New Longhorn Graphics Tool Called "Flashkiller"
Posted by Tom Warren on 05 November 2003 - 19:38 · 74 comments & 4737 views
About the Author
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by NeoSoft on 05 Nov 2003 - 19:43
-
Wonder if this is better is or worse... at least I won't have to worry about those annoying ActiveX control pop-ups (Update this, Update that)!
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by Rathamon on 05 Nov 2003 - 19:44
- I'd like to see a w3 agreed standard for multimedia content on webpages to stop all this nonsense
-
#2.1 Posted by bluebsh on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:33
- well since this is not really designed for web pages... kinda pointless there... this is already in the PDC build of longhorn for the vector graphics, if you noticed the icons are vectored ones now... it's using this same engine to draw the newer style icons
-
(7 replies)
#3 Posted by AndyD on 05 Nov 2003 - 19:53
- Is it really necessary to incorporate all these little programs?? I love windows but perhaps more time should be spent on plugging holes than creating subpar programs.
-
#3.1 Posted by darksoul on 05 Nov 2003 - 19:56
- Are you questioning the validity of this project? Macromrdia has built a pretty good sized company around just this type of thing.
-
#3.2 Posted by hgfhgf on 05 Nov 2003 - 22:22
- macromedia makes web development programs, microsoft makes operating systems.. oh.. well... i know one company that blurs lines for no good reason at all other than money. i wonder why they always get in trouble with the law?
i mean ffs, wtf does microsoft incorperate a video editing program?? -
#3.3 Posted by RogueJawa on 05 Nov 2003 - 23:11
- MS doesnt have like 3 people working for them, just because they are developing new programs doesnt mean they arent working to patch holes, maybe they should stop working on longhorn all together and just update XP constantly.
-
#3.4 Posted by
timdorr on 06 Nov 2003 - 03:20
- Yeah, but too many resources too far stretched. That's the one thing MS is missing: polish. If they'd just polish things off more, I would respect their OS a whole lot more. But there's all kinds of things that seem more like hack jobs or stuff that was added after the fact than true fixes. The whole OS has so much about it that is disjoint and doesn't flow well between each other.
-
#3.7 Posted by SomeDork on 06 Nov 2003 - 17:50
- "disjoint and doesn't flow..."
You must be thinking of Unix.
Let me ask you this. If you have 10 people working on one project, is it therefore bad to not have 10 people working on a different project? Microsoft has 50,000 employees. I'm sure they can work on two or more big projects at once.
On one had, we have people like you who basically encourage more interoperability, more "flow" between component technology in the OS. On the other hand, you have the DOJ who thinks everything needs to be compartmentalized, and separate. In some aspects, you're getting both... but of course you can't be all things to all people.
-
(6 replies)
#4 Posted by Webgraph on 05 Nov 2003 - 19:59
- Hell no! This should be outlawed since Microsoft cannot extend their monopoly over every technological device and software type! I hope Macromedia and Adobe bring this to court!
-
#4.1 Posted by Sawyer12 on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:03
- Its plain and simple they cant take it to court because MS decided to make another product but yeah its wrong if it takes bussiness away from other companys.
-
#4.2 Posted by matthew24 on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:52
- First they tried to kill OpenGL, then HTML (they are still trying), then Java, now Flash, what's next?
-
#4.3 Posted by toadeater on 05 Nov 2003 - 23:05
- Next, M$ will charge you taxes.
Btw, I think if M$ is going to integrate such stuff so tightly into the OS, it's going to mean even more security threats. Yes, I know they are aware of the problem, but we're talking about M$ here, when have they ever done anything right? -
#4.4 Posted by werejag on 05 Nov 2003 - 23:06
- who knows but this will also be one more nail in their coffin
-
#4.5 Posted by theh0g on 06 Nov 2003 - 08:47
- Microsoft already tried to beat Flash with a software called liquid-something. But it was crap so they stopped the project like 5 years ago. I seriously doubt they'll suceed this time, at least being a competition to Flash on web. Their product will require .NET, which is only used on Windows PCs, and no serious web design company will make a webpage that only works in Windows (IE).
-
#4.6 Posted by SomeDork on 06 Nov 2003 - 17:53
QUOTE (#4.4) who knows but this will also be one more nail in their coffin
That Microsoft coffin must be huge by now. I remember people saying this at Windows 95 ... and NT ... and 2000 ... How many nails does it need to seal it, and at what point will you declare it "dead"?
Or will you stretch the metaphor to imply that microsoft is a vampiric entity, incapable of death, because it's already dead? You crack me up.
Please, don't ever try to do more than you are, ever. It will be just one more nail in your coffin.
-
#5 Posted by kairon on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:01
- What else is new.
Soon, Windows LongXP 2009, everything included but the kitchen sink.
-
(8 replies)
#6 Posted by trvmyr on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:22
- Why does Microsoft have to try to have it hand in everything out there. If they are going to try to get in to the "Flash" and "Director" market why don't they make a seprate software product and not sticke it in in an OS. The OS is ment to provide a graphics interaction with the hardware, and software, nothing else. Now there trying to add things that half of the OS users will never use. Flash is used mostly by Web Designers and Multimedia Designers, not by someone's Grandmother. If people want that feature they can buy it from Macromedia, or Adobe. Everytime they add a usless feature to a OS they make the damn thing bigger in size, which requires more processing power, more memory.... Next they are going to try to intagrate Office into Windows... When will they stop and just make a OS like they did in 3.1 (with out all this B.S.).
-
#6.1 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:29
- I think they'll continue with it since there is a market for it. Just look at all the other stuff added to OSX besides the OS itself. How is what MS is doing any different?
-
#6.2 Posted by trvmyr on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:56
- I'm talking about taking a product out there and making your own of it, then sticking it in to a OS. It's like MS or Apple adding Flash,Office,Photoshop,some Antivirus... software in to a OS. It's not needed. If people need it they can go and get it for themself. Not have some knockoff cheap POS embedded into there OS. It's just another way for a company to take over and try to push someone out. I doubt they will be able to push Macomedia out, but knowing MS they will give it their best shot. Look at how many s****y products MS has made: Media Player, Movie Maker, Paint, WordPad (does not even have a fricken Spellcheck), Backup, there WiFi config tool, NT4 (
), WinME (sorry got off track), The Digital Media Center Plus! Pack... All of these (except for NT4 and WinME) are included with Windows and are POS. Now they are going to try to give us a program to make Flash an Director files. Sorry but I will stick with Macromedia, the ones who invented it.
P.S. What did Apple add to OSX besides PDF support which they got from Adobe? Apple unlike MS got it from the source, they did not try to make a cheap knockoff. -
#6.3 Posted by NeoMasamune on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:58
- I agree 100%
-
#6.5 Posted by matthew24 on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:41
- 15 % of Windows is useful, 25 % is useless, 60% are tools to try to keep the OS running
-
#6.6 Posted by clonk on 05 Nov 2003 - 22:13
- I think Apple put an awful lot in their OS 'above and beyond' as you might say.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/overview/ -
#6.7 Posted by em_te on 06 Nov 2003 - 03:03
- I think Microsoft is only including this because Longhorn uses a reramped graphics system and Microsoft wants to show it off by exposing it in a Flash like way. It's not like they're deliberately created this just to undercut Macromedia. And if the graphics system is only used by the OS to draw and scale windows and stuff, it would go to waste if it wasn't harnessed to the max.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by Jason on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:24
- This is great news.
-
#7.1 Posted by trvmyr on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:08
- What!!! No It's Not, It's about a sgood of news like back when I was reading on Neowin a long while back that MS is going to try to get into the Antivirus market. That is the worst news ever.
-
#7.2 Posted by elatedmedia on 06 Nov 2003 - 04:55
- Why is that so bad? I kind of like the idea that my OS has a better idea of what is and isn't a virus.
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by sorlag on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:28
- Imagine the power of flash in each regular programms GUI as a GDI replacement... nice!
-
(2 replies)
#9 Posted by altermind on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:42
- and why should macromdedia have mominent over flash...
-
#9.1 Posted by trvmyr on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:58
- well for one reason they "invented it", second they don't Adobe has their "flash" type program.
-
#9.2 Posted by ClintEastman on 06 Nov 2003 - 10:54
- Macromedia didn't "invent" Flash, they bought it! (Splash)
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by atomicparkerman on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:45
- Um...this looks like something that should be getting the attention of the courts doesn't it? Seems almost MONOPOLISTIC in nature...
-
#10.2 Posted by Shovel on 06 Nov 2003 - 11:20
- Why should it? Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly over "Flash-like" tools, so what law are they breaking?
Depending on how they integrate it with Longhorn, that could fall foul, but until they actually produce a product around this, they're doing nothing wrong at this point in time.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by mr_da3m0n on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:54
- Yay. Spells "Windows and IE only" once again. Hey microsoft, ever heard of Linux and Macs?
-
#11.1 Posted by Shovel on 06 Nov 2003 - 11:23
- As a web technology, yes. But for precisely the reason you state (Linux, Mac, previous versions of Windows), no serious web developer will use it in a website. I don't think Microsoft believe that they will achieve this, they know that no one will buy a new computer just to view a particular 3rd party website.
As a windows technology, it has a fair bit of potention, consider the decidedly yucky way in which flash currently integrates in windows. If this tech were to allow you to use standard controls and use these animation tools to produce smoother, slicker animations than using an avi or gif, then it could be quite useful for Windows developers.
-
(7 replies)
#12 Posted by Jon on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:57
- Titled is misleading IMO, no where has it actually been stated that its called 'flashkiller', MS arn't that stupid but a lot of people would like to think they are.
-
#12.1 Posted by trvmyr on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:02
- It's not that, it's just they always try to push people to there crap which in most cases (if it a copy of a program already out there) is just not what you would get if you payed a bit to get something with balls and not this "MS user-friendly" POS. Any Program MS puts with it's OS is usually geared to the common user, thus making simple as possible to use and run. When it coms to things like Flash you don't want that. You need a lot of features... And when I say "Any Program MS Puts With Is OS" i'm talking about the default progs you find on the Start Menu, not the advanced features you have to find.
-
#12.2 Posted by Jon on 06 Nov 2003 - 00:28
- You mean the programs which are almost always licensed of larger vendors, for example backup exec?
I cant see the problem, its no more than a rebadged demo version. If it does wat users need, great, the vendor got some money for it. If they need more power, then MS dont try to stop them going elsewhere.
You call it crap but fail to realise MS dont write most of these things.. -
#12.3 Posted by trvmyr on 06 Nov 2003 - 01:02
- No I'm talking about the backup program they have had for years...Under 2000 it's called ntbackup, which was made by microsoft. Which is a POS, that's why any place would and pretty much does go and buy 3rd party software.
-
#12.4 Posted by Jon on 06 Nov 2003 - 09:50
- You mean the one that CLEARLY states '(C) Veritas' in help>about?
idiot
Everything they've offered have been licensed cut down versions of commercial products. -
#12.5 Posted by trvmyr on 06 Nov 2003 - 19:28
- Ok...well for some reason your's is different because on 5 of my computer s at home and the one at work all say Backup is made my MS or Veritas. So maybe you have installed a different program or sometihng. But backup is not my point, it's the fact they put in pointless Apps that people don't need, and like i had said, I was talking about the usless programs that the usual user would not use or even know about. Read my post somewhere up above, I list a few programs that are usless and POS.
-
#12.6 Posted by Jon on 06 Nov 2003 - 19:53
- I work with a huge windows 2000 domain, every single one says (c) veritas.
Even the MS rep that came down to visit us on our MS sponsered trailblazing XP deployment years ago said the same thing.
Face it, almost every single smaller app they inclue is technology from someone else.
Look at the forth coming MS Antivirus. Its RAV. QED. -
#12.7 Posted by trvmyr on 08 Nov 2003 - 20:42
- Really I don't care, even if they are othe rcompany's programs, they don'e need to loaded into the OS. Give people more of a choice of what crap get's put on their compputers. Also I will be finding a way when the Ms Antivirus comes out to keep it as far away from my computer as I can. They have enought problems with bugs and security holes, I don't need my Antivirus letting them in.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by NXTwoThou on 05 Nov 2003 - 20:59
- As a developer, the drool begins now.
I don't think its really a direct competition to flash or anything else. It seems to give us more tools for creating gee-whiz software ui's rather than creating movies or web pages.
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by Quick Reply on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:09
- This won't work for Microsoft because Microsoft simply won't make these applications cross-platform compatable (ie: Linu
-
#14.1 Posted by bluebsh on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:19
- how wont it work? this is an app developed for windows developers to put vector graphics into windows .net apps, this is not for the internet like Flash is it's developed for the OS part
-
#14.2 Posted by Quick Reply on 05 Nov 2003 - 23:46
- Oh I thaught it was for Internet Explorer :blush:
-
#15 Posted by nomis_nehc on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:39
- Holy crap, Longhorn's really going for the whole package thing.
-
#16 Posted by tapnet on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:49
- New Longhorn Graphics Tool Called "Flashkiller"
LOL it kills Flash 
-
#17 Posted by xSuRgEx on 05 Nov 2003 - 21:49
- here we go again ,
microsoft trying to take over everthing and pushing everyone else, but what else is new. i hope MS get taken to court over this
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by Spectre on 05 Nov 2003 - 22:43
- jesus, i have no idea why this is seen as negative in any way.
what exactly is happening here? microsoft is making a tool that would enable windows applications to be as graphically complex as flash websites. OMG!!!! BURN MICROSOFT!!! why exactly? are they trying to compete with macromedia? sure, when it comes to microsoft, competition is a bad thing ... right?
maybe macromedia will just have to try a little harder to stay on top. in any case, the consumers win.
now that longhorn has the ability to graphically blow any operating system out of the water, why SHOULDN'T they create a powerful development tool for user interfaces? sigh. the only reason it will be similar to flash is because that's the most logical way to approach the GUI problem. -
#18.1 Posted by malebolgia on 05 Nov 2003 - 23:41
- Well said
-
#19 Posted by Coolme on 05 Nov 2003 - 22:59
- Ok, there you people have it....Microsoft has updated paint!!!
-
#20 Posted by sks447 on 05 Nov 2003 - 23:18
- n*gga please, Adobe cant hang with flash, why the hell could Microsoft ? Pfft...
-
#21 Posted by nutter9k on 05 Nov 2003 - 23:30
- oooohhh pretty window animations - me liek
-
(2 replies)
#22 Posted by rpeterclark on 06 Nov 2003 - 00:55
- Awesome! Having applications written in an OS native vector format has a lot of possibilities. Imagine having scalable applications and icons without loss of quality. Additionally, vectors are much more light-weight than bitmaps, less graphical resources will need to be used I assume. It seems like a logical progression to me.
I'm not sure what the big deal is, Macromedia doesn't *own* the concept of a vector interface any more than anyone owns the concept of a bitmap interface. It doesn't seem like they are targeting web based interfaces anyway, more of an application level technology. -
#22.1 Posted by Spectre on 06 Nov 2003 - 01:42
QUOTE Imagine having scalable applications and icons without loss of quality.
you get that feature in longhorn's DCE graphics system anyway (it's called bilinear filtering of textures, provided by your graphics card). the key is not vector graphics but hardware accelerated polygonal graphics (vector graphics are basically 2D polygon graphics)
QUOTE Additionally, vectors are much more light-weight than bitmaps, less graphical resources will need to be used I assume.
they require less space, true, but it could be argued that they're faster to render. it depends. vector graphics are "dynamically" rendered while bitmaps are more or less static. on the other hand, bitmaps have distinctive data for each pixel (or texel, in this case) while vector/polygonal graphics are rendered according to the data for each vertex.
QUOTE 'm not sure what the big deal is, Macromedia doesn't *own* the concept of a vector interface any more than anyone owns the concept of a bitmap interface. It doesn't seem like they are targeting web based interfaces anyway, more of an application level technology.
yeah, it's the same misconception that apple fanboys use when they flame microsoft for writing a new hardware accelerated graphics system (similar to the one in mac os.
apple didn't invent polygonal UIs. that UI technology is simply a logical evolution of bitmap composite UIs. apple isn't better or more advanced than MS because it had a polygonal UI sooner than windows, it's merely an economic problem. apple is a hardware company and the only provider of macintosh computers. because of that, they can make clear and accurate projections about the system specs of their new product line. they KNOW that EVERY new G4/G5 will have a relatively powerful hardware accelerator built in, so they can design their new operating system AROUND that hardware. on the other hand, consider how many windows users still work on computers whose graphics cards are barely capable of rendering 3d graphics. with longhorn, they decided that it's the right time to introduce a polygonal user interface for windows machines.
flaming MS because apple/macromedia had it first is like saying you can't build a better car because you would rip off the guy who built the first one.
-
#23 Posted by shafi on 06 Nov 2003 - 03:31
- Microsoft is wasting time trying to recreate "flash" if its true. Didn't macromedia realeased pattents on flash ? Microsoft should work with macromedia. I'm sure there are already partners.
-
#24 Posted by JonathanVP on 06 Nov 2003 - 05:57
- kewl! I don't know about you guyz but I can't wait to get it!!
-
(1 reply)
#25 Posted by neocookie on 06 Nov 2003 - 09:05
- SVG anyone? They say they support standards, but it seems to me its only when they can make a buck on it.
Why is it that M$ want to keep everyone on windows? Don't they realise windows isn't the best option? Without UNIX, there wouldn't have been DOS. Without Apple, there wouldn't have been a Windows GUI. Without Macromedia, M$ wouldn't have had the ingenuity to rip-off their ideas to integrate into Longhorn. Killing the competition means that eventually they'll be killing themselves.
This also means it won't be cross-platform. So, when a company created a distro-CD for a client, they'll have to do two versions - the below-par M$ version, and the one for "Everyone else who can actually see the good stuff".
They're doing the same for with XAML XUL, the Gecko cross-platform GUI mark-up language. Something should be done - they're getting out of hand. -
#25.1 Posted by Ghostdraconi on 06 Nov 2003 - 18:23
QUOTE Why is it that M$ want to keep everyone on windows?
I really hope you never run a business
-
(1 reply)
#26 Posted by Jean-Claude Van Damme on 06 Nov 2003 - 13:48
- Anyone ever tried to consider if that tool is just a RAD tool to create XAML UIs with animations? Which means that it'll affect applications and no freakin' websites? Sheesh.
And to the guy above, XUL was never a real standard, just something made up for Mozilla, why should they even use it? SVG is supported, the reason for WVG is to make the markup match the .NET objects.
-
#27 Posted by kennywins on 06 Nov 2003 - 14:24
- This is gonna be so bloated. It's be awesome if Microssoft could release a Longhorn Pro version stripped of everything but the bare essentials, or at least with a custom install. Oh well...
-
#28 Posted by brundlefry on 06 Nov 2003 - 22:31
- "Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"
/Donnie Darko
-
#29 Posted by Krome on 07 Nov 2003 - 11:25
- May I remind you guys of this thread?
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=8905&st=15
Code-named "Sparkle," the tools under development would be integrated with Microsoft's .NET runtime environment. That would ultimately mean developers could have Flash- and Director-like animation and graphics tools ready-built for them soon after Longhorn hits the marketplace.
One source familiar with the project, who saw examples of the "Sparkle" toolset integrated with Microsoft's C#, said early prototypes have given rise to talk of its potential as a "Flashkiller" or even a "Director-killer," referring to Macromedia's popular Flash animation software and Director tool, which is best known for building small animations for CDs.
Lighttek has released Talisman Desktop 2.7, a program that allows users to completely replace the boring Windows desktop by creating their own unique interface or using one of the hundreds professionally designed desktops created for Talisman.
Talisman works on all Windows systems from Windows 95 to Windows XP. Even the users of old Win95 and NT4 systems can use all newest features on their desktops: high resolution icons, wide spectrum of graphical styles and effects some of that were available only on WindowsXP.
The quantity and variety of desktop elements in Talisman are not limited: from simple icons, graphical buttons and zoomers "like in MacOS" to complex scripts, plugins, java games, "Longhorn sidebars" and other objects.
Talisman was initially created as a Home desktop system. But now it is used as a corporate interface in different companies, it is used as an interface for Hotels, Schools, Universities, Libraries and other organizations. Talisman works as a FrontEnd interface for cars computers, Home Theater PCs, Home Multimedia systems, different touchscreen computers, kiosks.
The main features of Talisman:
- Multilevel user defined desktops and desktop panels.
- Opportunity to completely replace the default shell of Windows 9x/NT/2000/ME/XP.
- Using of any number of icons, pictures, buttons or other objects of any type and dimension.
- Place, free-moving and imposing of objects in the Talisman workspace.
- All objects can run external programs or internal shell commands or open websites by one click of the mouse.
- Changeable interfaces (themes).
- The Built-in Object Editor allows the creation, modification and removal of any element in a theme.
- Large number of basic elements (forms, pictures, shapes,icons, buttons of different types, text blocks, inputboxes, clocks, calendars, HTML-documents, Flash and VRML documents).
- Customizable taskbar, system tray, clock.
- Sound support for all events.
- Startmenu, foldermenu, taskmenu, controlmenu, custom menu objects.
- Script language.
- Password protected interfaces.
- Plugins.
- HotKeys.