Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Programming IT Technology

Longhorn Beta is Disappointing 1086

bonch writes "Well, Longhorn beta 5048 was released a day before the start of WinHEC 2005, suggestive of the fact that it is not terribly impressive. Paul Thurrott (a Windows writer whose previously reported review of Mac OS X Tiger was updated after user feedback) confirmed this today in day two of his blog from WinHEC. Microsoft needed something big to kill the hype of competitors, but screenshots show minor visual updates from the last beta, and to quote Thurrot: 'This has the makings of a train wreck.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Longhorn Beta is Disappointing

Comments Filter:
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:13PM (#12352523) Homepage Journal
    'This has the makings of a train wreck.'"

    What? How many killed and injured? An unfortunate choice of words, considering what happened in Japan. I think that's a bit colored anyway from someone who hates mornings and is undoubtably in a less than spritely mood.

    I thought the bit about "Longhorn will run fine on a 1GHz computer with 256 MB of RAM" being good (This is good news for today's PC users, some of whom are concerned that they won't have the PC muscle needed to run the next Windows.) rather disturbing. Sounds like the thing is going to be an absolute pig, like XP and 95 before it. (Remember when they said you could run 95 in 8MB? We found you realistically needed 24MB) Even though RAM is cheap, I'm not fond of loading 1GB into a box and then seeing about 1/3 of it taken up by stuff 'I may need and would be really neat if already loaded in memory so IE and other apps would appear to load quickly.' A bit like asking if someone has a pen knife and they hand you one of those swiss army knives with the works, when all you need is just a small sharp blade for 5 seconds (you spend 30 seconds trying to find the actal knife blade in the Victorinox monster.) A PC is a hole in your desktop into which you continually shovel money. With Longhorn you'd better get a bigger shovel

    Lovely screen shots. What about the operating system are they supposed to convey, other than it looks more annoying than even XP (I don't do icons in Explorer windows, I do Details.)

  • Beta (Score:2, Insightful)

    by McGiraf ( 196030 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:14PM (#12352531)
    Well it's still in beta, and a long way to release so a lot can change.
  • Pre beta review (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe U ( 443617 ) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:14PM (#12352534) Homepage Journal
    Wow, a pre-beta release that isn't feature complete has 'the makings a train wreck'.

    Give me a break, it's not even considered beta 1.

    It's like complaining about interior design of an unbuilt house.

    'OMG, I didn't want open walls and exposed wires! I wanted green wallpaper.'
  • ummmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:14PM (#12352543)
    backend first, frontend last - I wouldn't worry, they have a year or more.

    I've played with the 3DWM, it's fun.
  • Screenshots? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:15PM (#12352551) Homepage
    He's complaining that the screenshots aren't very different? I thought the point of Longhorn was primarily the changes within the OS internals.
    I could pop a Ferrari engine into a Pinto, and this guy would complain about the air freshener hanging from the mirror.

    --
    get a free laptop [coingo.net]
  • It was made very clear that the build for WinHec was soley provided as a platform to test driver compatability. MS still has a couple of months until it releases Beta 1.

    Please hold your flame till then.
  • Train wreck? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:17PM (#12352569) Homepage Journal
    As long as they don't totally fvck up what they already have, I can't see a train wreck.

    Windows ME. Now that was a train wreck.
  • Screenshots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FriedTurkey ( 761642 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:19PM (#12352578)
    I actually like the new look. It is 20 times better than the default XP theme. I have to switch every XP work machine to "Classic" because I hate the "Fisher-Price" coloring scheme of XP. Computers should look professional and not like "My First Computer".
  • Business as Usual (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:19PM (#12352589)
    We go through this same thing every year before Microsoft releases their next OS. Everyone gets all gloomy and doomy about how it's going to take too long, and all the features that get trimmed (cairo/winfs again), and the 632235 bugs still outstanding. A year from now all this will vanish and the hype will be unbearable. The press will be going nuts over the coming computer rapture. And then the same thing will happen as always when the OS is released. A few people will buy it and upgrade their computers. Most everyone else will simply get it from their OEMS when they buy a new computer, whether they want it or not.
  • Re:Pre beta review (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rodness ( 168429 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:20PM (#12352595)
    On the other hand, since they seem to have be pushing most of the important bits forward to release them for XP because of the delays in the Longhorn schedule, I'm just not at all surprised that their screenshots look like XP with a new coat of paint.

    I really don't know what else they can do that's going to be terrifically revolutionary other than under the hood improvements. And they're being very tight lipped about those (what a shock).

    I'm just glad that I heard somewhere (I think it was a cnet article in the last couple weeks) that they're going to improve the ability for laptops to be members of multiple domains. That's a big plus...

    But the graphical crap? Most people are going to disable it to try(!) to minimize the resources that windows sucks so that they might actually have cpu cycles for tasks instead of eye candy.
  • by __aaitqo8496 ( 231556 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:21PM (#12352607) Journal
    For once, I think Microsoft did things right by focusing on usability and not on pretty graphics to make geeks go "weeeeeee". Why is it that they can do no right? If it's too pretty, geeks complain. If it's not pretty enough, geeks complain. I would much prefer to have a solid bakend in alpha, and worry about the pretty stuff later. Do you pick the color of paint before the foundation of your house has been laid? If so, you might just have your priorityies misaligned.

    Furthermore, if you watch videos of the beta (which aare actuall of build 5060, no 5048), you will see Longhorn with the new effects enbaled, which is not the case by default on installation. I think it looks damn sexy and will give Mac OS X users a run for thier money.

    Do your homework before you post.
  • It's JUST an OS. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:22PM (#12352622) Homepage
    What's so exciting about an OS? Isn't it the apps that we really care about? As long as the OS is secure, doesn't crash, and runs what I want it to run well on the hardware I choose to run it on, isn't that what counts?

    (And tack on "and is open source" as well for the perhaps 3% of the world who really understands why that matters...?)
  • surprise.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:23PM (#12352634)
    Microsoft is one of the most profitable software companies of the world (the most?). Despite of having basically an ilimted amount of money to invest in technology, they've had to remove half of the features of longhorn (the latest one was a href="http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10 422">NGSCB).

    And even doing that, they've delayed it several times. They can hire the engineers they want, they can waste the money they want. Still, they aren't doing anything useful. The problem is, as always, the not-engineer people, who don't have idea of were Microsoft is going. The golden days of getting revenues by changing the document format in Office are gone. The days where being compatible was everything and people loved it are partially gone because internet allows to update things

    And because they don't have an idea of where microsoft is going, they invest in nearly every market they can: Servers, games, xbox, search engine, keyboards, mouses, data bases, programming languages. Microsoft is trying to fight with all the industry, and they can't win.
  • by j14ast ( 258285 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:24PM (#12352648) Journal
    yes.
    looks at apple. (see's the sexiness that is osx)
    looks at linux. (see's the shear glee of wobbly windows, and enlightenment)
    looks at 2k. (see's something that looks worse than os7, never mind x, and looks shlocky compared to any linux wm short of kde1)
    looks at xp and goes blind.
  • Re:Pre beta review (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe U ( 443617 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:24PM (#12352649) Homepage Journal
    I would be very suprised if the shell was a high priority in beta 1, especially when they are changing the graphics subsystem and parts of the file system.

    You can't go and toss up a new shell using new technology that hasn't been designed yet. Wait till RC1 to review.
  • by neyneyjung ( 704430 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:25PM (#12352650)
    Is it just me, or the folder from Start button giving me the middle finger?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:26PM (#12352671)
    Is to cram DRM down everybody's throat.

    DRM in the form of better license enforcement from MS.

    DRM in the form of WMP 11 which will attempt to lock away any trace of our ability to copy music and video to our PC and use it at will.

    DRM in the form of "trusted" computing which, not ironically, is exactly untrusted computing, since it turns your PC into a spy and snitch for MS.

    I'm not even a Mac fan, but my next PC will be a Mac. This is all too much. I guess its par for the course for "World Intellectual Property Day". A day set to remind us that "All your base are belong to us".

  • To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:29PM (#12352691)
    MS has been working on Longhorn even longer than they worked on Windows 95. So its appropriate to comment on the state of the beta after billions of dollars of work over a long period of time.

    After 4 years, if this is all they can show, then I'm buying stock in Apple, because if MS attempts to "lock down" digital "rights", then people will be sprinting towards the Mac platform just as fast as they can to get away from this abortion of an OS.
  • by Twillerror ( 536681 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:35PM (#12352736) Homepage Journal
    The slogan is very subject and so incomplete.

    John Smith calls Longhorn disappointing would have been better.

    Essentially slashdot turned a story that should have been called "New longhorn build/screenshots" into major flaimbait.

    I seriously think that Slashdot should allow their subscribers to "vote" on the new stories that most people don't see...or a subset..if to many people think it is bad it gets red flagged for Taco to stare at or something.

  • by pyite ( 140350 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:36PM (#12352741)
    Except Mac OS X is here now and has been better than XP for many incarnations. By the time Longhorn is out, Mac OS X will be even better. See the problem? When you try to outdo technology that was popular in year x-3 and don't release it until year x+3, you're six years behind. This is the same problem the Linux desktop has.
  • Re:sarcasm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bwy ( 726112 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:37PM (#12352743)
    Does anybody else immediately write another IT person off as a bumbling, stupid idiot if he runs the default Luna theme on his desktop? I honestly don't see how anybody can do any serious work with that theme on.
  • Re:"Train Wreck" (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:37PM (#12352744)
    This sounds pretty honest from an aledged Microsoft-shill.
    There's Slashbot thinking for you.
    honest=agrees with me and lying = disagrees with me
  • Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:38PM (#12352758)
    if MS attempts to "lock down" digital "rights", then people will be sprinting towards the Mac platform just as fast as they can

    Sure - sprinting to buy a whole new computer, new set of applications, new games, etc just so something that they don't understand or even know about isn't part of their OS.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:38PM (#12352761)
    "...you will see Longhorn with the new effects enbaled..."

    I use Windows XP and, well, I guess we're two different people, but I don't want any effects. As the matter of fact, the first thing I did when I installed XP for the first time was figure out how to turn all the effects off.

    I don't hate them... I simply want to get work done and really don't need eye candy to do so. Sure, I could use Windows 2000, but there are some things about XP that I do like.
  • by NatteringNabob ( 829042 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:38PM (#12352765)
    I haven't been able to look at the screenshots as the site appears to be slashdoted, but I find it impossible to believe that any UI could be uglier than XP. My major complaint with XP isn't really the look though, it is the incredible amount of screen space it wastes in favor of eye candy. The first thing I do with an XP machine is set it back to Win95 mode and pick the classic skin for media player (which is truly an abomination with the default skin). Of course, these days I hardly run Windows at all since Fedora Core 3 does everything that I need a computer to do, and does it better and for less money than any version of Windows. I doubt Longhorn will be a train wreck as there are millions of people that will upgrade no matter how good or bad it is, and Microsoft will spend billions persuading them it is the best thing to do. It is amazing that people never catch on to the old wine in a new bottle trick. Of course, in the case of Windows, we aren't just talking about any old wine, we talking about vintage 30 year old Gallo Hearty Burgundy.
  • Re:sarcasm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) <<su.enotsleetseltsac> <ta> <todhsals>> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:39PM (#12352779) Homepage Journal
    By, oh, ignoring the theme and focusing on the work?

    If you judge someone by their theme, then you really shouldn't be in IT.
  • by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:40PM (#12352793) Homepage Journal
    God..Why can't - after 2000, XP and 3 years in development - the HORRID ancient bitmap artwork for "Control Panel" icon, etc. go away!

    This is exactly the lack of focus on essential detail that will make LH a sad, second-level retread of W2K for users. Yeah, it's got an improved driver and development model. Yeah, web services are integrated throughout. It drives like a tank.

    UI is artless and amature. Better work is seen on DeviantArt.com

  • Re:Pre beta review (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:42PM (#12352809) Homepage
    As someone who runs Linux "development" versions (currently using FC4T2) and even runs unfinished software downloaded CVS at times, all I can say is, "I expect more from a preview version".

    Seriously - you take prereleases so you can play with all of the neat new features; the downside is that you have to deal with the nasty new bugs. Something is wrong with this beta if you don't get new features... :P
  • Re:Pre beta review (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <david@amazing.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:43PM (#12352811) Homepage
    It does seem interesting that they've been shedding features, seemingly backing off from most of the things that were supposed to make Longhorn special. In the mean time, Apple's powering along and giving Mac users exactly what was promised in versions of MacOS X. I think that's a bad sign by any standard.

    Another bad sign is that they claimed that it would be finished in mid-2006 and now it's "holiday" 2006. So in theory they might release December 24th now.

    As I remember them, betas of MacOS X were feature-complete but very slow, and then speeds improved as the release got closer. I wouldn't expect enough changes in the interface to make it less than disappointing to these reviewers.

    Those indications make me feel the Longhorn project is in deep trouble.

    *

    I worked in a job when I had to support mainstream (non-computer people) with Windows systems.

    Most of them seemed to like the Windows XP interface better because it was more cheerful. In fact, a few of them even liked Hotbar and didn't appreciate my suggestion to improve their slug-like performance by removing it. It was, after all, pretty.

    So don't expect that everyone acts like a geek and removes it. I'm a pretty hardcore geek myself and even I prefer XP's interface to Windows 2000's gray Depression City.

    Of course I prefer MacOS X to either, but you get the idea.

    D
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:43PM (#12352812)
    "and will give Mac OS X users a run for thier money."

    Closer to "will give Mac OS X users the runs.

    No seriously, why do you think "effects" are what will be make or break? They've still got the core wrong. Architecturally, Windows XP started MS down a path that they should abandon, but they won't. So they add "effects" call it longhorn, and it won't be a trainwreck, its going to be more like the Graf Zeppelin.

    You don't get why OS X.4 is good, so you think its because it looks sexy. No sonny boy. Its sexy because its good under the covers. Apple go it right.
  • by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:43PM (#12352816)
    Calling something disastrous "a train wreck" is a long-established idiom that isn't going to just go away because a train wrecks. And frankly, I think calling it "an unfortunate choice of words" is just a big, steaming load of language-police bull crap.
  • by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:43PM (#12352819) Journal
    It's even uglier than XP, which is no small feat

    I agree, I don't like the look of XP, that is why when I use a XP machine I change the look back to windows classic. One I do that, it looks and feels exactly like my windows 2000 machine.

    And what do those screenshots tell us anyways? I did not see anything new, something to make me excited about the new windows.

    Maybe Microsoft is stuck in their 1998 way of thinking, when the new "version" of windows had people lining up outside of CompUSA at 5am to get a good space in line to be the first to own the new version. That will not happen again. Windows 2000 can do just about anything a user wants, it can play DVD movies, surf the web, play games. Why do we need a new version of Windows?

    I would like to see Micrsoft do 2 things they won't. 1) I want greater control of my PC, but with the push for more DRM, I will get less control of my machine. And related to #1, I want to have tools work my way, I want to opt-in rather than opt-out, I want most services turned off unless I turn them on. 2) I would like Windows to come with some more software than just solitare. I'd love to see Windows come loaded with OpenOffice and Mozilla, and a ton of Open Source software. It would be a great sign of stregnth, to give away those products and then tell people "You have Open Office which is good, but for something really great come and buy Office".

    I doubt Windows will do any of those things.

  • Re:Shut Do! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Storlek ( 860226 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:43PM (#12352822)
    grandma's gonna have a hard time figuring out what the "Shu..." button does on her large-text setup
    It starts a game of shuffleboard, of course.

    What I'd like to know is, have they done anything to make the actual shutdown dialog more useful? The button icons completely fail to depict what they're supposed to be. I had to use a Spanish computer one time and couldn't figure out how to turn it off. I'd never used Windows XP before, and those buttons are [somethingawful.com] absolutely [somethingawful.com] meaningless [somethingawful.com] without the text underneath them.
  • Re:Screenshots? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pavon ( 30274 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:44PM (#12352832)
    He's complaining that the screenshots aren't very different?

    Where did you get that? I read all the links and a couple other of his blog entries and didn't see anything that mentioned why he disliked it at all - just that he was disapointed, and he will have "more about that later". Which makes it a fairly pointless story to discuss, but ... :)

    If I were to complain about this release it would not be because it was not different, but because many of the changes are bad. Scrollbars in a menu? That isn't an issue with lack of polish leading up to the beta release - that is a stupid idea that should have never made it past the design stage. There are a few other bugs shown - look at the column headers in a non-column view of the new file explorer, but those can be written of as pre-beta problems. The visual theme also needs alot more polish which is understandable for a prebeta, but I like the direction they are taking it.

    But really there isn't much to say until someone that has tried it actally writes about it unlike this story.
  • by michalf ( 849657 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:48PM (#12352871) Homepage
    I do not really see a point in pseudo-improving the visuals in Longhorn. Being almost addicted to Linux where the system core and graphicsal environments are totaly separated - new widgets or whistles in Windows do not impress me at all. In Linux I can freely choose between Gnome, KDE and several others and a lot of custom themes for each. So an extra toolbar in Longhorn or an extra bar with "Administrator" written on it - what kind of joke is this?

    IMHO it is a VERY unreasonable to bind visuals to the system core. If gui goes down - the whole system does. Integration gives you (naively thinking) positive values, but what you can see in Linux or MacOsX is the counterexample.

    Ok - so Microsoft is promoting the new os with a few whistles added, perhaps drm integrated and will require you to buy a 3GHz processor to preserve the same quality and conveniance you had on a 166MHz running Windows 98.

    IMHO _IF_ MacOsX would be available for x86 along with all the drivers and software Windows has now - Windows would go down.

    I am also affraid the guys from Microsoft are permanently making some ideological/design mistake when developing next Windows edition. Look at Apple: they decided to go Unix and... MacOsX is one of the most stable and secure systems available. Microsoft keeps upgrading DOS 6.22 and patching security holes. The result is just... funny and sad. Funny when you just look at their attempt to fool people and force them to buy their shitty products and sad because... they succeed. And people WILL but Longhorn.

    michal
  • Re:Pre beta review (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:49PM (#12352880)
    Wow, a pre-beta release that isn't feature complete has 'the makings a train wreck'.

    If Microsoft want to compare OS 10.4 with Longhorn as if Longhorn is a finished product, can you really blame everyone else for treating it the same way?

  • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:50PM (#12352889) Journal
    Maybe Microsoft is stuck in their 1998 way of thinking, when the new "version" of windows had people lining up outside of CompUSA at 5am to get a good space in line to be the first to own the new version. That will not happen again. Windows 2000 can do just about anything a user wants, it can play DVD movies, surf the web, play games. Why do we need a new version of Windows?

    Because at some point Microsoft will force the upgrade by sabotaging existing Win2k installs. No more service packs, patches or support. Doubtless WMP-Longhorn will get some delightful codecs that will not work on Win2k.

  • Re:Pre beta review (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:51PM (#12352900)
    The early beta release is for the beta testers to figure out problems [etc...], not the general public.

    The public beta is when the general public should be involved.

    This is a developers preview, it's designed to get the backend working, it it specifically not ready for general review.
  • Re:Pre beta review (Score:5, Insightful)

    by diegocgteleline.es ( 653730 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:51PM (#12352901)
    Paul has been following the Longhorn evolution for a couple of years. When he says "the makings a train wreck" he means that there has been basically ZERO evolution since the 2004 winhec.

    Not a surprise, it's know that 90% or more of the windows division spent its time working on SP2 until SP2 got released.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:54PM (#12352938)

    Windows XP runs fine on 128MB of RAM. The problem comes when you try to install or run applications which require any memory whatsoever.

    Office 2003 on my Sony N505VE (333MHz Celeron w/128MB RAM) runs reasonably well under Windows XP.

    But Windows XP runs fine on 128MB of RAM.

    That's better than what can be said of many Linux distributions (I'm thinking Fedora Core 3 here). Same with OS X (I'm thinking Mac Mini here).

    Seems to me that Windows is less resource intensive than its closest competition.
  • Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:54PM (#12352941)
    You never know. IF they can't play the music they already paid for or watch the movies they already paid for or play some cute foreign commercial their friend sent them, then it could happen.
  • It Just Works!(tm) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SamMichaels ( 213605 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:56PM (#12352961)
    Looks exactly like XP using an OS X theme...but remember kids, It Just Works!(tm) [slashdot.org]

    Although I'm glad they've decided to use technology created in the late 60s [slashdot.org] (which SCO owns and Al Gore invented) as well as a lovely new password scheme [slashdot.org] guaranteed to create jobs in the IT support workforce from all the clueless office lemmings. Not to mention how IE7 won't be exclusive to Longhorn [slashdot.org] nor will WinFS [slashdot.org] be included.

    So like I said...we're paying $299 for XP with an OS X theme.
  • Re:Pre beta review (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BandwidthHog ( 257320 ) <inactive.slashdo ... icallyenough.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:58PM (#12352988) Homepage Journal
    Those indications make me feel the Longhorn project is in deep trouble.

    I'm starting to think that they're at the same point Apple was at in the 90s: every attempt to build a modern successor to OS 9 from scratch crashed and burned horribly. They finally climbed up out of their grave by purchasing NeXT and turning NeXTstep into Mac OS X.

    How will MS tear themselves out of this cycle?
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:58PM (#12353003)
    They have been working on this thing for four or five years now. It's not like they started yesterday and have another five years to go.

    Just exactly how much work do you think they are planning to do in the next two months to take it to beta and final production anyway?
  • by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:59PM (#12353005)
    I'm glad somebody else pointed this out. This made the rounds internally under the headline "What's wrong with this picture?"

    Look, I'm not gonna criticize Microsoft for showing early, very rough code and having it look ...well, early and very rough. If you go back and look at the Mac OS X public beta, or even the 2004 WWDC demo of Tiger, you'll find that our early builds differ significantly from the final releases of our products.

    But the thing is...every single one of us, to a man, would be ashamed to show something like that in public. Seriously, we'd hang our heads in embarrassment.

    Microsoft's position, of course, is, "Don't look at the icons or the controls. They're not important. We're demoing underlying technology." Which is fine. But that's not how we do things. If you're going to take the time to put a UI on a demo product at all, take the time to do it right. Don't just slap something on there and say, "Oh, this'll all come out before we ship." That's not fair to your product or your customers.

    It's just another sign of the difference between our philosophy and Microsoft's philosophy. I don't think either one is objectively right or wrong, but I won't hesitate to tell you which one I think is better.
  • by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:01PM (#12353029)
    Have you seen that start menu? More usable? It's got a motherfucking scrollbar inside of a fucking menu.

    Whats next, a row of ugly windows tabs, with some hidden, or even better multiple rows of tabs?
  • The homework where we know, time and time again, Microsoft neither gets the eye candy nor the backend right? Where we can neither call it good, nor pretty? Are you talking about that homework.

    There has to come a point, mind you, it might not be the same point for everyone so I have to be a little tolerant, where you say "too little, too late". With me, that point has come and gone, and I cant believe that it's that far off for other people. But what do I know?
  • by scotlewis ( 45960 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:11PM (#12353141)
    He's not commenting on the objective quality of the OS; he's commenting on the quality of it relative to the last Longhorn release:
    This is a painful build to have to deal with after a year of waiting, a step back in some ways. I hope Microsoft has surprises up their sleeves.

    In other words, the OS is trending from promising towards disappointing. The whole point of the big screen dog and pony show is to build excitement about the coming OS (yes, even at the developer shows). By bringing out a version that seems worse than the last one MS is killing enthusiasm for Longhorn.
  • Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ckswift ( 700993 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:12PM (#12353150)
    I take it you don't read at -1 do you?
  • but i think whatever OS has most (clueless) users will be targeted most

    You'd think that, wouldn't you? But no, the OSX users are targeted not often at all, maybe never. Why? Decent OS architecture going on there. Decent may not even be generous enough.

    (Note to OSX users: This is *not* intended as a flame. I'm only pointing out that you don't have to become a computer engineer, when the OS designer doesn't sell you garbage.)

    Most gated community residents are clueless when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, but murders still happen more frequently in a Sao Paulo shantytown. Why? Why indeed. Go live in the Microsoft ghetto if you want, but don't say we didn't invite you to your own mansion.
  • by tchernobog ( 752560 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:23PM (#12353246)

    What I noted looking at the control panel screenshot, is that it looks a lot more complicate than what I remembered back from the days when I still used Windows (:grins:).

    I mean, people always say "GNU/Linux is difficult to master, you need to be a genius to use that"... "what a mess of options, how can I find a way through that"... and then... please compare: Windows [winsupersite.com] (Ok, the "classic view" link is there, but that's just an example) - A GNU/Linux desktop [tuxmachines.org]

    This seems a common trend while time passes: systems become bigger and more difficult to use if you're not a literate (who, ten years ago, would have cared about what's a gateway being on Windows? who _doesn't_ now?). Good luck for GNU/Linux, then. It has been ten more years of experience in being complex. :-)

    Seriously, computer literacy is becoming a prerequisite for every system out there, and this makes switches easier from Windows to anything else. Even if this isn't the matter, they're all becoming "more to read and less to click".

    (PS: Counting the seconds before someone says something about how MacOSX solves all these problems by being the most simple system in the world yaddayaddayadda. :-) )

  • by Fred Foobar ( 756957 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:42PM (#12353395)
    "Go" doesn't in any way mean "restart" to me. How on earth did you get that association (besides looking at the text below the button)?
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:44PM (#12353411) Homepage Journal
    Why MS ever come up with the concept that an OS was suuposed to be anything but a platform on which to run apps. I do not give a rat's ass about the OS. The OS doe not do any real "work." When it get in the way of apps, it is no longer of any value.

    It probably helps to think of Windows in two different terms. 1) the Operating System 2) The environment. The OS probably changes very little from major release to major release. The environment, however, with all those background tasks, DLLs, pretty widgets and sounds are what seems to gobble up the majority of resources.

    MS keeps bloating the OS, making apps ever less convenient and usable. MS seems hell-bent on "developing" itself out of business.

    On the contrary, I think they've got some people who don't give a rat's patoot about hardware or kernel particulars, but just want a warm fuzzy computing experience and that is what they target. That and making sure there's always some incremental improvement which keeps you coming back every couple years and upgrading Windows or Office.

  • by charstar ( 64963 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:47PM (#12353450)

    Doubtless WMP-Longhorn will get some delightful codecs that will not work on Win2k.


    Or anywhere else for that matter. I still can't play many .wmv files on my 'amd64' build of Gentoo.
  • Re:Shut Do! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Clueless Moron ( 548336 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:52PM (#12353488)
    Standard? I do recognize the broken circle with a line through its circumference as a "power" button, because I have many devices with that.

    But note: when a device is off, and I press the button with that icon, it turns on. Conversely, if the device is already on, pressing it turns it off.

    So, now here I am presented with what seems to be a power button, on a device that is currently on. So pressing it should logically turn it OFF.

    Except, hey, WTF, why is it yellow? And what's that weird red thing next to it? I have searched through my entire house, and I haven't found a single device with that icon on it. On the other hand, I've found paired on/off buttons where a single line (|) means on, and a circle (o) means off. I've always understood those to be switches dedicated to on or off, and the combined broken circle one to be a toggle.

    So hell, now I don't know what to do. Well, that happy looking green thing looks to me like it must be a lively "just keep things on please" button, so I'll consider that a cancel button and press that.

    Whoops.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:52PM (#12353491)

    Yes. Unless that is a fresh install with absolutely nothing else on, you are trolling or an MS fanboy and full of shit.

    What does anything else installed on it have to do with the amount of memory consumed? Your point may be more relavent if you said something to the effect of "If that's the only thing you had running". But the mere act of installing other software shouldn't consume additional memory (save for those applications that load in the background).

    Believe what you will. Assuming for the moment that Windows XP doesn't run well with 128MB of memory that just puts it in the same league as most modern Linux distributions or OS X. At least, under the assumption that I'm lying, with Windows XP the OS itself runs fine in 128MB of memory. That's more than I can say of Fedora Core 3. Using just the OS itself (FC3) is an exercise in patience.

    So what have we learned? Assuming that I'm making up my position, which I'm not, we've learned that Windows XP is right in line with other modern operating systems. So why is it bad when Windows XP requires 256MB of memory (which I disagree with) but not when Linux (I'm thinking FC3) or OS X requires 256MB?
  • by PabloJones ( 456560 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @07:58PM (#12353530) Homepage
    "they just need to add new features"

    Not just new features... they have to add features that people actually want. Apple does this.

    For example, Expose was the big hit of Panther, and now Spotlight and Dashboard are going to be the big hits of Tiger. Sure, the performance and GUI enhancements are nice (except for perhaps the Finder), but they are a sideshow.

    Microsoft needs to add something that will make people actually want to upgrade. They can say they will improve security, but that isn't something the average user will notice right away. In fact, it should be something the user doesn't notice at all since the OS should protect them in the first place. Microsoft needs to have something that has a tangible effect on the end user.

    If people can't tell between XP (or 2000, or ME for that matter), they are in for trouble. Then they won't bother purchasing it. But if they see that there is a good reason to upgrade, they will.

    Jaguar and Panther could both play DVDs, surf the web and play games... but Apple came out with features in Panther that made people able to do those things easier and/or better than before.

    My point is that most new features are mostly marketing fluff, and if M$ wants really pull this off, they have to offer something truly innovative and useful.
  • by xtracto ( 837672 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:00PM (#12353551) Journal
    So, for example, the icon for a Word document in Longhorn displays a miniature version of the first page of that document and a Microsoft PowerPoint slide show icon displays the first slide

    Sorry but, don't KDE have this feature now?? and frome quite some time? Again, I think MS is just copying features from other platforms and selling them as Great Inovation(tm)
  • by drew ( 2081 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:00PM (#12353552) Homepage
    yeah, except red (stop) could be meaningfully used to convey all three, and yellow (how do you come up with an automatic association between yellow with "stand by"; if anything, it would be "caution" or "prepare to stop") and green (go) don't really apply to any of the three.

    as far as the icons on numerous home appliances, i think the 'power' icons they use for shut down and stand by tend to be used fairly interchangeably, and i've never seen the 'tentacle' icon anywhere that i can remember.

    at any rate, my personal pet peeve regarding the shutdown dialog, as someone who tends to use keyboard shortcuts far more often than the mouse, is that it is not clear which one is currently selected and which one will be activated when i hit enter. i usually hit the left/right arrow keys a couple of times and watch for the annoyingly subtle change in color to know which icon is currently highlighted before i hit enter.
  • by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:03PM (#12353582)
    I just checked each of these on my machine.

    Activate Dashboard, the iChat/Volume/Battery/Clock menus in the menu bar still work and pop up over the Dashboard layer.

    Not correct. A click outside a widget dismisses Dashboard.

    Open a .pdf in Preview, activate Dashboard, and the cursor will change to a hand as it floats over the (dimmed and unclickable) document.

    Not correct. Outside widgets, the cursor is an arrow regardless of context.

    Dashboard Translation widget, click the 'swap' button several times and the focus ring will flicker madly

    I wasn't able to reproduce this. I don't know what you meant by "several." I clicked it 20 times. No error.

    Finder, start renaming a file and the insertion caret will flicker twice on each keystroke until the name wraps to the second line

    That was an occasional bug in 8A425. Are you using a pirated copy?

    System Preferences/Mail, now showing the third major window style on the system (Aqua, Metal, and now Plastic)

    No, that's Aqua.

    Spotlight, randomly fails to index non-boot-drive partitions

    Obviously not reproducible. Spotlight will not index a volume if there's insufficient free space available. We look for about 1/10th of one percent, if I remember correctly.

    Your response may be "oh well, they're all minor"

    No, my response is "Please stop using pirated copies of Tiger that you download off the Internet and then complaining about them."
  • I just got done with their Internet Security and Accelerator training. This, plus the stuff i've seen in Longhorn, plus the other things I've seen remind me of the movie 'The Hudsucker proxy':

    "Idea man treading water"

    Microsoft has not produced ANYTHING compelling in the last three years. It's more an excercise of 'lets sell them on more features', rather than 'lets sell them on something that improves the experience'.

    The constant treadmill arms race of spyware/patch/reboot (Which I've seen take well running machines and reduce them to perma-reboot) plus bloatware that sucks the life out of a P4 with HALF A GIG of RAM. (Have you noticed the difference in performance between a new installation pre and post Office 2k3?)

    So, lets pitch the API, lets pitch the file system (oops, can't do that in time), lets pitch your old hardware, and lets do it in the usual lock-step upgrade deathmarch again.

    I think they've run out of useful features to add...and I think it's gonna bite them in the ass.
  • by great throwdini ( 118430 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:24PM (#12353728)
    Would you directly compare a race car with a minivan?

    Explain how MacOS::Windows (or any two consumer-grade OS, for that matter) is like minivan::racecar, and maybe I'd be able to follow your train of thought a bit better.

    Let's be honest here, both OS X and Windows Whatever are in the same camp. They're made to fulfill the same purposes, regardless of company backing and unlike the specious automobile analogy offered above.

  • by sevinkey ( 448480 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:26PM (#12353735)
    Next time I see a green light I'm gonna shut off the engine in my car and turn it back on again :)
  • Re:Screenshots? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by avdp ( 22065 ) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:27PM (#12353753)
    On the corporate front - I guess your company felt for the "software assurance" crap. The Fortune 100 where I work is still happily using Windows 2000 and Office 97, and there are no plans to upgrade either one anytime soon.

    On the consumer front, I am well aware that most people get their copies of Windows pre-installed. But software usually drive hardware sales. Other than the enthusiast market that will buy anything the day it comes out, most people need a compelling reason to buy new hardware (unless the old one died) and this ain't it.
  • Re:Shut Do! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Storlek ( 860226 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:28PM (#12353760)
    No, sorry. You've very likely seen the text and therefore know what the buttons mean. It has nothing to do with your brain.

    And: name one device with a button that has a bunch of lines organized in a circle meaning "restart". A better icon for restart might have been something like a web browser's reload button, or maybe the "recycle" logo.

    I couldn't figure out the difference between the red and yellow buttons. The icons are nearly identical, and with my experience with 'nix window managers, I figured that perhaps one of the buttons saved what programs were running before logging out, and the other one didn't... but then what would the green lines-in-a-circle mean? I couldn't think of reasonable meanings for all three buttons, so how could I be sure that any interpretation I had for one or two of them was correct?

    Consider another common association: red means "incorrect" and green means "correct." So maybe the green button means "yes, I want to shut down the computer" and the red one means "never mind"? There's just way too much room for ambiguity, and besides, if the icons are so poorly designed that the only way to tell the buttons apart is by the color, they fail to be useful.
  • Do you pick the color of paint before the foundation of your house has been laid?

    Obviously you have never built your own home or even seriously thought about architecture. Yes of course you pick the paint before you start the foundation. You don't want to be designing while in final production do you? That would be stupid.
  • by KillShill ( 877105 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:55PM (#12353949)
    personally neither microsoft nor apple will get any money from me in the future.

    the industry is headed for open source and free(dom)
    software.

    proprietary products are a 20th century concept.
  • by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) * <fuzzybad@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @08:58PM (#12353963)

    When I moved up to 768MB I found I still had 50% free after startup.

    That's because memory management sucks ass in Windows. The more RAM you have, the more of it gets used for caching. What, you were going to use it for applications? Silly user.. ;)

    (to be fair I think there is a setting somewhere which allows you to take control of memory usage)

  • by buraianto ( 841292 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:13PM (#12354066)
    I find it interesting that you feel that not releasing more service packs, patches, and no longer supporting an operating system is sabotaging it. I'm afraid that the end-of-life of any product is something you'll have to get used to. There is an end to the support of everything. Operating systems, cars, computers, you name it.

    When I saw the word "sabotage" I was assuming you were going to state that Microsoft was going to do something devious and illegal. But you just said that they will stop working on it. I am not sure, but it seems that Microsoft has been supporting their operating systems for longer periods than Red Hat has. I know, I know, you don't get the source, but that probably doesn't make a difference to most users. Unless we can expect them to learn the code and fix bugs for an entire distribution by themselves.
  • by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:30PM (#12354177)
    Sure. Microsoft also told everyone that Windows 95 would run on a 486-66 with 4MB of RAM just fine too.

    Actually the design spec for Windows 95 was to be no slower than Windows 3.1 on a 386 (*any* 386, so all the way down to a 16Mhz 386SX) with 4MB of RAM.

    If you did a clean install and had all 32 bit device drivers and applications, that was actually true. The big reasons Win95 ran slowly for many people were:

    1. Upgrade install

    2. 16 bit (or even worse, DOS) hardware drivers.

    3. 16 bit apps.

    Hearing that as the "just fine" spec makes me very concerned for what the real just fine spec is. Probably 1 gig of RAM and a 3GHz processor, I am guessing.

    Microsoft have an excellent track record of legacy support and keeping older hardware usable. I would expect that 1Ghz/256 machine to run Longhorn at a similar level to a 300Mhz P2/128 running XP today - slowly, but usably (and if you actually try to optimise it, comfortably). I would also expect relatively modest upgrades (say to 512M of RAM) to show significant improvements.

    Really, this "OMG! WTF! Longhorn needs a monster PC to even boot!!!?!!!??" idiocy is getting out of hand. By the time Longhorn finally makes it out at the end of next year (maybe), a 1Ghz P3 will be a machine ~6-7 years old. People interested in being on the cutting edge (ie: buying Longhorn off the shelf to use on their existing PC) are highly likely to have computers a lot less than ~6-7 years old.

    Added to that, it's no worse than the alternatives - OS X is abominably slow on anything short of mid to high end G4s (ca. 2002 and later) and Linux with comparable GUIs (GNOME or KDE) also requires 500Mhz+ P3s with 384M+ of RAM to be usable. Heck, Windows has the best track record of legacy hardware support of the lot, all else being equal.

  • by argent ( 18001 ) <peter@slashdot . ... t a r o nga.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:32PM (#12354189) Homepage Journal
    I'm starting to think that they're at the same point Apple was at in the 90s: every attempt to build a modern successor to OS 9 from scratch crashed and burned horribly.

    That's an interesting point and I have to say that I agree to a certain extent that that's what they seem to be trying to do. What I don't understand is why.

    Apple HAD to make a break from classic Mac OS, because it was really pretty awful. NT isn't awful. It's not great, but it's in nowhere like the trouble OS 8 and OS 9 were in.

    Microsoft really could do what Apple's doing and introduce new bundled features on a year-to-year basis, or even sell them as $50 Plus Packs, and maintain a steady income without either losing market share or alienating customers. They don't need to be pulling the "All New Windows" every few years like they did in the '90s... they reached a reasonably stable peak in terms of what they're really capable of doing right with Windows 2000.

    They've got a mature product they can build on, sell new accessories for it, bundle it as "Windows 2004, you get Windows 2000, the XP Plus Pack, the GUI Glitz Plus Pack, and a special this-release-only sidebar, a combined value of almost $300, for $150. For only $75 more you get the Professional Pack, normally $125, in Windows 2004 Professional".

    That's how a mature company sells mature products, and it's what microsoft really needs to do. Because, Microsoft is a mature company, they've got the brass ring and there's no way they can significantly boost Windows sales over what they'd be without building a "successor OS". They don't need to act like a startup now, it's just getting in the way of doing the best job and making the most money.
  • by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:45PM (#12354269)
    Because at some point Microsoft will force the upgrade by sabotaging existing Win2k installs. No more service packs, patches or support.

    Time for a reality check. By the time Longhorn is actually released, Windows 2000 will be 6 - going on 7 - years old. That's quite a reasonable support window (and certainly as long, if not longer, than any alternatives).

  • by strider44 ( 650833 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:21PM (#12354512)
    I have been in a train wreck where people were crushed and killed less than a metre in front of me (no more taking front carriage for me). Even in that light I find nothing wrong with someone using that expression.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:23PM (#12354525)
    >>Open a .pdf in Preview, activate Dashboard, and the cursor will change to a hand as it floats over the (dimmed and unclickable) document.

    >Not correct. Outside widgets, the cursor is an arrow regardless of context.

    Did you try this? I can reproduce exactly what the guy is talking about in 8A428.

    And yes, Mail's toolbar buttons are drawn in a style unlike anything anywhere else in the system. There is even a hidden preference (not going to say what) to change them back to the standard style. And when he says "plastic", he's clearly referring to the optional "no divider" toolbar/titlebar combo, which is new in Tiger and is not used by all applications. It's used in Mail, System Prefs, Xcode, and Spotlight, but is not used in Sherlock, Preview, Internet Connect, Activity Monitor, etc. As with metal, there seems to be little rhyme or reason as to when it is or isn't used.

    >>Spotlight, randomly fails to index non-boot-drive partitions

    >Obviously not reproducible.

    There are other cases besides just low disk space where Spotlight will not index a volume. That, coupled with the lack of UI feedback in regards to said volumes not being indexed, could easily lead a user to believe it is "randomly" failing.

  • Re:sarcasm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:51PM (#12354741)
    I don't want to make an enemy here, but you've hit on one of my personal hot buttons.

    The core vision of the company I work for is to make IT as you know it obsolete.

    Seriously. Right now, computers fucking suck. Seriously. All of them, even the ones we make. Computers are absurdly unreliable, and ridiculously hard to operate. The mere fact that we've raised an entire generation of people who think that IT is a valid career choice is testament to how we've dropped the ball for the past forty years.

    We're just now -- literally, just this week -- starting to get to the point where computers are beginning to understand two vital things: inference and implication. If I e-mail a document to somebody in my address book, my computer can now infer that that document is related to that person; when I search for that person, I get that document, or vice versa. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

    Servers should be entirely self-configuring, entirely self-adapting. Can you believe that just a couple of years ago, people had to sit down in front of servers and key in lists of IP addresses to enable things like print services? You had to actually sit down and tell your computer about the printer sitting next to it.

    No more. Now, with Bonjour (née Rendezvous, and please don't ask) computers and services are auto-configuring. This is, again, just the tip of the iceberg.

    You're probably going to hate me for saying this, but IT employees contribute absolutely nothing to an organization. They produce nothing, they transport nothing, they collect nothing. They're an expense. One we hope to render completely obsolete.

    Will we still need computer repair men? Sure! We need air-conditioner repair men. We need electricians. We need plumbers. But the idea that a small business should be expected to keep an air-conditioner repair man or an electrician or a plumber on staff full time is absurd. Someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, the idea that a small business should have its own computer repair man will be equally absurd.

    That's our goal. That's where we think we're headed.
  • Re:sarcasm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:10PM (#12354879)
    You know what, other Apple employees read this board. And if you really are an Apple employee, you might want to watch your language, if you don't want to have management try to figure out who you are by what you know.

    Regardless of your passion, your language does not reflect well on Apple. I'd almost think you were some 15 year old with a student developer account on ADC or paid the regular price to get access to Tiger seeds, so you know what's in the software.

    People on this board are Apple customers or potential Apple customers. Insulting them is unbecoming. If you really are a Tiger engineer, perhaps you need some time off away from the computer before you post more.

    What's more, some people like posting to boards like this without thinking that the corporate mothership is watching their every move. Why not let people discover Tiger for themselves and speculate about it? It builds more excitement about it if they learn just how cool stuff is on their own.

    It's like you want to stifle discussion or something. I don't really think you're an employee, because you'd post anonymously.

    Or maybe you're actually from the competition, trying to leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

    Which is not to say that what you say is necessarily untrue or in some cases unfunny, just, not said with Apple elegance, and thus, should not be said with the Apple 'we.'
  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @02:49AM (#12356258) Journal
    Baloney.
    What's baloney? That my 128MB Windws XP systems runs Office 2003 just fine?
    Obviously, your definition of 'fine'. I remember running Office XP on a Windows XP system with 128Mb. It can only be called 'fine' in a very perverted sense of that word.
  • Re:Shut Do! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tesmako ( 602075 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @03:57AM (#12356583) Homepage
    They also suck since it is near-impossible to see which button has keyboard focus, instead of the regular dotted rectangle used in the rest of Windows they have a slight lighter tint when active. Real easy to tell. I end up having to switch focus a few times before pressing enter every time just to be sure that the button I want is the active one.
  • Re:sarcasm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @04:36AM (#12356745) Homepage
    On the contrary. The problem is that the general population had been fed a pipe dream to them, and now are finding it wasn't true. You are right now describing this dream.

    I don't need IT people myself. Computers are easy to fix and service. IMHO, the largest problem ironically is with all the usability improvements that have been made.

    Try with a comparison:
    Not so long ago, at a company that sells stuff the computers would run DOS. The disk would be nearly blank, the only thing running on it constantly would be the selling terminal application. It would be efficiently handled with only the keyboard.

    Then there would be a big server somewhere handled by a few people without much trouble.

    These days, the same computer runs Windows. It faces viruses and worms due to stupidities committed in the name of ease of use. The same application is now a GUI, which makes it really pretty, but adds extra workload in the terms of interface programming, which increases the possible failure mode, and makes automated testing harder.

    The whole system is managed by an army of often poorly educated people, who run around the company removing viruses, reinstalling systems, and bitterly complaining that people can't just get into their head that life would be much easier without Outlook.

    Not saying that the UI hasn't improved, but I'm pretty sure that for commercial purposes the DOS version of all this stuff was working better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @07:33AM (#12357342)
    http://slackware.com/install/sysreq.php :

    Slackware Linux doesn't require an extremely powerful system to run (though having one is quite nice :). It will run on systems as far back as the 486. Below is a list of minimum system requirements needed to install and run Slackware.

    * 486 processor
    * 16MB RAM (32MB suggested)
    * 100-500 megabytes of hard disk space for a minimal and around 3.5GB for full install
    * 3.5" floppy drive

    Additional hardware may be needed if you want to run the X Window System at a usable speed or if you want network capabilities.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @08:50AM (#12357865)
    The interesting thing is after this week they will no longer have any kind of shelter from open review and discussion of Tiger. If it's internals are as shaky and obsolete as you say, this fact should come through clearly in the product reviews to follow.

    We won't see non-NDA reviews of Longhorn for a year and a half (even if things go well). And the ones that do pop out prior to RTM - "previews" not "reviews" - will always be able to fall back on "ah, but it's a beta, the shipping product will look a lot nicer". Which is what they said last year.
  • by As Seen On TV ( 857673 ) <asseen@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:14AM (#12359413)
    It showed that a cooperative development based on free will and open standards could lead to complex software projects

    Sorry, I guess I didn't get the memo. Was that ever in doubt?

    What this "cooperative development" thing cannot do is produce consistent results. Have there been success stories? You betcha. But they're so few and far between that all they really do is serve to emphasize the barrenness of the landscape between them.

    Linux is, for all intents and purposes, dead as anything other than a server operating system. And frankly it was dead as a server operating system until SGI came along and dragged it into the 21st century. It has one and only one advantage that keeps it hanging on: It'll run on leftover hardware. Got a PC from 1995 that you're not using for anything? Put Linux on it and use it to serve files. It won't be easy, but if you can get it to work at all, it'll work well. That's an important niche to occupy. But it's fundamentally a stagnant one.

    Linux contributed to bring several technologies that were only available on costly enterprise systems to the masses

    Let's be fair here. Linux hasn't contributed a damn thing. It can't, because of its license. Nobody can actually use Linux code for anything unless they're willing to give up commercial control of their project. Nobody is willing to do that.

    Want to talk about what the BSD guys contributed? Go right ahead. You'll get no argument from me. But Linux has contributed nothing. Rather, it cloned existing implementations and walled them off so nobody could actually build anything on them. Which I think goes a long way toward explaining why Linux has stagnated while Mac OS X has surged ahead. We can surge ahead because we're not constantly getting harassed by lawyers from the FSF.

    I find pretty sane to see developers asking themselves "How can we make that software easier to use ?" all the time.

    Sure it is. But it's not sane to ask those questions to the exclusion of other areas of advancement. Oh, sure, those guys are tweaking the background color of the file browser, but they're overlooking the completely fucked up font rendering architecture, or the essential inability to localize the system. That kind of thing.

    Linux isn't a "file-by-file" clone of Unix

    Sure it is. All the run-time programs are basically file-by-file copies of Unix programs: init, inetd, the various networking daemons, all the command-line tools. Over the years people have sat down and copied Unix --Unix from the 1970s, remember -- file by file like the monks of old, dutifully reproducing everything even if it's just obviously stupid, like the init/inetd/cron/init.d/rc disaster.

    And launchd didn't scrap all of them - it is just a system to unify daemons configuration and launching. Note that similar tools exist under Linux and the BSDs and that every major distribution features standardized configuration files.

    Maybe you don't understand what launchd is. The launchd program replaces six entire subsystems. It gets rid entirely of init, rc, init.d, SystemStarter, cron and inetd. Makes them go away. No, no similar tools exist on another operating system.

    And what if a critical service fails to start because of its malformed XML configuration file ?

    Define "critical." We're talking about the difference between a bootable configuration and a non-bootable configuration here. On Linux, if init fails to start, the computer cannot be accessed by anybody, anywhere, via any method. One typo in the init configuration file can render the computer completely non-functional.

    There's no such problem with launchd. If some configuration file gets fat-fingered, the service described by that file won't start. Maybe you'll be without SSH access, or without Open Directory. But the system will be running, and the problem can be fixed.

    One of the features we've built into the preferences
  • Re:sarcasm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:33AM (#12359751) Homepage Journal
    I don't want to make an enemy here, but you've hit on one of my personal hot buttons.

    I generally like your posts, but this one was kind of dumb. Look, we've been hearing this promise for about 30 years now, and I don't think it's any more true today than it was then. The fact is that companies staff all of their mission-critical business functions and probably always will.

    Examples? My company is not a shipper, but we have a full-time employee that handles shipping arrangements, puts incoming parcels where the belong, and has outgoing boxes ready when FedEx gets here. We're also not a staffing company, but we have an HR person. Neither are we a construction company, but we have a maintenance guy who also remodels our building as needed. Finally, we're not an IT consultant, but we have IT people on staff.

    IT people will go away whenever companies no longer use IT. Until then, every place that depends on their services for daily operation will have employees that run them, just as they also have shipping, HR, and maintenance workers. I like your company (and would like them even more if you sent some free stuff my way, hint-hint), but you've done an excellent job of advancing the state of the art of the computers on the average employee's desk. That's just the tip of the iceburg for a lot of us, and no amount of CUPS-style printer autoconfiguration will change it.

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Working...