Slashdot Log In
New MS Shell Will Not Be In Longhorn
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 10, 2005 04:45 PM
from the so-close dept.
from the so-close dept.
sootman writes "Remember that new Windows shell? Looks like it'll be yet another technology that won't make it into Longhorn. 'It will take three to five years to fully develop and deliver,' said Microsoft Senior Vice President Bob Muglia this week at Tech Ed 2005. However, it's not dead yet--despite not shipping in Longhorn in 2006 or Longhorn Server in 2007, the article says 'Exchange 12 administration functions will be built atop Monad, which would enable users to do everything from the command line that can be done from the graphical interface.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
New MS Shell Will Not Be In Longhorn
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 449 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Inquiring minds want to know! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
"It will take three to five years to fully develop and deliver," said Microsoft Senior Vice President Bob Muglia this week at Tech Ed 2005.
*Jaw hits the floor*
Five years? Whoa. Five years ago, Windows 2000 was brand new. Five years ago, Mac users were still stuck with OS 9. Five years ago, the tech boom was still on. Five years ago, Bill Clinton was still President. Even worse is that Win32 is only ten years old!
If it takes Microsoft five years to get something out the door, I think they will soon find themselves becoming irrelevant in the desktop market. Confidence can be a good thing, but over-confidence can mean disaster. The bright side to this is that users will win when Microsoft is forced to go back to being an applications vendor instead of an OS vendor. Maybe they'll even get around to making another BASIC that doesn't suck.
On a slightly different topic, I really think that Microsoft is really on the wrong track with their combined Desktop/Server codebase bent. As technology marches on, Microsoft will quickly find that their competitors are taking advantage of technological solutions that only make sense on one side of the fence. I have to wonder if some of the delay that we're seeing isn't caused by Microsoft attempting to make all of their technology work in both arenas.
Re:Inquiring minds want to know! (Score:4, Insightful)
None of these AppleScript features are unique or interesting, so please stop telling us about them. Maybe they were in 1994, but the world has moved on.
Also, AppleScript itself is the worst programming language ever invented. Please don't damage your brain by using it.
Re:Inquiring minds want to know! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm thinking WinME = Longhorn.
Re:Inquiring minds want to know! (Score:4, Informative)
Five years... food for thought (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.bigbrother.net/)
1) A good command line for Windows
2) A good GUI for Linux
I also have to wonder if Microsoft would be putting an ounce of effort into developing a command line if that wasn't something beneficial in Linux.
Re:Inquiring minds want to know! (Score:5, Informative)
The main reason why a shell for Windows 1) takes insanely long to develop 2) will suck anyway is that the whole system beneath it is completely rotten, non-elegant and a pain to use.
Take the 'ipv6' command for example, if you installed the IPv6 stack on XP. They use dash options (-p), where most of the "DOS" tools use slash options (which AFAIK are the reason they have backslashes instead of slashes in paths). The notion of an 'interface' with that ipv6 command is completely awkward. Since their real identifiers are nicely hidden away below the shiny Network control panel, you have to use 'ipv6 if' to retrieve an integer that corresponds to the desired interface.
Examples of the current CLI sucking are:
1) a tab-complete in the middle of the line destroys the rest of the line
2) why does 'cd..' without a space even work?
3) as in 2), a 'cd...' or 'cd....' works as well in that it returns no error, it just doesn't do anything!
4) 'UNC' paths (\\server\path) are 'not supported' as the current directory. However, they are supported as args for commands (all commands?).
These are examples that lead me to believe that there actually is no structure below the surface of Windows and the tools it offers. I believe that Microsoft developers look at something and go implement it in a quick and dirty way, without ever having a bigger design goal in mind and without ever changing something once it has been hacked into place.
What will? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What will be will be... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.linicks.net/)
The usual... trojans, worms, clippy...
Re:What will? (Score:5, Funny)
My understanding is that Longhorn is no longer in Longhorn.
Re:What will? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday April 22 2003, @12:52AM)
Split reality (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost redundant. You can already write scripts with WMI that will let you do MOST of the things in Exchange that you would want to do from the command line, and once it's in the script, it's at least semi-permanent.
Even in UNIX, I tend to write scripts when there's more than 5 commands (even if the commands are all piped together into a single command) - I may know it well enough not to see it later, but my assistant tends to find the scripts very useful for his learning and library.
Re:Where (Score:5, Informative)
OK...here's a quote from the BetaNews article referenced in the summary:
You know, if you would just RTFA, things would be a lot clearer...
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://someguy456.computed.net/ | Last Journal: Monday May 19 2003, @11:59AM)
"which would enable users to do everything from the command line that can be done from the graphical interface"
I'll belive it when I see it
Sure, see it here, now [gnu.org]
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not necessarily a bad thing that you can't configure everything from the command-line.
Yes, it is. *nix users have understood that for decades. And that's why the "Windows" response to a problem is to reinstall the OS.
This just in! (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft (TM) announced to day that it's new graphical user interface, code-named Avalon (TM) will not ship with Longhorn (TM), it's next operating system. However, Avalon with be an integral part of Windows 2010.
Chicken shits! I *knew* it! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft just doesn't have the Monads...
^_^
I for one, (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~Spy+der+Mann/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 15, @12:57AM)
Enough already! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's long since stopped being funny, and just makes stories on Slashdot annoying as hell to read as we scroll past your 8 pages of the same joke.
Remember, breveity is the essence of wit.
1st thought: Good that it is comming... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
2nd: The more time goes on, the more Windows takes on the features of unix.
3rd: Most every OS is some form of unix at this point except for Windows.
4th: Even Windows has a POSIX layer and unix-style command utilities for free as an add-on.
I'd put up even money now... (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.alexwilson.com/telltale/)
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
- shadowmatter
I'm just waiting for this headline: (Score:4, Funny)
What the hell is still in Longhorn?
Longhorn will offer precisely... what? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.blindmindseye.com/)
So many people went to Windows XP because even those who used Windows 2000 saw a lot of good benefits in it. Despite what some people may say, Windows XP can be a lot faster than Windows 2000 on things like disk I/O. I remember ripping a DVD under Win2k and then doing it again under WinXP when I got XP and seeing significant performance gains to the tune of going from about 4000kb/sec to about 7500-8000kb/sec under XP. Then there were other enhancements, but we all truthfully know that XP was a big jump for the average user of Windows.
But why should people who like XP leave it for Longhorn? Unless Microsoft follows Be's upgrade path for BeOS and charges only $25-$50 for XP upgrade CDs, why should people switch? What does it do for them that can't be done just as easily with XP and which isn't negated by more hardware needs?
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.creimer.ws/ | Last Journal: Friday January 26 2007, @12:40PM)
Monad the name? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.codebig.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 26 2004, @06:29PM)
So, it seems that, either the name is unrealated, and that would suck. Or, that somehow, this is related. *IF* it is realated, I'm not sure how adoption will go. Functional Programming can be a little odd.
Anyone know?
Why? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://stefans.datenbruch.de/)
Let's try making a list! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://wod.home.dyndns.org/)
Let me start with:
* RSOD (red screens of death)
* Dropping the prefix "My" from "My computer", "My network places", etc
Re:Let's try making a list! (Score:4, Informative)
Let me start with:
* RSOD (red screens of death)
* Dropping the prefix "My" from "My computer", "My network places", etc
I'll try my best:
* Avalon: a new user interface subsystem and API based on XML,
* Indigo: a service-oriented messaging system to allow programs to interoperate as part of the
* WinFX: a new API replacing the current Win32 API (there's of course still Win32 + Win64)
*
* WGF - Windows Graphic Foundations
* DirectX 10 which will further merge pixel and vertex shaders and introduce new technologies for 3D rendering.
* Lower user privileges (IE 7 will run in these on Longhorn)
* Included compiler (msbuild)
* New driver model and improved kernel/driver loading (drivers get "unloaded" in realtime if they become unstable) - also drivers get loaded quicker in the boot process so you can enjoy higher res/color depth while booting - also improved is boot speed and install time.
* New MS Installer
* New document format competitive to PDF
* An application deployment engine ("ClickOnce")
* Improvements in the ClearType font rendering technology + new system fonts
* New desktop search capabillities
* Improved security through lower privileged accounts and services
* Full support for the "NX" (No-Execute) feature of processors.
* New graphic user interface (Aero) using vector graphics for rendering.
That's everything I could come up and google within 10 minutes. Those are pretty much the biggest improvements that we know about. Then there are of course a lot of improvements on the device drivers, the way Windows handles drivers, wireless conectivity etc. The main code branch is built upon Windows Server 2003 SP1.
This is still 2 years away from release so I'm sure they can come up with more stuff. Hell, AFAIK Monad and WinFS will be available as free add-ons later on (SP probably).
It was bound to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
- Become the only operating system for desktops and servers.
- Become the only or most major game console and games provider.
- Become the most major search engine provider
- Become the only or most major embedded OS provider.
- Become the only offices productivity tools provider.
- Become the only or prevalent music download provider.
- Become the most major e-books provider.
- Become a major hardware provider for peripherals - keyboards and pointers.
- Become the most major progran development tool provider.
- Become the most major publishing tool provider.
- Become the most major browser provider.
- Become the most major media player provider.
- Become the most major media editor provider.
And this is just the list my poor tired old brain can come up with on short notice. I'm sure there's more. And all of it must be tied into the OS so he can claim "it's embedded and I can't get it removed with damaging my product".Gates is spreading his resources out to the breaking point to cover every blasted computing use on the planet and to smother all his competition. Just like a rubber band that's streached too far, it will snap and get ugly quickly when the end comes.
Why reinvent the wheel ? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.jollyboyscc.org.uk/)
In direct contrast to Apple (who had the sense to realise a good thing when they saw it by using *BSD as the basis of OSX) Microsofts new mission statement seems to be to prove the adage:
"Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly."
--Henry Spencer
(apologies if the quote is attributed to the wrong person but I'm drunk and simply Googled for the first result...)
And I'm not saying humanity can't do better than *nix but, currently, it's still a hell of a good start (mind you I've worked on ICLs, now Fujitsus, VME which is simply a pure pleasure... a pure pleasure... File generations... Mmmm... recover that file from 10 edits ago before you made a complete balls up of everything...)
The Emperor's New OS (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.lullabud.com/)
Let's summarize for a minute, shall we? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 16 2004, @11:34PM)
2. Microsoft takes, on average, 5 years plus between major revisions of their operating system.
3. Microsoft's next operating system will not have the cool whiz-bang features they promised us, in spite of its six year lead time.
4. Microsoft's Windows operating system does not come bundled with any useful applications. Their video editing application has a featureset close to zero, and MSPaint is simply unchanged since 1990, having not so much as a smudge tool. WordPad is a completely inferior word processor compared to ANY other currently available.
5. Microsoft's operating systems cost a minimum of 99 US dollars, double that for anything useful in a business or network.
In conclusion, Microsoft's "option" will cost you a yearly cost for a product that is improved minimally every five years, with a smaller feature set than you were promised, and you have to buy any applications separately if you'd like to do anything WITH your computer.
Oh, Microsoft stock? SIGN ME UP!
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)