JoeKuz Posted December 24, 2001 Share Posted December 24, 2001 Just wanted to see if anyone might have in inside if m$ is going to come out with an os that is completely new. XP was being hyped up to fit this bill but again it's just other os's updated and modified. I'm talkin' like how the transition from 3.1 to 95 was. Are we ever going to see something like this ever again? One other thing....does anyone else find it strange that when XP first came out it was so rock solid, uncrashable, with limited device driver availability. Then as all device drivers for "XP" came out and here come all the problems........kind of strange. Usually the other way around. :ermm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_notm Posted December 24, 2001 Share Posted December 24, 2001 blackcomb is supposed to be "truly new". we just have to wait 5 years to find out if it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurting101 Posted December 24, 2001 Share Posted December 24, 2001 Why would MS make a new OS if Windows is so successful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocity3k Posted December 24, 2001 Share Posted December 24, 2001 5 years is a long time new Operating systems may come into play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prash Posted December 24, 2001 Share Posted December 24, 2001 it will be Windows .net v2 (Blackcomb) built on a 64 bit kernel. It will prolly be out on 2005! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malechai Veteran Posted December 24, 2001 Veteran Share Posted December 24, 2001 I'd almost argue that Windows 2000 was a completely new OS. They built it from the ground up, which is why it took so long to complete. I know its another OS in the NT line, but code wise, I thought it was redone from scratch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prash Posted December 24, 2001 Share Posted December 24, 2001 true and so will blackcomb, it will be 64 bit! :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM5K Posted December 24, 2001 Share Posted December 24, 2001 Joe Obviously thinks that if the UI is similar to another os, then it's not a "new os". Joe I hope you are enjoying your AOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre Posted December 24, 2001 Share Posted December 24, 2001 yes, windows blackcomb (.NET) will be entirely written from scratch, and it will probably be the biggest technology jump since 3.1->9x. it's supposed to be built on a brand new SQL filesystem and be able to run applications like microsoft office from an internet stream(!). we've seen some blurry video grabs from the blackcomb user interface, and as you can see, things are going to change RADICALLY. yes, soon we will have to SUBSCRIBE to some software, but then again, i don't bother ... i'll be able to afford subscriptions by then. bad luck for the warez community, i suppose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siu Sai Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 i know this is gonna be a stupid question, but i have to ask anyway, i know windowsxp is 32bit , n the new blackcom will be 64bit, what is the different between 32 n 64 what different will that 32bit makes, will thing run faster or what??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[f] Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 you would think..(theoretically), 64bit OSs (running of course on a 64 or 128bit CPU) would process (run and execute)at least twice as fast. but thats obviously in an ideal world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperJediMedia Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 Windows XP is a VERY HUGE Upgrade, believe it or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicfume Veteran Posted December 25, 2001 Veteran Share Posted December 25, 2001 IMO it will be Blackcomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeKuz Posted December 25, 2001 Author Share Posted December 25, 2001 I think there are some misunderstandings. First...no I don't use Aol and I know XP was a huge project and upgrade. I used the 3.1 to 95 as an example. Since win95 m$ has used pretty much the same structure. The interface has been similiar, file groupings, behaviour etc. When 95 was released most didn't even know what to do because it was so different. I wanted to see if there was going to be a os in the future that will have this kind of drastic change. Completely knew structure, interface, behaviour, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 Windows 2000 was based on NT4. Only thing rewritten was NTOSKRNL.EXE. Blackcomb will be written from scratch. It'll be backwards compatible to Win2K/XP with a Windows-on-Windows layer like Win2K/XP run Win3.1 programs atm. At least people speculate that. It's time that MS starts from ground up, because you can't use a 7-8 year old kernel for new technologies anymore. (NT3.1 = 1993). And the SQL based filesystem is something I can't await. SQL Server itself is already ****ing fast, so if it runs natively instead of running on NTFS, it must rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YahoKa Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 We need completely new hardware before we get a completely new OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 Originally posted by YahoKa We need completely new hardware before we get a completely new OS. of course, if the 64-bit-blackcomb speculations are true, it will only run on 64-bit-processors, which are nowadays only used on server or (graphical) workstation systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8tImER Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 can't use a 7-8 year old kernel for new technologies anymore. (NT3.1 = 1993). Errr.... NT didn't start with 3.1 :D Actually M$ didn't even 'invent' that one.... they 'stole' it from IBM ;) NT was to be OS/2 but M$ decided to do their own ****, so they created NT around the technology of the OS/2-Kernel... IBM created OS/2 but didn't support it correctly, didn't advertise for it, etc. (We all know that saaaaaad story... *sigh* OS/2 was so much better... :) /me has even got 2 servers running on OS/2 4.51 - SuperStable :cool: ) blargh :D I wanna see a desktop-able *nix not only freaks can use ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperJediMedia Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 To tell you the truth. I am very looking forward to a 'Completely' NEW OS, but Windows XP satisfy me... with the help of 3rd party utilities. Windows CAN look anything you want it to http://jediangel22.tripod.com/WindowsXP/newdesktop.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted December 26, 2001 Veteran Share Posted December 26, 2001 Originally posted by 8tImER Errr.... NT didn't start with 3.1 :D Actually M$ didn't even 'invent' that one.... they 'stole' it from IBM ;) NT was to be OS/2 but M$ decided to do their own ****, so they created NT around the technology of the OS/2-Kernel... IBM created OS/2 but didn't support it correctly, didn't advertise for it, etc. (We all know that saaaaaad story... *sigh* OS/2 was so much better... :) /me has even got 2 servers running on OS/2 4.51 - SuperStable :cool: ) blargh :D I wanna see a desktop-able *nix not only freaks can use ;) emm, the very fist NT version was 3.1 :roll: then 3.51, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11212 Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 Microsoft will make a new os soon enough They will call it Microsoft Bindows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h71y6 Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 ******************************************** Siu Sai i know this is gonna be a stupid question, but i have to ask anyway, i know windowsxp is 32bit , n the new blackcom will be 64bit, what is the different between 32 n 64 what different will that 32bit makes, will thing run faster or what??? ********************************************* To get a better idea of 32/64 bits, just pick a large number of your head, to the order of at least 2. Then divide by 32 or 64. Which result is less? Less is better. If you want to send say a page of words the size of what you thought of in your head, in bits, that's how many times you have to send to get the whole page through. So therefore less number of times is better and faster assuming that it takes the same amount of time to do a 32-bit or 64-bit transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaBa420 Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 Hey all, I found this microsoft research team clip that astonished me. The URL was @ BetaONE.Net. Also, if you look for a program called Win3d, it will give you a pretty good idea of how the next real NEW windows shall be...at least from the standpoint of the MS research clip. BTW - Merry Christmas PEACE BaBa :dead: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodamofo7 Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 it's never gonna change radically... think about usability issues man, not too many companies are gonna pay to re-train their employees to use a completely different os, that's why the interface's been the same for a while... the technology behind it is gonna change though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 Eventually the GUI will change for the better, even if it is a drastic change. Blackcomb will probably have these changes. I also think that the changes in Windows XP are part of a trend that will play a big role in the interface in Blackcomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts