El_Cu_Guy Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Like every other OSes Microsoft will fail to deliver what it has hyped but promises (yet again) that the NEXT version of Windows will deliver. For those who haven't read it here ya go... No Windows XP SE as Longhorn jettisons features How Microsoft is Clipping Longhorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Already on the front page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banzai Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Its quite a bummer, why cant ms just take there time and make an os with everything people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanorobot Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 This is the same as Neptune/ Win ME and something called Cairo. There is loads of other OS out there with thousands of developers and a lot of code. Microsoft is going to have a lot of competition is it doesn't do somthing. Longhorn is meant to be this super OS, but a lot can happen in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Wow, scrapping the cross-network searching abilities, and possibly sync... BIG DEAL! Damnit. WinFS will still be in Longhorn, just the networking capability will be postponed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted April 10, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 10, 2004 Like XP isnt good enough already, thats what the linux zealots hate, accept it boys, before XP you were attacking the stability and you were right, now... you cant attack anything in the desktop OS area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuka_t Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 integrated sync with ppc is one the features im looking forward to most in lh. however, i ouldnt care less about network winfs cause its just gonna lag the network and i only have two pc's anyway so its no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Cu_Guy Posted April 10, 2004 Author Share Posted April 10, 2004 Already on the front page.Bookmark points to forums. Never bother with the Neowin frontpage. I got directly to the newssites Neowin links to. This is the same as Neptune/ Win ME and something called Cairo. Cairo is NT4.0 Like XP isnt good enough already, thats what the linux zealots hate, accept it boys, before XP you were attacking the stability and you were right, now... you cant attack anything in the desktop OS areaNot a geek are you? There's plenty to attack on all sides. XP isn't the perfect OS you make it out to be. It has it's problems. You may not have noticed some of them but they are there. Let's not forget that you guys said the same thing about W2K and about what Longhorn will be. You're starting to souns just like Microsoft. Make your excuses. It's fine. I'm sure the next or the next or the one after thet will be the one that proves you're right. XP is a great OSes but far from what you make it out to be. Wow, scrapping the cross-network searching abilities, and possibly sync... BIG DEAL! I'm sure there's more. Microsoft has been posting a few projects over at Sourceforge. Looks like there's more that'll be pushed back into Blackcomb when it finally comes out. Remember, that Ms has been promising Blackcomb (actually what it's supposed to do) since the mid-90s and they delivered Windows95. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMac Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Bookmark points to forums. Never bother with the Neowin frontpage. I got directly to the newssites Neowin links to. Don't we all. :p Sad cut out but as SD said be happy with what you've got. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Cairo is NT4.0 It was also the codename of OFS! I'm sure there's more. Microsoft has been posting a few projects over at Sourceforge.Don't ever become a journalist!Looks like there's more that'll be pushed back into Blackcomb when it finally comes out. Remember, that Ms has been promising Blackcomb (actually what it's supposed to do) since the mid-90s and they delivered Windows95. Blackcomb popped up after Win2K, if not even WinXP. What you're talking about was the real Cairo, not the NT4-Cairo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanorobot Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Cairo was originally Windows NT 4.0 codename but is now known as certain technologies. from Creamhackered... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Cairo was never fully implemented, I was at a MS conference years ago when they were hyping up this new object orientated file system that they never made, that was part of Cairo. THis was back in the early 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deck Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Let's just settle and end the whole codename thing right here; Microsoft Codenames Second; What is probably the most significant new feature in Longhorn is WinFS, which will essentialy change the way we do things in Windows. And the pretty graphics which nobody needs. ~D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuka_t Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 microsoft nees the eyecandy to sell lh to the masses. also, the lag-freeness of the OS would be a VERY welcome change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandMaster Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 that sucks :(( dissapointment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron901 Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 microsoft nees the eyecandy to sell lh to the masses. also, the lag-freeness of the OS would be a VERY welcome change. no no no, microsoft doesn't need the eyecandy to sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 no no no, microsoft doesn't need the eyecandy to sell it. With all the people on this board bitching about how bad Luna is, I think they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 The problem with luna is that it is too big. Longhorn previews don't look that much better. What they need is a nice and light theme as an alternative to Classic which is not to graphics heavy. Even if they took classic and give an alternative with rounder edges, and off white background would be nicer to look at all day at work. They don't need "eye candy" Let's face it, MS can't do eye candy worth sh*t. Leave that stuff to Apple and Linux distros which are not so bogged down with backwards compatiblity issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 They don't need "eye candy" Let's face it, MS can't do eye candy worth sh*t. Leave that stuff to Apple and Linux distros which are not so bogged down with backwards compatiblity issues. And you come to that conclusion from 1 product (first attempt) and an alpha staged OS? And let me tell you how OS 9 was sooo sexy. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 And you come to that conclusion from 1 product (first attempt) and an alpha staged OS? And let me tell you how OS 9 was sooo sexy. ;) No, I'm basing it on Window 95, 98,98SE,WinME,Win2k,XP and the Longhorn betas. If they had asked consumers what they wanted, they would not have said, please give me a slightly darker luna with a big ass clock and bar taking up a 1/5 of one side of the screen. What they probably would have said is "give me a windows that works and does not look like a childs toy". The memory heap manager sucks in XP as does the CPU allocation to tasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 The memory heap manager sucks in XP as does the CPU allocation to tasks. How so? I've never noticed any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 no no no, microsoft doesn't need the eyecandy to sell it. Microsoft needs the eyecandy because they have overlooked it for so long. They continued along a compatablity route, with the result that they didn't play off of the new graphics capabilities - admitedly the graphics market wasn't "so" great when XP was designed/released but they could have done better - they are just right a wrong and hopefully going overboard with it. Personally, what I want is speed... stability... uncluttered interface... graphical effects (makes Windows less of a chore)... also, a better system to install drivers. Why do we have drivers that are .exe files? They should have their own extension and have different priorities, restrictions, allowances, etc. And I nearly forgot... a system that doesn't have to be reformated often (the MAIN problem with Windows). That means completely overhauling the registry, which has become a dumping ground for huge amounts of crap - I find the best applications I use often don't need to even be installed. Just having a section in the registry where you could see ALL registry settings pertaining to a particular program would be useful. Anything so that even 6 months after install the system is still as responsive as when first installed. No, I'm basing it on Window 95, 98,98SE,WinME,Win2k,XP and the Longhorn betas. NOTE: To all retards... Microsoft is testing CONCEPTS with Longhorn... Kind of like saying the new buildings down the road are going to be rubbish because no-one likes scaffolding outside their house. Also, there ARE NO LONGHORN BETAS yet... and probably not for the best part of a year, only alphas/pre-alphas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 How so? I've never noticed any problems. XP perform horribly with NTVDM tasks (read DOS apps) and it does not handle a loss of network connectivity either. We have had VFP 8.0 apps lock up machines with 100% CPU performing local queries on local data. There is something seriously wrong when even a 32bit app can takeup 100% of the CPU blocking even system level tasks such as: switching windows, GDI+ window redraws of other app windows and accessing the pagefile. Now before someone says, "you software must be buggy", this same code ran fine on Windows 2000 machines in the past. Our company has been looking into possibly downgrading to Windows 2000 on the workstations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Personally, what I want is speed... stability... uncluttered interface... graphical effects (makes Windows less of a chore)... also, a better system to install drivers. Why do we have drivers that are .exe files? They should have their own extension and have different priorities, restrictions, allowances, etc.And I nearly forgot... a system that doesn't have to be reformated often (the MAIN problem with Windows). That means completely overhauling the registry, which has become a dumping ground for huge amounts of crap - I find the best applications I use often don't need to even be installed. Just having a section in the registry where you could see ALL registry settings pertaining to a particular program would be useful. Anything so that even 6 months after install the system is still as responsive as when first installed. Do you use Linux? That sounds pretty much what Linux is ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 [locking up stuff]Now before someone says, "you software must be buggy", this same code ran fine on Windows 2000 machines in the past. That's what you get from using undocumented functionality. There functions aren't listed in the APIs because they were meant to be used internally and aren't guaranteed to be there or still exposing the same behaviour the next OS version. Applications following the Win32 API guidelines don't break on OS upgrades, unless there's a major forced API change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts