Slashdot Mirror
Longhorn Preview
itraor writes "PC World has previewed Longhorn, not the first one out I guess. Among the few noted features is that Windows now offers translucent UI, finally catching up with Apple. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Hasn't microsoft sort of always followed apple?
I love the "bell and whistle" logo they've applied to the story. Very appropriate, especially since the review discussess little besides the eye candy.
Okay, from what I see about this beta, Microsoft is using the eye candy just for that, to show everyone how aweseome Longhorn is because your titlebars are semi-transparent. OOO! I'm totally uprading because of that!
Looks like it will cause some nastyy readability problems. Apple uses eye candy in OS X for a reason! the windows suck down to the dock so you can see where they went. The active window has shadows to let you know its the active window. Users change with a cube flip because its easier on their brains. I'm afraid that this would do nothing but chew up processor resources with crap that I don't find useful. Expect a lot of eyecandy-disabling apps to come out very quickly.
And in spite of announced planned enhancements such as monitoring of outbound data, ... protection against malware, a new type of restricted user account, and a secure startup scheme to ensure that a PC hasn't been tampered with, Longhorn so far has the same minimal security toolbox as Windows XP with Service Pack 2.
Though security remains an unresolved issue, build 5048 brings Longhorn's graphical user interface into sharper focus.
Soooooo, little development with respect to security, but more colourful icons. Super.
I agree with the parent. There seems to be no real cohesion to the new theme. Everything just seems to be bundled on top of each other. If these were the first Longhorn screenshots out, that'd be fine.. but we've been seeing the same for a year now.
In the screenshots it appears there's no difference made between menus and toolbars anymore.. the menus just kinda blur into them. Icons are different sizes. Different sized toolbars just smudge into each other and look messy. There seems to be no thought put into it.
Microsoft never ceases to amaze me. The company has billions of dollars (and they don't get it by writing checks I know) but they supposedly have some of the "best minds" out there.. and yet their products and interfaces are so scrappy? I know being Microsoft isn't easy.. they've got to be compatible, they've got lots of products to integrate.. lots of hardware to support.. but heck, can't they at least get decent interface design? It's not like it's a billion dollar job. Even people working for nothing, like the xfce people, do a better job.
I'd like to be the first to say that I have always found Windows to be a fine product for all my home needs.
I'll I'm looking for from a home-OS is for it to be easily compatible with my usual web/mail and games software. Windows has never let me down on that score.
I'm sure there are plenty of MS horror stories, but personally I have yet to experience them.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
Personally, given my experiences with linux so far, if it were up to me I'd concentrate more on building a GUI where you can change the monitor resolution to the resolution you want when you want it on arbitrary systems, without having to ever edit a file named "XF86Config".
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"Finally catching up with Apple in 3 to 5 more years."
Linux: Finally catching up to Windows... in 3 to 5 more years!!!!
(note: If you're about to mod that as troll, lighten up.)
"Derp de derp."
What ads?
This message courtesy of: Adblock and RemoveIt Permanently.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
There is one thing I can't understand: why is Windows so ugly ? Why are non-Apple computers so ugly (yes, Sony's and IBM's PCs are ugly too) ? Why are MP3 players so ugly ?
Is it really that high-tech firms are full of dorks without any taste ? Is the difference with Apple the fact that Steve Jobs decides, and the guy actually has good taste ?
I am not joking, this is really something that puzzles me.
--Go Debian!
Let's see,
minimal new features? check.
lots of hype about features that won't be included? check.
said hyped features to be included later? check.
main upgrade is fancy windowing? check.
requires more cpu/ram? check.
One big advantage Longhorn has is the addition of DRM. I say advantage because this basically gives MS rights to control what software is on your computer. The advantage is theirs, not yours. What does DRM bring for the customer?
I don't really see a reason to upgrade. Of course, most of the people that adopt new operating systems don't actually buy the new operating system, they buy a computer and get what's forced upon them. Eventually everyone will upgrade when MS DRM model decides anything older than Longhorn is an unregistered piece of software. Just wait, it's coming.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
It is unfortunate that most people base their conceptions of what Apple should do on what sounds right to them, not on reality or history.
proprietary hardware.... Apple is only begining to get their head out or their ass on that one
Actually, no.
Apple tried the open platforms thing in the 90s. Tried it quite honestly. (Ever hear of CHRP/PREP?) It was a business disaster. Apple's business model since at least the late 80s has been inextricably based on their hardware sales, and an alternate business model would be hard to find. Their volume isn't enough to support themselves on software the way Microsoft does, plus lacking monopoly power they can't just set arbitrary prices on their software and expect it to be paid. In an open platform environment, this business model doesn't work anymore.
This aside, there are no indications whatsoever that Apple is dropping "proprietary hardware" now. What they are doing is dropping the PowerPC chip and Open Firmware in favor of the Intel Pentium chip and BIOS. The latter two things are absolutely not more "proprietary" than the former two. Meanwhile the "proprietary" aspects of the Macintosh are fairly certain to perservere and Apple has been indicating OS X will continue to run only on Apple hardware. Apple hasn't said they're going to an open platform. Don't assume they will.
Still using a 14" CRT set to 800x600, so the one thing not to waste is screen real estate. Nicely positioning half-overlapping windows makes no sense here. Maximised windows, and a fast+easy way to switch between them, does. I happen to like a Windows-style taskbar for that purpose, but that's just personal preference.
Now when I have a window maximised, I can see some uses for translucent UI elements: how about a window that stretches until the -real- bottom of the screen, and a half-transparent taskbar on top of that? Or make the 'always-present' scrollbar on the right side of a window translucent, and use the full screen width for content display? Or use a translucent window for an always-on-top app that you may run from time to time. So basically, a way of maximising the amount of info displayed on a given screen area.
But a more interesting question: are the added GUI complexity (+bugs) and system requirements a good trade-off considering that small gain in usability? My guess:
90% of users: no
another 9% of users: probably not, maybe later
remaining 1% of users: yes, perhaps
Oh wait, Longhorn does this by default and builds the whole GUI around the concept? (note questionmark, I haven't tried/seen any Longhorn stuff myself). Great! Makes as much sense to me as that 'integrate browser with desktop'-debacle.
And then there's the pounding on security issues lately. Priority #1 now? When I see MS pouring all that coding effort primarily into eye candy, I expect Longhorn to have a hard time gaining acceptance once it's released.wtf... alpha blending has been around natively in windows since W2K. It wasn't used but it was there and many mods allowed context menu to set windows transparency.
I know the article and summary make it sound like this is the difference, but it's not. The key difference in this regard is that all windows are composited the same way, as if they had transparency, whether they do or not. (i.e., the compositing model is like what Mac OS X has always had.) This basically means a faster UI when using all kinds of crazy effects, and the enabling of new effects. Something like Apple's Expose is virtually impossible to do with out a graphics system like Quartz or Avalons.
In other words, they're catching up with Apple in capability, but it's yet to be seen if what they do with it will be anywhere near as good.
(IIRC, e17 uses the same kind of model; it's kind of like Mac OS X pre-10.2/Quartz Extreme.)
This is an oversimplification, but at least not as bad as the one in the article.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Where in UNIX can an ordinary user install drivers into the kernel?
I've recently been doing some things with some older computers, ones with Windows 98 on them... and at one of the worksites I work at a number of the PCs have NT on them.
There is a LOT of difference in functionality between them and an XP box (or, for the most part a 2000 box). Not just the look and feel, but usability, ease of just plugging in devices and having them work, photo browsing in the interface, ease of networking etc. etc.
There are differences, big ones as they move up the OS tree, stop being so flippant.