The Road to Windows "Longhorn": Part Two

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_preview_2003.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.winsupersite.com/showcas...review_2003.asp</a><br /><br /></div>This is a very long, and very comprehensive look at Longhorn thus far. The reason why this is so interesting to me is that Microsoft is finally replacing the GDI-based graphics system with one built on top of DirectX. You have to go read Paul's article to understand how far-reaching this change is, and even then I don't think most people will really grasp it. By moving to the model they are, Microsoft is finally creating a system whereby the graphics are resolution-independent units, not pixels. Let me restate that: NO PIXELS. This is a seriously big deal. <br /><br />I believe this graphics subsystem change will trickle down to the Pocket PC eventually, but of course it will take a few years until the hardware is powerful enough to handle it. 2005 is a long time to wait, but from all appearances, Longhorn is the revolutionary OS I've been waiting for Microsoft to build, because it focuses more on the high end, modern computers than trying to stay friendly with Pentium II computers from 1998. Jettison the past and rocket into the future! Wheee! :mrgreen:

[Reinaldo]

Now I am confused. Paul's previous article showed that Paul installed Longhorn but with this new technollogy, will it be upgradable? I am guessing if it is, the PCs that can be upgraded must be today's state of the art.

I must say, though, it looks like at last Microsoft is going to do something equivalent to Windows 95.

Can barely wait, :mrgreen:

[Foo Fighter]

Microsoft has clearly leapfrogged Apple with this DirectX composition engine. It goes far beyond what is currently possible with Quartz. Of course, Mac users will still claim Microsoft is copying OSX. :twisted:

[Will T Smith]

Microsoft has clearly leapfrogged Apple with this DirectX composition engine. It goes far beyond what is currently possible with Quartz. Of course, Mac users will still claim Microsoft is copying OSX. :twisted:

It hasn't been released yet. Therefore they haven't leapfrogged Apple yet.

You have no idea whats going on inside of Apple R&D which is about as hush as Area51 testing.

[Foo Fighter]

It hasn't been released yet. Therefore they haven't leapfrogged Apple yet.

You have no idea whats going on inside of Apple R&D which is about as hush as Area51 testing.

True, but if Apple implements features of this scale, Mac users can't claim that Microsoft is copying OSX.

[Jason Dunn]

Now I am confused. Paul's previous article showed that Paul installed Longhorn but with this new technollogy, will it be upgradable? I am guessing if it is, the PCs that can be upgraded must be today's state of the art.

Correct. Bare minimum video card is 128 MB and DirectX 9.0 compatible, which is limited to the current top-tier video cards from nVidia and ATI. But in two years when this technology comes out, cards like that will be more or less commonplace.

[Will T Smith]

... By moving to the model they are, Microsoft is finally creating a system whereby the graphics are resolution-independent units, not pixels. Let me restate that: NO PIXELS. This is a seriously big deal.

I believe this graphics subsystem change will trickle down to the Pocket PC eventually, but of course it will take a few years until the hardware is powerful enough to handle it. 2005 is a long time to wait, but from all appearances, ...

From what I've read, many of the tier 1 features seem within the reach of current StrongARM devices containing 2D acceleration. Basically, vector based drawing of a single UI (PocketPCs don't show multiple desktop windows only one) could be handled by any video chipset ever made by Nvidia. This really is not an overly complex problem so much as it is a paradigm shift.

The problem of different sized screens weighs far more heavily on WinCE than it does desktops. Desktop windows are expected to be resized and stacked next to one another. WinCE apps are largely to completely occupy limited screen real estate.

The 640x480 screen in the Clie's is now very coveted amongst the PocketPC folk. However, introducing such a device causes development problems of maintaing core compatibility on two different screen sizes. An traditional app run on a 640x480 screen would obviously appear smaller, or it would require a translator to scale it up to size.

A simple vector based graphics engine (no transparency or freaky animations) would be just what the doctor ordered to allow optimal portability of apps across WinCE devices of various resolutions. It would also allow PocketPC to scale upward to 800x600 and possibly 1024x768 (data Pads, just like Cpt Picards) and maintain complete compatibility.

My guess is this will come FIRST to .net and .netCF, than to WinCE as Microsoft wants .net to become lingua franca in WinCE land.

[Foo Fighter]

The 640x480 screen in the Clie's is now very coveted amongst the PocketPC folk.

It's 320x480, not VGA.

[Jonathan1]

*sighs* Can someone tell me where Microsoft stands on Palidam (Or however the heck you spell it.) I'm not a fan of this draconian design. From what I understand (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Longhorn is going to need specific types of hardware that is compatible with Palidam to run the OS. Please tell me I’m wrong on this.
If this is the case I won't be going the longhorn route. I won't touch it. Recommend it. Speak of it. Or bother to spit on the media if I ever come in contact with it.

[Foo Fighter]

Well, no offense, but what choice do you have? You could stay with XP...but for how long? And it's not like you can dump Windows and go with Linux. Not if you want to run real applications.

[felixdd]

When XP and all that stuff about online registration came out, I was very ticked off by MS's new policies and decided to shun XP. Later I got immersed to and eventually got my own copy of Windows 2000 (bundled with my new desktop -- up to that point I was using 98). Gradually XP gained my acceptance and now I'm a XP convert -- it's just so darn easy to do what I want on this thing...everything seems to work more correctly on XP than it did on 2K (Terminal Service...ActiveSync over network...no more networking worries actually -- surprising).

I went off on a tangent a bit there, but my point is that in the long run Longhorn will gain the acceptance of the masses, just like XP is gradually seeping into more and more desktops. I find it funny, however, that a 128 mb video card is baseline for the new OS? True that eventually 128mb will be the de facto for video card size...but what will come first -- 128 being the basic necessity, or Longhorn becoming oudated? 64 mb is just becoming mainstream (there's still perfectly fine 32 mb video cards out there being bundled with desktops). 5 years ago 64 mb video cards were top of the line, much like today's 128 mb cards are.

Following the same timeline -- the question becomes whether Longhorn will still be innovative enough to be worthwhile -- 5 years into the future? XP sort of was innovative -- I still find it to be a bugfix of what Windows 98 should have been -- stable. Can Longhorn one-up XP 5 years down the road or just become a "XP-98"? ;)

[cmorris]

Now I am confused. Paul's previous article showed that Paul installed Longhorn but with this new technollogy, will it be upgradable? I am guessing if it is, the PCs that can be upgraded must be today's state of the art.

Correct. Bare minimum video card is 128 MB and DirectX 9.0 compatible, which is limited to the current top-tier video cards from nVidia and ATI. But in two years when this technology comes out, cards like that will be more or less commonplace.

Well actually to quote the article, the bare minimum will be 64MB which is more reasonable. 128MB will be required to get all the eye candy :mrgreen:

[cmorris]

*sighs* Can someone tell me where Microsoft stands on Palidam (Or however the heck you spell it.) I'm not a fan of this draconian design. From what I understand (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Longhorn is going to need specific types of hardware that is compatible with Palidam to run the OS. Please tell me I’m wrong on this.
If this is the case I won't be going the longhorn route. I won't touch it. Recommend it. Speak of it. Or bother to spit on the media if I ever come in contact with it.

*sigh* More misunderstood technology from Microsoft.

I would suggest checking out this page on Paul's site to learn more about Palladium. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/future_security.asp

It is completely optional but does take advantage of special hardware if you choose to use it. Oh, and it is still being designed so there is no use getting worked up about it! :D

[dMores]

i guess we'll be able to ditch the mouse and "navigate" our operating system with a joystick.

and a 3d sound card would be cool too, so you can hear where the internet explorer window will swoosh in from

:)

i like it. can't wait for longhorn!

[sponge]

I'm GOING to get worked up about it, because although Palladium may be optional, you may be restricted in what you can do without it.

As for "And it's not like you can dump Windows and go with Linux. Not if you want to use real applications." that is a complete and utter lie. I wouldn't call Open/Star Office not real applications.. in some cases they're more powerful than Office. It's FUD like this that gives Linux the problems it has. Back when I had Mandrake Linux on my 233, I'd boot up into it whenever I needed to get work done.

[jmarkevich]

Well, no offense, but what choice do you have? You could stay with XP...but for how long? And it's not like you can dump Windows and go with Linux. Not if you want to run real applications.

You forgot the required smiley for a post like that.

What are "real applications"?? I have dual boot on this machine, and honestly, sometimes I have to especially look in the bottom-left corner to remember what OS I'm running.

I LOVE mozilla, so obviously I install it in both platforms. OpenOffice is good enough for me (and more stable than most), same story. Mail -- oh Mozilla again,

Unless you're talking about ActiveSync... well that won't run, but calling that a "real application" is where the smileys come in: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Jason Dunn]

A simple vector based graphics engine (no transparency or freaky animations) would be just what the doctor ordered to allow optimal portability of apps across WinCE devices of various resolutions. It would also allow PocketPC to scale upward to 800x600 and possibly 1024x768 (data Pads, just like Cpt Picards) and maintain complete compatibility.

Indeed, you are correct - the basic functions of pixel-free displays with resolution independent scaling are within reach of today's hardware...but you're forgetting about the software. DirectX still hasn't been ported to the Pocket PC for size reasons, so I have my doubts we'll see anyting like this until ROM sizes get much better and they can shoehorn DirectX in there (or at least the pieces we'd need for this).

[Jonathan1]

Well, no offense, but what choice do you have? You could stay with XP...but for how long? And it's not like you can dump Windows and go with Linux. Not if you want to run real applications.

What apps are you speaking of? I already run Office 2K on my Mandrake system. It’s also running IE 5.0. I don't care about media player, don't care about movie maker. I can make PDF files on Linux and watch DIVX movies, play MP3\OGG files. Games wise Linux is starting to get more support from game developers and there is also the fact that most developers make games to be pretty backwards compatible with Windows until you start talking ridiculously out of date OS’s like Win95. XP has been out what? 2 years now and AFAIK there isn't a single game that REQUIRES XP. Heck there are very few apps in general that require XP.

Honestly the only company that makes an OS obsolete by making their software incompatible with older OS's is Microsoft. It’s the whole too many hands in the cookie jar thing again but that's another discussion. My point being? Mainly that with 2K\XP my need to upgrade to MS's latest and greatest isn't all that important. As long as I can still use 2K and XP as a legacy system I'm happy. I'd rather not but if push comes to shove (Guess who’d be doing the pushing?) there are FINALLY alternatives to Windows. Maybe not as refined but alternatives are there.

Also if I really wanted to get a high degree of compatibility I could go with OSX that has the best of all worlds. Unix\XWindows compatibility. The ability to run Windows on da Mac (Third party software.), and all the programs that run on the Mac to begin with. (Is it true that MS Office on the Mac runs better and faster then on Windows?!?!)
I may go that route anyways depending on how well, and fast for that matter, the 64-bit version of X and PPC970 runs. We’ll see. *shrugs* I have a love hate thing going with MS. I don't outright hate them like some but I'm not opposed to moving to something else.
Longhorn sound interesting but I’ll reserve final judgment until its released.

[shindullin]

I think that some of the animus against Microsoft is undeserved... yes, they're bullies and yes they're the 10k gorrilla in the room but they're just like any other company in that they try to make good products and make lots of money. Sometimes, they make junky products and still make lots of money bc they're so big but they're hardly Standard Oil, buying off politicians and Supreme Court Justices to bend the public to it's will. A big company that sometimes breaks the china because of it's size, absolutely. An evil company? Definitely not compared to the real actions of some of our corporate community. Last time I checked it was Shell that hiring people to kill the locals in Nigeria, not Microsoft.

[Foo Fighter]

By "real", I'm talking about commercial applications. Adobe..Macromedia...Sonic Foundry...and so on. And I'm sorry but running native Win32 applications in emulation does not count. I can do that on my iMac but that doesn't mean I can claim Windows-only applications run on Macintosh.

There is a lot to like about Linux (and I believe it will one day supplant Windows in the long term), but it just isn't a credible desktop client yet....and I USE Linux on my system (dual boot WinXP Home + RedHat 9.0).

[jmarkevich]

Well, no offense, but what choice do you have? You could stay with XP...but for how long? And it's not like you can dump Windows and go with Linux. Not if you want to run real applications.

...on my Mandrake system. It’s also running IE 5.0.

For mercy's sake, why?!?

You have to compare, say, Mozilla vs IE on an advanced standards-compliant page. Try www.meyerweb.com especially his "css/edge" section.

6.0, I can see, if you REALLY HAVE TO. But 5.0?!