Sneak peek at next windows

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

<div class="IPBDescription">The gui-liscious parts</div>A beta copy of the next Windows OS (codenamed Longhorn) was leaked out a few weeks ago. A few websites have posted some screenshots, shamelessly reposted below:

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

2.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

3.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

4.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

5.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

6.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

7.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

8.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

9.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

10.

Epoch · October 2002

Hmm multiple desktops, I see they've taken the hint...

It looks pretty, but I won't be buying it.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

Err, whaa? Do you mean having multiple users with access to their own settings and desktop configs? That's been around since 1995.

M3 n0 und3rst4nd j00!

Llama_Killer · October 2002

damn Theyre fast Xp came out when and they already have this on the drawing boards...

Oh well I guess my Xp wont be l337 for long <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('> .

Nemesis_Zero · October 2002

One thing's sure: They'll need some <i>completely</i> different themes to get me near it.

Aside from that, I won't complain about something I've no idea about. (I bet that'll provoke some kind of comment by MonsE.)

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

So you're never posting ever again?

I couldn't help myself!!!

<img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>

Epoch · October 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct. 22 2002,13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Err, whaa? Do you mean having multiple users with access to their own settings and desktop configs? That's been around since 1995.

M3 n0 und3rst4nd j00!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Nope, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about multiple active desktop environments for each user; I wasn't talking about having multiple users with each with their own desktop. That's one of the reasons why I love Linux; it's the flexibility. However, I doubt that "Longhorn" will let you have more than 16 desktops.

<i>Edit: What the hell happened? Please delete all of my useless posts!</i>
<i>Edit: Thanks MonsE!</i>

Nemesis_Zero · October 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct. 22 2002,15:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you're never posting ever again?

I couldn't help myself!!!

<img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
You humans are *so* predicatable.

SmokeMasta · October 2002

to be honest...my next OS is going to be the first super user friendly Linux.
i don't trust MS anymore after Palladium stuff

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Epoch @ Oct. 22 2002,15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nope, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about multiple active desktop environments for each user; I wasn't talking about having multiple users with each with their own desktop.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Well that's as clear as mud. Explain! How is what you're talking about different than local (or roaming) NT profiles?

Epoch · October 2002

OK, as far as I know, when you login a multi-user system on Windows, the said user has only has <u>ONE desktop per account</u>.

However, in Linux, you have <u>multiple desktops per account</u>, so you can have Half-Life running on one desktop, push a button, and view a completely different desktop.

I believe I am correct in saying that current Windows systems do NOT have this capability. However, that is what I see in the image you posted: (upper right-hand corner)

<img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/uploads/post-12-54608-1.jpg" border="0">

Is that what roaming profiles allows you to do? I can't say, becuase I have not used roaming profiles, and the network that I work on doesn't use them either.

Does that make sense?

Jedisar · October 2002

Damn..I couldn't use THAT interface..

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

Ahhhhh, now I see. I guess I could see some usefulness for that (although it sounds a bit redundant - why not just have a taskbar with various apps running at once and some minimized or maximized rather than entirely different desktops).

Roaming profiles means that no matter where you logon to a machine on a Windows network, your personal settings (desktop config, preferences, email credentials, etc.) will download off the network when you logon so you always have the same working interface no matter what PC you use. In an Active Directory environment, it adds additional things like having applications follow you around as well, and so on.

Relic25 · October 2002

*groan* With all that money floating around, why can't they hire decent interface designers and marketing pros?

I mean, come on... "Longhorn"?? Worst Name EVER.

The last thing I want to think about when dealing with my computer is friggin beef.

Freemantle · October 2002

I really dont care. If there was a drastic system performance upgrade I would switch to it. The reason I bumped to XP is :

CD burning flexability

Plug & Play networking (No more praying at LANs)

System performance.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

Silly Relic - it's a beta codename. Like Win95, which was called Chicago (and still has references to Chicago in the registry). The real name will probably be Windows XP Ultra or some other madison avenue nonsense.

Relic25 · October 2002

Yeah, but Chicago is cool. I used to live there. <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>

Plus, /me puts the artsy smackdown on that awful, shamefully mac-derivitive looking interface (and I hated the mac interface too).

I long for the old days of Workbench 3.1. When the whole OS fit on 4 floppies and did everything I needed an OS to do.

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

Jeez Relic, have we been following each other around our whole lives? Where did you live in Chicago? I grew up in Waukegan way up on the Wisconsin border, then moved into Chicago when I was 17 and lived there until a couple years ago. Then I moved down to NC and live by you <b>yet again</b>.

Epoch · October 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct. 22 2002,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahhhhh, now I see. I guess I could see some usefulness for that (although it sounds a bit redundant - why not just have a taskbar with various apps running at once and some minimized or maximized rather than entirely different desktops).</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Glad we have that cleared up. <img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct. 22 2002,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Roaming profiles means that no matter where you logon to a machine on a Windows network, your personal settings (desktop config, preferences, email credentials, etc.) will download off the network when you logon so you always have the same working interface no matter what PC you use. In an Active Directory environment, it adds additional things like having applications follow you around as well, and so on.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
That's what I thought they were, and we decided not to use them in our network for one reason or another. I think the guy setting it up with me decided that they were too much trouble or some such thing. I didn't know using roaming profiles in conjunction with Active Directory offered such features.

We're using Active Directory and an in-house exchange server, so I could see why roaming profiles would make things easier, unless there's something about them that for some reason or another make them difficult or tedious to implement.

Are there any significant drawbacks of using roaming profiles? We're using Windows 2000 Professional Server, and all of the other machines are using Windows XP. Do roaming profiles take longer for users to login or something?

MonsieurEvil · October 2002

Under the older NT4 domain structure, roaming profiles were a source of endless engineering headaches for me in very large environments (over 10,000 workstations). This was, I think, mainly due to them being something of an afterthought in the NT4 server development process. I was forever tweaking them, or patching them. In ADS the architecture is much more native, and works better in conjunction with user and machine policies. Look into it. The logon process is extended slightly, but usually only a couple of seconds, as the profile itself should not be very large (a small portion of the user registry, some config files, etc.), as long as the engineer who designed your ADS tree was smart about making centrailzed home directory structures and such. I could go into a 20 page whitepaper on this; there's a lot to talk about.

Like any enterprise system, the key is to design it well. Then the actual usage is pretty much a snap.

I, of course, recommend using MetaFrame and Terminal Services with dumb terminals instead over all these Win32 and Linux fat clients. 1 million times better than anything involving PC's...

Relic25 · October 2002

I spent my formative years in Crystal Lake, which is not at all far from Waukegan. We also spent about a year or so in Cary, and another year or so nearer the actual city (in Oak Park).

You followin' me? I don't see anyone else here. You followin 'me? /me gives MonsE a Travis Bickle look.

Epoch · October 2002

Our ADS structure is not very complex at all, as our network includes no more than 30 or so workstations and a few printers, but was build so that it can be expanded if necessary. I wouldn't think it would be that hard to implement with so few users. I myself setup the personal directories that reside on the server, all located in C:\USERDISK\%USER% so I think it should be easy to implement. The users of this network are not real computer-savvy, so I think roaming profiles might make it a little easier on them.

All the computers on this network use NTFS, not FAT32. The only Linux machine is the firewall, which is not a part of the ADS.

Sneak peek at next windows

Comments