• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Windows XP Beta 2 to introduce new user interface

B

bonkers325

Lifer
Link

The WinInformant has some news regarding Beta 2 of upcoming MS's OS code-named Whistler which was officially named "Windows XP" a couple of days ago.

Sources have confirmed the report by ZDNN's Mary Jo Foley that the next version of Windows (Windows XP) will sport a new UI (Luna). No one seems to know what the new UI will entail, however, because the company has strictly controlled leaks to the press. My sources have universally come back with no further information beyond the existence of Luna. What's curious about the change, of course, is its timing. Months ago, Microsoft introduced a new skinnable UI (Visual Styles) to Windows XP (then called Whistler), and Beta 2 will be very close to a shipping product. With Windows XP following roughly the same development period that Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me) followed a year earlier, it's hard to understand how a major new UI could be introduced this late in the game.
 
The user interface looks acceptable (I'll have to try it to see if I like it), but I liked the login screen from Build 2416 much better than the one shown on that page.
 
I kinda like the way it looks personally. I've used Whistler 2416 (which was VERY buggy, hope that's just b/c it's Beta but when I tried out the Win2000 beta last year it wasn't nearly this buggy) and they hade all the options to revert all the new changes back to "Classic Windows" so people who don't like the new UI will probably have that option. The only thing I'm concerned about is if this new interface will cause a huge speed hit like active desktop did. I don't like clicking on something and actually seeing icons refresh. I want them to already be there as soon as the window is visible.
 
I doubt if it wouldn't take a hit. MS just doesn't design software that way. You need to get an OS upgrade as well as a Harware upgrade. It's always happened. We'll see I guess.
 
did anyone notice that this looks like it's an os for the computer illiterate??
i mean how easy is windows to use in the first place.. they have to make it easier??

gosh.

 
I know but it seems like some of the junk Microsoft designs just runs slow b/c of poor design and not because a computer couldn't hanlde it w/ a better implementation. I hate the way they're trying to integrate HTML into everything. Webpages are a special case. They're meant to be rendered from a remote server over generally low bandwidth connections. That model doesn't apply to the local interface to a machine, and hence HTML (and any derivates thereof) just doesn't integrate well with a computer's local settings. I wish they'd get that through their thick skulls over at MS. This interface looks like it would be really cool if they'd hard code the D*MN thing in in some real code but I feel an HTML, XML, or ActiveX implementation in this. And they're gonna try to convince the public that it's a good thing.
 
It doesn't look like an interface for the computer illiterate to me. It really just looks like a style change. The base components look the same and so it'll probably be just as easy/hard to use as it was before. The windows do have a certain OS X look to them though.
 
Not to pull the thread off-topic, but does anyone have comments about the minimum system requirements for XP? I can't find any info on it.
 
Sure looks different. I wonder how snappy and responsive that GUI will be? I'm all for easy of use but I hope that look is optional. What I see are a lot of useless icons and a waste of screen real estate. It's pretty, might be more intuitive for newbies but for us XPerienced types it may be a hindrance.
 
I don't want to grow up....I'm a Microsoft Kid......sheesh, let's get excited with flowers and big buttons............
 
Every new version of Windows has one thing that I can't stand -- a new series of "driver" issues. I'm sick and tired of hunting down a useable driver for this, or that. Via 4 in 1, nVidia 1000 in 1 ---blaaahhhhh.
 
Haven't I heard somewhere that there are server versions of "Whistler"?? Maybe they decided to change their minds and only put out workstation versions.
 
The server versions are being made, but they are not getting the XP label and are curently lacking the new UI. Windows 2002 maybe?
 


<< Not to pull the thread off-topic, but does anyone have comments about the minimum system requirements for XP? I can't find any info on it. >>



As far as memory, I say you need at least 256MB minimum, 384 would be much more enjoyable unless you'd like to turn off the new visuals. There are still services which load at startup, don't know if they'll be eliminated in future RC's though. Hopefully they will because I can personally tell you Whistler is a RAM hog.

Oh, why 256MB minumum? Off a fresh install of 2428 system resources report 124MB used, which leaves me practically with 128MB.
Running 2428, FYI
 
well The XP will fully support a 64bit architecture, CPU, Mobo and all of that, just like Windows 2000 does, but we dont have the 64 bit hardware yet, but i heard from my teacher that works at MS, that some mobo companys are working on 64bit architecture hardware.....
 
The question is will MS support the AMD *hammer or the Intel Itanium as the choice 64-bit processor? Intel's got a little more weight but AMD is going the more backwards compatible route. I'd personally like to see Intel win this one as x86 is antiquated and needs to be ditched, but I don't want to see Intel corner the market so if AMD can't legally produce a chip with an Itantium compatbile instruction set then that's a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top