Windows Longhorn Alpha Build 4074 +/- Out Today

[Stealth1024]

Reviews and screen shots are slowly popping up all over the net: http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=19527&category=main

I haven't read what sort of new underlying functionality has been implemented, only that is has a new filler theme while they keep the real deal under wraps.

Anyone know why it takes so long to get a product like this out the door? I figured MS would have a huge team working on something like this and that a few years would certainly be enough time. I admit I'm surprised they aren't working on 64 bit implementation right off the bat...

 

[spyordie007]

Hopefully someone can dig up a torrent link for this latest beast...

Hopefully not as that would be illegal. If you dont have licensing than dont run it.

<- Pulling my legitimate license off the MSDN site now

 

[Stealth1024]

Well it was rumored to be 4074 or 4073. I take it you can confirm which it is?

 

[spyordie007]

well I was going to pull it down, it's listed on the front MSDN page:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/

but when I logged in the old build is still listed. I'm guessing they just havent posted it for download yet 🙁

Oh well, odds are I can pick it up tomorrow.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Is this the build that requires: "a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today."?

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Is this the build that requires: "a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today."?

I don't know about the OS but I want that system. 🙂

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Is this the build that requires: "a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today."?

To run it at a reasonable desktop speed? That sounds about right.

Even with good hardware Longhorn is quite slow (at least the old builds). They havent done much in the line of optimizations yet...

 

[Stealth1024]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Is this the build that requires: "a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today."?

I don't know about the OS but I want that system. 🙂

I think that's just a rumor at the moment.

Of course if MS delays it again who knows 🙂

 

[NogginBoink]

Um... Microsoft *does* have a huge team working on this. It takes this long to get a product out the door because it's a damned huge, damned complex product.

And it'll be 64-bit ready the day it ships, I'm sure.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Is this the build that requires: "a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today."?

To run it at a reasonable desktop speed? That sounds about right.

Even with good hardware Longhorn is quite slow (at least the old builds). They havent done much in the line of optimizations yet...

That's ridiculous.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Is this the build that requires: "a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today."?

To run it at a reasonable desktop speed? That sounds about right.

Even with good hardware Longhorn is quite slow (at least the old builds). They havent done much in the line of optimizations yet...

That's ridiculous.

It's not in the least bit ridiculous. It's a LOT easier to debug unoptomized code with lots of DbgPrint statements and ASSERT macros in it. Ever try to decipher optimized assembly language in the debugger? It's a pain in the ass.

Since this code is not supposed to be for public consumption, there's no reason for MS to start optimizing yet.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Is this the build that requires: "a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today."?

To run it at a reasonable desktop speed? That sounds about right.

Even with good hardware Longhorn is quite slow (at least the old builds). They havent done much in the line of optimizations yet...

That's ridiculous.

It's not in the least bit ridiculous. It's a LOT easier to debug unoptomized code with lots of DbgPrint statements and ASSERT macros in it. Ever try to decipher optimized assembly language in the debugger? It's a pain in the ass.

Since this code is not supposed to be for public consumption, there's no reason for MS to start optimizing yet.

I didn't mean the optimization part, just the part that you might need that much hardware to run the OS. I understand the debugging/optimization deal.

 

[spyordie007]

well my post was slightly sarcastic, in honesty it'll run on a P4 1.6 w/ 512MB of RAM. It'll just run slowly... :roll:

-Erik

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
well my post was slightly sarcastic, in honesty it'll run on a P4 1.6 w/ 512MB of RAM. It'll just run slowly... :roll:

-Erik

What new functionality would call for such an increase in minimum specs? I mean, outside of looking different, what does WindowsXP do with all of that power that Win2K couldn't do?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
well my post was slightly sarcastic, in honesty it'll run on a P4 1.6 w/ 512MB of RAM. It'll just run slowly... :roll:

-Erik

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't buy a computer to run an OS. I buy a computer to run applications, the OS is just the middle man. Increasing minimum and recommended specs that much is pretty ridiculous. My opinion of course.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: spyordie007
well my post was slightly sarcastic, in honesty it'll run on a P4 1.6 w/ 512MB of RAM. It'll just run slowly... :roll:

-Erik

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't buy a computer to run an OS. I buy a computer to run applications, the OS is just the middle man. Increasing minimum and recommended specs that much is pretty ridiculous. My opinion of course.

Maybe, but you have to look at the direction MS would like to follow...

Everything you do is tied directly to the OS. Like Explorer being PART of the OS instead of being just the browser, well so it would be the same for the music player, Office productivity tools (think of the actual "applications" being scripts/XUML/whatever that run 90% of the code from libraries already built in and loaded into memory to run the rest of the OS, of course your going to be charged seperately for Office liscences), video games, and anything else that MS can think of.

90% of the code for any application your going to be using is already loaded into RAM before you even start using the application. So then any third party apps not able to share code with with Window's system libraries are going to run like dog crap compared to "native" apps.

At least I think that's the direction that they are heading.

Why else would you want all that bloat running by default unless your going to use it? MS ain't that stupid.

They want tight integration. The actual C code that the programs use for performance is going to be hidden under layers and layers of API's or whatever and your going to need to use a highlevel sudo-scripting language to link them all together to build applications.

I could be wrong though, of course.

Even if I am right they probably won't reach this completely with "longhorn", since they've cut corners already.

 

[dawks]

The OS is going to be designed to run on hardware thats mainstream at its release.

Microsoft is moving forward. Operating Systems are not going to stay like Windows 2000. They are going to get more advanced, more capable, more feature rich and so on. I say if you dont like it, stay with your Windows 2000, or get used to it. I mean, do you really think were going to be sitting here typing text via 'static' websites, with static images on a P4 2.6Ghz with 512ram, in... even 5 years?

Microsoft gets sh!t for 'not' innovating. Now they are like crazy, and they are getting sh!t for it. You just can't win when your the big dog I guess 🙂

I like to look at movies and see those crazy freaking interfaces people use in movies, of which, we have no way of running in reality right now, but the power will be here eventually, so why not use it?

My fvckin school has some crappy MSDN site, that only lets me access a Windows XP download, Windows ME, and Visual Studio .NET 🙁

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: DaZ
The OS is going to be designed to run on hardware thats mainstream at its release.

Microsoft is moving forward. Operating Systems are not going to stay like Windows 2000. They are going to get more advanced, more capable, more feature rich and so on. I say if you dont like it, stay with your Windows 2000, or get used to it. I mean, do you really think were going to be sitting here typing text via 'static' websites, with static images on a P4 2.6Ghz with 512ram, in... even 5 years?

Huh? We don't do that now. I don't do any "typing" with my operating system either. It runs, I use applications. I do things. Pretty simple. 😉

Microsoft gets sh!t for 'not' innovating. Now they are like crazy, and they are getting sh!t for it. You just can't win when your the big dog I guess 🙂

You can't please everyone all of the time. It's an old quote, but it applies.

And I haven't seen *anything* innovative yet, with regards to longhorn. With such a huge jump in minimum specs, I'd expect to see something innovative. If there is something innovative in it, that I may have missed, please educate me!

I like to look at movies and see those crazy freaking interfaces people use in movies, of which, we have no way of running in reality right now, but the power will be here eventually, so why not use it?

Because most of them are impractical and rarely address common problems with user interfaces. 😉
Because there are older computers that don't have the power.
Proper backwards compatibility is even tougher.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Stealth1024Anyone know why it takes so long to get a product like this out the door? I figured MS would have a huge team working on something like this and that a few years would certainly be enough time. I admit I'm surprised they aren't working on 64 bit implementation right off the bat...

Longhorn is based on the XP/Server2003 codebase. The XP codebase is cross-compiliable to 64-bit systems, according to what I've read. What makes you say that they aren't working on a 64-bit implementation?

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: DaZ
The OS is going to be designed to run on hardware thats mainstream at its release.

Microsoft is moving forward. Operating Systems are not going to stay like Windows 2000. They are going to get more advanced, more capable, more feature rich and so on. I say if you dont like it, stay with your Windows 2000, or get used to it. I mean, do you really think were going to be sitting here typing text via 'static' websites, with static images on a P4 2.6Ghz with 512ram, in... even 5 years?

Huh? We don't do that now. I don't do any "typing" with my operating system either. It runs, I use applications. I do things. Pretty simple. 😉

Microsoft gets sh!t for 'not' innovating. Now they are like crazy, and they are getting sh!t for it. You just can't win when your the big dog I guess 🙂

You can't please everyone all of the time. It's an old quote, but it applies.

And I haven't seen *anything* innovative yet, with regards to longhorn. With such a huge jump in minimum specs, I'd expect to see something innovative. If there is something innovative in it, that I may have missed, please educate me!

I like to look at movies and see those crazy freaking interfaces people use in movies, of which, we have no way of running in reality right now, but the power will be here eventually, so why not use it?

Because most of them are impractical and rarely address common problems with user interfaces. 😉
Because there are older computers that don't have the power.
Proper backwards compatibility is even tougher.

So you'd like just a simple straight to the point OS, then add your own stuff afterwards? Thats reasonable, each to their own.

The thing I see though is no one is really doing much to progress UI's (stardock has desktopX, which isnt the most stable or feature rich program - also uses lots of resources), or increase integration of applications (i still have to click 500 things to do one thing).

As far as innovation goes, I'm not nessecarily talking huge jumps. But the addition of little things like the ability to hide systray icons is a nice feature in XP. (someone would have developed something like that eventually, but its there, by default, now). I really like the ability to minimize WMP to the taskbar, have access to the controls, and also have a small video window on top all the time - I can watch movies or TV while still working un-interrupted. Its the little things they will add that will be nice.

As far as bigger things comming with longhorn, WinFS, a database based file system, looks very promising. I heard an MSFT developer saying something like an address book will no longer be accessable by only certain programs, it will be very easy to access it from any program (provided you have access rights - security). And the new fully hardware accelerated GUI will allow for MUCH more complex and dynamic UI's then we can currently get, aside from coding a proprietary 3D engine for a specific app.

(sorry im not up as much on linux tech to disscuss it further - windows serves me fine for now 🙂)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: DaZSo you'd like just a simple straight to the point OS, then add your own stuff afterwards? Thats reasonable, each to their own.

Agreed. Nothing is right for everyone all of the time. 🙂

The thing I see though is no one is really doing much to progress UI's (stardock has desktopX, which isnt the most stable or feature rich program - also uses lots of resources), or increase integration of applications (i still have to click 500 things to do one thing).

The problem with changing user interfaces is that it confuses the users. I still can't use XP without changing to the classic mode. I just don't have the time to learn the new interface. Change it again, in a dramatic way, and you have the potential for a large number of disenfranchised users. 😉

As far as innovation goes, I'm not nessecarily talking huge jumps. But the addition of little things like the ability to hide systray icons is a nice feature in XP. (someone would have developed something like that eventually, but its there, by default, now). I really like the ability to minimize WMP to the taskbar, have access to the controls, and also have a small video window on top all the time - I can watch movies or TV while still working un-interrupted. Its the little things they will add that will be nice.

I don't see any of these as innovation. Just simple evolution of the applications. Maybe innovation is too subjective of a word then.

As far as bigger things comming with longhorn, WinFS, a database based file system, looks very promising. I heard an MSFT developer saying something like an address book will no longer be accessable by only certain programs, it will be very easy to access it from any program (provided you have access rights - security). And the new fully hardware accelerated GUI will allow for MUCH more complex and dynamic UI's then we can currently get, aside from coding a proprietary 3D engine for a specific app.

Agian, this isn't innovative. BeOS had a similar FS oh so many years ago. BeOs was a million times better than every other desktop OS out there. 🙁

But I think WinFS could be interesting. I'm looking forward to reading about it, when I get time. 😉

(sorry im not up as much on linux tech to disscuss it further - windows serves me fine for now 🙂)

That's good for you. Personally, I use 3-4 different OSes on a daily basis. I'm an OS geek though. 😉

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Stealth1024Anyone know why it takes so long to get a product like this out the door? I figured MS would have a huge team working on something like this and that a few years would certainly be enough time. I admit I'm surprised they aren't working on 64 bit implementation right off the bat...

Longhorn is based on the XP/Server2003 codebase. The XP codebase is cross-compiliable to 64-bit systems, according to what I've read. What makes you say that they aren't working on a 64-bit implementation?

That's interesting.

Maybe they beleived Intel a little bit to much when they said that nobody is going to need 64bits for a couple years....

I mean they are obviously having a huge difficulty porting WinXP to AMD64, so they didn't make it as 64bit clean as they thought they did.

After all how long has AMD64 been around for? They are close to a year behind getting Windows XP-64 out of the door, probably chasing little bugs all over the place. Aren't they?

What about Win2k3-64? When is that due out?

I would think that it would be more important to get that out, because Opterons are so well suited to servers needing large amounts of memory, but I haven't heard anything about that.


Then with all that bloat in Longhorn, I wonder how much MS is going to work on trying to make 32 AND 64 bit versions aviable at the same time. I figure that they have been working on this OS since WinXP came out, THREE YEARS AGO. Are they going to have to go back over all that developement work and make sure that it is all 64bit compatable?

Are they going to even try to make it Itanium-friendly?

Geez....

Could it be that Longhorn have been sidetracked in the attempt to port WinXP/Win2k3 properly?

 

[Sunner]

That's good for you. Personally, I use 3-4 different OSes on a daily basis. I'm an OS geek though.

Playing with new stuff is fun, even new Windows versions 🙂

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Stealth1024Anyone know why it takes so long to get a product like this out the door? I figured MS would have a huge team working on something like this and that a few years would certainly be enough time. I admit I'm surprised they aren't working on 64 bit implementation right off the bat...

Longhorn is based on the XP/Server2003 codebase. The XP codebase is cross-compiliable to 64-bit systems, according to what I've read. What makes you say that they aren't working on a 64-bit implementation?

That's interesting.

Maybe they beleived Intel a little bit to much when they said that nobody is going to need 64bits for a couple years....

I mean they are obviously having a huge difficulty porting WinXP to AMD64, so they didn't make it as 64bit clean as they thought they did.

After all how long has AMD64 been around for? They are close to a year behind getting Windows XP-64 out of the door, probably chasing little bugs all over the place. Aren't they?

What about Win2k3-64? When is that due out?

I would think that it would be more important to get that out, because Opterons are so well suited to servers needing large amounts of memory, but I haven't heard anything about that.


Then with all that bloat in Longhorn, I wonder how much MS is going to work on trying to make 32 AND 64 bit versions aviable at the same time. I figure that they have been working on this OS since WinXP came out, THREE YEARS AGO. Are they going to have to go back over all that developement work and make sure that it is all 64bit compatable?

Are they going to even try to make it Itanium-friendly?

Geez....

Could it be that Longhorn have been sidetracked in the attempt to port WinXP/Win2k3 properly?

Get some tin foil handy...

I think an AMD64 implimentation of XP hasn't been released for a number of reasons. First, they're still testing drivers. If the drivers Microsoft ships are crap, what do you think people like those on AT are going to say about the OS? Or the mundanes out there, when they talk about AMD?

Then what happens with Intel's AMD64 chip comes out? Yes, it's compatible. But how often is compatibility 100%? 😉 And hell, Intel's AMD64 chip is fairly well crippled by a couple design flaws. Microsoft doesn't want to have to put out patch after patch to fix the issues with Intel's chip. So they wait. I'm betting XP-64 will come out shortly after Intel's gimp of an AMD64 chip.

They have to be even more careful with Win2k3. Imagine what would happen if they pushed it, company X (which makes roughly $3.42 less than Microsoft each year) buys large amounts of licenses. And of course, Intel's implimentation has a bug in register 3 that turns all 0's to 1's in relation to pictures of puppies and makes them look like cats. Imagine the lawsuit. Microsoft isn't even positive their EULA is enforcable. If it isn't, they'll have problems when company X decides to sue over their dogs becoming pussies.

And by now, that tin foil hat should be looking pretty good. Put it on and wear it proudly.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sunner

That's good for you. Personally, I use 3-4 different OSes on a daily basis. I'm an OS geek though.

Playing with new stuff is fun, even new Windows versions 🙂

I try to stick with things I can legally get for free. Might bring up a Solaris machine soon. 😉