Aqua-Soft Forumshmmm
the most recent longhorn build is 4080
AND the most recent build screenshots are these
http://neowin.net/comments.php?id=19527&category=main
that's build 4074
Longhorn=too Busy+too Messy+too Ugly
these threads make me giggle. We really dont have much of an idea of what the gui will look like. And even if we did, how many of us will leave it like that? most likely none. We will probably start modding it as soon as we get it. Either way, I cant wait for stevie to get into this thread and start tearing up. lol
I really hate to repeat myself thread after thread but here goes...
Longhorn is alpha code, peoples...
Longhorn beta 1 is expected September this year.
As for it looking cramped et al., what you don't see on the screenshots that're 800*600 is the fact that Longhorn is designed to run on high density displays - LCD panels with ~ 300dpi as opposed to the 96dpi of current LCDs.
Also, let's not forget that the link originally posted is over a year old now.
Even the screenies of slate and jade that menge linked to don't do it justice when you see it in the flesh on a high density monitor...
Roll on Beta 2, when they release the RTM visual style...
I could have written so much more on LH than this, but I really can't be bothered at the mo.
Meh... I don't care what Longhorn evolves in to, I'll still take Aqua (and Mac OS) over it anyday... 
Originally posted by Stevie BM@May 2 2004, 07:57 PMI could have written so much more on LH than this, but I really can't be bothered at the mo.
Actually, dont, make whoever wants to know more, read what you have already said in other threads. I know, it is going to be REAAALLLY difficult to find 
Eh, don't always count on the GUI improving. Compare the early WinXP theme (watercolor was it) to Luna. I think we can all agree The Beta theme looked much better.
Originally posted by contrasutra@May 2 2004, 02:34 PMEh, don't always count on the GUI improving. Compare the early WinXP theme (watercolor was it) to Luna. I think we can all agree The Beta theme looked much better.
Watercolor was better than Luna but Classic is even better than Watercolor.. :6
hmmm
funny thing, today i found out that last week a TWO YEAR OLD build of longhorn has leaked.... and it seems to be the ONLY leaked build with the DCE (Desktop Composition Engine) technology in it (not even the newer leaked builds have it). nice looking stuff.
for those who don't know, the DCE thing is the Direct3D part of the longhorn UI a la mac Quartz (stevie, back me up/correct me on this one hehe).
looks nice. and no, i'm not saying the build number 
Originally posted by Kej0@May 1 2004, 03:14 PMConsidering there are none out other than the iItinatum 64Bit OS
first off, not to threadjack but kej0 i love that avatar.
secondly, there are other 64-bit OSes out there. firs of all, you've got Microsoft's (albeit beta) "Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems". it may not be much more than a demo, but it's an OS that works, and runs on a 64-bit architecture. (namely, AMD's Opterons processors)
also, you've got your 64-bit linuxes. YellowDog Linux (a PPC distro) has a 64-bit version for running on G5s. once again, it's preliminary, but it definitely works. also, for x86-64 processors, you've got SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (yeah, it's a server OS, but it also works for desktop use) which runs on Itanium and Opteron, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 2.1, which runs on intel's Itanium processors.
finally, you can't forget that OSX has a bunch of 64-bit code in it. yes, it's true that it's not a true 64-bit OS, but it definitely benefits from having a 64-bit processor in that box.
anyway, i'm done nerding out for now.
Peez,
Felix
Originally posted by contrasutra@May 2 2004, 06:34 PMEh, don't always count on the GUI improving. Compare the early WinXP theme (watercolor was it) to Luna. I think we can all agree The Beta theme looked much better.
Tell me about it. I created a Windowblinds water colour theme back in those days that would work on Windows 9x/2000 boxes,. (Based on the beta on WinXP) It was published on Wincustomize.com and stayed at high download ratings for many weeks. I created sub styles too covering olive green for a guy called rusty tiger - anyway it was highly popular 
Even got me a free subscription to Object Dock for the year too happy days they were.
Even still even if I could stand the way Longhorn is going, I can't stand that ugly side bar on the desktop however 
microsoft designs will always be ugly, production for the masses after all, I am just thankful for the customization abilities of windows or I would be robbing banks to get a Mac.
Originally posted by Felix187@May 2 2004, 03:27 PMfirst off, not to threadjack but kej0 i love that avatar.
secondly, there are other 64-bit OSes out there. firs of all, you've got Microsoft's (albeit beta) "Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems". it may not be much more than a demo, but it's an OS that works, and runs on a 64-bit architecture. (namely, AMD's Opterons processors)
also, you've got your 64-bit linuxes. YellowDog Linux (a PPC distro) has a 64-bit version for running on G5s. once again, it's preliminary, but it definitely works. also, for x86-64 processors, you've got SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (yeah, it's a server OS, but it also works for desktop use) which runs on Itanium and Opteron, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 2.1, which runs on intel's Itanium processors.
finally, you can't forget that OSX has a bunch of 64-bit code in it. yes, it's true that it's not a true 64-bit OS, but it definitely benefits from having a 64-bit processor in that box.
anyway, i'm done nerding out for now.
Peez,
Felix
Sorry to continue the hijacking. , but every REAL OS is 64bit.
64Bit processors have been out since 1993 (Alpha), so there's been 64bit OSs since then. NetBSD was the first (as on basically everything) followed later that year by Linux (DEC let Linus have one before they were released), and of course you have your standard Unices (Solaris, HPUX, AIX) that are all 64bit clean.
You kids today () seem to think 64bit is some new thing. Opteron, G5, etc, aren't anything new compared to SPARC, MIPS, Alpha, etc.
So the fact that MS is FINALLY getting a 64bit clean OS (bsd/linux has been 64bit since 1994) isn't remarkable. I don't think NT4 and 2000 were fully 64bit on the alpha, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hell, I doubt Longhorn will be, they have too much crappy code to support.
Sorry to continue the hijacking.64Bit processors have been out since 1993 (Alpha), so there's been 64bit OSs since then. NetBSD was the first (as on basically everything) followed later that year by Linux (DEC let Linus have one before they were released), and of course you have your standard Unices (Solaris, HPUX, AIX) that are all 64bit clean.
You kids today (
So the fact that MS is FINALLY getting a 64bit clean OS (bsd/linux has been 64bit since 1994) isn't remarkable. I don't think NT4 and 2000 were fully 64bit on the alpha, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hell, I doubt Longhorn will be, they have too much crappy code to support.
Sorry to interrupt but I have been using Windows for well over 10 years, and I am far far being a ****ie to Windows. I have used Wiindows since 3.11 with Novel 3.x so I think I am far from being a ****ie at least I see your point on 64 bit processors already ! 
Hope others do too.
Cat.
weird whats wrong with the word '****ie' It was ediited ??
Originally posted by contrasutra@May 2 2004, 09:05 PMYou kids today (
So the fact that MS is FINALLY getting a 64bit clean OS (bsd/linux has been 64bit since 1994) isn't remarkable. I don't think NT4 and 2000 were fully 64bit on the alpha, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hell, I doubt Longhorn will be, they have too much crappy code to support.
Kids?
Some of us don't think 64bit is a new thing - we just think it's a new thing to mainstream computing
As for NT4 and 2000 - they were fully 64bit OSes. NT4 was running on Alphas before Intels, for what it matters.
As for Longhorn, most of the "crappy code" is being or has bee rewritten, from what I hear, to be 64-bit capable, where it's applicable.
Originally posted by bryantm3@May 1 2004, 02:00 PMhttp://www.activewin.com/screenshots/longhorn/
look at that GUI. it's terrible. the start menu has it's own bar and then there's this big-a'http://www.sdfsd.com'ss block thing on the side that has everything else.
:rant:
where's the window space-
where's the colour?
it's a big dark blue thing and you can hardly see anything at all.
i know this is still beta, but it looks as if windows is just going to get worse!
[note to mods and admins: this post is on topic, and please don't edit the a -word cos it was needed for dramatic effect.]
It is going to be ONE HELL of a resource hog by the looks of it.
I bet there will be ways to disable all that crap but because its good ol' windoze I doubt that it will make much of a difference. Oh well...
Nice try microsoft
Originally posted by Stevie BM@May 2 2004, 05:47 PMKids?
Some of us don't think 64bit is a new thing - we just think it's a new thing to mainstream computing
As for NT4 and 2000 - they were fully 64bit OSes. NT4 was running on Alphas before Intels, for what it matters.
As for Longhorn, most of the "crappy code" is being or has bee rewritten, from what I hear, to be 64-bit capable, where it's applicable.
Just because something runs on a 64bit processor doesn't mean it's 64bit. ALPHA had a wonderful 32bit emulation layer that ran things at native speed. Not to mention that all the libraries may not be full 64bit.
If they were, Windows on Opteron would have been out a long time ago. Look at BSD and Linux, they're full 64bit and they were running on the Opteron the DAY it was released (well before, but whatever).
By "supporting crappy code" I mean two things:
1. There's loads of legacy code in Windows. There's still plenty of Win16 stuff in there, so even 16->32bit wasn't complete. I doubt they'll be removing all of this, they can't. Vendors would be pissed. This, plus there's plenty of crappy code in Windows.
2. Crappy 3rd party code. Other vendors will be less likely to release updated versions, let alone rewrite their code. On open source, you can just recompile (people who write UNIX code know to make it 64bit clean almost always), with proprietary apps (most of Windows), you have to wait for a new version (probably costs money too).
Not to mention that MS has trimmed back it's plans for Longhorn. Most of the fancy new features WON'T be in it (strait from the horses mouth). It's going to be more of an XP-SE (probably better than 98SE, but whatever).
Originally posted by contrasutra@May 2 2004, 10:56 PMJust because something runs on a 64bit processor doesn't mean it's 64bit. ALPHA had a wonderful 32bit emulation layer that ran things at native speed. Not to mention that all the libraries may not be full 64bit.
If they were, Windows on Opteron would have been out a long time ago. Look at BSD and Linux, they're full 64bit and they were running on the Opteron the DAY it was released (well before, but whatever).
By "supporting crappy code" I mean two things:
1. There's loads of legacy code in Windows. There's still plenty of Win16 stuff in there, so even 16->32bit wasn't complete. I doubt they'll be removing all of this, they can't. Vendors would be pissed. This, plus there's plenty of crappy code in Windows.
2. Crappy 3rd party code. Other vendors will be less likely to release updated versions, let alone rewrite their code. On open source, you can just recompile (people who write UNIX code know to make it 64bit clean almost always), with proprietary apps (most of Windows), you have to wait for a new version (probably costs money too).
Not to mention that MS has trimmed back it's plans for Longhorn. Most of the fancy new features WON'T be in it (strait from the horses mouth). It's going to be more of an XP-SE (probably better than 98SE, but whatever).
I know what 64 bit is, Ben.
I take the point about Win16-Win32 et al.
That said, NT4-64/Win2K-64 was true 64-bit. Why d'you think it was never accepted?
As for Longhorn being an "XP-SE", show me the press releases. I think you're probably referring to "Windows XP Reloaded", which is basically XP-SE, and is designed to fill the gap between XP and Longhorn.
"people who write UNIX code know to make it 64bit clean almost always"
What a load of tripe. So you're telling me that Windows programmers are always worse at programming for multiple instruction-sets than unix programmers?
Why don't I just start on about how all Linux users have beards and small shrines to Linus Torvalds in their bedrooms?
And no, I don't mean that they have beards in their bedrooms... Although it's always a possibility...
I know what 64 bit is, Ben.
I'm sure you do. That's why I was surprised to read your post.
That said, NT4-64/Win2K-64 was true 64-bit. Why d'you think it was never accepted?
Because MS killed it off. NT4 for Alpha lost support very quickly, and MS never even released an official (non beta) version of 2000. Developers cant even have a chance when MS kills the port.
NT has a very good HAL, so it can RUN on many different architectures easily, but that doesn't mean all the code will take advantage of 64bit. Only the kernel is easily portable.
As for Longhorn being an "XP-SE", show me the press releases. I think you're probably referring to "Windows XP Reloaded", which is basically XP-SE, and is designed to fill the gap between XP and Longhorn.
No, Im not referring to XP Reloaded. Here's the article:
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/con...79009_mz001.htm
The site seems to be down right now (for me), but the title reads "MS Clipping Longhorn". I read it when it came out in April.
What a load of tripe. So you're telling me that Windows programmers are always worse at programming for multiple instruction-sets than unix programmers?
When you're programming for UNIX, you KNOW it runs on over 30 architectures and comes in many variants. Like I said, UNIX was 64bit since 1993. You KNOW your program will be used on 64bit processors (assuming its not a custom, in house app).
Because you want your program to work on as many variants of UNIX as you can, you will program it 64bit clean.
Here's an example: Debian has over 12,000 programs in its repositories. All the programs run on Debian's 12 supported Architectures (including many 64bit processors).
I'd say 12,000 programs is a good example of the OSS/UNIX community.
Originally posted by contrasutra@May 2 2004, 11:23 PM[...]
No, Im not referring to XP Reloaded. Here's the article:
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/con...79009_mz001.htm
The site seems to be down right now (for me), but the title reads "MS Clipping Longhorn". I read it when it came out in April.
[...]
When you're programming for UNIX, you KNOW it runs on over 30 architectures and comes in many variants. Like I said, UNIX was 64bit since 1993. You KNOW your program will be used on 64bit processors (assuming its not a custom, in house app).
Because you want your program to work on as many variants of UNIX as you can, you will program it 64bit clean.
Here's an example: Debian has over 12,000 programs in its repositories. All the programs run on Debian's 12 supported Architectures (including many 64bit processors).
I'd say 12,000 programs is a good example of the OSS/UNIX community.
I read that article.
It's actually talking a hell of a lot, for saying practically nothing. All that they really say (and they don't say it all that clearly) is that MS is going to release WinFS on top of NTFS (which was old news, even then), and that the next Office will be backwards compatible. If it wasn't, MS would be bloody stupid.
As for the whole knowing your program will run on 64 bit processors, that doesn't answer me. You're basically saying that windows coder = crap, whereas *nix coder = uber-64-bit-coder-god.
You and I both know that couldn't be further from the truth.
Just because someone programs for an open source project, it doesn't, contrary to most of slashdot's belief, make them a good coder.
They also mention that BlackComb was due to follow Longhorn...
BlackComb was going to be before Longhorn, until MS announced, about 18 months ago (i.e. before that article was written) that the two were going to be merged into one - Longhorn.
I think that whole article is a bit of a farce, to be quite honest... But then, what's new, in the world of journalism?
Originally posted by Stevie BM@May 2 2004, 07:34 PMAs for the whole knowing your program will run on 64 bit processors, that doesn't answer me. You're basically saying that windows coder = crap, whereas *nix coder = uber-64-bit-coder-god.
You and I both know that couldn't be further from the truth.
Just because someone programs for an open source project, it doesn't, contrary to most of slashdot's belief, make them a good coder.
Really in this day, it's not hard to code for 64bit. The difference is that all the popular Windows programs have lots of legacy code to support/port because when they were first programmed, 64bit was a pipe dream on Windows (kinda still is).
Most of the GUI apps used today have been programmed within the last 5-8 years, long after 64bit Linux/BSD. So while they were FIRST PROGRAMMING the app, they knew it would run on 64bit.
It doesn't make OSS programmers better, it just means that 64bit was a reality when they started programming, and it wasn't for Windows programmers.
You also have NetBSD (ahem, Open Source), which from the very beginning had the mantra "code it right the first time". There's NEVER been any kludges in it (that's why it lacks in a few areas). The entire NetBSD Ports tree is 64bit clean. You can usually port NetBSD to an architecture within a few weeks.
Then there's OpenBSD which has the same motto. Compare OpenBSD's security to that of Windows (or any OS).
So yes, while an OSS Coder isn't inherently better than a Closed Source (usually Windows, but not specifically) programmer, there're a few reasons why many are:
1. No pressure. Almost all OSS was made non-profit, so they don't do things just for money. We all know that a company might kludge something together for release schedules, or to compete with "Super Feature X". With OSS, most do it because they want to write nice code to fill a gap.
2. Pride. If you read ESR's book "The Cathedral And the Bazaar", it expands on why OSS works better, so I can't really go into the whole thing (books avail. online for free, check it out). Basically, when coding OSS, you know other people will read your code, and you don't want to be embarrassed. Steve, if you are writing code that you know others will read, do you spend more time on it? I know I do, compared to those little admin scripts that I write once to do a job.
There are plenty of good Windows programmers out there, and there are plenty of crappy OSS programmers. But statistics don't lie. The most portable and the most secure OS's are both Open Source.
Steve, if you are writing code that you know others will read, do you spend more time on it?
No - I always try to write to the same standard.
If I can't write code to a standard that I'd want to read, I don't bother.
And yes, my manager would attest to me forcing him to move deadlines to make a better API, or a better tool to do a "run-once" job (there's no such thing as a run-once job, in real world coding).
You also have NetBSD (ahem, Open Source), which from the very beginning had the mantra "code it right the first time". There's NEVER been any kludges in it (that's why it lacks in a few areas).
Then they're both lying to themselves and not testing their software well enough. There's no such thing as error-free programming. Anyone who thinks otherwise is one of three things: (1) not a programmer (2) stupid or (3) a liar.
"Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfteen
percent of all people know that."
-Homer Simpson
I'll read "The Cathedral And the Bazaar" if you read How to Lie With Statistics.
I don't see how I'm lying about statistics. OK, "Most Secure OS" is subjective, but OpenBSD has only had one remote hole in over 8 years! that's amazing no matter how you look at it.
And NetBSD IS the most portable OS out there. Name an OS that runs on more platforms. You can't, simple.
Sure, there's been coding errors in NetBSD. But there's never been any "cheap hacks", they would simply never be accepted into the trees.
But either way, this argument is about Windows, and Windows fails on security and portability (and prettyness). Really, there is very little if anything Windows is BETTER at.
I know it's dangerous to get into this discussion, but I'm high on ice-tea.
Really in this day, it's not hard to code for 64bit. The difference is that all the popular Windows programs have lots of legacy code to support/port because when they were first programmed, 64bit was a pipe dream on Windows (kinda still is).Most of the GUI apps used today have been programmed within the last 5-8 years, long after 64bit Linux/BSD. So while they were FIRST PROGRAMMING the app, they knew it would run on 64bit.
Normal, not high-end applications don't need 64bit, it are the high-end databases, critical systems that needs it; I don't need 64bit for a button.
It doesn't make OSS programmers better, it just means that 64bit was a reality when they started programming, and it wasn't for Windows programmers.
Most end-programmers don't have to know if they are programming against a 64bit environment or a 32-bit. They are programming against an abstract set of API's.
1. No pressure. Almost all OSS was made non-profit, so they don't do things just for money. We all know that a company might kludge something together for release schedules, or to compete with "Super Feature X". With OSS, most do it because they want to write nice code to fill a gap.
You might turn this around. Companies do have much more resources, so they can investigate and invest more in it.
2. Pride.
Pride doesn't make me design or write my code better. Pride is usually a bad thing.