millennium in its original form appears to have a skin of palladium.)
Yes.. We pwn'd the skins website as well as took down the betairc.net website.. I wanted to see the darn skin! Grr.. anyone have another link to it?
Just me
Longhorn Killing, Gutting, and Dressing Still a Dream.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
How is it that a group who never RTFA, can slashdot anything?
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
There's MUCH more (including adding and removing RAM without rebooting--currently, Windows Server 2003 only lets you add RAM)...but you've read up on Longhorn before bashing it, right?
Note before I get called a Microsoftie--yes, I appreciate their technology. They have some of the smartest developers in the world working there. Yes, I also run Linux--Gentoo, to be exact.
You won't need it, because Longhorn will support several tiers of visual display, going all the way back to a "Windows Classic" display requiring no hardware acceleration.
It will take advantage of what you have if you have it. Of course...Slashdotters already knew all this, since they've actually read what's known about Longhorn, right?
The same people who whine that Windows XP "confused" people with its visual change will cite endless reasons why, say, their XMMS app should be skinnable.
Not referring to you specifically--just find it amusing that popular opinion seems to always contradict itself around here when it comes to Microsoft. If you're one of the minority that doesn't apply, never mind.
Hence, it being called a beta. :)
Why is microsoft against the idea of the user customizing the look of his/her desktop?
This just doesnt seem like a big deal to me. Every other gui in the world allows the user to change the look. Why is microsoft afraid of letting the user do this?
I was under the impression that Longhorn would be using vector graphical extensively in its UI. Mind you, I don't follow Microsoft hype very closely so I may well be totally wrong.
:P
It will. This is one of the beta builds. I've seen at least three MSDN videos showcasing the technology...clearly, people on this site haven't been paying attention.
All the questions and comments similar to this one in this discussion really reveal how absolutely uninformed about Longhorn Slashdotters are as they meanwhile bash it. Common knowledge about Longhorn seems to have not yet reached Slashdot--no doubt because Slashdot would rather post silly anti-"M$" article when meanwhile, great strides are taking place in their technology. Someone here actually implied you'd need a DirectX9 level card just to run the thing--obviously he didn't know Longhorn supports several tiers of operation, going all the way down to standard 2D like Windows 2000. You can choose a tier manually or let Longhorn decide for you according to system specs. This is just one example of bizarre posts that completely reveal how ignorant people are of this OS--they call it "vaporware" as though there is no information released about it. People, there is tons of info already known that Microsoft has given away freely in the past year.
For crying out loud, visit WinSuperSite and read up a little bit!
Sounds like you have a bad laptop. The "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP" sticker doesn't really mean much. It basically means that it has XP drivers, and comes with XP installed. My Inspiron has one too, and I ran both 2k and XP on it before I switched to Linux. I didn't notice any difference in uptimes. In both cases, they basically ran until I had to restart to install something. Over a year, each locked up maybe twice, always caused by shitty Dell video drivers.
Karma: Contrapositive
That image doesn't look very skinned to me. It appears the colors have changed, and perhaps some minor UI elements have changed, but I can't really tell. It really just looks like Longhorn with different colors to me. Perhaps the skin is just very similar and I'd have to compare side by side. I couldn't find any details on how and what they did in the article.
What is pretty ironic, IMHO, is that when Longhorn will actually ship, hardware-accelerated rendering of GUI will probably be a moot point. Right now, I am running KDE 3.2 on a pretty standard machine (P4 2.8, 256 MB RAM, cheap onboard VGA) with all the eye candy turned on, and I can't see how the interface could be any snappier. According to Moore's Law, we can extrapolate that CPU in the 4 to 5 Ghx range with > 1 GB of RAM will be standard in 2006 (the year Longhorn is supposed to come out). Will hardware-accelerated GUI rendering make any difference then ? It sure won't hurt but I don't think it will make a noticeable difference.
:wq
I could definitely have used hardware-accelerated GUI back in 1996, when I was using a P133 with 32 MB of RAM. Sadly, the technology is 10 years late.
:wq
No popular web browsers support the animated variant of PNG. How would one create the equivalent of a GIF animation with the PNG image format other than by using some nasty JavaScript hack?
MS is going to use PNG for something?
Does this mean they are finally taking PNG seriously? Will this mean We'll finally see an MS browser that fully supports PNG? (with alpha channels and all that jazz?)
YAY!
Refer to an MS product 2 years from release as "revolutionary". Is that the "Gates Vision(tm)"?
Recount the wonders of product demos that have been shown at recent MS developer conferences.
Regularly visit MSDN _for fun_.
Refer to a GUI as "photorealistic".
Look at how many market-speak words you use. If you are not astroturfing, then at least you have bought into the PR buzz that MS creates through MSDN - yes, MSDN is a marketing outlet. It is not the unmediated look at "technology", "for hardcore developers" that some seem to think it is.
I'm just saying, beware. Do you remember Win95? Everything that they promised was doable - it wasn't fantastic. They just failed to implement it. They failed to turn it into a product. And so far as I am concerned, MS may very will fail again this time. It is too far off.
And you haven't even seen this product, supposedly. The longhorn release is up to 2 years away still, and many of these technologies are still in development. Certainly they do not exist in a coherent whole, at least visible to anyone outside of Microsoft.
Did anyone else notice that in that screenshot, the window title reads simply "Computer"? Whatever happened to "My Computer"? Trusted Computing's first semantic manifestation, perhaps? I think I'm scared now.
Hey Linux crowd...
You can use Windows XP skins unmodified on Windows 2003, so this is no new development really...
Wonderful. Sure, you're not a MS apologist you just:
.NET are coming. Feel free to ignore it all you want, but when it is released, and KDE/GNOME decide to start playing another five years of catchup, we'll see who's been paying attention. At least we have Mono.
No, I'm not.
# Refer to an MS product 2 years from release as "revolutionary". Is that the "Gates Vision(tm)"?
Guess you haven't taken any time to see what is actually running Longhorn and will be upon release. Yes, revolutionary in the Windows product line, just like Windows 3.1->95 was.
# Recount the wonders of product demos that have been shown at recent MS developer conferences.
Longhorn beta builds are freely available.
# Regularly visit MSDN _for fun_.
Not for fun, for work.
# Refer to a GUI as "photorealistic".
This is the term being used for Aero. It wasn't from me.
Look at how many market-speak words you use.
None.
If you are not astroturfing, then at least you have bought into the PR buzz that MS creates through MSDN - yes, MSDN is a marketing outlet. It is not the unmediated look at "technology", "for hardcore developers" that some seem to think it is.
I haven't bought into PR buzz. I have run Longhorn betas and used the technology. You can code 10-15 line XAML apps that will update your website. I like the tech.
I'm just saying, beware. Do you remember Win95? Everything that they promised was doable - it wasn't fantastic. They just failed to implement it. They failed to turn it into a product. And so far as I am concerned, MS may very will fail again this time. It is too far off.
Feel free to assume absolutely whatever you want. The technologies I spoke of, excluding Aero, already exist in current Longhorn betas.
And you haven't even seen this product, supposedly.
Public betas.
The longhorn release is up to 2 years away still, and many of these technologies are still in development.
No, they're not. Most are already implemented in the betas.
Longhorn and
I hope somebody flays it.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
You know what...I had a nice long drawn out counter arguement for you. I decided that it would be wasted because you obviously are too stuck in your ways to be open minded. Fact is you dont know anything about Windows. Everything you've brought up could be countered. The truth of the matter is some of the things you say also shows that you dont know operating system mechanics. I suggest you go read a book on how to administrate a windows box because you have a lot of preconceptions that are flat out wrong. Lets for instance take your "the browser is a security risk". The question I have for you is, do you log into your unix/linux boxes as root to do things that dont require it? Well same goes for Windows, you dont login as an administrator to play on yahoo games or surf the web. It all boils down to who is the system administrator and how dumb can they be. Which frankly I wouldnt trust you with any systems at my work, even the unix/linux ones. Go troll somewhere else, I'm done arguing with you.
Kinda funny... in French, "avalons" means "let's swallow"... sure Bill wants people to swallow anything he says...
oh wait... doesn't Bill speak French ?
Music is the language of the heart, the sound of the soul. -Joe Satriani
...now that I know Longhorn will be skinnable!!! ...but will they have the security level of previous versions ?
oh my, what progress!!!
What I love is seeing the "Designed for Windows XP" and it's got 128 MB of RAM.
It takes more that transparent windows and pretty pictures to impress me. Make it smaller, simpler, faster and more efficient and I might taking a liking to it. Revert back to the classic Windows 95 interface and I might like it even more. Remove the web integration and give me the option to uninstall things I don't want, including Internet Explorer and I might just buy it.
This article is Score:3, Flamebait.
Are the LZW and GIF aspects just a touchy subject and you don't want this to get out of hand or did you think that this is an article to cause uproar that didn't need further discussion?
If it's the latter than I don't see how this was Flamebate. If it's the prior than I'll take note and adjust the wording for the immature folks that cant have civil discussion. But as you can see from the replies there was an enlightening discussion about PNGs that I didn't think about.
I beg to differ with your assumptions. I have administered both Windows and Unix (and NCR and IBM and DEC) servers for over 20 years. If you have the courage to expose your arguments, then by all means please do so.
I did not say specifically a browser is a security risk. I said that any software loaded is a security risk, and you should not load software that is not needed. Even running on a system as a normal user (which only sysadmins do - no developers are allowed on production boxes and no one can log in as root, only su with full audit trail (who, when, and where)) introduces security risks. Once a piece of software is comprimised, regardless of security level, there is opportunity for damage. All I suggested was that MS needs to break up their OS into pieces so that admins can choose which ones they need based on their own business requirements, not Bill Gates meglomaniac view that he alone knows what is best. Fewer pieces of software means fewer security risks, you can't compromise what does not exist.
I take offense to your statement that I don't know operating system mechanics. Having seen computers evolve from punch card systems with switches and lights into the modern GUI systems, I have a very good understanding of what operating systems do (manage access to resources), what utility programs do (manage the OS and resources), and what applications programs do (utilize resources), and have very strong opinions based on years of solving problems where those lines should be drawn. The one most important lesson learned is that less is more when it comes to a computer system, the simplest means to get the job done is cheaper and more efficient to operate in the long run. I have had numerous independant security audits run on both Unix and Windows servers over the last 10 years, and have always received excellent ratings.
I was not railing against Microsoft quality or security, only presenting an opinion that MS nees to break their OS up a little better. I did not say not to include IE in their OS offering, but to provide means for those systems that do not need the functionality to remove it. I hardly call that a troll. As a sys admin, I (and my cohorts) should decide whether or not a GUI interface such as Windows or X11 is needed, not Microsoft.
I dare anyone to point out any troll in my prior post. It was factually based with reasoned arguments without any emotional attachement. (OK, the 'Period' statement in the first paragraph was a little strong, sorry if it offended anyone.)
On a more personal note, Slashdot is not for the meek and timid posters. If you truly have good arguments, I would love to hear them. But only if you are open minded enough to hear mine. Otherwise, you are no better than a Jehovah's Witness or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints member at my door. Arguing with them is the best way to get rid of them too, they don't like to hear about alternatives and will never come back.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I beg to differ with your assumptions. I have administered both Windows and Unix (and NCR and IBM and DEC) servers for over 20 years. If you have the courage to expose your arguments, then by all means please do so.
Highly doubtful with some of the things you said. Besides a windows server platform hasnt been around for 20 years. The fact that you're too stuck on the Unix platform agenda means you havent really played with a Windows server OS.
I take offense to your statement that I don't know operating system mechanics. Having seen computers evolve from punch card systems with switches and lights into the modern GUI systems, I have a very good understanding of what operating systems do (manage access to resources), what utility programs do (manage the OS and resources), and what applications programs do (utilize resources), and have very strong opinions based on years of solving problems where those lines should be drawn. The one most important lesson learned is that less is more when it comes to a computer system, the simplest means to get the job done is cheaper and more efficient to operate in the long run. I have had numerous independant security audits run on both Unix and Windows servers over the last 10 years, and have always received excellent ratings.
Thats nice you received ratings but its the kernel that allows you to destroy the operating system and not the software. The software is just a means not the reason. It also as I stated before depends on the user level, if you're logging in as administrator doing things you can do as an unprivilaged user then you deserve what you get.
I was not railing against Microsoft quality or security, only presenting an opinion that MS nees to break their OS up a little better. I did not say not to include IE in their OS offering, but to provide means for those systems that do not need the functionality to remove it. I hardly call that a troll. As a sys admin, I (and my cohorts) should decide whether or not a GUI interface such as Windows or X11 is needed, not Microsoft.
No...its their product, not yours, they do what they want to do. That is called "Free Will", what they may do is tune the GUI to make their users a little happy, but removing the GUI would make windows basically almost a unix clone, which is against what they're trying to do. If you noticed Microsoft is trying to tout themselves as being different from Unix and better (even though to be honest I prefer unix but thats personal preference). Maybe you should go read what a comment troll is because thats basically what you tried to do in your original post.
I dare anyone to point out any troll in my prior post. It was factually based with reasoned arguments without any emotional attachement. (OK, the 'Period' statement in the first paragraph was a little strong, sorry if it offended anyone.)
a little strong? try nearly offensive and I really dont like Microsoft products. I just defended them because they have atleast done a few things right in their new server OS, which 2000 was a step above NT4 I'll admit that. Your previous posts werent factual, as I said in a previous post go pick up a book about Windows 2003 Server and read it before claiming to know Windows Servers. There was a saying that someone onces told me, "Ask a windows sys admin to admin a unix box and they wont be able to do it, ask a unix sys admin to administer a windows server and they can muddle around", obviously you're still muddling around.
On a more personal note, Slashdot is not for the meek and timid posters. If you truly have good arguments, I would love to hear them. But only if you are open minded enough to hear mine. Otherwise, you are no better than a Jehovah's Witness or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints member at my door. Arguing with them is the best way to get rid of them too, they don't like to hear about alternatives and will never come back.
I quit arguing because you're too old to have you
Thank you for your reply, my opinion of you has just increased tremendously.
To clarify, I have administered computers of all types for 20 years. You assumed that I had said I was working on Windows for 20 years, and I can see why you thought that. As for Windows, maybe it hasn't been around for 20 years, but personal computers have in one form or the other. As for my being stuck on Unix, that is not true at all. MS servers have very valid uses, and we use everything from NT4 to playing with 2003. We have not yet deployed 2003 because there has not been the need, and we are waiting for MS to offer a reason to switch. Am I a 2003 expert? Not at all, I will grant you that. But until there are good reasons to do it for our business, we will wait before we incure the additional costs. We still have several servers on NT4 because they just run and run and run, and we don't want to spend the money or resources to upgrade them.
Many Windows features have direct counterparts with Unix, pipes, services, environment variables, ini files, and directory structures are a few that come to mind. Go the windows command prompt and type the commands netstat, ipconfig (Ok, they changed that from ifconfig), ping, telnet, more; all of these have their home in Unix. In NT, the only way to configure static routes was to use the ipconfig command at the command prompt. The DOS bat files have basically the same structure as Unix shell scripts and many of the same features. Many of the GUI features are directly out of X11, which of course came out of Xerox. They are much more alike than they are different.
Your comment about the kernel allowing the system to be destroyed is exactly the point I am making. With software such as browsers, media players, and such so tightly integrated they cannot be removed, those are unnecessary security risks and not needed. If kernels have bugs, then any software, no matter what level it is running in, can cause problems. But, even that aside, software running in the user space can still delete files, change user configs, send emails, create processes that use up CPU, disk, and memory resources, and lots of other nasty things. I can take any server down, or make it almost unusable, with a simple shell script, no matter what permissions I am running in. So, any user program that can be subverted to create and execute programs can attack servers. You must agree with that point. That is why I am so adamant about removing non-necessary programs and processes, be they browser or GUI interfaces.
It is very interesting your point about admins. I have seen just the opposite, Unix admins have been able to administer Windows servers with almost no training, because of its GUI. I never claimed it's GUI was not well done, just something that is not always necessary. X Windows make Unix servers much easier to administer, but we still remove them from all production servers for security reasons. And since Microsoft is improving their deployment processes in 2003 server and I assume Longhorn, shouldn't their need become even less important??
There are many things that Windows does that that have direct corelaries in the Unix world (and the other way around), they just does them in different ways. Concepts centered around user registration, services, networking, disks, et. al. are very similar to every computer system I have ever worked on. In my last position, because it was a small company, all the Unix and Windows admins were all cross trained on all the servers (something I started). Granted, the Windows admins did not become Unix experts and the Unix admins did not become Windows experts, but the transition was very easy and it became a lot easier to decide what type of server to deploy something on. The hardest parts were teaching the Windows admins all the little command line tools and getting the Unix admins to learn how to write VB scripts (because they are more object oriented than shell scripts). Neither was that difficult. I am quite frustrated at my current position
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
you make fun of my sig because you have nothing else to lash at me for. nice. And in regards to my sig... it's this thing called "tongue in cheek humor." I'm sure you're more familiar with "tongue between cheeks" what with your insatiable boyfriend.
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!