After months of speculation, Microsoft plans to give developers their first hard look at the next version of Windows in October.
The Redmond, Wash., company expects to release a “developers preview” of the new operating system, code-named Longhorn, at its professional developers conference in Los Angeles. Although it won’t be a full beta, or test, version, Microsoft executives have promised it will be more than just “slideware,” software that companies haven’t been using and don’t know when it will be coming.
Surprise, it’s a linux-in-box.
I ever wonder if MSFT will drop the windows legacy ala MAC and come up with their own Unix based client running NT/2000 in emulation mode.
Any toughts?
finally… build 4008 really didnt do much… will this have the new filesystem though?
As far as read the last review there won’t be a new filesystem rather than a new api for managing files.
That’s right. The WINFS will run as a service and require NTFS in order to run.
I ever wonder if MSFT will drop the windows legacy ala MAC and come up with their own Unix based client running NT/2000 in emulation mode.
Any toughts?
Would it be called MSUX?
Thats nice…more MS bashing….like that hasn’t gotten old or anything.
loser boy
>>Thats nice…more MS bashing….like that hasn’t gotten old or anything.
Yep..everything that’s gotten old is bad. For example, sex has been around since…God knows? (sic!) Hope you and your girlfriend aren’t THAT oldfashioned, I mean, geez…it’s like the STONEAGE or something!
Ever notice how all these Longhorn articles never mention any concrete features Longhorn will spot. I mean the Linux kernel, version 2.6, isn’t out yet and all of it’s new features are listed out clearly as well as the resultant effect of each features. Allow we ever get about Longhorn are rumors, and rumors they will end up being.
Regards,
Mystilleef
Mystilleef. Mystilleef, Mystilleef…
My favourite MS-Basher…
Nice that you said 2.6 has a clear list of new features. Too bad those features were intergrated into the windows Kernel ages ago.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Linux. But of course Longhorn is surrounded by rumors, it’s due 2005! Can you tell me any rumors about the 2.9.9 Kernel???
Let’s keep it real, all…
You ruined the joke by being too blantant. You were supposed to write, “Will it be called MS-UX?”, leaving it to the reader to put it together.
I beg of all OSNews posters: use more subtlety. Thank you.
As for Longhorn’s new “filesystem/API”, big deal. Sounds to me like someone made slocate which stored a little more info (MIME) about each file, a couple special hacks for getting Outlook info, and then made a pretty front-end for it. This would not be very difficult to replicate for Linux or anything else, I should think. Indeed, Dashboard seems like the much more compelling technology in a lot of ways.
-Erwos
Man, this is pathetic. How old are you all? Shouldn’t you be in school?
RE: Thom – Mystilleef’s point was that the Linux kernel development is open and new features are fully explained while Microsoft keeps everything under wraps. How do you possibly know what is in the Windows kernel… no one but a few M$ engineers gets to see that.
Also, the Linux kernel has been examined by thousands of eyes where the Windows kernel has a small group of eyes that have been looking at it for a long time… new ideas are fewer and mostly taken from outside projects like the *bsds and possibly openvms (where NT gets its roots).
Dear anon@*.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net, I just wanted to examplify that you can’t bash something just because it’s old – it’s bad from a rethorical point of view.
I could of course have chosen something else, but sex seemed to be a good example – eating or breathing were candidates as well, assuming that everyone does it (as opposed to if I had been examplifying with some sort of technology)
And “Grow up loser” isn’t even in my vocabulary – which maybe reveals who is the oldest of us two. Have a nice day.
I wonder if the new file system will have the executable bit? Microsoft would save themselves a great deal of malware problems if they copied this idea.
Also, how will the new filesystem be able to analyse files which are created by other propriatory software?
Most of the files I would love to have indexed are not created by microsoft products. For instance, it would be useful to me to be able to list my Cubase SX arrangements by author, sample rate+bit depth, pool size (to find huge projects that need redundant data cleaning up), video media references, without having to open each arrangement seperately and have a look. The same will probably apply to those who use Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Quicktime etc.
Perhaps the FS will have some kind of plugin capability so that other manufacturers can add intelligence to the search. Otherwise it’s going to be limited to the more open standards like mp3, and Microsoft products, which will be little better than what we have now.
“Grow up loser” isn’t in your vocabulary, but “examplify” is?
One very important flame war tip – when attempting to make the other person look less intelligent/educated than you are, make sure you don’t have something like “examplify” in your post.
‘//And “Grow up loser” isn’t even in my vocabulary – which maybe reveals who is the oldest of us two. Have a nice day.’//
No…you have a nice day…..and just to point one thing out……you may be older…but us young people are taking your jobs right out from under your feet…..so go figure…..don’t worry…….young people will find you a help desk job. 🙂
So you have a nice day.
Funny, out of all the posts so far, only around 4 actually are talking on topic, the rest have dragged in Linux for some unknown reason.
I am a Mac user, however, having heard rumours and this announcement, it will be interesting where Longhorn will be heading two. One has to remember, however, in October C# 2.0 will be released so I assume that is the platform Microsoft will say, “if you get your applications running on this then you will find it will run problem free on the next version of Windows”.
At the end of the day, Microsoft provides an API, they’re now fixing it up by creating a cleanly and properly documented one, however, it will be unfortunate that are large number of software vendors will take years just to get their software taking advantage of atleast *some* of the features.
How much memory do we need to run those managed programs in Longhorn?
1 GiB? 2 GiB?
I know 2005 is still a long time to go but if MS is serious
abt bringing REAL improvements to Windows, they should
seriously look at which part of the legacy feature that’s
failing them in the current OS and introduce a completely
improved new version
I can think of 2 legacy features to drop/improve :
Registry and ‘Hardware Detection’ !!
Perhaps the FS will have some kind of plugin capability
Perhaps, but is that a good thing? Look at how easy worms and viruses plugin to almost every windows application ever developed. Do we honestly expect Microsoft to make a secure filesystem if it has these features?
the new WinFS file system represents a new way of categorizing information stored to hard drives and media.
Right now, in XP, I can’t search the content of my java source files using “search for files and folders”. Does this mean that I won’t be able to view the files names in the directory of this next generation operating system, since the file name extenstion will be catagorized as “enemy of microsoft”?
I ever wonder if MSFT will drop the windows legacy ala MAC and come up with their own Unix based client running NT/2000 in emulation mode.
Apple needed to get rid of their legacy OS. They promised to do so, their main competitor (Microsoft) was ahead of them. Why did they opted for UNIX? Was it the superiority? Nope, it was the sheer amount of time saved. Copland was a huge waste of money – and a whole lot of time. If Apple were to try doing that again, we would only now be receiving OS X.
As for emulation – Classic on OS X is far from perfect. It took Apple more than a year to perfect it somewhat – i.e. giving people a reason to actually use it. It done it by promising greater stability than Classic – one Classic app crashing doesn’t mean the rest of the other open Classic apps – and OS X apps, go crashing down too. But still, speed is lacking.
One more point is that for quite some time, in fact before Jaguar, the adoption of OS X was, to say the best, disapointing. Not because it wasn’t a great OS, but rather its lack of native apps.
Now, for Microsoft to do so for limited amount of reasons that doesn’t actually translates to profit is a sheer amount of stupidity. Why would and why should Microsoft put its biggest, and some say its only, competitive advantage on the table by having emulation on a OS they spent millions trying to discredit?
And why UNIX? Had not for the legacy support – from applications to drivers – Windows XP would be extremely stable and secure and fast. Emulate those legacy support? Then Windows XP wouldn’t sell anywhere close as well as they did.
The proper solution? Move over slowly. Break certain weak (either from the stability or security viewpoint) brigdes. Keep the rest as long as they can. That’s the whole big idea with .NET and Longhorn. And .NET goes a little future, it saves Windows from any death of x86. Just say AMD isn’t successful in x86-64 and Intel more successful in migrating the x86 world to Itanium, .NET would be much better off, no? And not some UNIX with some nice eye candy and WIndows emulation on top no?
It all boils down to this – money. Does the profits justify the risk? In this case, no. So get over your pipedream. You want easy UNIX? Get a Mac.
Linux: non-corporate project who survives and thrives on being open, because more would contribute to its betterment.
MS: doesn’t get any help from the open source community and thrives from beating competitors with a sudden surpise.
That’s why Apple is also secretive. Good businesses let out secrets they gain on when it is out (i.e. to generate hype) and keep those other secrets under lock and key from competitors.
…I certainly don’t go out of my way to piss people off.
I found this really interesting. Here is a quick sampling of some your posts. With links of course in case you think I am making this up.
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3718#107138
then grab your wallet and buy the bloody commercial solution that is apparently superior or would that actuallt require moving out of your parents basement, get a job and actually be responsible for something once in your misserable and pathetic little life.
Submitt stories from Kuro5hin? I might as well post the latest issue of the North Korean Daily times relating to the “great leaders” attitude to the west.
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=4242#132108
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3568#100464
The reason why a large number of people don’t realise is because the majority of people are moronic simpletons.
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3984
As for Word, are you joking? are you really that stupid?
Why are you such a clueless moron.
Please, someone buy this lady a clue
where have you been? hiding under a rock?
By another clue lady (jeepers, two clue orders within one post, must be a record).
I really couldn’t believe someone would be as stupid Ana O´Neemus unless they were a troll.
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=4258#132898
I can’t believe people actually believe that Rotor is a full implementation of .NET. Are people here THAT stupid?
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3718&offset=45&ro…
Blame the idiot who made the first post and some how tried to relate it to X.
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3833#113181
Nothing is worse than a company b*astardising a great design for the yuppy generation who have more dollars than sense or style.
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3727#107900
what the hell do you think is going to run on the server which these applications will need to interact with? think about that sunshine before making such stupid remarks.
Confronted with his wrongness:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3487#98039
Oh, your[sic] such a guru. A genius amongst the unwashed masses, how could I ever question such wisdom
http://www.osnews.com/moderation.php?news_id=4225#131574
it says they live with their mum and dad. When they get out into the big band world I beat they won’t be able to afford broadband let alone dial up on a wage from KFC as the garbage changer and table cleaner.
This is fun – completely off topic, but fun nevertheless.
Now, DingoFish, let us compare your skills in swedish (== my native tounge) to my english skills (== your native tounge) – I guess I can make myself understood much better in your language than you can in mine. I assumed that the swedish word “exemplifiera” (originating from “exempel”) had an english counter part in “examplify” (as it is originating from “example”) – it seems it’s “exemplify” in english, though. Sorry ´bout that.
Concerning Windows/Longhorn (wut? on topic?), I may install it someday again just to run MS Flight Sim – that’s the only thing I miss since converting to Linux at home. But then again, that requires a Windows license, since I’m against piracy (you *DO* have a valid license, don’t you?)
Will Longhorn have the same licensing procedure as XP (connecting to a MS server, etc)?
Will Longhorn have the same licensing procedure as XP (connecting to a MS server, etc)?
That’s like saying “Will Iraq have the same language as Saddam’s Iraq (conversing in Arabic, etc)?”
Frankly, I don’t get why people are so paranoid over 50 numbers transmited over the Internet.
longhorn is a step forward towards M$’s Pandimonium Licensing scheme, where you dont Buy Apps You rent them, at first this will only be used for coporate Systems (thts y sweden, china & munchen (or in english Munich) are converting to other Oses so they dont get ripped off) okay i dont agree with M$’s licensing scheme, but in my opinion Windows is the Best Os i’ve ever used, i dont think i’d ever give it up, linux is good part from 3rd app compatiblity, every distro has apps that work on it, sure but ur not guarantted those apps will work on another distro and why because there is no standard in linux, an app that works of Debian Linux wont work on RedHat Linux unless it uses both Debian&RP program modules.
the reason y MS offers legacy support is so that software that you bought for your previous system will work on your new one, how would u like it if u spent say £30 on software okay u laugh £30 (approx. $58) but if in the new release of Win or Linux or Mac that support was dropped u wud be so pissed off with the company / group that developed that Os. and yea sure if legacy support was dropped Windows wud b stabler, but no apps wud work, and none would be supported i no well make an Os that has bugger all to run on it, wow 100% stability amazing speed, and Memory access rates, and wow an uncluttered HD, with loads of empty space, well i guess ill sit here seem as though i cant do anything and y, coz some dozy twat decided dropping legacy support was a good idea
now do u see what i mean by legacy support is always going to b around
Frankly, I don’t get why people are so paranoid over 50 numbers transmited over the Internet.
Well, there are many reasons people don’t like this.
– What if you don’t have internet or telephone access (e.g. on a plane) and Windows or Office decides to deactivate itself (I remember reading a review, and this actually happened to the reviewer!)
– It’s basically saying “You’re a pirate until you prove otherwise”
– The information transmitted is related to your hardware. This is a potential breach of privacy. They could sell this information to hardware companies.
– You can only reactivate a certain amount of times, so if you regularly change hardware, you’re out of luck. Windows XP is ‘disposable software’.
– Can you really trust this monoplist? Who knows what other information they could transmit?
Rajan,
I think I get your point.
The way I saw it was a bit different. In my perspective, MSFT is insipred by and inspires other os’s.
On the security side, I think they are trying to get a UNIX file system without naming it. The same with most of their other new functions.
In my opinion, hundreds of people are putting huge efforts developping drivers/ features etc for an os.
Call me simple but for every feature/hardware etc to implement and develop you multiply the work by the number of OS.
MS has a clear advantage in many fields; User design, compatibility, etc.. and mostly marketing. Yet their products lack security.
Why not focus on what they do best (as stated above) and move to things that already work instead of building them from scratch. MSFT will never go open source and, IMHO, they can afford not to. But why not have some open-source components?
By doing this, they could undermine accusations of security, vulnerability etc..
Maybe they could create a new windows range as they did when win95 and NT came out. They could develop another OS that could emulate previous versions, no?
The way things are going, even if I prefer windows as I cannot do (read I do not know how to…) everything with Linux, Unix based OS’s are dropping their roughness and catching up with windows.
Put it this way, at the pace open-sourced OS’s are going what do you think windows competitive advantage will be in 3 to 4 years?
Hardware compatibility will no longer be such an issue as MAC and Linux systems gain popularity, manufacters will carry out drivers.
What Linux just needs now is an easy 3rd party installation standars (ala Redhat) a few drivers, some improvement for main stream applications (open office) and a GUI for all those “bizarre” command line functions (almost every command line function in windows now has a GUI)
ANyway that’s my 2 cents.
I’ll stick to windows right now, because things can be done simply. However, Macs aren’t so far down the road, they might even be my next system.
“Do we honestly expect Microsoft to make a secure filesystem if it has these features?”
I don’t expect Microsoft to make a secure filesystem. I just expect them to make one that has some handy features, and is tightly integrated into the OS.
Since I recently had a fresh 2K install get wormed before I’d even managed to download Zone Alarm I kinda gave up on the idea of it ever being secure.
If I enjoy what Microsoft does do well, but don’t expect their OSs to compete in areas where other OSs are stronger, it leads to a less stressful life!
longhorn is a step forward towards M$’s Pandimonium Licensing scheme, where you dont Buy Apps You rent them, at first this will only be used for coporate Systems (thts y sweden, china & munchen (or in english Munich) are converting to other Oses so they dont get ripped off)
I spent some time trying to understand what this mean, so forgive me if I misinterpret.
You never bought software before. The only people who do that are big meany corporations buying out puny companies like App£e and N€XT. You bought licenses, and they don’t change with Palladium (which isn’t spelled Pandimonium).
Sweden moved from Windows merely because raising taxes even more higher is really dumb in the most highly taxed European country. And for the most part, a lot of what the Swede government do can be done on altenatives, principally Linux. Remember, Sweden is a gigantic state corporation that makes Germany look like a libertarian wonderland.
China has its own nationalistic purposes of not using Windows. If you actually read the Chinese press, US is the evil capitalist colonialist spawn of satan. Having most of their computer systems run out of one of their arch-nemesis’ most successful companies is as if saying that socialism sucks. Besides the fact of general easily justified paranoia that US might use Microsoft (and other US companies) to criple China whenever they play naughty (e.g. invade Taiwan). And they believe this do be done not by some security scheme like Palladium rather a covert secret bundle of code (Microsoft is trying to prove Beijing wrong by showing the code). Besides the ultimate motivation to reduce piracy.
Munich plain didn’t need Windows. They are moving mainly from Windows 3.1, and if they didn’t need newer versions of Windows for so long, they don’t need it now. It is not because of Palladium, rather it made most sense long-term for them.
okay i dont agree with M$’s licensing scheme, but in my opinion Windows is the Best Os i’ve ever used, i dont think i’d ever give it up, linux is good part from 3rd app compatiblity, every distro has apps that work on it, sure but ur not guarantted those apps will work on another distro and why because there is no standard in linux, an app that works of Debian Linux wont work on RedHat Linux unless it uses both Debian&RP program modules.
No offence, consider taking English class. A lot of people here have English as their second or third language yet type much better than you – not to say my English is perfect (my English teacher would disagree). But you’ve got to realize there is a whole lot more OS out there than Linux.
now do u see what i mean by legacy support is always going to b around
And why Europeans would never speak good English.
or just obtain a corporate CD Key and don’t worry about anything. 🙂
Like Windows ME did when they previewed it.
“I can think of 2 legacy features to drop/improve :
Registry and ‘Hardware Detection’ !!”
Yeah, sure, and I tend to think the two of them are linked. Registry is horrible. Nobody understands it, it is a pain in the ass to do something useful with it, and I am pretty sure most big problems from windows are coming from it ( windows which boots very fast the first time, and as slow as the worst linux with everything on 3 months later, things which stop working for no reason, etc… ).
For the unix thing : frankly, I don’t see the point. There are already a lot of unixes which are good, proprietary ones, free ones, etc… Even an easy to use one ( mac OS X ) !
Windows has a lot of problems ( I almost leave it for linux on my laptop, I don’t like XP for most tasks, expect music), but all I hate about linux is linked to unix ( everything is a file : stupid to speak to a soundcard as it was a file, the /dev is a mess, and devfs is far from perfect, etc… ). The only good thing in Unix is the shell ( sure, there are shell in almost every OS, but shell power is linked to the spirit of UNIX, where there is one small tool for everything ). I love linux capability for network, being able to handle different FS. But frankly, this has almost nothing to do with unix. It is more about implementation that the UNIX standart ( if it means anyhtin anyway )
Everything I like in linux is possible to implement upon NT kernel.
Some things I would love in windows :
– a good, useable shell.
– a good, fast and native system for multi desktops
– a better, easier to use explorer
– a easier way to install new things, and drivers ( like BeOS, for example ). Because, quite frankly, it is not very easy for “normal poeple”, of course not worse than linux ( is it possible ? ), but, still…
– being able to manage other OS FS ( never gonna happen, I suppose ).
– begin more secure by default. Big point, linked to the policy of MS more than the implementation, in a way.
I use both Windows (XP PRO. Win2k Pro & AS) and OS X. I currently prefer OS X (10.2.6). However, there are no secrets about why Microsoft needs to re-write their system. There exists three motivators:
1. Security. Do we really need to go in depth here? Basically, Windows was not designed to handle working safely in a networked environment. It ‘s not just the memory overrun issues, it is also the shear number of their apps that undermine the security of the OS, apps like Outlook.
2. Competition. Example: OS X is starting to run away from Windows and extend their lead (please don’t flame me.) Apple was the first to implement using the GPU for window compositing and now (with Panther) they have moved a significant amount of 2-D work to the GPU as well. This allows Apple to include cinematic type effects in the GUI while speeding up the overall system significantly. This is just one example where OS X is allowing Apple to quickly implement new innovations. Whereas MSFT is burdened with serious maintenance issues. XP will now not see a new SP for at least a year. Using the GPU as a means to benefit the OS is not an Apple invention, you will find discussions of it at the university level back in 1988. However Apple was able to implement first. That is my point,
Example 2: Linux’s GUI is now on Par with XP’s and many feel in some areas superior and OpenOffice is an easy and free replacement to MS Office. Linux is still in early adoption phase, but quickly approaching critical mass where the average shop will feel comfortable with it.
3. Sexiness: OS X and Linux have a sexy appeal to them. Luna looks like a kid by comparison. (My opinion of course.)
Longhorn dangers: 1. It is currently looking like longhorn will require significantly greater resources to run. Whereas OS X and Linux run very well on relatively weaker hardware configurations.
2. The new file system add-on will require even more resources. SQL Server running over NTFS, come on now, your going to need a relatively hefty hardware config by todays standards. I think this is one of the reasons why MSFT is targeting 2005/2006 in time for another round of hardware upgrades. OS X already includes a very efficient and in Panther much faster b-tree+ extension, doing searches on multiple attributes in Panther gives near real-time responses as you type from one character to the next. A hierarchal database system like b-tree seems a much better fit compared to a relational model for a file-system, or am I missing something? (Didn’t Netware have this back in the 80’s?)
3. Aero with its accelerated GPU system will be playing catch-up with Panther and its successor.
4. Apple’s release and innovation machine is moving at a faster clip than MSFT’s. Anecdotally, MSFT was showing using a GPU to generate Windows in 1999 on their R&D site, what happened? Are they spread to thin? Losing their focus? A New major OS release every 12-14 months is one fast moving Apple organization. And Panther is quite a nice update to Jaguar (I’m typing this on 7B44, its really sweet and significantly faster than Jaguar.)
Hello ladies, I run Linux *wink*. Can I grep your root?
For me XP is it. I’m not going beyond XP because of Windows current security problems. I know linux has some as well but atleast the linux fix is integrated into every new kernel.
Longhorn right now is way to high for the equipment I have. In the future of course I will have alteast one GB of ram and atleast a 100GB hard drive. However Longhorn will be removing the old legacy code which is long in coming. It will not run many of my present programs at all.
Perhaps if Longhorn can come out without security problems then I will consider. Otherwise I will stay with Linux.
SQL Server uses B-Trees in its indexes. Who’s to say WinFS won’t just be using that part of SQL Server to index NTFS attributes?
Though, I do imagine they’ll use the SQL query part to interface with ADO.net and let you use ADO.net to query the file system.
“I use both Windows (XP PRO. Win2k Pro & AS) and OS X. I currently prefer OS X (10.2.6). However, there are no secrets about why Microsoft needs to re-write their system. There exists three motivators: ”
But this has nothing to do with the basics of NT ( kernel and everything ) !!
I am far from a specialist in that domain, but I really doubt that security problems from windows are coming from the *design* of the kernel itself, and all low level things. Ok, running some parts of IIS in kernel mode may not be very safe, but most problems of virus and everything are coming from Active X, outlook, crap services like msg…
Linux model for security is far from perfect, but it is a lot more secure because of the *implementation*. There are a huge amount of bugs, but they are solved within a few hours, generally, that’s what I like with open source software generally.
The look of windows has nothing to do with the architecture of windows, nor the “competition” thing ( and for competition, really, apple is not a model. Apple and MS are the same for that; I don’t think it would be better if everybody had a mac. Just look what apple made when the bought emagic, a company which makes one famous tool for music, logic : they stopped the PC developpement, and tell people to switch to mac ).
The big win32 mess is to be solved by .Net. I don’t know .Net, but it looks like it is rather good. The look and feel will change with longhorn ( but I personnally think windows GUI is good. I prefer Mac OS X, I hate all the KDE/Gnome/etc stuff. Too long to have what you want, don’t want to waste 3 weeks to configure the borders of my windows ).
I really want to know how WinFS and the “no driver” concept will be.
In XP (and 2000 IIRC), if you enable the indexing service, you can perform searches on the metadata and content of files using the Indexing Service Query Language.
After enabling the service, right-click on My Computer and choose Manage.
Click Indexing Service.
Create a new Catalog (or use and existing one like System) and add the drives/directories you want to include in the catalog.
Right-click on Indexing Service and choose start to start the service.
It may take a while to index all of the included drives/directories (you can do other things while it is indexing). After it is finished indexing, you can choose to Query the Catalog.
For the most accurate queries, set the search dialog to Advanced Search and use the Indexing Query Language.
a freetext query of the contents of a java file may look something like this:
$contents “class MyJavaClass”
if you want to search all files for the text “class MyJavaClass” for example. The search can also be narrowed using other criteria.
Here’s some links to the Query Language Help:
ms-its:%windir%Helpisconcepts.chm::/ISMain-concepts_34.htm
(some of the searchable metadata properties)
ms-its:%windir%Helpisconcepts.chm::/ISMain-concepts_38.htm
It can be opened in IE, however, if you go Right-click on the Indexing Service in Computer Managemeng and choose Help, you can right-click on the contents pane of the help dialog and choose Jump to URL.
When entered this way, you also get the topic hierarchy view so you can jump around to related items easier.
…a “database driven filesystem”. Typical MS-BS(tm). All file systems have always been database-driven. It isn’t even a new file system at all, it’s a service that will run on top of NTFS. Way to innovate.
MCSEs, start spewing your press-release nonsense, just like when Windows 95 was a year away from release and MS claimed it didn’t run on top of DOS.
I wonder if the new file system will have the executable bit? Microsoft would save themselves a great deal of malware problems if they copied this idea.
NTFS does support restricting execution access. It’s just not enabled by default, because it would break almost all software (I tried, I know what I’m talking about. For example, GNU Make won’t work if the %TEMP% directory doesn’t grant execution access by default). However, you can still benefit from it by denying file execution to directories such as the Internet Explorer cache
Also, how will the new filesystem be able to analyse files which are created by other propriatory software?
The manufacturer of said software is supposed to write the parser plugins for the indexing service. If you’re going to do it yourself, it’s all documented in the PSDK
You may well be right, but your bizzare grammer and sentence construction makes it hard to follow your argument.
It’s easier to convince people if they can understand what you are saying. Rather than…
writing like, this, (with too many commas, no capital letters(and very long statements contained in brackets, with their own sub clauses, when it should be 4 starting another sentence and meander on to a totally different point about another country) which never quite ends so some1 has forgotten what you were saying at the start, and probably skip over the lot, as it’s hard to read) which wont convince people
MS talks:
BG” blah, blah, security holes”
SB:”blah, blah, Longhorn, blah blah”
BG:”Linux=communism, blah, blah”
SB:”Promise Longhorn, blah, blah”
BG:”BSD is cool, but change screen to red, blah, blah”
……..
SB:” Let’s be happy, blah, blah”
BG:” yeah, buddy, people always believed our blah, blah”
Hehe.. they tried everything else.. Crash ms.. Kash MS..
longhorn? they trying to say they from texas or something?
That’s funny. two things come from texas.
I don’t see no REAL horns.
guys, you’re scaring me…
Also what happens when microsoft decides that windows xp is obsolete and decides to quick activating it?
Who care about english grammar.
More than half a people who read on this forum are not even english native. We just need to be clear. The Anglo-saxons are you not happy with the hegemony of their mother tongue.
Nice day.
I think OSnews should seriously consider changing its name to BASH DOT either way it indicates a more suitable name for the people who post here.
Metadata of filesystem will be independent from the application used. Since Sql server database will be use to organise and store the metadata. The only question is will microsoft store the metadata of III party application
Face it you Lin-NUT zealots are jealous of the progress and development of yet another great Windows OS. LongHorn is going to own your Linut distro’s. The features being developed in MS’s next OS are going to be freaking awesome.
“I can think of 2 legacy features to drop/improve :
Registry and ‘Hardware Detection’ !!”
Well sure they could get rid of some legacy stuff, but most of it sorta goes away on it’s own. Most of it is old hardware issue that in general goes away with time. I don’t think there is anything that truely needs to go away. The registry just needs to stop being abused. Have it only used for the OS as intended. Also I must say they have gotten it much better. Not that I have ever had a registry issue, but the old slowdown experianced with time that was blamed on the registry in the 9x series has gone away in the NT based windows.
Why on earth would they get rid of the hardware detection. It’s on of the best part of windows. It works wonderfully and is something all other OS’s aside from maybe OSX lag behind in. To think of how much hardware is out there and how flawlessly it works, it’s pretty damn amazing. Thats one of windows strong points, is that pretty much every peice of hardware under the sun works with it and rarely do you even need to install or do anything unless it’s very new.
I wonder if the new file system will have the executable bit? Microsoft would save themselves a great deal of malware problems if they copied this idea.
ACL – Read and Execute (been available since introduction of NTFS).
Try having a good look at the security tab of a file, and also have a look at the advanced options as well, for some interesting ideas that Linux could use.
Many people are commenting on the database like features of WinFS and the possible plugin support idea for Longhorn, these features have already been done in an operating system before – BeOS. Whilst the BeOS was not widely know, it had all the features that people now want:
1. A journaled enabled filesystem.
2. Customisable attributes.
3. Fast
4. Reasinonably hardware detection.
5. Some Unix compliance.
6. MP aware
7. No viruses or worms or major security breaches or problems.
Now if only MS could deliver a nice stable operating system that was as good as BeOS (mind you the first BeOS boxes from Be Inc were dual CPU computers running around 133 MHz per processor) doing all the stuff we did we would be far better off.
Thats my 2 cents.
On the security side, I think they are trying to get a UNIX file system without naming it. The same with most of their other new functions.
Pardon me when I ask, what UNIX file system has a real SQL database built in? Cause other than that, other differences with NTFS is minimal, and I can’t see how Microsoft is trying to get UNIX file system. In fact, it looks the other way around. They are trying to kill file extension (*.xxx) while no *nix company would even try to do that, except Apple.
MS has a clear advantage in many fields; User design, compatibility, etc.. and mostly marketing. Yet their products lack security.
True, but how would copying UNIX help them?
But why not have some open-source components?
Apple has some open source components. Darwin is used merely to get developers to help Apple to bring BSD features into Darwin (OpenDarwin). Most other open source components Apple released is for business purposes. Things like Safari are because the software they used is under a copyleft license, while other things like Rendervouz is only open source because Apple wants it to become a standard.
By doing this, they could undermine accusations of security, vulnerability etc..
Open Source does not mean security. Yes, people can check MS’ code, but how many would contribute something to fix a hole as oppose to writing a worm to take advantage.
Maybe they could create a new windows range as they did when win95 and NT came out.
They are in a better marketing position now than in 1995 (or before than). With one product line for desktops, it is tad easier to market them.
What Linux just needs now is an easy 3rd party installation standars (ala Redhat) a few drivers, some improvement for main stream applications (open office) and a GUI for all those “bizarre” command line functions (almost every command line function in windows now has a GUI)
Windows caught on in popularity with just one reason: applications, price and more applications. Other things like ease of use and GUI for bizarre command line functions came in later.
“Registry and ‘Hardware Detection’ !! ”
1. Registry will be gone or at least legacy, it’s been replaced by something else.
“Perhaps the FS will have some kind of plugin capability ”
2. Windows 2000 had this, heck Windows NT 3.51 may have had it, who knows. It’s called IFS – Installable File System and one example of it’s use would be when you mount an Exchange 2000 (and I assume Exchange 2003) database, it exposes a drive letter, via IFS. Search msdn.microsoft.com for IFS for more info.
“That’s the whole big idea with .NET and Longhorn”
3. Actually, one of the biggest ideas with .NET and Longhorn is security. See, .NET lets you define not just what rights a user has, but what rights an executable (exe, dll) file has. It also provides for cryptographic signatures of executable files, such that if the signature doesn’t match, the code won’t be run. Longhorn will be slower and run using more RAM than Windows XP. Yes. But it will be inherently more secure, and that’s what’s being traded for – the speed and capacity of 2005 PCs really ought to be able to run Longhorn at least as fast as PCs run Windows XP today.
“- What if you don’t have internet or telephone access (e.g. on a plane) and Windows or Office decides to deactivate itself (I remember reading a review, and this actually happened to the reviewer!)”
4. If that happens to you, and your plane doesn’t have an “air phone”, then you wait until you get off the plane, and maybe next time plan a little better! *Oh wait*, it’s an MS conspiracy, Bill is after you! Mwahahaha!. Fool.
” – Can you really trust this monoplist? Who knows what other information they could transmit?”
5. Yeah, because the contents of your PC are certainly worth the billions of dollars worth of lawsuits and government sanctions that would be certain to befall Microsoft for doing something that stupid. NOT. (You fool. Again.)
“Since I recently had a fresh 2K install get wormed before I’d even managed to download Zone Alarm I kinda gave up on the idea of it ever being secure. ”
6. Download the patch, burn it to CD along with the latest service pack, then install the OS and patch it while not online. Or, download ZoneAlarm to a floppy first, THEN install while offline. Or Tiny Personal Firewall. It shoudl be noted that with Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server, you can install while offline, enable Internet Connection Firewalling, then go online and hit Windows Update.
1. Security. Do we really need to go in depth here? Basically, Windows was not designed to handle working safely in a networked environment. It ‘s not just the memory overrun issues, it is also the shear number of their apps that undermine the security of the OS, apps like Outlook.
From Windows 95 to Windows XP, security have improved dramatically. And considering Longhorn would be the first OS released after Trustworthy Computing, other than Win 2003, I don’t see why a long tedious rewrite is needed. And considering how much more Windows 2003 is secure than Windows XP, there is hope.
2. Competition. Example: OS X is starting to run away from Windows and extend their lead (please don’t flame me.) Apple was the first to implement using the GPU for window compositing and now (with Panther) they have moved a significant amount of 2-D work to the GPU as well. This allows Apple to include cinematic type effects in the GUI while speeding up the overall system significantly. This is just one example where OS X is allowing Apple to quickly implement new innovations. Whereas MSFT is burdened with serious maintenance issues. XP will now not see a new SP for at least a year. Using the GPU as a means to benefit the OS is not an Apple invention, you will find discussions of it at the university level back in 1988. However Apple was able to implement first. That is my point
Now, lets say Microsoft does it in half the time than Apple. It gets something like OS X 10.0 out in two years. Then in half a year, something like OS X 10.1. Then half a year more 10.2. 3 years to get to Jaguar-like standard, if they follow Apple’s path, if they do it in half the time. About the same as Longhorn, no?
And the main reason why Longhorn isn’t going to be released anytime soon is because its development is dependant on another project, Yukon. MS’s next-gen database. The biggest part, IMHO, of Longhorn would be WinFS, not using Direct3D to render the OS. That, and Palladium (I hear the snorts). These are the two main features Microsoft would be touting. Apple has those in Panther? No? Then MS isn’t that far behind are they?
Example 2: Linux’s GUI is now on Par with XP’s and many feel in some areas superior and OpenOffice is an easy and free replacement to MS Office. Linux is still in early adoption phase, but quickly approaching critical mass where the average shop will feel comfortable with it.
Linux’s GUI is as varried as African landscape, which it is main problem. Red Hat may look nice, but Sun looks gawd awful. As for ease of use, Linux is catching up, but the main issue isn’t ease of use here. It is applications. A lead Microsoft would loose with a rewrite. As for Openoffice, the last version I tried was a tad faster than 1.0 and has more features, but still significantly slower, uglier, harder to use (coming from a ex-StarOffice 5.2 user using Office XP) than Office. And not forgeting having a host of features I use on Office not available on it, and it having no features I could use over Office. And with Office 2003, it would probably blow OpenOffice further away.
Now, there are some people that can use OpenOffice, all power to you. But most people I ask would rather jump in a pool of dog poo than to use it for everyday work.
3. Sexiness: OS X and Linux have a sexy appeal to them. Luna looks like a kid by comparison. (My opinion of course.)
Precisely, your opinion. Frankly, to my opinion, OS X looks mroe kiddish to me than Luna. And at least Windows XP lets you change a between Luna default, Silver, Olive and Classic, unlike OS X which is Aqua and Graphite. Don’t fancy those fancy UIs? Choose Classic. Don’t fancy blue? Choose silver. Don’t fancy silver? Olive. Don’t fancy olive? blue.
1. It is currently looking like longhorn will require significantly greater resources to run. Whereas OS X and Linux run very well on relatively weaker hardware configurations.
Funnily, the main reason why Microsoft is helding off Longhorn is to make sure WinFS runs within reasonable limits. And considering all the builds run on today’s hardware and it being released three years from now, they don’t look too bad. However, OS X running fine on weaker hardware configurations? Try running Jaguar on a two year old Mac, say a Cube. Does it feel any fast? Well, absolutely not in comparison with PCs the same age.
2. The new file system add-on will require even more resources. SQL Server running over NTFS, come on now, your going to need a relatively hefty hardware config by todays standards.
WinFS does NOT mean out of the box SQL stappled onto NTFS. Otherwise they would be able to show a preview of it, instead of writing a prototype that takes on its features as a service. It is BASED on SQL, however, but it isn’t wise to compare it with today’s databases.
OS X already includes a very efficient and in Panther much faster b-tree+ extension, doing searches on multiple attributes in Panther gives near real-time responses as you type from one character to the next. A hierarchal database system like b-tree seems a much better fit compared to a relational model for a file-system, or am I missing something? (Didn’t Netware have this back in the 80’s?)
From the previews of Panther, it doesn’t look like all the results just suddenly pop up. It looks like it takes time, especially when there are many files having that attribute. Now, I can’t judge it without actually trying it, but SQL isn’t used merely for searches. In fact, Microsoft is probably going to use this to tackle the problem with fragmentations, corruption, etc.
3. Aero with its accelerated GPU system will be playing catch-up with Panther and its successor.
Wow, you’ve seen Aero! Screenies! screenies! But if you haven’t (Paul’s screenshots weren’t Aero, or so says a MS engineer), how can you say it is similar to Panther? UIs running on GPU doesn’t sell very well – how many bought a Mac because of Quartz Extreme? And if Microsoft is going to use this as the main marketing tool, I would have a sheer amount of pity for them.
Apple’s release and innovation machine is moving at a faster clip than MSFT’s.
Or is it? It is more like until recently, Apple’s catch up machine. Sure OS X has some cool features, that I’m not denying, but if you think Apple is moving too fast for Microsoft – well you aren’t much of a history student are you?
People don’t care about real technical features. They care about what the marketing department is telling them. And they care about features that would affect them. Now, with most people having a budget that keeps Apple out, I don’t really see “release and innovation machine” as a threat.
Anecdotally, MSFT was showing using a GPU to generate Windows in 1999 on their R&D site, what happened?
You can find it in Longhorn. Eye candy is nice and all, but with most people buying a beige box, I’m taking a bet that most people couldn’t care less.
A New major OS release every 12-14 months is one fast moving Apple organization.
If MS move that fast, antitrust lawsuits would be filled.
And Panther is quite a nice update to Jaguar (I’m typing this on 7B44, its really sweet and significantly faster than Jaguar.)
Same with WIndows XP to Windows 2000.
Now tell me again, how does rewriting help Microsoft other than giving Apple a even larger lead?
I know 2005 is still a long time to go but if MS is serious
abt bringing REAL improvements to Windows, they should
seriously look at which part of the legacy feature that’s
failing them in the current OS and introduce a completely
improved new version
I can think of 2 legacy features to drop/improve :
Registry and ‘Hardware Detection’ !!
If you want unix, go download it. The registry has it’s uses, and no program is FORCED TO USE IT. Any program can use config files in it’s installed directory if it wants, the registry is merely an option. And ‘hardware detection’? I’ve never had a piece of hardware not detect in 2000/XP, makes me wonder why they include the driver disks with new hardware.
Ok David, your post, while well-intentioned, had just enough misinformation to get me to bite.
2. Customisable attributes.
…except that when you added a new attribute, existing files didn’t automatically get reindexed until you copied them. So if you added, say, a “time period” attribute to your MP3s, you’d have to copy all however-many-thousand MP3s in order for them to pick it up. And no, I don’t mean that they wouldn’t automatically assume a value: clearly they couldn’t do that. But I mean that they wouldn’t even have a blank value for the attribute; they wouldn’t be indexed by it at all. So if you searched for “all MP3s without a time period set”, nothing would show up! You’d have to do the copy first. Sure, there was a command-line hack around that available on BeBits, but that’s something that should have been transparent to the user from the get-go.
(yet another example of a good BeOS feature that wasn’t quite there)
3. Fast
While many of the design principles of the BeOS allowed it to feel very fast, it really isn’t beneath the hood. Lengthy, computationally-intensive tasks such as compiles are far slower on the BeOS than on other platforms, and BFS’s speeds are pretty much near the bottom of the competition.
4. Reasinonably hardware detection.
I still love BeOS’s hardware model. Not that Windows’ is too shabby, either.
5. Some Unix compliance.
…but enough missing to cause problems for some major applications (the lack of mmap() comes most immediately to mind). Yet again, it’s close but no cigar.
7. No viruses or worms or major security breaches or problems.
This is the claim that bothers me the most. Until 5.0x (I forget whether it was 5.01, 5.02, or 5.03 that fixed the problem), you could log into any BeOS machine running an FTP server (either the built-in one or anything using the provided library) as baron/baron and voila: instant root access to the machine. This is far more major than anything Microsoft’s ever done…only obscurity saved the data of probably thousands of BeOS users.
Moreover, it was absolutely trivial to use StyledEdit to write a Unix script, then set the executable bit to 1. To any regular user, it would show up as a simple text file (maybe a ReadMe for an application). Under the hood it’s going “rm -Rf ~” and voila, your home directory, which ostensibly includes all your documents, is now gone. Back in the day there was a discussion about how to appropriately handle this in OpenTracker, but to my knowledge, it hasn’t been fixed yet.
Want another? Perhaps you remember when Scot Hacker went on TV to demo the BeOS and a few of it’s neat features, such as Be In Your Stereo. Except that a few hours before the taping, someone used a known exploit to hack in and screw with his web server, rendering half of his demo useless. Longtime BeOS users will remember Scot’s (understandably) disappointed reaction, and it was one of his last acts as a figurehead in the community.
Now if only MS could deliver a nice stable operating system that was as good as BeOS
2000/XP are way more stable than the BeOS ever was. And they do a hell of a lot more, too. Not to mention that most of the things Windows does that the BeOS can’t are actually useful, whereas most of the things that the BeOS brought to the table really weren’t, either because they weren’t really that great of an idea (such as translators and replicants) or because they were never adequately finished (such as the attributes/querying and media kit). It sounds like you’re comparing the state of how Windows is with how you dreamed the BeOS could be.
doing all the stuff we did we would be far better off.
I would love to hear a list of a few things that the BeOS could do that Windows still cannot, and why it’s useful. Years and years of BeOS fans have read off the feature lists (“you can use the Tracker as an e-mail program!”) without ever addressing the latter part.
Fast searching and attributes is one (although it could be so much better; they should auto-sync with known metadata types such as JPEG comments and ID3 tags, auto-reindex files when new attributes are added, provide more user-friendly interfaces to bring the power out to non-technical users, etc.). I heartily invite you to list others.
>2000/XP are way more stable than the BeOS ever was.
IS, IS!! Beos is still being developed and i wonder
if you ever used it anyway. I use Windows XP in my office and
i have had severasl “complete” freezes” and several spontanious reboots. I am not the only one in our office that has similar problems with XP, many workstation are already “downgraded” to Windows 98. Longhorn is proberly the same, a lot of marketing and bla bla but its still a piece a crap.
I hope we leave tne MS platform soon are stast actually working instead of being busy “repairing” all day!
Something more important than all of this is the fact that they’re integrating Internet Explorer into the Windows kernel.
How goddamn stupid can you get? Let’s put an already insecure, shitty, Active-X enabled browser into the kernel.
I hope Longhorn is an unsuccessful failure.
>I hope Longhorn is an unsuccessful failure.
so then you would like it to be a success and not a failure.
– WinFS will be NTFS and SQLServer merged, not having SQLServer run on top. The SQLServer part will care about file and metadata management, NTFS (more accurately its remains since) will care about plain file storage, while the rest of it’s functionality will be ripped and managed by the SQLServer part (including security as it seems). File IO will go thru WinFS, NTFS will be an internal component in Longhorn. The reason that NTFS is still needed, is that SQL Server Yukon can’t store data for random access in it’s database itself (random access as in growing and shrinking of filedata at will).
– WinFS will feature “plugins”, which are planned to be supplied thru WindowsUpdate, if otherwise, they are required to be signed by Microsoft, no switch to turn signature checking off like you can for drivers. Those things are currently called File Promoters and Demoters. Those things are meant to handle file execution and metadata extraction.
– Thurrotts supposed Aero-screenshots were old concepts. The RTM of Longhorn is still 1.5-2 years ahead, don’t expect the design to last. Actually expect another radical change near end of beta, as it happened to WinXP.
>2000/XP are way more stable than the BeOS ever was.
Are you serious? I like Windows (& Linux for that matter), but more stable than BeOS? Have you been living under a Redmond rock or something??
Why all the squabble, little people? Your input doesn’t matter. Discussion is irrelevant. We bought the government and we’ll never have another anti-trust issue again.
If you are smart, you will start learning Longhorn now. Otherwise you won’t have a job in 2005, after a million more programming jobs are shipped to India and China.
So stop your chatter, little people, and get moving! Longhorn or bust!
ah, the *nix minority complex strikes again…
Something more important than all of this is the fact that they’re integrating Internet Explorer into the Windows kernel.
How goddamn stupid can you get? Let’s put an already insecure, shitty, Active-X enabled browser into the kernel.
Now, where did you get that from? Next what? NetSHow?
I hope Longhorn is an unsuccessful failure.
I hope that you would survive the dissapointment. The only thing that can make Longhorn a failure is making it a useless interim release like Windows Me, which isn’t in this case.
Are you serious? I like Windows (& Linux for that matter), but more stable than BeOS? Have you been living under a Redmond rock or something??
I had no crashes with Windows XP, and a couple hardware related ones with Windows 2003. More than a dozen on BeOS 5.0 Personal Edition (no, not the one from CNET, so don’t blame the build). Stuff like BeZilla (which is very different now) can bring the OS down – none of them hardware related (or so says various BeOS forums). BeOS may be much more stable than Windows 9x, but 2000/XP/2003?
Yeah, I like BeOS. I like the responsive UI, heck I like the UI (and this it is much better than Windows XP). But then security, stability and security is not as good as Windows.
>> Something more important than all of this is the fact
>> that they’re integrating Internet Explorer into the
>> Windows kernel.
>> How goddamn stupid can you get? Let’s put an already
>> insecure, shitty, Active-X enabled browser into the
>> kernel.
> Now, where did you get that from? Next what? NetSHow?
Dunno about the kernel, but MS *did* announce IE would be fully and officially integrated into the OS. Not a cheering thought.
“Integrated” doesn’t imply “kernel mode”. It will be still an usermode component and be used to render certain parts of the UI.
Apple’s release and innovation machine is moving at a faster clip than MSFT’s.
Or is it? It is more like until recently, Apple’s catch up machine. Sure OS X has some cool features, that I’m not denying, but if you think Apple is moving too fast for Microsoft – well you aren’t much of a history student are you?
People don’t care about real technical features. They care about what the marketing department is telling them. And they care about features that would affect them. Now, with most people having a budget that keeps Apple out, I don’t really see “release and innovation machine” as a threat.
Speaking of being a student of history. It seems that Apple has always been in the lead as far as features, and it is MS that plays rip-off… I mean catch-up.
And the main reason why Longhorn isn’t going to be released anytime soon is because its development is dependant on another project, Yukon. MS’s next-gen database. The biggest part, IMHO, of Longhorn would be WinFS, not using Direct3D to render the OS. That, and Palladium (I hear the snorts). These are the two main features Microsoft would be touting. Apple has those in Panther? No? Then MS isn’t that far behind are they?
MS is very far behind. Citing 2 features of Longhorn that OSX would NEVER have is hardly an argument. As to Palladium, it doesn’t seem from the evidence that we can trust MSs’ “trusted” computing. Three more security holes announced as of last Friday. You build trust on actions and evidence… not promises.
Will the brainwashed masses of MS developers be given shovels to clean up the cow pies after the Longhorns have gone through?
What a BAD choice for a code-name…
Reiserfs 4 anyone?
‘///
i have had severasl “complete” freezes” and several spontanious reboots.
‘///
Ummmm…..you can’t blame the OS for your crappy hardware.
Speaking of being a student of history. It seems that Apple has always been in the lead as far as features, and it is MS that plays rip-off… I mean catch-up.
Successful companies in most markets rarely create news ideas – they market those ideas. I didn’t say that many times Microsoft played catch up with Apple. But big deal – looks who far more freaking richer?
MS is very far behind. Citing 2 features of Longhorn that OSX would NEVER have is hardly an argument.
I cited two main touted features of Longhorn than OS X has. Who knows what other features Longhorn has (or would have) than Apple doesn’t – we don’t know now. Other than a few articles, previews and leaks, what we know about something going to be released 2 years from now is very limited.
However, Apple may be planning something like WinFS (I don’t see however any reason to believe that they would come up with it before Microsoft). But Palladium? Nope.
As to Palladium, it doesn’t seem from the evidence that we can trust MSs’ “trusted” computing. Three more security holes announced as of last Friday. You build trust on actions and evidence… not promises.
Ask yourself. When the code of those components that caused the security hole, was it written before or after Microsoft started its Trustworthy Computing thingy. Here’s a clue: BEFORE. Expecting someone to change almost immediately is unhealthy, in all sense.
And again, I didn’t say Palladium would increase security. I said Microsoft would be touting them. Guess what? This is a world of marketing.
Dunno about the kernel, but MS *did* announce IE would be fully and officially integrated into the OS. Not a cheering thought.
That means there won’t be a standalone version of IE. That means it would be just like every other Windows component like Paint, Notepad, etc. It doesn’t mean IE would be in kernel mode – integrating into the kernel means that. OS and kernel doesn’t have the same meaning since the 60s.
The only non cheering thought would be those people using older versions of Windows or the Mac/Solaris/etc. not getting any new versions of IE ported to them.
Dunno about the kernel, but MS *did* announce IE would be fully and officially integrated into the OS. Not a cheering thought.
That means there won’t be a standalone version of IE. That means it would be just like every other Windows component like Paint, Notepad, etc. It doesn’t mean IE would be in kernel mode – integrating into the kernel means that. OS and kernel doesn’t have the same meaning since the 60s.
The only non cheering thought would be those people using older versions of Windows or the Mac/Solaris/etc. not getting any new versions of IE ported to them.
There is no use trying to explain something that simple to some people here. I’ve read every post on here and you have constantly corrected every assertion in regards to IE and NT kernel, however, the same stuff is reposted.
I’ve given up on correcting people. If people can’t read what you have taken the time to type then obviously these IE and NT kernel posts are nothing more than bits of flame bait by some troll looking despirately for attention.
There is no use trying to explain something that simple to some people here. I’ve read every post on here and you have constantly corrected every assertion in regards to IE and NT kernel, however, the same stuff is reposted.
I’ve given up on correcting people. If people can’t read what you have taken the time to type then obviously these IE and NT kernel posts are nothing more than bits of flame bait by some troll looking despirately for attention.
For the first time, I gotta say, I agree with you. But then again, I was bored, didn’t feel like blogging…
I ever wonder if MSFT will drop the windows legacy ala MAC and come up with their own Unix based client running NT/2000 in emulation mode.
Any toughts?
I think it was xenix or something like that. Late 70s to early 80s iirc.
I think at the time they had the right idea to bring out an OS that was not *nix based.
It helped everyday users get comfortable with computers.
These days *nix is getting pretty usuable. Still not anywhere as usuable on the desktop as Windows or MacOS IMHO but its getting better.
Windows only runs slower if you install lots of crap (usually spyware and all the other crap that goes into the systray).
From a programmers point of view the registry is here to stay, it saves a lot of work handling config files and has lots of advantages over them like monitoring registry changes. I do think that a better approach would be to have two registries, one for system use, other for apps. Also having a binary (windows) or a text (gcong) registry really shouldn’t matter as long as you have an api that abstracts from that, and possibly command line tools to edit the registry.
I think that for the most part people criticize the windows registry just because….
Wouldn’t it be a great idea to intergrate anti-spyware software into Windows? And then make upgrading completely automated, so new ad/spyware defs are installed automatically? No more slowdown caused by spyware!!
Oh, wait…