If Longhorn actually came out... [Archive]

View Full Version : If Longhorn actually came out...

SZF2001

October 4th, 2007, 04:32 PM

So, instead of Longhorn we get Vista.

Before you go off telling me that Longhorn is just a codename (which it was) and Vista was the final product, let's look at this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y

This is the initial concept, therefore, the idea of Longhorn - the idea of Vista actually turned out to be a OS X ripoff.

So if we got this Longhorn concept (which looks awesome btw), would you have still bought it? I'm sure there would still be the DMA and crap you guys care about (whatever), but I'd actually buy this rather than Vista or XP or etc.

And before you all bite me I'm running Debian.

hessiess

October 4th, 2007, 04:50 PM

that loocks a hell of allot better than vista, still wouldent buy it tho if it had drm

p_quarles

October 4th, 2007, 04:52 PM

Vista Home Premium came with my newest desktop, and I think you can do most of the eye candy type stuff that was shown in that video.

Vista has been a failure not because it looks bad, but because it's new "security" features are more frustrating than helpful, and because it shipped in Beta.

Nano Geek

October 4th, 2007, 04:53 PM

Microsoft's great at concepts. They just have a problem delivering those concepts.

ice60

October 4th, 2007, 04:58 PM

"coming october 2003" lol

i bought a laptop to see what vista was like, so i probably would have got that too :| lol

i dual-boot with vista and linux on that one computer, but i still haven't finished setting up vista, i'm not a windows basher, but i really don't like it!!!

EDIT. did you see this video looooool
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3QdGt3ix2CQ

starcraft.man

October 4th, 2007, 04:59 PM

At the end of the day all that matters is what actually comes out. It doesn't matter what could have been, MS chose (yes, they did it all to themselves) to deliver Vista.

Yes, the concepts did look good and they did seem to have a good idea for changing the UI. They spent too much time screwing around, then they decided to cut the deal with the movie industry for DRM and they had to butcher so many features (most glaring, WinFS) in their quest for DRM that they ruined their own OS. This was further compounded with the fact that MS has proven over the years to be generally inept (and increasingly so) at delivering anything. It's the clearest form of insanity when you actively seek to sabotage your own product.

Anyway, this seems kinda late, Vista been out for ages and it's not gonna change with SP1.

FuturePilot

October 4th, 2007, 05:06 PM

Meh, doesn't look like anything more than XP with a few extra flashy effects.:|

justin whitaker

October 4th, 2007, 05:10 PM

Yes, Microsoft did it to themselves.

Microsoft's big issue is that they operate in teams that don't really talk that much to each other. They have a clear goal (Ship Longhorn! Now!), but they all pursue it in their own way, and then they have to patch the ******* together.

All the big dreams and projected features tend to get killed by "committee thinking" and risk aversion.

What they need is someone to grab hold of the OS division, break backward compatibility, and put out a solid product with the latest stuff that Microsoft's skunkworks wanted to include.

bobbocanfly

October 4th, 2007, 05:13 PM

OMG! Microsoft actually had a good idea going with that side bar. You could replace your multiple (by default) panels with a single extensible panel at the side. Are there any DE's or Apps that let you do that on existing technologies?

That Instant Messaging side bar app. My god that would be useful, better than having pidgin with its nothing less than shockingly bad UI design.

Still cant get over Microsoft having a good idea.

p_quarles

October 4th, 2007, 05:18 PM

asmoore82

October 4th, 2007, 05:19 PM

CLASSIC Micro$oft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro$oft) Vaporware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware)!

110% on par with the macroshaft some of us know all too well.

You think those lies were unintentional or innocent?? pay carefull attention to this section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware#Anticompetitive_practices).

Acglaphotis

October 4th, 2007, 06:37 PM

Dude... i would SO ditch vista for that.

n3tfury

October 4th, 2007, 07:04 PM

At the end of the day all that matters is what actually comes out. It doesn't matter what could have been, MS chose (yes, they did it all to themselves) to deliver Vista.

actually in a way it does. it shows that microsoft CAN (at least visually) deliver something BETTER...but they blew it obviously.

ima look:

Build Number: 3718

Creation: 2002

Release Date: October 2003

Leak: 2004,

n3tfury

October 4th, 2007, 07:05 PM

asmoore82

October 4th, 2007, 11:07 PM

fanboi much?
not really; just sick of this *****...

http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/index.html

jviscosi

October 4th, 2007, 11:15 PM

I thought the video was okay until they bleeped "Get The Party Started" toward the end. Laaaaaaame!

Kingsley

October 4th, 2007, 11:21 PM

At least that shows what an OS is capable of. Linux devs should feed off of those ideas and make something even better. I bet Microsoft purposely left out those concepts in their release of Vista. Why release all the good stuff at once when you can just implement it with the next major release and get better sales? They're marketing geniuses, I tell ya.

Kingsley

October 4th, 2007, 11:22 PM

I thought the video was okay until they bleeped "Get The Party Started" toward the end. Laaaaaaame!
Lol yeah the video was intriguing but I quickly muted my volume when that crap song came on.

DalekClock

October 5th, 2007, 02:04 PM

OMG! Microsoft actually had a good idea going with that side bar. You could replace your multiple (by default) panels with a single extensible panel at the side. Are there any DE's or Apps that let you do that on existing technologies?

Yes, the GNOME panel system lets you make a sidebar panel, say, 150 pixels wide and have the menu and window list on that.

Shay Stephens

October 5th, 2007, 02:45 PM

The reason I skipped on Vista and decided to avoid all Microsoft products is because I don't trust them anymore. DRM, trusted computing, stealth updates, etc. I went with Ubuntu last year because I no longer want to deal with their shenanigans.

XP was the turning point. The online activation was almost more than I could take, but after a couple of years I used XP on a new computer that came with it. Then they started ratcheting down the noose. When I heard what they planned for Vista, I knew I had to jump ship, and did.

So they may come out with the best OS ever devised, but so long as they treat my computer as their own personal property, they will not get any more of my money. I only buy computers without an OS or ones that have linux preloaded.

digital_exhaust

October 6th, 2007, 06:40 PM

Shay Stephens

October 6th, 2007, 08:30 PM

I'm not a fan of DRM, but it is what it is, and anyone that didn't see it coming with the inclusion of online activation in XP is blind....

That is one the main reasons I don't use Vista, and it is one of the main reasons I will never use Vista or its descendants if they stay with those schemes. My reasons for not using Windows products boils down to Freedom, not technical capabilities.

p_quarles

October 6th, 2007, 08:48 PM

How many of you bashing Vista have actually used it for more than a few hours, or maybe days?
I used it frequently for about three weeks. Hence my repeated attempts to mention that most of the features that look cool in that video actually are included in Vista.

I would also say that it's fairly difficult to install software in a "Vista-aware" way if the software itself hasn't yet been updated. Not necessarily MS's fault, but with the amount of time they spent developing this I think they could have done better.

UAC is pretty much useless as a security measure for all but advanced users. Most people will turn it off. Others will simply start ignoring it and clicking "allow" on everything. If you create and use a non-admin account, it will require a password for the click-through, which improves security, but most home users will never do this.

And I still say it was released in Beta. A sizable number of people have had no problems with it, but it's presented very weird and show-stopping bugs to others (including online-famous Windows fan-boy Chris Pirillo, who recommends against upgrading for now).

angryfirelord

October 6th, 2007, 09:10 PM

How many of you bashing Vista have actually used it for more than a few hours, or maybe days?
I upgraded my XP system to Vista about a month ago in order to stay ahead of the curve and be familiar with it.

Big mistake.

First off, it took 4 minutes to boot into my desktop. I spent hours tweaking and refining the services.msc and other utilities until I managed to get it down to 3 minutes. The hard drive access is still way too heavy & it eats 600MB RAM when everything is fully loaded. Ridiculous.

Second, there's an issue with ATI drivers under Vista. For some reason, they don't install properly on laptops. I had to download a hack, yes a hack that would edit the .msi files so the ATI drivers would install. Fortunately, someone else had spent hours on this issue and helped me get them up and running.

Finally, I'm still having issues with my network. The wireless card stays off for some reason & I have to search around the now completely rearranged Control Center & its tools in order to get it connected to a network. Then, when I do connect, Vista insists on phoning home because my network light goes crazy for about 5 minutes afterward. Then, to add insult to injury, battery life sucks. Ubuntu can get at least 2.5 hours. Vista is lucky to make 2 hours, usually averaging around 1.5 because my CPU & HDD usage keeps shooting to the moon.

So you see, I've used it & Vista is a chore to use. But hey, I guess most Windows users are used to that and don't want easy-to-use Ubuntu. :)

digital_exhaust

October 7th, 2007, 12:07 PM

How much ram does your Ubuntu install "eat".... right now, at idle, mine is "eating" 266.6m of 503.9m.....my vista machine, with two browser windows open, itunes running and task manager open is using 364m of 1022m..... so I'm not sure what was going wrong with your Vista install....

Vista is different than XP in that it actually uses your hardware... Superfetch will load frequently used apps into memory for faster access.. and it will unload those apps when memory is needed for other processes....

I have never heard of the ATI driver issues under Vista, rather a laptop or desktop... not saying they aren't legitimate, just that I have not had any issues with my ATI cards and Vista... there were many nvidia driver issues after inital release, but those have been solved... and my God.. you want to discuss ATI driver issues... let's talk about getting the drivers for my X1950pro working under Feisty...

I'm not trying to argue every point you've made.... but there are usually two sides to every experience... and most of the annoyances that people mention with Vista are misunderstandings, not failures on Vista's behalf... it's not XP... it uses your hardware, it indexes your HDD's (hence the constant "thrashing")... and it takes time and research to understand many of the changes... Now, should Joe average pc user have to do this research and re-learn an OS every time it's "upgraded"...probably not....

But back to my original point... there is not one Linux user out there that hasn't, at least once... had to come here or another forum, Google and pull their hair out before they were able to find a fix, figure out how to install something or understand why something works the way it does..... and if all those people just gave up and declared Linux as garbage, the OSS world wouldn't exist....

So, take that for what it's worth... just my opinion, that's all.....

AbredPeytr

October 7th, 2007, 12:34 PM

Yes, Microsoft did it to themselves.

What they need is someone to grab hold of the OS division, break backward compatibility, and put out a solid product with the latest stuff that Microsoft's skunkworks wanted to include.

Microsoft can't afford to break backward compatibility. That is the downside to having somehwere near 80% of all the computers in the world, people don't want to/can't afford to buy new software when they buy a new OS. If I remember correctly, one of the reasons XP was pushed back was because they had to bite the bullet and make it backward compatible.

Unlike Apple. I'm going nuts at work because my boss prefers Macs and the new Intel processors don't run one of the OS 9 programs we use most often. We found a fix for it, but it was darn inconvenient. Let's not even talk about the fact that the new version of Final Cut Pro only works with OX 10.4 and you have to pay to upgrade form 10.3.9. It's amazing how long Apple has been able to keep the "Macs are better for graphics" meme going.

As to the original question...yes, I would use Longhorn if it did everything they promised. To the guy that says Vista does do most of the eye candy from the Video, please tell us how.

Depressed Man

October 7th, 2007, 03:49 PM

I'm honestly not trying to start anything here.... but.....

How many of you bashing Vista have actually used it for more than a few hours, or maybe days?

The reason that I ask is, rather you choose to agree or not, Vista is a completely new and different OS, unlike any other OS made by Microsoft..... seriously... and it takes a while to really understand how it works, what it's strengths and weakness are...

What do you think would happen if everyone that tried out Ubuntu (or any other *nix distro) did so for only a few hours, and then formed an opinion of the entire OS based on a few hours of actual use?

It really seems to me that is exactly what has happened with Vista... all the complaints about UAC... I mean really.... install your programs and apps correctly and UAC is not a problem, at all....

I'm not a fan of DRM, but it is what it is, and anyone that didn't see it coming with the inclusion of online activation in XP is blind....

*points to my signature with it in my laptop*

Vista isn't that bad (as most people would like to make it out to be). But given a choice between it and my desktop's XP (keep in mind my desktop runs a AMD Opteron 165, a dual core processor so it's nice. But not as nice as my Intel Core 2 Duo in my laptop. And my laptop has a 1 GB extra advantage (2 gigs vs 1) I'd gladly choose to use my XP most of the time. Even feature for feature for the things I want such as indexing (I actually have Copernic Desktop Search installed in both computers since Windows Desktop Search fails to index .ODT formats) I just leave it on my laptop because I don't want to bother fighting for a refund, plus I doubt half the stuff in my laptop would work correctly without Sony's drivers.

And Vista's UAC is extremely annoying. You can say "install your programs and apps correctly" and whatever but at the end of the day it's extremely annoying compared to sudo in Ubuntu. And even then it's just an allow/deny prompt. Not a "please enter your password". Really, I don't need anything asking me if I want to launch or access a certain directory. If I did the action, chances are I wanted to do it in the first place. I wouldn't mind if it was a less intrusive password prompt though.

Luckily I just deactivated it so it's more like XP (not a big deal since I know how to setup and maintain a Windows computer to avoid all the baddies out there) otherwise the headache would still be ongoing since I got the laptop back in Janurary.

Like I said, it doesn't deserve as much hate that it sometimes receives. For one user, the UAC may be a perfect thing for security, for another (like me) it's a complete headache. Though if I was given a choice at the time between XP and Vista on my laptop I would've likely chosen XP.

digital_exhaust

October 7th, 2007, 07:17 PM

And Vista's UAC is extremely annoying. You can say "install your programs and apps correctly" and whatever but at the end of the day it's extremely annoying compared to sudo in Ubuntu.

I never meant to compare it to sudo.. not in any way.. but....

Try this.. reactivate UAC, and next time you go to install a program or app, right click and select "Run as Administrator"... as far as things that are already installed, right click, properties and select "Compatibility" and check the "Run as Administrator" box and your good to go...

Depressed Man

October 7th, 2007, 07:29 PM

But that's extra work required by me just to get the program to launch correctly. I rather have it be more like XP is now and just launch when I click it on the first time without setup.

I understand that UAC is suppose to provide security, but since I use both XP and Vista it's annoying to have to do that for setting up my programs and not having to do that in XP.

It'd kinda be like my Linux on my desktop not asking me to sudo, then having my Linux on my laptop sudo. At least the way I setup now, it's uniform. So when I use Linux on either computer it's pretty much the same (even if one is Gutsy and one's Feisty). And when I use Windows it's pretty much the same. Even the programs I use in all of them are uniform. Pidgin, Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera, OpenOffice.

p_quarles

October 7th, 2007, 07:43 PM

As to the original question...yes, I would use Longhorn if it did everything they promised. To the guy that says Vista does do most of the eye candy from the Video, please tell us how.
That would be me.

First, it requires Home Premium or better. In any case, the main thing people seemed impressed about was the sidebar widgets. This is turned on by default, and is pretty extensible depending on what you want.

Other stuff: 3d window switcher, transparency effects, general shininess.

If I missed something in the video, feel free to point it out.

Anyway, I'll just add a couple things:

1) The video didn't demonstrate any features being used; there's a big difference between something looking cool and it being practical. I guess I'm not sure why people are so excited about that video.

2) I found it very easy to get Vista working exactly like XP, which is what I did. While this makes it a disappointment in the sense that it took MS six years to develop, I equally fail to understand why people think Vista is so much worse than XP. Yes, there are driver issues, but us Linux users can't exactly complain about that.

justin1278

October 7th, 2007, 07:48 PM

Well I replaced XP with Vista and honestly, I did not gain anything important, only eyecandy... Also there were driver issues immediatly so whenever I tried to install updates through Windows Update I would get a BSOD, so I had to go online and spend time finding a fix for that....

I have also along the way received several Windows Update errors and could not find a fix for them, eventually I reformatted the entire machine and re-installed Vista, when I put the needed drivers in to fix the BSOD issue, then finally I was able to get the whole system up to date.

Now finally Vista seems to run OK, I am thinking I should have stuck to XP for my Windows system.