Longhorn Screenshots

1. Longhorn Screenshots

   #1

   Longhorn Screenshots
   
   I'd thought they'd make more GUI changes

2. Longhorn Screenshots

   #2

   Actually they tend not to make GUI changes because it confuses low level uses. You know the ones... the ones where you are explaining that Icons are the little pictures of stuff, grandmothers getting on AOL, parents of most kids, people who use computers maybe once a week for a short time, etc. If the GUI is fairly consistant and changes slightly from each version, no matter how radical things change underneith, they will feel more comfortable using the new product. Mass acceptance is important to windows.
   
   And since you are supposed to be able to really customize the GUI and some of the interface elements, they can keep the defaults in the comfort zone and allow people with a preference to go with it.
   
   I personally have not liked the GUI changes from the last two releases. But that is me.

3. Longhorn Screenshots

   #3

   Windows is slowly dumbing down its system, and makeing meaningless advances, like the upgrade to 64-bit, WHO CARES; there arn't any aps now (worth noteing) that are 64-bit. Plus the updates to control panel just make it harder to find anything, I personally switch mine back to classic.

4. Longhorn Screenshots

   #4

   Thanks for posting those, Nos! I like the new look but it's not really the look that I am excited about.
   
   I disagree that the advanced that Microsoft are making are meaningless. Most applications aren't 64 because there aren't enough users with the capability. With the advent of 64bit/128bit computing, Windows has to provide the services first before software companies will make the move. It doesn't have to be that way but it makes sense from a modern computing standpoint. You can't lead the platform from the software.
   
   The backend of Longhorn is what I'm looking forward to and it's not dumbing down or a small advance. The XP/2000 file system is build upon NT technology - fine for the day it was created in and certainly better than the FAT32 dog that was implemented in Win 95/98. However, this sort of file system does not cater for a system that has huge amounts of very fast memory and a set of files that can be indexed in many different ways. That's why Longhorn is built on a next generation system: WinFS.
   
   Furthermore, the core of Windows XP/2000 is massive and mostly pointless. Backward compatibility was a requirement (understandably) without the need for emulation (a program running within a program). However, with the speeds of modern processors, you can get away with emulation. This allowed Microsoft to rewrite the core.
   
   Finally, Longhorn is built upon a firm foundation of .NET. For those non-programmers out there, it's a programming system with all the standardisation of Java with the flexibility of the 'Visual languages' and will allow much smoother, bug-free programs that won't eat memory at the drop of a hat.
   
   Only time will tell whether these advances are worthwhile but from my initial findings, I like to think they are.

5. Longhorn Screenshots

   #5

   As for WinFS: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/31/avalon_winfs_decoupled/

6. Longhorn Screenshots

   #6

   Hey, wait, we can't force people to upgrade if we make it available for current systems!

Citadel Tavern · All categories · Guildhall