Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Threatis]

thoughts on this, better than XP?


or just another Win ME mistake?

[trolley]

Well it's the new name for longhorn, so it's a completely new product as i understand. Been a long time coming though. And it's probably still crash everyday.

[Threatis]

oh, i know it's totally a new product, and i know its just the release name for Longhorn, and I'll probally install it ASAP.

my thing is, they pushed ME as a "totally new product", and look where that got them.

[Addius]

The problem with ME was that they tried to merge two OSes that didn't really work the same even though it looked as if they did.

All in all the changes I've heard of is what you'd expect, beside the fs and cmd being late.

[est]

i thought that the problem with Windows ME was that they didn't try to merge the 9x and NT lines.  to the best of my knowledge, that didn't really happen until XP.  windows 2k was the next step on from NT, and ME was the next step on from the 9x line.  most sane people took a look at win2k and said "what? it's stable and it runs games?  fuck Windows ME, man".  apart from the people who got Windows ME on a system as an OEM deal, of course.  they pretty much just complained a lot until one of their techy friends gave them either Win2k or XP.

now, i don't know if i am all that excited about Longhorn.  for one, all the exciting technologies they were talking about have pretty much been taken out of the cut-back release. the DB-driven file system has been pulled out, and that is about all i was interested in checking out.

as for the new name, i think that it is really weak.  i fully expect it to change before they ship.  i'm already seeing people on news sites complaining that it's a funny name for an operating system.  i think that it is a marketing-team name, and i think that they will get feedback from people that tells them that they've made a bad choice.  they have gone from a strong, macho sounding working title with good geek news sphere penetration (Longhorn) to a final name that tech-types will laugh at.  going from Whistler to XP wasn't bad, because Whistler didn't sound as iconic as Longhorn, and "XP" sounded pretty cool to tech-types.

on the nontechnical end-user front, compared to their previous releases it isn't a weighty enough name to sound like an OS.  i have a feeling that it may confuse some people.  they will think that it is an application or an add-on for windows rather than a full-fledged operating system.

but anyways, whatevers.  they say that it's coming out late next year, which means it'll probably actually hit early '07.  i'll try to grab the beta when it comes out, see if the new eye candy is worth the hassle/hype.

[Lug]

I think it's just going to be XP with a slightly prettier GUI.

[Addius]

What'd you expect from a program that isn't even through the alpha-stage? (Concerning the pic that is)

Anyway, I heard the biggest change is supposed to be kernel and network-wise.

[edit] aff, and ofcourse the changes in user-rights.. more unixlike apparently, which is good. [/edit]

[Se7en]

Remember ME was nothing but a stop-gap, a load of badly tested GUI stuff thrown on top of windows 98, so the whole thing was still DOS based.

Essentially, all windows 2000 really did was add DirectX support to the NT line, bringing it into the mainstream. Before that, NT4 was a strictly workstation OS. NT3 was server only, for the sake of stability, it didnt even support any video drivers beyond standard VGA.

2k and XP are substantially identical operating systems, but XP  is now better supported with regard to security patches etc.

In any case, microsoft still has a habit of releasing largely untested software, because they have an upgrade cycle to meet. Every new OS brings with it a lot of economomic activity in the whole computer industry. Software companies bring out new versions, hardware sales increase, consultants make a killing, and OEM PCs sell like hot cakes.

Its always best to wait until the first service pack before upgrading. The only exeption to this rule was 2k, which was just such a huge improvement over the previous crap.

[DaemonInside]

I had a copy of longhorn somewhere I didn't like it... ME however is CRAP! ahem sorry but no other way to put it. it NEVER should have been released.

[SpacemanSpiff]

Vista/Longhorn is, first and foremost, one thing: Scary. And wrong.

Why? First of all, the coolest feature isn't implemented at all. WinFS. apparently, it doesn't work as well as they hoped so the canned it.

And no, it won't be XP with a "pretter" GUI (frankly, I think it looks horrible). This is a new OS. The kernel archicteture will be completely new, the GUI libs have changed (vector based and similar shit), user management and other stuff has changed as well - we'll see many, many differences there.

And the most important thing is: NGSCB (Next Generation Secure Computing Base), also known as Paladium or Trusted Computing. Basically, you will have a little chip on your motherboard (later on, it will part of the CPU) called TPM that will store your encryption keys and handle the encryption for ... well, everything, really. What happens is that you lose control over everything on your comp because the really important keys can't be moved or salvaged. What it means: No more warez, a perfectly working DRM system, the ability to randomly lock down software or files on your comp via a blacklist that the TCP requests over the internet - in short, great fun.
And it won't even prevent viruses either.

Read the FAQ here and you know what I mean: http://www.againsttcpa.com/

[Addius]

There's a slight difference between tcpa and DRM

[SpacemanSpiff]

There's a slight difference between tcpa and DRM

I know. The difference becomes less noticable when the DRM-system used to dongle your PC to certain files works via TCPA.

[nexus]

Yeah, the name got out before the official MS announcement and I thought it was a joke. It's a really bad name IMO, but it does fit in with all the other marketing they've been doing. If you've seen their recent commercials you can see how "Vista" fits with that.

Considering that many of the features of Vista (ugh, it sounds so stupid) will be available as additions to Windows XP, likely in the form of SP3, I continue to see no need to purchase this OS.

I've been fine with Windows XP and have said since they announced Blackcomb and Longhorn that they should have just scrapped the codebase and created a new next-gen OS from scratch since users would be content with Windows XP for a much longer time than their previous OSes.

[Ozymandias]

Wow.

I didn't even know Longhorn had been renamed to Vista, so when I first saw the name on this thread, I thought it was some crappy attempt by MS to make a Photoshop-esque piece of software or something...


LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME.

[est]

to get back to talking about Vista, i read an article recently saying that Vista is spanish for "pleasing view" or something like that, which (as far as i am aware) is wrong.  as far as i can see, Vista simply means something "sight" or "view", hence the need for "Buena" at the start of things like the company name "Buena Vista".  if i am right in this, i really dislike the subtle spin being put on it.

also: *maniacal laughter

[SpacemanSpiff]

Hee, good choice there, Microsoft. Quoting Futurama: "Hello, Lawsuit."

Oh, and I would so buy a license of the upcoming OS if it was called "Windows Garbage". Just because honesty is really nice.

[est]

well, i wouldn't go as far as to say that Windows is total garbage.  you can play some nice games on it, and since XP it's been solid as a rock for me unless hardware failures are counted (which they aren't).  i have an issue with the way that it allocates resources, and with the file browser being integrated into the GUI in such a way as to cause the GUI to have to restart if the file browser hangs, but other than that the only really major problem i have is security.  i can see the reasoning behind almost everything else they do.  seeing as Vista is just a refinement of XP i think that it'll be a decent OS. (unless they've realy dicked around with it and made it unstable)


also: i split out the DRM stuff into its own thread so that we could continue the (rather interesting, i think) discussion in there without interrupting this thread too much further

[JP]

I think a lot of Windows' success comes from its extensive compatibility. Everybody agrees that it's not the most stable, or most efficient, OS, but it is pretty flexible with hardware and software compatibility.

I don't really follow much of the hype or rumours, but I do believe that in any case the new version will be an improvement over XP, but how big an improvement we'll probably only know after its release. But I am hoping that the new version of DirectX for Vista, WinGF or whatever they end up callign it, ends up being what it's cracked up to be. And if they don't include an entirely new file system, hopefully they at least manage a search comparable to Spotlight in Tiger.

[est]

as i hinted at in my previous post, i pretty much just hope that the new GUI they're crowing about means that they've split the GUI from the file browser.  i can't count the number of times windows explorer has crashed, then the desktop has to restart itself, because it's just a specialised version of explorer running in the background and was sharing resources with the file browser that crashed.

[nexus]

seeing as Vista is just a refinement of XP i think that it'll be a decent OS.

They actually ended up branching from the Windows Server 2003 codebase, so it should be even more stable than XP.

I think a lot of Windows' success comes from its extensive compatibility. Everybody agrees that it's not the most stable, or most efficient, OS, but it is pretty flexible with hardware and software compatibility.

I would agree with "not the most stable or efficient" but only for every OS prior to Windows XP and Server 2k3. They are both rock solid. When I first installed XP oh-so-long ago I had my system running for 30  some days with no problems at all - I even left it running in my dorm unattended for a week during Thanksgiving break.

as i hinted at in my previous post, i pretty much just hope that the new GUI they're crowing about means that they've split the GUI from the file browser.

As far as I have read, that is indeed the case:
http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/brada/LHArch.PDC2003.png
(There's a simpler version of the architecture diagram I've seen before but I couldn't find it.)



The thing is, I think XP is actually too good an OS considering Microsoft's entire development history up until now. The majority of people upgraded to previous Windows versions because they were more stable and generally better (excepting ME). With Vista it's largely just new features that many would find unecessary especially considering many of these features will be available for XP. For every preview of Longhorn/Vista over the past few years I have yet to see a single reason why I should buy this upgrade instead of sticking with XP.


Even if Vista is fantastic. Would any of you spend ~US$200 if you already have a solid install of XP you've tweaked and tuned to perfection over the past 5 years? MS has yet to convince me.

[SpacemanSpiff]

well, i wouldn't go as far as to say that Windows is total garbage.  you can play some nice games on it, and since XP it's been solid as a rock for me unless hardware failures are counted (which they aren't).  i have an issue with the way that it allocates resources, and with the file browser being integrated into the GUI in such a way as to cause the GUI to have to restart if the file browser hangs, but other than that the only really major problem i have is security.

Despite the fact that I'm a Linux geek, I have to agree. However, I have managed to have 2k and XP crap out on me and I couldn't fix it. The Windows allocates its resources is infamous anyway, and I've decided that GUIs are nothing you can discuss anyway because everyone has personal preferences there. So, Windows isn't bad, save for two things which continue to annoy me:
Security. You mentioned it and it could be fixed quite easily. Linux isn't some sort of magical-super-safe-fairy-land-OS, the reason it's safer is because you're usually not logged in as root. Why can't Windows implement a decent user management and rights system and use it for once? That would make Windows a hell of a lot safer just like that.
Also, the fact that Windows has no decent error log. If your system starts acting up, it's incredibly hard to find the source of it because you can't check any good logs.

seeing as Vista is just a refinement of XP i think that it'll be a decent OS. (unless they've realy dicked around with it and made it unstable)

As Nexus mentioned, the codebase was Win2k3 Server, so I doubt it will be unstable.
However, Vista is, architecture-wise, a new OS. Have a look at their Nexus-kernel-architecture, that's a radically different from anything else they've done before.
Also, as I mentioned, integral parts of the GUI have changed and a new user/rights-management system has been implemented. Not mentioning TCPA support here, which is also new.

In short, this is not an XP-upgrade (that wouldn't take Microsoft 5 years either). It's a new OS.

And I don't call a system rock solid unless I've managed to have it run (and update the system itself without rebooting) straight for more than 100 days. Which works with Linux (Slackware, in case you want to know).

Oh, and Nexus' last point is good. There would be two reasons I could see: Microsoft ends support for XP and an improved user/rights-management.

[Oerdin]

thoughts on this, better than XP?


or just another Win ME mistake?

My understanding is Vista is a redo of XP designed to be a stop gap measure which will be replaced 1.5 years after it comes up.  Blackcomb is supposedly an entirely new product and the one to wait for.  Vista doesn't sound like it is worth buying.

Edit: Vista simply changes the security settings so that it is easier to lock out certain functions for non-administrator users, improves the search function to include metasearch funcctionality, changes the GUI to look more like MAC OS X (supposedly to get Apple people to defect to MS though Apple's saying MS is just copying them), and MS will be introducing their "digital rights management" software that will be dispised the world over.  Essentially, digital rights management will lock all MP#, WMA, and other media files until you can prove you own them legally.  Fuck that and fuck MS.

Blackcomb was originally supposed to come out in 2006 but has been pushed back to 2007 and is an entirely new product from the ground up while Vista is just a face lift on MS with a few new features which no one will miss.  Blackcomb will be MS's first 64 bit operating system and it will better be able to take advantage of processor technical advances and will be set up to multithread and multitask much better then XP.  I fogot to mention that a new version of IE will come with Vista though it will be free to download even if you don't buy Vista; expect the new IE to be crap just like the old one and most people in the know will continue to use the superior Firefox browser.

[Oerdin]

The problem with ME was that they tried to merge two OSes that didn't really work the same even though it looked as if they did.

All in all the changes I've heard of is what you'd expect, beside the fs and cmd being late.

Win Me was just a face list of Win98 which was itself a facelift of Win95.  XP was the product which merged the NT and Win9X product lines.  Me was basically a stop gap product to fill the year between when MAC released an updated OS and when XP would come out.  It's only interesting new feature was the introduction of "system restore" which was barely functional and put in as an after thought when beta testers could come up with a reason to buy ME instead of stiking with Win9X or waiting for XP.  Win ME was virtually identical to Win2000 though MS marketers swore that ME was designed for professionals while Win2k was for home users.  The differences were so slight that few people felt like paying the higher price for ME and barely more people bought Win2k since it offered nothing new.

[est]

#1. you know that there is a 64-bit version of win XP?

#2. Win ME was nothing like Win2k.  Win2k was NT5, WinME was the next Win9x OS.  they didn't even look or act the same, really.  i think you've got the ME/2k thing ass-about-face, too.  2k was marketed at the commercial desktop and WinME was the OEM OS put onto home-user machines.  i once had the displeasure of trying to support a laptop that an exec brought in from home that had WinME on it.  my advice to him at the time was to get Win2k onto it, stat.

[Oerdin]

#1. you know that there is a 64-bit version of win XP?

#2. Win ME was nothing like Win2k.  Win2k was NT5, WinME was the next Win9x OS.  they didn't even look or act the same, really.  i think you've got the ME/2k thing ass-about-face, too.  2k was marketed at the commercial desktop and WinME was the OEM OS put onto home-user machines.  i once had the displeasure of trying to support a laptop that an exec brought in from home that had WinME on it.  my advice to him at the time was to get Win2k onto it, stat.

My understanding is that the 64 bit version of XP isn't really 64 bits.  Its kernel continues to be legacy 32 bit and all they've added is new software to emulate a 64 bit process.  I haven’t seen a copy of it yet but that is what I was told.  Blackcomb is supposed to be designed from the ground up to be 64 bits.

I probably have mixed up 2k and ME they were both stop gap measures and not really worth buying since XP was right around the corner and was supposed to replace them both.

[SpacemanSpiff]

I fogot to mention that a new version of IE will come with Vista though it will be free to download even if you don't buy Vista; expect the new IE to be crap just like the old one and most people in the know will continue to use the superior Firefox browser.

But maybe it will have correct CSS 2.0 and XHTML 1.1 implementation.

...ahahahahaha. Aw man.