Longhorn Troubles: Does Anybody Care?

[Robert Myers]

Hello all,

Microsoft is struggling with it's world-beating OS, Longhorn. Release
date 2007?

http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,4148,1391959,00.asp

Before you go out to raise a glass or two in tribute to poor, pathetic
Microsoft's woes (they're also struggling with what to do with too
much money), I'd like to ask if this is just more of the same
(whatever Microsoft OS ever shipped on time), or whether Microsoft is
losing it. One article mentions the possibility that Micrsoft isn't
very good at selling its own ideas, even the good ones. People don't
use the neat stuff in XP, as it is. Why would they ever want even
more of what they can't use?

Why ever would anyone in a hardware newsgroup care, since we all use
Linux? ;-).

Even if no one cared if they ever saw the four-colored Windows flag
floating across a computer screen again, Linux isn't going to deliver
the desktop sizzle that's needed to keep the pace of development in
desktop hardware above the weekly Rambus thread.

Hot new stuff from ISV's? If someone has a killer app, maybe they
won't wait for Longhorn. A venture capitalist trying to see which way
the wind is blowing, though, might wait to see what Longhorn can
deliver and how the public reacts to it.

The beginning of Bill Gates' worst nightmare (the end of the PC as we
know it) or just another blip in manifest destiny?

RM

 

[Sarak]

Hello all,

Microsoft is struggling with it's world-beating OS, Longhorn. Release
date 2007?

http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,4148,1391959,00.asp

Before you go out to raise a glass or two in tribute to poor, pathetic
Microsoft's woes (they're also struggling with what to do with too
much money), I'd like to ask if this is just more of the same
(whatever Microsoft OS ever shipped on time), or whether Microsoft is
losing it. One article mentions the possibility that Micrsoft isn't
very good at selling its own ideas, even the good ones. People don't
use the neat stuff in XP, as it is. Why would they ever want even
more of what they can't use?

Why ever would anyone in a hardware newsgroup care, since we all use
Linux? ;-).

Even if no one cared if they ever saw the four-colored Windows flag
floating across a computer screen again, Linux isn't going to deliver
the desktop sizzle that's needed to keep the pace of development in
desktop hardware above the weekly Rambus thread.

Hot new stuff from ISV's? If someone has a killer app, maybe they
won't wait for Longhorn. A venture capitalist trying to see which way
the wind is blowing, though, might wait to see what Longhorn can
deliver and how the public reacts to it.

The beginning of Bill Gates' worst nightmare (the end of the PC as we
know it) or just another blip in manifest destiny?

RM

AND this has what to do with comp.sys.intel?

 

[Robert Myers]

AND this has what to do with comp.sys.intel?

You, ah, need to have it explained to you what constant releases of
increasingly power-hungry versions of Windows has to do with the
market for Intel processors?

A market for increasingly-powerful server chips will continue with or
without a desktop market, but the economics will change dramatically.

RM

 

[RusH]

One article mentions the possibility that
Micrsoft isn't very good at selling its own ideas, even the good
ones. People don't use the neat stuff in XP, as it is. Why would
they ever want even more of what they can't use?

Just wait till you see this new hyped xrated megasupercool DX10 3D GUI.
Forget Doom 3, I'm gonna point & click all day long ... ;-)

Pozdrawiam.

 

[G]

Just wait till you see this new hyped xrated megasupercool DX10 3D GUI.
Forget Doom 3, I'm gonna point & click all day long ... ;-)

Pozdrawiam.

I think you need to qualify that comment.

Some of us are already playing with Whidbey, XAML, and getting ready
for Yukon. Stored Procs in C# are not a trivial fluff feature. And
what's wrong with DX10? If it's what game developers and video cards
manufacturers are asking for, then why shouldn't if come to pass?

Whether you like Windows, hate Windows or are completely indifferent
to it, MS is just doing what every company does: Trying their best to
out a product.

 

[chrisv]

Just wait till you see this new hyped xrated megasupercool DX10 3D GUI.
Forget Doom 3, I'm gonna point & click all day long ... ;-)

Well, they need some way to bloat their OS enough to bog-down a 10GHz
CPU, you know. God forbid our computers actually work FASTER as the
years go by...

 

[Rob Stow]

Well, they need some way to bloat their OS enough to bog-down a 10GHz
CPU, you know. God forbid our computers actually work FASTER as the
years go by...

Actually they do work much faster - except most idiots out there
think that just because they bought new hardware they also have
to install the latest bloatware. Its like buying yourself a
Ferrari and then driving around with four flat tires. Just look
at all the idiots out there who shoot themselves in the foot by
using XP and the latest version of MS Office.

I still use NT4 at home most of the time. Whenever someone sees
this and tells me I should upgrade, they can never give a good
answer when I ask "Why?". NT and my NT-compatible apps do the
job for me - why slow things down by installing crap like
XP, IE, MS Office ... ? I have to put up with bloatware like
that everywhere else I go - its the last thing I want to see
when I come home.

 

[The little lost angel]

Well, they need some way to bloat their OS enough to bog-down a 10GHz
CPU, you know. God forbid our computers actually work FASTER as the
years go by...

Somehow I don't think that would be a difficult task for M$ to
achieve... ppP

Furthermore, if a 10Ghz P-?? processor is like the trend Intel is
taking since the P3->P4->Prescott, it might not be significantly
faster than a 7Ghz P4! pPP

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[Robert Myers]

chrisv wrote:


Actually they do work much faster - except most idiots out there
think that just because they bought new hardware they also have
to install the latest bloatware. Its like buying yourself a
Ferrari and then driving around with four flat tires. Just look
at all the idiots out there who shoot themselves in the foot by
using XP and the latest version of MS Office.

I wouldn't characterize most of the people I know who use XP and who
(reluctantly) installed a version of MS Office to go along with it as
idiots. I have XP installed on a couple of machines for reasons I'm
not going to defend. Some machines have come with Office XP or Word
XP installed.

Open Office suits my needs just fine, but documents sometimes come up
oddly formatted, and people who do business in the real world can't
afford the risk of producing a document that looks messed up to the
rest of the world.

Many technical people won't find these arguments compelling and will
stick to the position that people who buy the latest MS bloatware are
just suckers. What technical people should care about is that the IT
industry has become more or less addicted to demands produced by
Microsoft Software.

Some of the things that Microsoft or any other software vendor wanting
to dazzle customers might pursue, like artificial intelligence, are
computationally-intensive, and AI itself could use a shot in the arm.

Microsoft has the money. They also have considerable talent. Where
they lack talent and original ideas, they have never hesitated to
spend money to buy them.

The PC-driven era could easily continue, but not without something
like Microsoft driving it. Or the PC-driven era could be coming to a
close, in which case the IT industry will need to find some other
business model to fuel growth.

RM

 

[Tony Hill]

Actually they do work much faster - except most idiots out there
think that just because they bought new hardware they also have
to install the latest bloatware. Its like buying yourself a
Ferrari and then driving around with four flat tires. Just look
at all the idiots out there who shoot themselves in the foot by
using XP and the latest version of MS Office.

I still use NT4 at home most of the time. Whenever someone sees
this and tells me I should upgrade, they can never give a good
answer when I ask "Why?". NT and my NT-compatible apps do the
job for me - why slow things down by installing crap like
XP, IE, MS Office ... ? I have to put up with bloatware like
that everywhere else I go - its the last thing I want to see
when I come home.

There certainly are some technical reasons to get WinXP over WinNT
4.0, though whether or not the effect you is another matter.

The biggest reason is probably that NT 4.0 is being EOLed. As of Dec.
31, 2003 there are no further non-security updates or support
available for NT 4.0. At the end of 2004 the security updates will
cease to be as well.

There is also the lack of DirectX (beyond version 3.0) issue, which
makes NT4 basically useless for games and possibly some other new
applications. A similar story exists for Windows Media Player, though
it's not quite as bad there.

Then there's the fact that NT4.0 is not really practical to run as a
non-administrator account for home users, while this is quite
practical in WinXP (I'm doing just that right now).

Lots of new hardware no longer has drivers for NT4 as well, and this
is likely to get worse from here on out.


Perhaps none of these apply to you, however there definitely ARE good
reasons for users to upgrade from NT4 to Win2K/WinXP. Personally I
just find NT4 to be a major PITA to administer, nothing is ever where
I would expect it to be. I really don't feel that I'm being an idiot
for upgrading to a newer version of NT for my home system (actually I
never ran NT4 on my home system, though I've used it extensively
through work/school).

On the other hand, I see no reason at all for me to get a newer
version of MS Office (I currently have Office 2000).

 

[Stacey]

chrisv wrote:

Actually they do work much faster - except most idiots out there
think that just because they bought new hardware they also have
to install the latest bloatware.

Yep still use 98SE when I use windows and my 2.8Ghz box -flies- running
anything on it!

 

[George Macdonald]

Actually they do work much faster - except most idiots out there
think that just because they bought new hardware they also have
to install the latest bloatware. Its like buying yourself a
Ferrari and then driving around with four flat tires. Just look
at all the idiots out there who shoot themselves in the foot by
using XP and the latest version of MS Office.

I still use NT4 at home most of the time. Whenever someone sees
this and tells me I should upgrade, they can never give a good
answer when I ask "Why?". NT and my NT-compatible apps do the
job for me - why slow things down by installing crap like
XP, IE, MS Office ... ? I have to put up with bloatware like
that everywhere else I go - its the last thing I want to see
when I come home.

In simple terms, with NT you can't use many of the devices, like video
cams, digital cameras etc. which the average home user expects to use...
and which, for many, is the main motivation for owning the computer in the
first place. Even if you can find some way to make USB (not sure that's
possible) and other PnP work, there's bundled software which will not run
under WinNT. There are computers and printers now which have no parallel
port - IOW USB is a necessity.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Carlo Razzeto]

Actually they do work much faster - except most idiots out there
think that just because they bought new hardware they also have
to install the latest bloatware. Its like buying yourself a
Ferrari and then driving around with four flat tires. Just look
at all the idiots out there who shoot themselves in the foot by
using XP and the latest version of MS Office.

I still use NT4 at home most of the time. Whenever someone sees
this and tells me I should upgrade, they can never give a good
answer when I ask "Why?". NT and my NT-compatible apps do the
job for me - why slow things down by installing crap like
XP, IE, MS Office ... ? I have to put up with bloatware like
that everywhere else I go - its the last thing I want to see
when I come home.

I don't know dude... You can count me among the "idiots" that installed
WindowsXP and MS Office 2003. I'm running all this on a 1.3GHz AMD Duron
with 512MB (PC133) memory and 80GB of 7,200 RPM hard disk... A rather slow
system when you consider the fact that a 2GHz (or equivilant) system is
considered to be average. And you know what, my system is still pretty
snappy. So I can't imagin that anyone running a 2GHz+ system is going to be
having any troubles... My current system kills my earlier systems in
usability and stability. And all this with all of Microsofts bloatware
installed.

Carlo

 

[The little lost angel]

Then there's the fact that NT4.0 is not really practical to run as a
non-administrator account for home users, while this is quite
practical in WinXP (I'm doing just that right now).

Having attempted it once, and being slightly (I hope) more savvy than
the average home user, I am frankly not going to bother to try running
WinXP in non-administrator mode.

<rant>
It doesn't do half the things right. I wanted to setup my friend's XP
to run a firewall (I've got the same firewall installed on at least 3
Win2K system), giving her a half limited account for daily use.

But to my utter horror, I couldn't even get Office installed on it due
to (after some web searches) some "feature" that makes folders read
only and can't be turned off no matter what I do (Xp blithely ignores
unticking the read only and ignores CMD issued attrib -r), thanks to
all that, I've finally thrown in the towel and went for OpenOffice
1.1.1 on that system.

Not to mention, it took quite some digging to find where I could set
user groups apart from Administrator and Limited(or whatever was it).
Then only to find that after I created a new power-user group with the
ability to install programs... it tells me there ain't such a group
when I attempt to assign the user account. heck, even Win2K was smart
enough to ask for an Administrator login/password when a power user
wanted to install something.
</rant>

Ok, maybe I am stupider than I thought I was after all.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[The little lost angel]

I don't know dude... You can count me among the "idiots" that installed
WindowsXP and MS Office 2003. I'm running all this on a 1.3GHz AMD Duron
with 512MB (PC133) memory and 80GB of 7,200 RPM hard disk... A rather slow
system when you consider the fact that a 2GHz (or equivilant) system is
considered to be average. And you know what, my system is still pretty
snappy.

Try 2Ghz laptop with 128MB of RAM pPp

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the wonderful
person The little lost angel <[email protected]>
said

But to my utter horror, I couldn't even get Office installed on it due
to (after some web searches) some "feature" that makes folders read
only and can't be turned off no matter what I do (Xp blithely ignores
unticking the read only and ignores CMD issued attrib -r), thanks to
all that, I've finally thrown in the towel and went for OpenOffice
1.1.1 on that system.

The (apparent) read-only attribute on folders was nothing to do with
your problem. 'Read only' on a folder/directory is meaningless, and XP
uses that bit for some entirely different purpose, as a quick google
will reveal.

 

[Tony Hill]

Having attempted it once, and being slightly (I hope) more savvy than
the average home user, I am frankly not going to bother to try running
WinXP in non-administrator mode.

I've only had it running like that for a week now, but it's been
relatively problem-free. I just use the fast-user switching to get
over to an Administrator account if I need any feature that requires
such privileges.

<rant>
It doesn't do half the things right. I wanted to setup my friend's XP
to run a firewall (I've got the same firewall installed on at least 3
Win2K system), giving her a half limited account for daily use.

But to my utter horror, I couldn't even get Office installed on it due
to (after some web searches) some "feature" that makes folders read
only and can't be turned off no matter what I do (Xp blithely ignores
unticking the read only and ignores CMD issued attrib -r), thanks to
all that, I've finally thrown in the towel and went for OpenOffice
1.1.1 on that system.

You probably have to go into the Advanced dialog to set the
directory's read/write/execute permissions. It might be that the
permissions where being inherited from a parent directory, or it could
be that there are multiple sets of permissions.

Not to mention, it took quite some digging to find where I could set
user groups apart from Administrator and Limited(or whatever was it).

That part was a bit odd, changed from Win2K to be more difficult for
some reason! Perhaps the new interface is a bit easier in a VERY
large domain or something.. I dunno.

Then only to find that after I created a new power-user group with the
ability to install programs... it tells me there ain't such a group
when I attempt to assign the user account. heck, even Win2K was smart
enough to ask for an Administrator login/password when a power user
wanted to install something.
</rant>

I think the problem is that you're trying to make a Power User account
with *almost* administrator privileges. The easy way to do it is to
make just a regular user account for actual use and than have a second
administrator account that you use for all the elevated privilege
stuff. I'm sure this isn't the only way of doing things, but it's the
way I'm used to doing stuff from using Linux, so it sort of seemed
natural.

 

[Evgenij Barsukov]

Try 2Ghz laptop with 128MB of RAM pPp

Lets make a contest - the slowest machine with Win XP on it.
I just got a laptop where admin freshly installed XP.
It is Pentium II 363 with 128MB.
To my surprize, it works reasonably fast as for regular office tasks. I could not
use 98 on it mostly because drivers for some unusual external devices (it is a test-control comp)
are absent.

Regards,
Evgenij

--

__________________________________________________
*science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy:
http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com
----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------

 

[Some Guy]

I think the problem is that you're trying to make a Power User account
with *almost* administrator privileges. The easy way to do it is to
make just a regular user account for actual use and than have a second
administrator account that you use for all the elevated privilege
stuff. I'm sure this isn't the only way of doing things, but it's the
way I'm used to doing stuff from using Linux, so it sort of seemed
natural.

Do you know if NT/2000/XP have a SUID concept? I run as administrator
because I regulary use software that requires it and always selecting
"run as" is a pain in the arse.

 

[Scott Alfter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't know dude... You can count me among the "idiots" that installed
WindowsXP and MS Office 2003. I'm running all this on a 1.3GHz AMD Duron
with 512MB (PC133) memory and 80GB of 7,200 RPM hard disk... A rather slow
system when you consider the fact that a 2GHz (or equivilant) system is
considered to be average. And you know what, my system is still pretty
snappy.

My parents are running WinXP and Office 2000 on a 450-MHz K6-III with 256MB
of RAM (PC100) and a 10GB 5400rpm hard drive. Next time I visit, I'll
probably drop in a bigger/faster hard drive so they'll have more space to
dump pix from their digital camera, but everything else runs pretty nicely.
They're using Mozilla to browse websites and read email, and I bought them a
LAN modem
(http://www.actiontec.com/products/modems/dual_pcmodem/dpm_overview.html) to
put an added layer of protection between their computer and the Internet.

_/_ Scott Alfter (address in header doesn't receive mail)
/ v \ send mail to $firstname@$lastname.us
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Linux)

iD8DBQFARisGVgTKos01OwkRAtkUAKDBI4GqiIaZ0TUhBh6KFeqGIyi47gCgwPEL
qSnlM/CIchDgAFmKHUSVyH8=
=cEWy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----