12 new screen shots of Longhorn

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:07 pm

http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=1990

Unix · Post by **Unix** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:18 pm

Here's my favorite:

http://www.winbeta.org/images/LH4083/lh1.jpg

Point?

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:44 pm

Most of those shots look identical to XP.

Doubt I'll even upgrade to it, especially not if it can't run programs like D1. I don't see the point in the whole "upgrade every two years" mentality. XP works fine for me.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:42 pm

There I thought this was going to be a thread on castrating texas cattle.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:42 am

ROFL Woody. Who says the ultra-right has no sense of humor

Seriously tho, by the time this comes out, most new apps should be linux compatible, and therefore windows can start to become a non issue.

Arbitar · Post by **Arbitar** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 1:28 am

I like this one.

http://www.winbeta.org/images/LH4083/lh4.jpg

What that says to me is:
"Theres been an error. We can't load the error message for that error becasue we have come across an error in the error message system, therefore we cannot load the error message for that error either, or this one."

I'm sticking with Windows 2000. Its stable, and isnt a RAM whore.

Arbitar · Post by **Arbitar** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 1:29 am

EDIT: Damnit, double post.

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:06 am

Yeah, that error message is the best of the bunch. Very uninspiring screenshots.

It's really disturbing that there are Windows fanboys like those guys. Most geeks get excited about a new video card or a new game, but the latest Windows? Sad...

Jon the Great · Post by **Jon the Great** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:43 am

Looks suspiciously like Mac OS X to me.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:49 am

I'm not sure what the point of the screenshots is... I mean... they show us that there is, in fact, some version of Windows that looks a lot like the current version of Windows with a new skin on it. I can't really tell anything else from them.

The screenshots I'd like to see are things like "look, it's a built-in firewall that's NOT RETARDED" or "hey check out the nice new diagnostic tools"...

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:22 am

Arbitar wrote:I'm sticking with Windows 2000. Its stable, and isnt a RAM whore.

Agreed. Altho I'll probably end up using XP on at least one machine before I start going linux. XP SEEMS to be about as stable as win2k pro.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:31 am

Win2k isn't a 64 bit OS though. Longhorn is.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:39 am

Avder wrote:Seriously tho, by the time this comes out, most new apps should be linux compatible, and therefore windows can start to become a non issue.

You do realize that this will never happen right? Too wide of a user base to gradually phase out into Linux only.

Most people using linux are by far more knowledgeable then your everyday windows users. What you might find simple using Linux others would find hard. Same goes for certain aspects of Windows. There are just going to be those people that really can't get their minds around using certain technologies.

As far as longhorn goes though, my Windows already looks like that

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:04 am

Tyranny wrote:Most people using linux are by far more knowledgeable then your everyday windows users. What you might find simple using Linux others would find hard. Same goes for certain aspects of Windows. There are just going to be those people that really can't get their minds around using certain technologies.

Linux is becoming simpler to use every day. People arent gonna buy into new windows installs forever. Even the morons will eventually get sick of paying $270 for an OS when they get a new computer.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:44 am

Arbitar wrote:I'm sticking with Windows 2000. Its stable, and isnt a RAM whore.

x3

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:44 pm

RAM is cheap.
XP kicks 2K butt.

Longhorn looks strictly Ho-Hum.
Show me the Avalon 3D interface effects!

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:51 pm

Mobius wrote: XP kicks 2K butt.

God I hate when this happens, but I agree with mobi.

The two boxes I use everyday have been running on the same XP Pro install for well over 2 years each. Sure I've had a game or app crash in the past, but I could count them all on both hands. 2k was way more common when I used it.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:59 pm

So is Longhorn gonna make it faster to check my email?

R e v · Post by **R e v** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:02 pm

I believe the first one wraps Longhorn up nicely...

http://www.winbeta.org/images/LH4083/lh1.jpg

It is taking too long to come out and they are allowing other OS' to run laps around them. Regardless, they are still making a killing on XP so why should they hustle a bit?

They are making a ton of money now, but 10 years from now? I suppose their money fund will be sufficient enough over the next 20+ years.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:35 pm

Avder wrote:Linux is becoming simpler to use every day. People arent gonna buy into new windows installs forever. Even the morons will eventually get sick of paying $270 for an OS when they get a new computer.

Not necessarily. People tend to stick with what's familiar to them. A lot of first-time PC owners are probably only aware of Windows and Macintosh. So when a vendor asks "Would you like to pay $200 for Windows or stay with the default Fedora Core Linux 3?" a lot of people wuld probably cough up the extra cash for something they know already. Of course, this is further assuming the vendor even asks. Compaq, HP, and Dell, which probably account for the vast majority of home PC sales, are traditionally Windows firms.

These Longhorn screenshots, early build or not, are very disappointing. For a company with several dozen large office buildings and years of development on this, it's sad that it looks like nothing more than Windows XP with a fancy skin. Even the incidental dialogue boxes look exactly the same. More of the same-old, same-old. *yawn*

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:17 pm

I think we should also be asking, who took the shots, when, and from what recency was the build?

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:21 pm

Duper wrote:Win2k isn't a 64 bit OS though. Longhorn is.

Assuming this is just more bloat, I think I'll be using XP64 for 64bit machines and keep 2000 for the 32bit. I've never been impresed with XP, but maybe using it constantly will convince me I'd want it on 32bit machines too.

BlueFlames · Post by **BlueFlames** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 6:02 pm

Well, if you don't like the Longhorn default skin, there's always the Classic theme in Windows Wootacular Edition. Of course, nobody would fake a screenshot of a beta OS to run up hits on their website.

On the other hand, if they're still crunching code, I don't think that anyone at Microsoft yet cares what Longhorn looks like. Tweaking the default theme strikes me as something that will be done in conjunction with the people who deal with advertising, and with Longhorn being a minimum of one year out, advertising isn't a concern yet either.

Now, you'll excuse me... I have to enjoy the speedier intarnet access of Windows Wootacular Edition.

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 6:50 pm

my desktop today Longhorn Slate

Unix · Post by **Unix** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 7:42 pm

Oooohhh....Ahhhhh