“An internal alpha build of Microsoft’s next version of Windows, code-named Longhorn, made its way onto the Internet early Tuesday. The leaked build, which is numbered 3683, appears to be from late September and sports quite a few new feature concepts—although many are not yet functional. […] The oft-rumored Longhorn Sidebar can be enabled via Taskbar settings and uses XML to display customizable tiles such as a clock, virtual desktop manager and Internet search. The Start Menu can also be docked within the Sidebar, completely removing the Taskbar that has been a staple of Windows since 1995.” Read the eWeek article for more information.
Windows Longhorn Alpha Leaks to the Web
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
What the heck, I’d like to play with it.
Been wondering for quite a while if the screenshots over at winsupersite.com were real, guess this is time to find out. Doh now i gotta remake my Windows Longhorn theme for Objectbar (On Wincustomize.com if anyones intrested).
Richard
The register has an article about this being a possible XP SE.
Yeah, MS did say they would bring out a new version od XP in 2003. This leaked build may be it. Personally, I think it’s it, I doubt it would be the totally new Windows version which is scheduled for a 2005 release.
Isn’t this the same build number on the screenshots from a month back? The calander date on the desktop clock was set to October 20 on those shots. Screenshot six (6.jpg) shows a version number of 6.0 and a title of “Windows XP Media Center Edition”.
The article didn’t say that they saw it running, just claims it exisists. If it was leaked Tuesday then it could be the same thing. Or it could just be more vapor.
Frankly, what’s the big deal? You get to see some screenshots of some beta version of some OS. I don’t see MS making revolutionarly changes in the OS anyways. They’re still going to stick with the start menu which I despise among other things. I would like to see MS implement someway of really changing the desktop out of the box and allowing me more room in choosing how to use the system – then I will be impressed.
Windows XPY 6.0 will have even more security… to stop these web leaks, of course. And whatever other draconian requirements come out of “Homeland Security”.
The sequel to Carnivore… will run as part of your Windows desktop.
SQL2GOVT.
At least it gives the smart people a window to switch to Linux.
Sounds to me like they’re trying to reimplement something *Step-esque, but I’m probably reading too much into the description.
Because people are curious by nature. They also like to dream and speculate about the future. So it’s a big deal for those who spend a lot of time in front of Windows boxes.
Looks like they looked at QNX and liked what they saw.
Can’t blame them, the QNX interface is one of the nicest I have ever seen.
“Longhorn’s new WinFS file system is included in the alpha build, but the services are not yet functional and cause immense performance degradation while active.”
So why did MS work so hard to get desktop running NTFS, only to replace it with something else?
Working so hard? Wasn’t NT using NTFS before XP?
What they have been working on is to get NT out to the desktops, do you think they would have been better off switching to FAT32?
Changing filesystems isn’t that big of a deal really. How is your question relevant?
NTFS has changed to some degree with each successive Windows release. It’s versioned just like Windows. Now NTFS is a mature, robust, (minimally) attributed, journaled file system. I bet it’s an option under Longhorn too.
I’d be suspicious of that. XML Control Panel? That sounds remarkably like stuff that was said for Windows XP. Think about it – XML control panel is meaningless. Those screenshots back a few months ago were almost certainly faked.
Mike Hearn, the village idito
They were not faked, ‘ba-leev dat’.
The new Windows File System is *NOT* included in this leak. What they meant to say is that there are some services in place to help emulate the WinFS until it’s ready.
And the Windows File System is going to be very nice, and should be extremely fast, especially when dealing with lots of small files or searching.
One thing that maybe is worth nothing with whatever the M$ people said was the use of XML to customise the desktop.
Now when will the KDE Folk do this to KICKER, so we can customise it to hell, then essentially we’ve accomplised what this whole new release of windows is – a more customisable start menu… heh
Yeah, that’s what I meant … to get NTFS on the desktop. As I understood it, Windows 2000 was supposed to be the merging of the NT & 9x kernels (using NTFS), but MS released Windows ME instead, because (I’m guessing) they couldn’t pull it off in time.
But finally with WinXP, they got NTFS on one of their desktop operating systems. So, why spend all the time and effort to get NTFS on the desktop versions of Windows, only to replace it with the very next desktop/client release with something else? Seems it would’ve bee smarter to concentrate on the new file format instead of making desktop Windows(XP) compatible with a file format that was being made obsolete with something else.
But afaik they didn’t spend any efford to get NTFS on the desktop, they spent a lot of effort to get NT on the desktop. NTFS was just a bonus. It would make no sense to use FAT32 as XP’s native FS.
And as I said, switching filesystems isn’t such a big deal. Why can’t they have NTFS for a few years before switching to something different?
I’d say that most of the users won’t even notice that they are using NTFS instead of FAT32.
to tell the truth, im not even curious. MS has a peculiar habit of putting out barely usable products, there’s no way im going to go out and hunt for something two stages back from that.
“But afaik they didn’t spend any efford to get NTFS on the desktop, they spent a lot of effort to get NT on the desktop.”
Ok, maybe my mistake
I thought the big advantage behind NT was the NTFS filesystem, but maybe not.
I thought the main reason behind NT’s stability was because of the NTFS filesystem. If there was something else that made NT more stable than 9x (besides NTFS) and if NTFS was’t that hard to implement on the desktop, why not then put into Windows ME instead of waiiting for XP?
Leaked?? I think not. I am theorizing that it was released on purpose, to get people like us to talk about. You know, keep the engine warm in the marketing department. Just my 2 cents.
I’m pretty sure that NT’s stability has not a whole lot to do with NTFS. XP can run fine with FAT32 partitions. and (to my knowledge) is just as stable as with NTFS. You lose some functionality (file permissions) but it still runs just the same.
There are a few reasons for not adding NTFS to WinME or any Win9x. First of all, win9x doesn’t do user permissions at all, making the big benefit of NTFS pretty useless. Why change a file’s permissions if your OS doesn’t know what they mean?
The main benefit of moving consumers to an NT os (XP) is added stability and security. NT is just overall a much better OS than 9x, and is much more powerful.
Personally, I think not. What would be Windows XP SE is what Windows 98 SE is about. It won’t be a major release, just a money making one to fool ordinary consumers. Something I wouldn’t buy. Longhorn is coming out in 2005. Or maybe they would push it to 2006. Or year 3400, where Japan would have 1 native resident…
WinFS, from what I have read, is just NTFS + SQL. The combination may be hard to make, but it is compatible with old versions of NTFS, just like 5.0 was compatible with 4.0. The most probable reason why they change the name was because they are killing the NT name. Windows NT hasn’t been called Windows NT since year 2000.
“(…)and uses XML to display customizable tiles such as a clock, virtual desktop manager and Internet search.”
hey, great idea! Could have been from the Mozilla project 😉
So, M$ not only insists on control of your PC with XP, it now wants to make your M$ software unusable unless you pay M$ more money for yet another bug-filled OS.
From database programming to web-paging to everyday uses, I have yet to find a reason to pay M$ another penny: 98se does all that needs doing. The only drawback is I don’t get to ‘brag’ that I have the newest of everything.
Duh? To those who wish to pay M$ Bill for more of his bug-filled garbage, I would like to offer you some prime land in south Florida.
I have recently gotten the new version of Windows. Many people believe that it is filled with bugs. I am stating that this is entirly not true. I believe that the eariler verisons migh have had some problems, but mine has run flawlessly. I am very happy with this XP, and have been an avid buyer of Microsft products and will continue to buy Microsoft products. I thank you Microsoft, for your years of computer bliss.
Hear that sucking sound? That’s the contents of your wallet and your soul going into the Microsoft VacuSeal XP.
But think about it, will there be any new features that require anyone to upgrade at all? Not likely, especially if they want to maintain backwards compatibility. You are just as well off with 2000 or 98se, which are both just fine and run any modern games. Think of the installed user base, how many people have switched to XP? I couldn’t justify the cost of $199 or $299 for what seems like nothing other than faster boot time and some simple UI enhancements (nicer icons, cleartype). Is there a need, or do they include features (Embrace and Extend, people) that make people want to upgrade? Their best going deal is that PC hardware is so much cheaper than Apple hardware. If Microsoft built a PC that was specifically tailored to Windows (e.g. no other OS could be installed) would it still be as affordable as current PC hardware?
The only reason I even consider keeping a Microsoft OS on any of my machines at home is for my old DOS games and MS-DOS is BigBrotherFree.
Most of this thread is on the brink of deletion anyway by violating OSNews’s posting terms.
I personally find Windows XP much more polished than Windows 98 SE ever was. Way less annoying bug. Not ONE blue screen. Way faster boot time. Call me/us sheep, but if being sheep means having better products, bring on the grass and the hills!
—
Chris, if Allen Jerabeck fews he is getting every penny worth out of the latest Windows product, who are you to say so otherwise? Personally, I just got a little tired of your’s and other ABM (always bash Microsoft) attitude. Man, if you don’t like Windows, DON’T USE IT. But does it hurt not telling lies about another company?
Trust me, if Netscape haven’t sued Microsoft, you wouldn’t even post that message. If someone thinks the extra features in XP is worth every single penny, good for them. If you think Microsoft released XP as a money making thing, you are completely RIGHT. This is what every business is all about: MAKING MONEY.
I think this big brother issue had gone way overblown.
i get hardware blue screens of death in windowsXP all the time, but nothing happens in BeOS? REALLY WEIRD. I also updated all my drivers in windows… shitos
To manage a windows box. Seriously: there is no reason that XP should bluescreen. You either have:
1)a corrupted registry: reinstall or debug, take your pick
2)bad or incompatible drivers-this should be easy to find-if you start using something and it bluescreens, that’s the bad driver
3)faulty hardware-something in your system is broken. Don’t blame the OS for shite hardware.
4)some of the OEM installs (and the reinstall disks) are not the same as the retail versions, and may be corrupted.
5) you got your copy off of KAzaa, so you got what you paid for.
XP is not the problem. Why don’t you learn something for a change?
Is just as bad as MS FUD.
Personally, I can’t wait to spin the alpha, assuming I can find it, and a .NET key.
I personally hate m$, but I had to accept (after buying this laptop) that XP has something good: STABLILTY.
I liked the way you could switch users and the fast boot up time (however BeOS always wins in boot times no matter how old the system, hands down), but I also noticed that for each good feature they developed / corrected a bad one came.
While it may make easier for beginners to get their networks running, that damn “net wizard” is a pain in the ass if you have YOUR network already running and you want to make your machine fit there, because it does what it wants. Also, dividing configuration stuff into 20,000 different applications, spanning different folders / menu items is really annoying..
I like and hate this OS (?) but I can’ wait to get Partition Magic to get something else running in here, too…
How much RAM does Longhorn use to boot? (default and tweaked)
I usually kill the XP style eye candy anyway.
I know it’s beta (stating the obvious to save someone else’s time) but, has anyone run a couple benchmarks to compare Longhorn to XP?
-Jim
Unless you didn’t read the instructions properly, the wizard is optional. You could set up you own network, although the altenative is tad harder than the average desktop Linux networking applet.
Besides, does Partition Magic be able to partition NTFS partitions?