PDA

View Full Version : Recent Longhorn screenshots



snax
27th March 2005, 07:01 PM
Longhorn (aka Aero) is due out H1 2007.
I think we can say they've been influenced by OS X a little... but that's okay, because it still looks terrible. Plenty of time for them to fix the GUI, but as it stands it looks like the MS photocopier needs repairing :P.

(click thumbnails for a larger image).
http://snaxx.org/albums/longhorn/lh_explorer_demo_01.thumb.jpg (http://snaxx.org/albums/longhorn/lh_explorer_demo_01.jpg)
http://snaxx.org/albums/longhorn/lh3.thumb.jpg (http://snaxx.org/albums/longhorn/lh3.jpg)
http://snaxx.org/albums/longhorn/lh1.thumb.jpg (http://snaxx.org/albums/longhorn/lh1.jpg)
http://snaxx.org/albums/longhorn/lh2.thumb.jpg (http://snaxx.org/albums/longhorn/lh2.jpg)



snax

neilrobinson
27th March 2005, 07:04 PM
hrmp... :D

i love it - text writer is not responding, it might respond if you wait. :blink:

neil

aaron_meredith
27th March 2005, 07:14 PM
Yuk!
Well by looks it is not that visually prestning comparing to OSX.

Love the Not Responding Message! i hope we see this feature. people could be waiting for ours

-Aaron

LCGuy
27th March 2005, 07:18 PM
MS Paint still looks the same as it did back in Win 3.11! :lol:

the_OM
27th March 2005, 07:53 PM
You know what the funny thing is?

While we might bag the way that longhorn looks and everything, within a month of its release there will be more longhorn users than there are OS X users, and OS X will have been out for about 6 or 7 years then.

notb4dinner
27th March 2005, 07:59 PM
Why do you need an Administrator password to install an image editor?

geektechnu
27th March 2005, 08:06 PM
I've never really liked any of Microsoft's Longhorn skin designs.

Check out what some guys are doing with the LonghornAlternative skin pack for XP:
http://www.enhancedlabs.com/main/lha/index.htm

Looks way better than anything Microsoft has ever done. In fact I''m using it now!

EDIT: Attached a screenie of my current desktop.

decryption
27th March 2005, 08:12 PM
Longhorn just seems to be Microsoft playing catch-up and modernising their OS. I can't wait for it to come out, then all the cool things we've been using, the majority will be able to use :)
However, I can only wonder what Mac OS X will be like when Longhorn is release :P

Phillip
27th March 2005, 08:18 PM
They are only concept screenshots. Remember how ugly OS X looked in beta or pre beta if you have seen it? ;)

tranp
27th March 2005, 08:27 PM
I don't think it looks very much like OS X at all? I see a closer relation to XP then to OS X. I think it looks alright, sure it'll look better on release like OS X did.

Goodbye
27th March 2005, 08:30 PM
Don't you love the little oxymoron in the top left of the third screenshot?

"Windows Security"

:D

hawker
27th March 2005, 08:43 PM
OS X will always "crap" all over whatever Microsoft come up with....

MacPC
27th March 2005, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by geektechnu@Mar 27 2005, 08:06 PM
I've never really liked any of Microsoft's Longhorn skin designs.

Check out what some guys are doing with the LonghornAlternative skin pack for XP:
http://www.enhancedlabs.com/main/lha/index.htm

Looks way better than anything Microsoft has ever done. In fact I''m using it now!

EDIT: Attached a screenie of my current desktop.
Perhaps Microsoft could nick this design, looks better than the aero shots of the real longhorn

thomas
27th March 2005, 09:38 PM
I think it's starting to look not-so-bad. Good to see they're buffing the design of Longhorn.

It'll be how it actually 'works' that will influence my decision on whether or not it's any good.

king89
27th March 2005, 09:44 PM
The longhorn screen shots look terrible, what is with the opaque borders, it is like they couldn't think of a good use of the technology and just stuck it there so they can boast about it.

Actually I believe that is the whole windows mentality, put a lot of features into the program without properly implementing or design just so it will look good on the spec sheet.

matttt88
27th March 2005, 09:52 PM
Im a bit scared, the better it looks, the less reason i have to convert my friends and family.

I know that OSX is better with looks aside, but they honestly dont think the virus threats are that big of a deal :unsure:

I have to say, very mac influenced, with the need to type an administrator password to install an application, but knowing windows, there will be a very easy way around it.

pipsqeek
27th March 2005, 09:59 PM
The translucent boardering looks is so 2002. When PC's had clear plexiglass covers on their cases for that "glass" "effect". Actaully, I saw some speakers the other day with similar "glass" surrounds. Funny part was, they reminded me of Windows, cause they were those cheap and nasty beige plastic ones you get with packaged PC's. The ones advertised to produce 1000 Watts of power.

The screenshots look like an XP skin. Infact, I like the XP skin geektechnu has posted, that looks nicer. And for the sake of looking slightly different, I think I'll install it on my Xbox... sorry, err. PC.

It's the same old Road Runner vs Coyote... RR being OS X and the Coyote being M$. Never catching up.


pipsqeek :thumbup:

PeterPE
28th March 2005, 10:09 AM
The full implementation of Longhorn was often said to require powerful hardware. Forget about running Longhorn on present PCs. Aero, Aero-Glass... 4 to 5GHz clock speed? Intel has stopped trying to ramp up clock speed as it was a case of diminishing returns for a huge engineering effort. Not to mention the need for thousand dollar plus graphics cards as well. I laugh when I recall reading about the Pentium CPU a year or so ago, when all the pundits and Intel itself was cracking on about 10 and 15 GHz clock speeds in the near future. Not with current technology brethren.

I would not want a computer that exudes large amounts of heat (ha! - G5 2x2.5, anyone?), has massive hardware and power requirements, all just to run a 3D operating system. All so that worms, trojans and viruses can do their job just a little bit quicker. Absolutely pointless.

"There's a sucker born every minute" P.T. Barnum.

What about the current abortion that is called Windows Media Center?

gmask1
28th March 2005, 11:02 AM
The screencaps look pretty good. As matttt said, they are way more than needed to keep people away from OSX.

I suppose my only question is how extensible the UI is, since the looks and interactions may become outdated by the time Longhorn arrives next year. Otherwise - minimum requirements aside - it looks very asthetically pleasing.

pipsqeek
28th March 2005, 11:25 AM
PeterPE:

Good point. I also recently read in an IT magazine that happen to be testing out Longhorn, saying that the hardware requirements at this stage are non-existant.

And this Windows.... everyone knows that when they say Minimum requirements and Recommended minimum requirements, they are the bare minimum.

4GB RAM, 1TB HDD, 256MB Video card, 8-10GHz CPU.

Much like the tooth fairy, these specs are yet to come to fruition.

Maybe M$ is hoping that there will be a computer that has these specs by the time Longwait... er Longhorn is released.

pipsqeek

icant
28th March 2005, 11:28 AM
I think that translucent glass looking border (the final image) looks quite nice.

Sometimes I think that Microsoft has the software experience, money, ability to make a really kick ass OS. It's sad that for various commercial reasons they're not in a position to. Or just don't want to.

geektechnu
28th March 2005, 11:34 AM
The main requirement will be the next generation of Direct X (maybe version 10?)
Microsoft want to standardise this so they can do Quartz-style stuff on every computer running Longhorn.

I understand that they want 3D acceleration in the Longhorn interface, but I reckon requiring a new EXPENSIVE video card is overkill. What use are pixel & vertex shaders in an OS GUI that will render mostly flat-surfaces? I don't think anyone is going to need to be be able to push 1000's of polygons on their desktop. That's just stupid.

I just hope they don't break compatability with old versions of Windows (their track record on this is pretty good tho).

PeterPE
28th March 2005, 11:42 AM
Some people just don't get it.

Usability is far far more important than that it looks nice. You can give me all the funny 3D effects/fade outs/fade ins/animations/colour schemes/shadows, etc, but it matters nought if the usual Windows bugs/BSOD/viruses/crashes/incompatibilities/lousy usability, are still there.

Anyway, if WindowsXP/SP2 has fixed all the problems why Longhorn? Simply, Longhorn is all about DRM and Paladium. The Micro$oft consortium intends that dumb schmucks who buy Longhorn with hardware that can run it, will be prevented from using their computers they way they would like, unless they PAY per use. Every time you compose a message in MSWord it will cost a cent or two. Napster is at it already with music subscription. While ever you continue paying your monthly sub you can continue listening to your music. Default on a payment then you can kiss your library goodbye. Oh but for a fee they will reenable your subscription.

Stay with XP brethren. And stay with your older software.

pipsqeek
28th March 2005, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by PeterPE@Mar 28 2005, 11:42 AM
Some people just don't get it.

Usability is far far more important than that it looks nice. You can give me all the funny 3D effects/fade outs/fade ins/animations/colour schemes/shadows, etc, but it matters nought if the usual Windows bugs/BSOD/viruses/crashes/incompatibilities/lousy usability, are still there.

Anyway, if WindowsXP/SP2 has fixed all the problems why Longhorn? Simply, Longhorn is all about DRM and Paladium. The Micro$oft consortium intends that dumb schmucks who buy Longhorn with hardware that can run it, will be prevented from using their computers they way they would like, unless they PAY per use. Every time you compose a message in MSWord it will cost a cent or two. Napster is at it already with music subscription. While ever you continue paying your monthly sub you can continue listening to your music. Default on a payment then you can kiss your library goodbye. Oh but for a fee they will reenable your subscription.

Stay with XP brethren. And stay with your older software.
usability is always on top of my list.

Why Longhorn? Well..... they didn't exactly fix anything in XP/SP2. I think I recall when XP first came out there were over 100 security flaws in the first month.

And when SP2 came out not long ago, there were a few hundred.



btw, geektechnu: how'd you get that skin to work? I couldn't get it up and running.

PM me rather then post it here, as this might be getting off the topic, unless others want to know.

pipsqeek :thumbup:

feeze
28th March 2005, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by matttt88@Mar 27 2005, 09:52 PM
I have to say, very mac influenced, with the need to type an administrator password to install an application, but knowing windows, there will be a very easy way around it.
I'd say that would be because the user was trying to install the program from a non-administrative account. If I remeber correctly Windows 2000 did the same thing.

Still you never know, maybe Microsoft has finally decided to change their security model :blink:

Although I love how in one of the images a little pop-up bubble thingie pops up and says "Text writer is not responding. It might start responding if you wait"

Might start responding if you wait, ROTFL, I can just imagine all these windows users sitting there waiting for 1/2 hour waiting for "text writer" to respond. :lol:

But seriously, I hate those pop-up bubbles in XP, now they are going to start popping up in your workspace :angry:

I guess some things never change :rolleyes:

Phillip
28th March 2005, 01:32 PM
The password to install programs has ALWAYS been there. Its in this mockup that it was been more prominent. ATM, to install something you need to right click and choose "Run As". ;)

PeterPE
28th March 2005, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Phillip@Mar 28 2005, 02:32 PM
to install something you need to right click and choose "Run As". ;)
Very intuitive. NOT!

Typical Windows, no?

This is exactly the kind of crap that I detest about Windows.

Phillip
28th March 2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by PeterPE@Mar 28 2005, 03:54 PM
Very intuitive. NOT!

Typical Windows, no?

This is exactly the kind of crap that I detest about Windows.
IMO, its actually better the Windows way cause then you don't have to keep entering passwords if you have a program that needs to make changes to the entire system. (In Mac OS X, you have to keep entering passwords, or make one big change at once)

And how is right clicking, or going to the file menu, not intuitive. The only different between that and OS X is OS X asks you later on automatically.

designers_hub
28th March 2005, 05:02 PM
windows lame attempt to emulate mac os x.

http://longstuff.foruminsider.com/longhorn.jpg

HOW DARE YOU STILL OUR TRASH CAN!

designers_hub
28th March 2005, 05:07 PM
www.activewin.com/ screenshots/longhorn3/

those are screenshots taken "as is". Most others found off the net have been edited.

****
I got to admit but I like the new longhorn compared to the old Windows XP. Only thing i hate is the taskbar, that ugly bar on the side and the minimise, maxminise and close buttons.

But the transitions and the way content is organised is very much like mac os x. The switching windows is pretty cool, but is kinda odd looking.

The icons still look "pixel"

PeterPE
28th March 2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Phillip@Mar 28 2005, 04:47 PM
IMO, its actually better the Windows way cause then you don't have to keep entering passwords if you have a program that needs to make changes to the entire system. (In Mac OS X, you have to keep entering passwords, or make one big change at once)

And how is right clicking, or going to the file menu, not intuitive. The only different between that and OS X is OS X asks you later on automatically.
One of the important reasons a password is required for software installations under Mac OSX is that a snooper on your computer cannot install malware because they do not know the admin password. Much more secure. I'm comforted when my password is required before a package can be installed. It is not inconvenient.

designers_hub
28th March 2005, 05:24 PM
It can be annoying but thats basically what seperates mac os x and windows. Mac os x is built on linux and if you have used linux before you need to keep entering your password to do anything to your system files.

this is because mac and linux as a "root" user (which is disable by default) and a admin. The admin is only allowed to do things on his account only. On windows a admin can basically change everything on the computer including system files.

This is good and bad.

Good because you don't need to keep entering in your password to do things in your system folder.

Bad because malware can easily get into your system folder and do all sorts of nasty things.

People constantly say they mac os x is only safer because there are not many users. False. Mac os x is safer because it has this annoying root feature. (Please note the safer).

So be happy everytime you enter in your admin password. Thats whats protecting you from the evils of the cyberworld.

Phillip
28th March 2005, 06:03 PM
designers_hub, Mac OS X is not based on Linux. ;) And the Windows way isn't less secure because you still have to enter an admin password. Just not again and again for the same single app.

gmask1
28th March 2005, 06:13 PM
Putting aside the fanw*nk for a minute, there is a lot to be said for actually getting in and using the UI of any operating system. If you looked at screen caps of OSX, you might underestimate or understate it's true capabilities. Play with it for 10 minutes, and you might begin to scratch the surface.

The Longhorn screenshots are nice and all, but I wonder how well will it interact it and respond to the user... I suspect it will be intuitive to those who have used Windows before, which is no doubt the target market, constituting somewhere around the 90-95% of the computer userbase. The remaining 10% are a combination which I've deliberately grouped together as the computer illiterate, management, forum trolls, and mac zealots. :P

PeterPE
28th March 2005, 11:30 PM
Hey gmask, I'm a Mac zealot and I'm also a serious Windows user used nothing but Windows for many years, I still think Windows is a piece of sh** from a usability, intrusion, and stability, point of view.

cmetom
29th March 2005, 03:20 AM
it will still have stupid depenancies on files all over the place, backing up / moving your email (in particular - also all your other stuff) from machine to machine or windows install to windows install will be impossibly difficult and i will never buy it.

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

kit
29th March 2005, 11:18 AM
Well I'm a lifelong cross platformer (Use Macs where possible, but work at a PC repair and sales shop).

Seeing these screenshots make me feel pretty bad about what it's going to involve in terms of the PC world.

I like parts of it. I like them a whole lot - the concept of data collections (click here for all your documents, your music, your games, no matter where they're stored). I think that it's done better in Longhorn shots than in Tiger (with Smart Folders).

However, I think the interface is getting worse and worse. I know, I know, it's going to get better; soon enough there'll be a standard interface, which is desperately required at the moment, because it's so BITSY. Look at the way Paint is run in Longhorn. It looks the same. It's shown in the shots both because it's how you take screenshots and save them on most PCs, but also because it shows backwards compatibility. It just hasn't CHANGED. It's still hideous. The close widgets etc are now getting to be so small they're unusable; not to mention that they're STILL all touching one another; no room to make a mistake when maximising - there goes your application.

The application switcher is VERY reminiscent of Sun's Looking Glass switching metaphor. However I preferred the way Sun did things then, with the 3D look, and the ability to scrawl on the back of the window.

I think there's a real lack of consistency, and it's getting to be VERY busy in each of those windows.

But most importantly, it's too DIFFERENT for a whole lot of people. People who use Windows aren't always the people who have been following Longhorn development and seen where things have moved to.

It's going to be hell training Grandpa and Grandma how to use a system that provides no REAL benefits for them (but which they'll undoubtedly be told they need).

It's also a real shame that the new FS (WinFS) was scrapped due to time concerns. It's now going to be an add-on for both XP and Longhorn; it was a major reason for upgrading for a whole lot of geeks.

I don't know; it's all rather unflattering these new screenshots.

macintoshrules
29th March 2005, 02:45 PM
Ugly and awful... but what do you expect from Microsoft?

MacV
29th March 2005, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by designers_hub@Mar 28 2005, 05:02 PM
windows lame attempt to emulate mac os x.

http://longstuff.foruminsider.com/longhorn.jpg

HOW DARE YOU STILL OUR TRASH CAN!



Yeah. that does suck that they stole the Mac OS X trashcan, but if you look at the yellow box that I have highlighted, from the picture you so kindly provided, more evidence of icon stealing on behalf of microsoft.


The icon with the yellow box around it looks like Apple Mail.app from OS X doesn't it? Typical microsoft if you tell me.

Apple_Man32
29th March 2005, 05:00 PM
it does look good i would buy it :ph34r:

geektechnu
29th March 2005, 05:39 PM
they stole the Mac OS X trashcan

The trash & mail icons in that screenshot *are not longhorn icons*

MacV - I don't think MS has stolen that or the Mail app. I would say those have been put there by the user - I must admit I've done that from time to time on my XP machine.

Rayd
29th March 2005, 07:35 PM
if you ask me.. longhorns graphics look impressive... but still mac os x is pertier :)

elvis
29th March 2005, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by geektechnu@Mar 27 2005, 08:06 PM
I've never really liked any of Microsoft's Longhorn skin designs.

Check out what some guys are doing with the LonghornAlternative skin pack for XP:
http://www.enhancedlabs.com/main/lha/index.htm

Looks way better than anything Microsoft has ever done. In fact I''m using it now!

EDIT: Attached a screenie of my current desktop.
Wow... that looks almost identical to GNOME and/or Ximian. :)

Squozen
30th March 2005, 12:19 PM
I'm annoyed that they're still using the horrible system of drive letters and the kludgy 'C:\Documents and Settings\'... same crap, different bucket.

geektechnu
30th March 2005, 01:01 PM
I'm annoyed that they're still using the horrible system of drive letters and the kludgy 'C:\Documents and Settings\'

I actually prefer the drive letters system :lol:
Esp with removable media, because the drive letter doesn't change I always know that the current CD in my computer will always be "F:\", regardless of what's actually inside.
Doesn't OS X has the UNIX drive mount naming? It just hides them, right?

However my ext drive letters always seem change - so I use them without drive letters. It's quite easy to do using the NTFS filesystem. The drives are accessible via their names, but actually map to folders on my C: drive.

PeterPE
30th March 2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Squozen@Mar 30 2005, 01:19 PM
I'm annoyed that they're still using the horrible system of drive letters and the kludgy 'C:\Documents and Settings\'... same crap, different bucket.
No, I can't stand those drive letters either. When you have multiple optical drives, multiple HDDs in RAID formations, single standalone drives, and swap drives in and out on a regular basis, it's a bluddy nightmare. And if your bootup misses loading the RAID drivers as happens occasionally, Windows will show you a completely different set of drive letters. If Apple can show how to do it without drive letters, it demonstrates how utterly backward the DOS/Windows system is. I once fitted a new hard disk and did a format K: only later to find I had formatted the wrong drive and lost countless highly important files. And I'm very careful about this kind of thing, but apparently, not careful enough!