Windows Longhorn (Build 4029) Leaked

SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
edited September 2003 in Science & Tech
This piece of news is a bit late, but for those of you who haven't heard, build 4029 of the next Microsoft OS 'Longhorn' has been leaked onto the web.

iexLonghornFlag.png
The most noticeable changes compared to the previously leaked build 4015 are an somewhat enhanced sidebar as well as minor improvements that have been made throughout the infamous Plex-skin... Sorry folks, no Aero yet!

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_4029.asp">Screenshots<a&gt;

Source - In-House

Comments

  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    It suuuuuuure has. ;)
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I don't see the need for a new GUI. So unless it runs better, and it probably won't since Windows has a tendency to get more convoluted and bloated, I don't see the need to upgrade.
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited September 2003
    Gargoyle said
    I don't see the need for a new GUI. So unless it runs better, and it probably won't since Windows has a tendency to get more convoluted and bloated, I don't see the need to upgrade.

    I totally agree, but I also totally disagree.

    I'll be upgrading, there is no doubt about that. I've been getting bored with Windows XP recently.
  • m-goslingm-gosling UK, near to Brighton
    edited September 2003
    Gargoyle said
    I don't see the need for a new GUI. So unless it runs better, and it probably won't since Windows has a tendency to get more convoluted and bloated, I don't see the need to upgrade.

    For Longhorn Microsoft are implanting a direct-3d based accelleration for the GUI, so a lot of tasks using the GUI should feel a lot faster and more responsive then they do at present, and without the graphical glitches that we are all used to (e.g the white space that can occur when dragging windows over each other as each window redraws itself). Also each window can have a number of pretty imprssive special effects added to them while still being faster then any previous version of Windows. Basicly, apart from the fact that the new GUI takes up too much screen space and has been way too n00bfied, the new GUI in this version *should* be worthwhile.

    As for general windows speed, the alphas of Longhorn so far have been noted for being so slow at times as to be nearly unusable. And the built in database based file system sounds like a terrible system hog. Not to mention its built in support for hardware digital rights protection, which may make it far better to stay with an older version of Windows (or switch to Linux ;))
  • AranyicAranyic Casstown, OH Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    As for general windows speed, the alphas of Longhorn so far have been noted for being so slow at times as to be nearly unusable. And the built in database based file system sounds like a terrible system hog. Not to mention its built in support for hardware digital rights protection, which may make it far better to stay with an older version of Windows (or switch to Linux
    You know except for the fact that it is Alpha, they shouldn't care less about speed at this point really. Get everything working then tweak it to get it working smoothly and quickly. It'll be months if not a year to two years still before we know if Longhorn will be a worthwhile upgrade.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited September 2003
    Its going to require a 3d graphic card which some people just dont have. Then if its not powerful enough its going to slow the system way down. I dont think a desktop should be that intensive. Should be slick and smooth and take up few CPU cycles so it won bog down the system.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    It's hardware driven, not processor driven.


    In case you didn't read what Gossling said, mmonnin, the video card (Which most people do in fact have) will power the GUI, not the processor. In fact, I'm willing to bet that because this is so, the GUI will use LESS processor cycles than existing implementations of a GUI for any OS.

    You have to remember, the world average is GeForce2 MX440 or equivalent card. That's more than enough to power the interface Microsoft is planning.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I just haven't got any faith. We'll see if Microsoft makes something worthwhile, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Microsoft learned that little visual accents will sell operating systems, so that may be all there is to look forward to in the new Windows. That, and probably a 5gig install.
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    honestly now, apple has been the driving force behind pretty GUIs, and for once i agree with thrax lol. he's probably right about GF2MXs beeing the average right now. I find most regular computer users have either a machine from 1996 (an acer or a packard bell, usually in the range of p75-p166) or they'll have a fairly recent dell or emachine with at least a TNT2.

    this is progress people. personally i'd love to have a fancy 3D GUI, not like 3DNA, which is too much like a game, but look at windows 3.1, if you don't like progress, just go back to good ole progman.exe. I've seen the pics of Aero, personally i'm waiting for that before I download a leaked longhorn.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Ancient hardware is stifling the computer industry. Old hardware from OEMs shuffling the cheap **** is the major reason the tech industry is struggling.

    If there's no new major software implements in existence, there's no particular reason to begin bundling more advanced hardware. If there's no advanced hardware, programmers don't write anything new and demanding. So what are you left with? Old hardware, old programs, and no innovation. That spells disaster.

    It's about time some major company (Recently with ID Software and Valve), the BIGGEST company starts demanding more of computers. Starts forcing people to get bigger and better so the industry can expand again. Without the fundamentals of better hardware, there never will be better software. And without the fundamentals of better software, the average will always be lowly hardware.

    It's a symbiotic cycle, and I'm glad microsoft's giving it a kick in the ass.

    I'm tired of the argument:

    "Well people don't have the hardware to run that! So it shouldn't be made!"

    If people had followed that mentally-acute tripe, we'd have <b>nothing</b>. That's such a narrow and annoying point of view that someone needs to be whacked for ever contriving it. One side of the equation NEEDS to grow for the whole equation to grow. If the whole equation never grows, one of the largest sectors in the world is once again doomed to stifling.

    The tech sector grew because .COMs were new and popular, because hardware was rapidly advancing, because innovations were coming furiously in mobile and desktop markets with the .13u race and the processor race. Prices were dropping, microsoft and Apple were introducing more demanding operating systems. Dell, Gateway, and other major OEMs released hordes of new computers for Windows XP, and the industry continued to grow.

    Then what happened?

    Everyone had a .com.
    Everyone had programmers.
    Everyone had a WindowsXP computer.
    The processor war slowed.
    Intel's releases came slower.
    AMD's releases slowed.
    Video card cycles elongated.

    There wasn't, and still isn't, anything that demands another rapid expansion. There's nothing that demands one sector to grow. And they NEED to grow...

    What has Microsoft presented?

    An opportunity for OEMs to make new computers.
    A new demand for updated hardware.
    A new perceived need for these new computers and hardware.

    And what does that do?

    Allows the stagnant tech sector to grow.
  • BDRBDR
    edited September 2003
    It's not just the visual accents that sell a new OS.
    I use XP for it's stabilty. Yes, I like the GUI, but I also like being able to leave my towers on 24/7 and not have to worry about daily freeze ups, ala Win98.
    In fact it's almost too stable. Having found myself getting bored with _not_ having to fix this or that.

    I'll be one of those waiting Longhorn to hit the shelves.
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    i agree BDR, I'd use XP even if it looked ugly with no gui to speak of and it could run all the apps I use today. however, people like eye candy. we may be taught not to judge a book by its cover, yet the majority of males aren't attracted to Pam Anderson because of her doctoral thesis are we now? Sex sells, the prettier and more attractive something looks, the more people want it.

    i also agree with your assertion of being bored with XP. I have an urge to re-install my system, I haven't done so in like a year now, it doesn't feel right you know? with win98, i found myself re-installing every month at least with all the tweaking and playing around i used to do.
  • BDRBDR
    edited September 2003
    Kanezfan, I recently sold my sis a tower of mine that has XP on it.
    Their old computer had Win98, and try as I might, I could not get that one to connect through a router.

    We finally just went ahead and installed XP on it, and it took minutes to get connected and network the 2 towers.

    It left me thinking "why did I like Win98 so much, when I used to use it?". Lol.

    If I want to :banghead: that much over an OS, I'll play with Linux again. ;D
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    i recently had the unfortunate chance to fix someone's win98 machine. what a horrid experience. how did we make it? win98 is so unbearably unstable.
  • BDRBDR
    edited September 2003
    kanezfan said
    how did we make it? win98 is so unbearably unstable.


    But sooooo much better than WinME. ;D
  • gtghmgtghm New
    edited September 2003
    I like the way its shaping up...
    I wonder if it will be 64bit based by the time it rolls out?
    If AMD64's really have the impact on the market that they are supposed to have by the time Longhorn is rolled out 64bit will be the norm. AFAIK Longhorn offical release has been put off until at least 2005... By then Intel and AMD64 will hae shot it out and if 64bit is the next leep I assume that Intel will also make the jump to 64bit processors...
    As it is right now, isn't intel really the only ones that are sticking to 32bit, even apple has made the jump to 64bit...?

    Anyhoo, I definatly like the look of it.
    "g"
Sign In or Register to comment.