Not Everyone Will See Longhorn In Its Full Glory [Archive]

Jason Dunn

05-11-2004, 12:00 AM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5207576.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5207576.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news</a><br /><br /></div>"The next version of Windows will sport some fancy, three-dimensional graphics, but for those with an older video card, Longhorn will look a lot like Windows 2000. That's because with Longhorn, Microsoft plans to offer three different graphical interfaces, each requiring a different level of graphics card.<br /><br />...The top-of-the-line interface, code-named "Aero Glass," will have transparency and other advanced three-dimensional shading features but will demand a high-end video card with at least 64MB of video memory. The midlevel "Aero" interface will offer most of the improved graphics abilities and will require just 32MB of video memory. Both Aero and Aero Glass will also require DirectX 9.0 support, AGP 4X for external graphics cards and a Longhorn graphics driver."<br /><br />Personally, I'll for this - I'd love to be able to take advantage of the powerful 3D card I have in my computer for something other than just playing games. Giving Windows users an enhanced GUI experience if they have the hardware to make it work is a fantastic idea, and the concept of scaling back the GUI for users of less capable machines means no one is left out of using the OS.

Lee Yuan Sheng

05-11-2004, 12:48 AM

Waste of time to me. Give me a decent OS, not a pretty one.

SassKwatch

05-11-2004, 12:56 AM

Personally, I'll for this - I'd love to be able to take advantage of the powerful 3D card I have in my computer for something other than just playing games. Giving Windows users an enhanced GUI experience if they have the hardware to make it work is a fantastic idea, and the concept of scaling back the GUI for users of less capable machines means no one is left out of using the OS.
Conceptually, I like the idea as well. But the cynical side of me is screaming.....'Marketing Ploy! How much ya wanna bet there will be 3 diff price levels?!?!?'

James Fee

05-11-2004, 01:01 AM

Waste of time to me. Give me a decent OS, not a pretty one.
Totally agree. The faster computers get, the more bloated the software gets. Why should I need a 256meg video card for my OS? :roll:

Suhit Gupta

05-11-2004, 01:30 AM

Waste of time to me. Give me a decent OS, not a pretty one.
Totally agree. The faster computers get, the more bloated the software gets. Why should I need a 256meg video card for my OS? :roll:
I don't think they are concentrating on video memory alone, though I am sure they will want to do all texture computations, etc on the video card. They will probably also be leveraging several of the DirectX 9 features which is typically available only in the latest cards, and most of the latest cards are only 64MB and up.

Suhit

Jason Dunn

05-11-2004, 01:44 AM

Waste of time to me. Give me a decent OS, not a pretty one.

So design aestheics mean nothing to you? You've never changed your desktop wallpaper, changed the default Windows XP window colour, etc? Some people haven't, and thus things like this won't matter to them, but I applaud Microsoft for pursuing a better WORKING and LOOKING operating system - I want both!

James Fee

05-11-2004, 01:52 AM

I want both!
At what cost? I do understand you point about wanting a pretty OS, but at some point I'd rather see the effort put into security and the file system and not wallpaper or screensavers. :?

Jason Dunn

05-11-2004, 01:56 AM

Totally agree. The faster computers get, the more bloated the software gets. Why should I need a 256meg video card for my OS? :roll:

<sigh>

Why is it that new features = bloat? I get so sick and tired of people whining about all the "bloat" in Windows XP, and this is usually coming from people that are using Windows 2000. I had a friend like that, and he just would NOT believe me that Windows XP wasn't just a "pretty shell" until he got a laptop with XP and after a few months he apologized to me for hacking on XP so much - he really had no clue what it had to offer until he started using it.

And you won't NEED a high-end video card for the OS - didn't you read the article? There will be three levels for the GUI, and I'm sure you'll be able to pick the one you want to use in the same way that you can configure Windows XP to look 97% like Windows 2000 today.

This is simply a matter of enhancing the user experience to better take advantage of the hardware acceleration that most of us have today. And two years from now even embedded GPUs will have some serious horsepower, so it will be hard to find a modern computer incapable of running the basic GUI.

It might be that you don't care about the GUI enhancements, but that doesn't mean they're useless for everyone.

Jason Dunn

05-11-2004, 01:57 AM

At what cost? I do understand you point about wanting a pretty OS, but at some point I'd rather see the effort put into security and the file system and not wallpaper or screensavers. :?

Have you read about SP2? If you have, how can you possibly say that Microsoft isn't putting huge resources into security? That's the main reason Longhorn is delayed! And as to the file system, WinFS is a huge step forward - did you read the article I linked to?

Suhit Gupta

05-11-2004, 02:53 AM

I agree with Jason here. It is cool that Microsoft is concentrating on the graphics/visual aspects of the OS, but it is certainly true that they are also concentrating on tightening up the network protocols, security, performance, etc. Their OS is so widely used and this is why they get criticized so much. Seriously, I just wish people would see the effort that they have put in.

Suhit

SassKwatch

05-11-2004, 03:39 AM

Why is it that new features = bloat? I get so sick and tired of people whining about all the "bloat" in Windows XP
Agreed. I feel no more cramped with XP running on my current machines (the desktop being > 4 yr old now) than I did with DOS 4.1 running on my first 386/20.

It would be interesting though to know a percentage comparison between the two....i.e., what % of hd space does XP consume on an 'avg' pc purchased today vs what DOS 4 (5?) consumed on a typical hd when that was the current OS. Though I think it's fairly certain XP would have the higher % of the two, I doubt the diff would be nearly as great as some would guess. And when the capabilities are compared, I'd also bet the diff would favor XP.......*WIDELY*.

SassKwatch

05-11-2004, 03:53 AM

how can you possibly say that Microsoft isn't putting huge resources into security?
I'm of mixed opinion on this one. I have little doubt MS *is* devoting significant resources to plugging reported exploits and just security in general. OTOH, it remains remarkably easy to Google yourself to some freely downloadable tools that will let one take complete control of a machine in very short order.

My biggest hope for Longhorn is some *dramatically* improved admin tools. Currently, some things can be controlled thru Control Panel, some can only be done via Reg edits, some need Policies, yada yada Yoda. There are simply *too* many potential points of entry that the devious can exploit......and too many places an admin person has to go to make it difficult for the devious to do their deeds. I've been charged with building some devices at work for which users need access to only one application.....and management wants them to have access to only that one app. That was a siginificantly more difficult task to accomplish than I had envisioned.

James Fee

05-11-2004, 05:36 AM

Why is it that new features = bloat? I get so sick and tired of people whining about all the "bloat" in Windows XP, and this is usually coming from people that are using Windows 2000. I had a friend like that, and he just would NOT believe me that Windows XP wasn't just a "pretty shell" until he got a laptop with XP and after a few months he apologized to me for hacking on XP so much - he really had no clue what it had to offer until he started using it.
I agree, I have no issues with WinXP. The fact that an OS is pretty doesn't mean that I don't like it (hence I use OS X). Bloat is features that no one uses. The fact that a window can zoom with a 3d effect doesn't mean anything to me. Adobe Photoshop takes long enough to load without zooming windows.
And you won't NEED a high-end video card for the OS - didn't you read the article?
You just sounded like my wife there. :oops:
There will be three levels for the GUI, and I'm sure you'll be able to pick the one you want to use in the same way that you can configure Windows XP to look 97% like Windows 2000 today.
I understand that, but lets think about this for just one minute. Will all the "GUI's" be loaded during install, or will it waste my HD space with huge icons and other "enhanced GUI" items that I will never use. If I can pick and choose how "cool" I want my OS to look, then I am fine with it.
This is simply a matter of enhancing the user experience to better take advantage of the hardware acceleration that most of us have today. And two years from now even embedded GPUs will have some serious horsepower, so it will be hard to find a modern computer incapable of running the basic GUI.
Maybe, I look at OS X and see how good a job they did with the eye candy. Doesn't get in the way, yet enhances the look and feel. If MS can duplicate that on the Wintel side then I'm all for it. If it makes my life difficult as I wait for a menu to "slide out", then its bloat.
It might be that you don't care about the GUI enhancements, but that doesn't mean they're useless for everyone.Didn't say they were useless, I just would rather see the effort put into a feature I really want, like WinFS (http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/understanding/pillars/WinFS/default.aspx). I'm sure the fact that WinFS isn't truly going to make the build isn't related to the fact that icons are in millions of colors, but it does show where the priorities are.

James Fee

05-11-2004, 05:41 AM

Have you read about SP2? If you have, how can you possibly say that Microsoft isn't putting huge resources into security? That's the main reason Longhorn is delayed! And as to the file system, WinFS is a huge step forward - did you read the article I linked to?
I did read it, but it doesn't mean I don't pull my information for sources other than your article. WinFS isn't going to be totally integrated into Longhorn. Yes its there, but not in the format that I and others wanted. You assume there will be no new "issues" with security and windows between now and then. Yes Microsoft is finally making WinXP secure, but its taken how long? I don't for a second assume that even if they spent years working on the OS, that they would stop worms and virus writers from working their "magic", but this need to push an OS in directions not needed really opens the OS to attacks. Why should a VScript file be able to take over my computer, why should every time I open Outlook, I cringe and look at my virus scanner just to make sure I'm up to date? Its these "great ideas" that seem smart at the time, that always bite Microsoft in the ass.

James Fee

05-11-2004, 05:52 AM

Seriously, I just wish people would see the effort that they have put in.
I'm lucky enough to have an MSDN Universal subscription at work so I've seen it. I've read all about it. Heck, I'm getting ready to program in it.

All that doesn't make this worth the effort. As I've said, I love the look of OS X, but that GUI runs on every Mac (current). I don't have to worry about who sees what. When I program with Longhorn, will I have to create multiple versions of my "forms"? Do I need to hire a graphics artist to make sure my icons and menus work well with DirectX?

Again, this all begs the question why? Let me grab my tin foil hat and say this all has to do with Microsoft and their ability to control the market. The effort that Microsoft has spent on us programmers to get on board with Longhorn has been impressive, but why do they care about me? Other than my Visual Studio.NET license, probably not much. Do they care about Adobe? Sure, as long as they continue to pertend Windows is more important to them than Mac. After that, then what? Will Adobe have to rewrite their apps to work with Longhorn (or at least look good in it?). What kind of priority does that have for Adobe? I'd say very low, but if their product doesn't work with Longhorn, they'll pay the price in losing marketshare. I went though the whole Mac OS9 to Mac OS X fiasco and I'm not excited in doing it again. Sure, programs will run without the new features, but I never bothered to run Quark when Adobe came out with InDesign for OS X and now that Quark finally released an OS X version, I'm not going back. I doubt I could leave Photoshop for another program, but I'm not everyone. If software doesn't work, nor look good on peoples new Dell or Compaq computers, they won't buy it.

The fact that I need to rewrite programs to take advantage of these new features, which add little value to the everyday use of an OS, smells of bloat to me.

Suhit Gupta

05-11-2004, 06:29 AM

I'm lucky enough to have an MSDN Universal subscription at work so I've seen it. I've read all about it. Heck, I'm getting ready to program in it.
Ditto, and I agree.

Suhit

Steve

05-11-2004, 07:50 AM

I have a feeling that for programmers, they won't have a problem with their final products on the visual side of things. I'm sure all the new GUI will effect is what it effects now; hardly anything. So what if the top bar on your application is see through? It will probably still be the same height and your text titles will maybe be converted to 3d text or something but ultimately it will have similar dimensions and so on. I'm sure Microsoft isn't going to force some bogus new programming procedure on you that requires you to write three versions of your code. Maybe you can write more if you want, but I am sure that all the new gui will effect is colors of the desktop, if certain things will be see through and stuff, and whatever else. Everyhting within a program will be left alone, except for radio buttons or check boxes. And even then, I'm sure they won't interfere depending on the gui scheme applied to the OS

Am I on the wrong track entirely, or am I making a point? At any rate, I think this is excellent and I am glad for more graphical innovation. I love it, it's inspiring when working.

On the topic of security... What is there to complain about? Anything that is not secure about windows, BECOMES secure within a week or two when the problem is uncovered. Maybe that's not always true... But I don't see any problems. Even if I had a fatal crash for my computer due to poor security, I would just be glad I backed up my work regularly and had the ability to reformat, go back online, and patch up the problem.

I am pretty happy with windows. (And linux and os ten, but mostly os ten)

Jason Dunn

05-11-2004, 03:26 PM

I understand that, but lets think about this for just one minute. Will all the "GUI's" be loaded during install, or will it waste my HD space with huge icons and other "enhanced GUI" items that I will never use. If I can pick and choose how "cool" I want my OS to look, then I am fine with it.

This statement makes no sense to me coming from someone who uses OS X. This is Microsoft's effort to catch up with, and surpass, OS X in that area. Do you complain about all the "bloat" in OS X taking up your hard drive with huge icons? I sense a double standard here...why is it ok for OS X to have "eye candy" but it's not ok for Longhorn to do the same thing?

Maybe, I look at OS X and see how good a job they did with the eye candy. Doesn't get in the way, yet enhances the look and feel. If MS can duplicate that on the Wintel side then I'm all for it. If it makes my life difficult as I wait for a menu to "slide out", then its bloat.

Ok, fair enough. So why are you claiming it's bloat before actually seeing it? The Avalon interface will be based on DirectX technologies, so I have no doubt it will be quite snappy. The Media Center interface is based on DirectX as well, and it's quite smooth and snappy. I've seen OS X on low-powered Macs, and it was very slow. Don't pretend that any Mac on the planet can run OS X as fast as any other - heavy GUIs require decent hardware. Macs don't have magical pixie dust that allow them to transcend the limitations of hardware. I've seen some old Macs upgraded with newer OS', and they technically run it, but painfully slowly. I can, and have, loaded Windows XP on 400 mhz computers, and it runs, but slowly. Bragging about either one seems pointless to me.

I'm sure the fact that WinFS isn't truly going to make the build isn't related to the fact that icons are in millions of colors, but it does show where the priorities are.

Do you realize that the majority of Microsoft is working on Longhorn, or they were before SP2 became the focus, but once they've finished that they're going back onto Longhorn? Unless you work for Microsoft, I think it's unfair of you to talk about their priorities - neither you nor I have a clue about the inner workings of their teams or resources. And think about this from a marketing perspective - if you've hit resource limitations and can't do all the features you want to do, you'll want to talk about the features that you CAN do. Pocket PC 2003 was a classic example of this - most of the changes were under the hood, which was boring for consumers, so Microsoft made a big deal about adding Jawbreaker and the Pictures application - small things that likely took almost no time to add in.

Jason Dunn

05-11-2004, 03:41 PM

You assume there will be no new "issues" with security and windows between now and then. Yes Microsoft is finally making WinXP secure, but its taken how long? I don't for a second assume that even if they spent years working on the OS, that they would stop worms and virus writers from working their "magic", but this need to push an OS in directions not needed really opens the OS to attacks.

Where do you think all those automated features that are so vulnerable to attack come from? If Microsoft wanted to, I'm certain they could lock down Windows and Office and prevent anything from happening without the users knowledge...but I'm willing to bet that most of those features came at the requests of customers. Developers want APIs that they can hook into for automation. Customers want to program simple VB apps in Office, and they don't want the user to have to turn on VB support manually.

It's a catch 22 - Microsoft is trying to find the balance between offering enough automation to make customers happy, but not so much that is exposes them to security risks (which is what we've seen for the past few years).

When you're the big dog on the street, everyone wants a piece of you - you can be completely assured that if 90% of the people on the planet were using OS X, virus writers would attack it just as much, and there would be just as many problems. Every OS can be compromised - it was a big eye-opener for me to be on the RedHat Linux support listserv and see all the bulletins about vulnerabilities and patches that we needed to put on our server. The security of Linux is a fable - every OS, if not secured properly, can be compromised.

Jason Dunn

05-11-2004, 03:45 PM

The fact that I need to rewrite programs to take advantage of these new features, which add little value to the everyday use of an OS, smells of bloat to me.

You're a developer, and I'm not, so I'll have to take your word for it then. I'm very, very surprised though that you're saying you need to re-write your application because of a DirectX GUI. I had assumed Microsoft was just changing the rendering of the windows and such, and that the Avalong GUI would be controlled by the OS, not the application.

Microsoft's manta is always "don't break the platform", so the apparent fact that no software will run on Longhorn unless it's written specifically for Longhorn's GUI seems shocking to me. You're absolutely sure about that?

The Yaz

05-11-2004, 03:49 PM

I think the biggest problem Longhorn will incur from the public accepting it will not be security issues but how comfortable the GUI will be right off the bat. When I have friends ask me to help them shop for a new computer, we invariably run into a sales clerk who is quick to point out "Don't worry about the screen, you can go into setup and make it look like win 98/2000.".

Come on people, the whole point of the GUI was to improve the computer experience. Yes, it does take some getting used to, but the goal is to make you accomplish what you want in a better way.

If Microsoft really wants Longhorn to take hold quickly, it should expend some energy educating the resellers about the advances and why it was done this way. Otherwise, there will be no momentum for the general public to embrace it.

Steve 8)

James Fee

05-11-2004, 05:01 PM

James Fee

05-11-2004, 05:05 PM

Don't pretend that any Mac on the planet can run OS X as fast as any other - heavy GUIs require decent hardware. Macs don't have magical pixie dust that allow them to transcend the limitations of hardware. I've seen some old Macs upgraded with newer OS', and they technically run it, but painfully slowly. I can, and have, loaded Windows XP on 400 mhz computers, and it runs, but slowly. Bragging about either one seems pointless to me.
That is acutally my point. Its not just the processor but the memory and video cards that need upgrading for OS X. I had to go out and buy a new computer for OS X and I may have to do the same to take advantage of Longhorn. The pain I went through with OS X is something I don't want to go though with Longhorn, I almost walked away from Mac OS over it.

Jason Dunn

05-11-2004, 07:26 PM

That is acutally my point. Its not just the processor but the memory and video cards that need upgrading for OS X. I had to go out and buy a new computer for OS X and I may have to do the same to take advantage of Longhorn. The pain I went through with OS X is something I don't want to go though with Longhorn, I almost walked away from Mac OS over it.

Well, with Longhorn not coming out until 2006, you have plenty of time to save up for one. :D Really though, a modern day PC capable of running XP will run Longhorn just fine - but if you want the GUI candy, a decent GPU will be required. But, again, two years from now even the most bottom-end GPUs will be DirectX 9-capable...so this seems much ado abotu nothing to me.

Crocuta

05-12-2004, 06:26 PM

Microsoft's manta is always "don't break the platform", so the apparent fact that no software will run on Longhorn unless it's written specifically for Longhorn's GUI seems shocking to me. You're absolutely sure about that?
This is correct, but from what I've read to take advantage of the new GUI to its fullest, you'll have to rewrite the interface. Yes exisitng apps will run without any effort, but to me that is like running OS 9 app on top of OS X. You'll be wishing for nice 'eye candy'.

I just don't get the complaint. All the things you're saying are true, but so what? This is just the way it is as a platform continues to develop. If you were saying that old applications won't run on Longhorn, then we'd have something to complain about, but all you're saying is that this new GUI will be so much better than the old that you'll become dissatisfied with the old. If that's the case, then how is that a bad thing? That means the user is having a better experience on the new GUI or s/he wouldn't want the applications updated. If the new interface on this major an OS upgrade doesn't make me want to update my software to take advantage of it, then I'll consider the new OS a failure.

And as a developer, I'd think that would be a good thing for you. Sure you have to adapt your programs, but you have to continue improving your programs anyway. Lots of people sit on their old versions of software, skipping upgrades when the issue is new features alone, but everyone upgrades when it requires a new version to take full advantage of a new OS. Developers should see this as a potential fattening of their wallets, not as some conspiracy to make their lives difficult.

Also, I think you're overlooking the potential for a new interface to be genuinely more productive for the user. If you go back and look at how hard it was to get anything done using the Win3 interface compared to the XP interface, I think you'd have to agree that many features of the newer GUI are not just pretty, but genuinely useful. Who's to say that this won't be the case with Longhorn? In fact, that picture in the next front page item with several windows turned partly sideways in a 3D way, immediately got me thinking how useful that would be. I'm working on something right now that has me going back and forth between 8 - 10 windows and I'm constantly losing the one I need behind others. I don't know for sure if I'm interpreting that picture correctly, but if I could add the third dimension visually to my desktop and turn the entire set along that z axis, it would be a great help in moving around from window to window. That's worth something to me.

James Fee

05-12-2004, 07:01 PM

That is all fine, but how is the average user experience improved with 3D windows? :?:

Suhit Gupta

05-12-2004, 10:27 PM

That is all fine, but how is the average user experience improved with 3D windows? :?:
Oh c'mon, 3D is cool dude :lol:. It does give the illusion of more desktop space.

Suhit

dean_shan

05-13-2004, 05:47 AM

That is all fine, but how is the average user experience improved with 3D windows? :?:

How much of the average user experence improved by having the nasty exploding dock in OSX? If you don't want an exploding dock you turn it off. If you don't want 3D windows you turn it off.

James Fee

05-13-2004, 04:45 PM

Suhit Gupta

05-13-2004, 05:55 PM

How much of the average user experence improved by having the nasty exploding dock in OSX? If you don't want an exploding dock you turn it off. If you don't want 3D windows you turn it off.
Right, but now we have to program for both those who want the cool effects and those who want the "Win9x" experience. Either make it manditory or don't do it at all.
I don't agree with that at all. Some people are quite flexible and can change their interactivity style when a new OS UI is released but most people get set in their ways, and I don't think Microsoft should alienate those users. Of course, this should be done within reason, unlike Intel's long standing strategy with the ISA. But I definitely think it is worth having the old theme as well as the new 3D looks.

Suhit