Longhorn to be Named Windows Vista

[[Gandalf]]

Dang, Windows sure is going for control, they want everything to be windows-only. Still, like everything else, there will probably be 'workarounds', if not then they will surely lose customers and linux will thrive.

As for Windows XP, what stops them from releasing SP3 and patching it up to work like 'Vista'?

PS3 sounds pretty promising, but I still like my PC games...

[Martin]

I don't really see what the problem with requiring a certain monitor is. I mean, obviously they're not going to have this requirement immediately from a buisiness standpoint, and then eventually all of the monitors that ship will be of the approved kind. No problem at all.

And I also don't really think that the copy protection claims are founded. Like it or not, you have no right to free games or software. If anything, these features will help Windows more than anything, since finally developers will have a solid platform for which to develop security wise.

[Drakain Zeil]

The problem with monitors is that buying a new one because MS wants you to is pure crap.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Blackcomb
So what's the point? Why not just make ONE os that's better, and comes out a year later? Well, no you know what the $ in M$ is for.

[Dan]

wtd wrote:

Why is this going to drive investments in WINE?

You'll still have to have the compliant monitor to play the new content. For the old content, the old version of Windows will still work just peachy.

And anybody buying a new PC from an OEM will get a compliant monitor and the new OS, so they won't even know there's a problem.

I did not mean WINE per say but a WINE like emulation progame. Thess new games most likey will not be comabtable with windows xp and lower so u could not get around it that way. I am not shure how the monitor thing whould work but my logic was that if it is handaled by the OS and not by the software then u could make an emulaor for linux or other OS that dose not have this new montore featture.

[[Gandalf]]

You know, it's not surprising that the reason why MS is making all these operting systems (apart from the loads of money) is simply to add all these even more money making features. You have to buy MS approved monitors (they make deals with those companies $$$), you have to buy MS approved products ($$$ from those companies), soon even shareware/freeware things will have to be MS approved. Then they just add the pretense of 'adding new features'. Yeah, and that makes them more money too - WMP 10, MSN 18, etc. They don't fix anything about their operating system, just adding 'sidebars' 'topbars' 'toolbars' and 'customization'.

[Martin]

Drakain Zeil wrote:

The problem with monitors is that buying a new one because MS wants you to is pure crap.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Blackcomb
So what's the point? Why not just make ONE os that's better, and comes out a year later? Well, no you know what the $ in M$ is for.

Last time I checked, 2011/2012 isn't next year. 5 years for major version changes for the OS is a pretty decent timeline I think. 5 years ago, what did we have? Windows ME, Mac OS 9 and Linux kernel 2.0. Which of course we should have stuck with, since they were all stellar operating systems that could barely be improved upon. Like it or not, nobody ever is going to make the be all and end all of operating systems.

And saying that they don't add anything to the operating system is pure crap. The kernel is optimized, finally they have better user security (doing what they should have done with 98) and they added a plethora of eye candy and search functionality.

[Dan]

Martin wrote:

And saying that they don't add anything to the operating system is pure crap. The kernel is optimized, finally they have better user security (doing what they should have done with 98) and they added a plethora of eye candy and search functionality.

ie. they made it more like unix/linux with a desktop.......

[wtd]

Martin wrote:

And saying that they don't add anything to the operating system is pure crap. The kernel is optimized, finally they have better user security (doing what they should have done with 98) and they added a plethora of eye candy and search functionality.

Of course they've added things. The question then: is any of it compelling?

Very few people care about kernel optimizations. Give them a faster operating system and they're happy, but it's rarely a reason to upgrade on its own. Plus, most people are getting faster computers when they buy new than they need... whether they want them or not. To them, Windows XP runs fast enough. The issue for them is not speed. Besides, Microsoft has a lousy record of operating systems getting faster with each release. On the other hand, each version of Mac OS X is noticeably faster than its predecessor. Not to start a MS vs. Apple flamewar, but just a counterpoint.

Security... well, security with Windows is a social problem more than a technological one. Note, I do not say it's a problem of stupid users. I do not believe this to be the case.

Rather it's Microsoft bending over backwards to accomodate developers who build applications that break the rules with regards to security.

It's also the fact that there aren't any strong "communities" around Windows. Mac OS X has communities populated by "normal" users. Linux distributions have the same. Via these communities users are alerted to problems They're guided away from bad software and towards good software.

Windows has so such thing, so bad software is left out there for anyone to pick up and use, and the sources of it are left as the first resource of the "normal" Windows user.

Microsoft can throw all the money they want at security on the technical level and it will be a colossal failure if they don't address the social issues.

Lastly, Microsoft has no idea how to do eye candy well. They're just far too enamored of gradients and useless transparency.

[Martin]

Windows XP is also the fastest version of Windows to date. Comparisons between the two as far as speed goes is pointless, since everything is so different.

Personally, I like the idea of the graphics processor handling most of the calculations for your desktop, as it frees up your CPU to do other things. As far as how good it looks, I don't think the 50xx builds are a good indication, and I think we'll see better examples of how the retail product is going to look in the upcoming beta.

I guess we'll see though. It looks to me like Microsoft will have a pretty decent operating system on their hands if they pull through with most of their promises.

[person]

so basically wtd...ur sugesting that longhorn is just gonna be another piece of crap??

[Notoroge]

person wrote:

so basically wtd...ur sugesting that longhorn is just gonna be another piece of crap??

That seems to be the general consensus.

[wtd]

person wrote:

so basically wtd...ur sugesting that longhorn is just gonna be another piece of crap??

Yes.

[md]

I think that longhorn will be an improvement over XP, if only because of the improved security and the graphics code. I think moving the graphics onto hte video card (finally) will bring about a huge performance increase, although I'm not quite sure how it will work when you have two monitors and you are using one to play a fullscreen game...

As for requiring new monitors, there are already devices on the market which sit between your unsecure monitor and the secure output on your computer. I highly doubt that this is going to be much of an issue anyways, as the downscaled graphics that are supposed to be shown if you don't have a complying monitor are actually still higher quality then the source anyways; when your scaling the image up from PAL, or HD it really doesn't matter how much you scale, your still scaling.

[wtd]

I'm so excited about Windows Vista. Not.

[Martin]

Yes. Get linux fanboys (in reference to that article) to talk about Windows. Of course, that's not biased in the least. And then the article is saying that finally Windows is as good as OSX and Linux. Only Windows has Dell pricing and Microsoft corporate support, Windows computers are cheaper than Apple computers and easier to use than Linux boxes. Hmm...scary thought though?

I don't see what makes this 'crap' though. WinFS is coming out a year later as a free add-on, since it's not done yet. And DRM? Here's an experiment:
1. Get an iPod Shuffle (and probably works on an iPod too, but I don't have one).
2. Plug it into your computer, put some songs into it.
3. Plug it into a different computer.
4. Listen to your songs. Oh...wait...your songs are gone. Yet when Microsoft does it it's a bad thing.

And oh no...you need a fancy computer to run all of the graphical effects maxed out. And this is a downside. Just like how Doom III and Half-Life 2 need fast computers to put their graphics to the max. Hmm...

So crap? Or just a late entrance to the game?