f13.net

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/22/technology/microsoft_vista/index.htm?cnn=yes

This version will probably require a retinal scan everytime you try to boot it.

Vista? Bleh, I liked Longhorn better myself.

Vista - because it's a wonderful view as your PC plunges off our cliff

Since they have changed the color of the BSOD to red, maybe they are thinking... sunsets?

Hell, are they thinking?

(Continues to download SuSE 9.2 LiveCD w/Gnome)

(http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/22/technology/microsoft_vista/microsoft_windows_vista.03.jpg)

WTF? Is that Tony Little on the left?

Linux is for work. Not for fun. And even then not for most work. Linux might as well change it's name to  "We want to dethrone Microsoft but we don't understand concepts like ease of use, productivity, and joe six-pack." Sure, it's a little wordy but it works.

Really though, who cares. Tis a name. Admittedly, I liked Longhorn better than too, but I can't muster up enough caring to ask more than "why?" To which the only answer I can come up with is - The wait for Longhorn was too long. The wait for Vista will be shorter. Marketing at its finest.

The first person to say "M-dollarsign" or "Micro-dollarsign-oft" gets a knife to the jugular.

(http://members.aol.com/thegneech/mslogo.gif)

[slashdot]

Complete hogwash my good man!  Why just yesterday I played some smashing games of TuxRacer, Frozen Bubble, and FreeCiv!  Tell me where, praytell, can I find a selection that good in commercial software?  People making money makes Stahlman cry.

[/slashdot]

For some reason, I heard the voice of Ralphie from the Simpsons when I read that (EDIT: Wait, not Ralphie. It's Martin, I think).

It's more fun to imagine Barney.

The only two things even remotely interesting about longhorn are getting patched into XP eventually: Avalon and WinFS.

I'm rather looking forward to Avalon, since vector graphic desktops handled by the GPU are not only prettier but much much faster and save CPU cycles.

Didn't WinFS get delayed?

Yep.

OS X/Tiger will pretty much trump all of those features before Longhorn Vista is even released. It already has some of those features now.

It'll be nice to run both on the same platform though (and equally nice that Microsoft is moving away from Win32).

huh?

Scalable, vector based desktops (as opposed to bitmapped). Look at Aqua for an example.

Actually, the multiplayer of FreeCiv is still far superior to any of the MP implemented in the Sid Meier series. Granted, it's a given that the graphics are woefully inferior, but even until patches released a few years after the initial release, the UI of FreeCiv contained more features (keyboard unit commands, stack moving, etc.…).

And I still haven't played a CRPG > NetCraft. Bemoan ASCII graphics, but gameplay > graphics for me…

huh?

Current Windows UI, and past UI's thru Windows 3.0, are 'bitmap' based.  There is an image for all the lil buttons, alternates for twhen they are pressed, all the UI, is all just bitmaps, collated into one big bitmap by the OS graphics subsystem, which it then hands to the video card for display, 60+ times a second.

In a 'vector' based UI, Instead of having images, the UI elements are described in terms of lines and points and areas, things modern graphics cards are used to dealing with.  The instructions are passed once, and then held onto by the video card, and updated by the video card, rather than by the graphics system of the OS.  Thus, some of the processing time of the CPU is freed, and the video card's GPU, which normally does nothing during normal Windows running, picks up the slack...  Benefits can include zippier interfaces, and less of the response lag during heavy CPU-load situations.

Alkiera

Think of it as the difference between Photoshop (pixel based, much more mem intensive, not so scalable) and Illutstrator (vector based, beziel curves.  Much less memory required, infinitely scalable).  Neither tool does everything, but for a UI vector graphics are much much more efficient, and you can do more graphically with them.

Wasn't there a lawwsuit a while back from Apple against people creating a Windows mod to make it work like Aqua?  I think the vector based desktop stuff may be patented.

I believe that had to do with a Chrome 'skin' for WinXP that made is look like Aqua... It was still a bitmap-based UI, Apple's issue was that they had copyright or trademark or some such on the 'look and feel' of Aqua, so by replicating it, the makers of the skin were violating those copyrights or trademarks or what-have-you.

It had nothing to do with vector-based UIs.

Alkiera

We've got an example of a vector-based UI downstairs that predates Aqua.  It's called "Asteroids".  I don't think Apple's going to be able to claim they have a patent on this particular concept.   :wink:

Then again, Amazon patented one-click-shopping(TM), so who knows.

There's more than just scalable graphics and pretty effects with Avalon though. Think Flash, but with the richness and ease of use of .NET.

Rich online apps already exist of course, but it's going to become much more common and seamless with all of these Longhorn technologies replacing the way things were done with Win32. If Microsoft doesn't get trumped by Apple's, Macromedia's, or Open Sourse/Mozilla's take on it, they're pretty much going to change the face of the Web itself.

<quote picture of Tammy Faye Baker here />

I hate the idea myself, since I prefer Macs, but Microsoft has the best chance of doing just that seeing that the majority of the world uses (and is going to use) Windows.

As an internet developer I'm more worried about giving too much control to other anonymous web site developers.  I'm just not confident of Mstring's  :evil: ability to protect Joe User from the big bad world.

As someone who works in this general space, I disagree. An MS-only solution that runs on Longhorn and maybe somewhat on XP isn't going to displace anything. Most people do use Windows, but not all. And in governments/companies there is pressure to move away from Windows or at least be able to diversify.

One of the nice things about internet apps is you can go to a school library computer or hotel computer or whatever and they will just work.

The windows of the future rich web-client stuff is just an installed app with some smoother deployment options and scenarios. Sure you can run Avalon apps over the web the way you can run ActiveX over the web, a technology that almost nobody uses for a variety of reasons. And the XML-driven portion of Avalon is basically a generic compile-time class hook-up mechanism, not a UI language. It's not like an XML equivalent of HTML, and it gets real ugly real fast as you have to use assembly names in your apps, mix code and markup together, etc. It's essentially the equivalent of Java XML serialization/deserialization except at compile time instead of run time.

MS is just introducing one technology on top of another, without being able to explain what they are, or what they are used for. COM, DCOM, OLE, ActiveX, .Net, etc etc etc. Nobody, not even the top MS guys, can explain what .NET is, and years after it was introduced the .NET runtime has low penetration and even lower actual use. A lot of it is new technology just for the sake of new technology.

WinFS is similar. It's a horrible idea (at least the way they put it together) and they can't get it to work. The idea of meta-data driven searches for files is terrible in general because now it's not enough to remember the file name or some text in the file, but you have to remember to enter meta-data and then remember WHAT you entered. An actual working full text search would be way better, something they still haven't been able to deliver. (Try it in XP sometime, it never works)

.NET's not a technology.  It's a direction away from the binary Windows OS.

Beyond that it's a unified product line.  Which is to say tihngs that actually work together as opposed to the licensing/support nightmare that is Java or Linux, or the mismarketed Apple line which is basicallly no more than 1997.NET for the 0.4% of the market still needing affirmation they are out of the mainstream.

Go ahead - tell me it's not perfect.  Then craft me the enterprise COO financial plan that even comes close using &otherStuff.

Love,
Ex-IBM Guy, Touched in Wrong Places by Sun/IBM/Oracle/Linus

Uh...what? A direction away from the binary Windows OS? In what way? Some parts of the .NET runtime are open and have been ported, of course missing all the MS specific classes. (AKA the important part) You won't find any real .NET apps running on anything other than windows.

What the hell is .NET? Seriously. It's a collection of crap with the name .NET stuck onto it. Visual Studio .NET? WTF is that, other than just the next Studio? VB.NET. It's just a non-backwards compatible VB. .NET runtime? Who cares, nothing uses it. Remember how MS passport was supposed to be part of .NET?

I would love for someone to give a concise technical description of what .NET is. The only good part of .NET is the app-server part, whatever they are calling it these days. (ASP.NET I suppose)

As far as being unified, I suppose VB.Net and Studio.Net, ASP etc work well together, in the same way that the office suite apps do. .NET on the client-side has been a total non-starter though, outside of certain industries. And .NET on the server side isn't starting any fires either.

I'm not a developer, so I'm in way over my head here. I just have some experience with multimedia and web design.
 
All I know is that their "plans" are to move away from Win32 (or so they say...), and .NET supposedly won't be fully realized until Longhorn comes around. Part of the thing that makes .NET/Avalon/Indigo/XAML (whatever!)  interesting to me is that they're encouraging the use of the same methods and tools for writing apps natively for Windows as they would for writing for the web.

Designers or people with only a knowledge of scripting and markup languages aren't going to be writing robust apps or anything, but they will have the ability to work with the OS interface like they couldn't before (and a few other things). The line between "web developers" and "developers", on the other hand, is going to start to blur.

In my experience.  .NET is two things.   One is a failed marketing gimmick.  The passport crap and the whole .NET will wash your balls for you marketing push of 1999 and 2000.

The other is a JIT compiler, a set of (actually quite good) shared libraries and an assembly registery.  Depending on what you're doing (object orientated business apps for the windows enviroment) .NET is a really, really useful tool.  Even without the fancy schmancy IDE there are a LOT of good tools in the .NET common runtime library to make development easier.


Err, no.  VB.NET is a real object orientated language now, with inheretance and abstraction and all that good stuff.  Big, vast, really huge improvement.

I was talking about VB.NET and the .NET runtime as two separate things. Yes, plenty of people use all versions of VB, it's pretty decent at what it does. However the .NET runtime environment is basically useless.

The only real use for the runtime environment that I can see is that if you know that everyone has the .net framework installed you can push out programs compiled to byte code instead of the massive multi-MB executables that is standard Microsoft bloat.

Other than that without the cross platform support of say, JAVA, compiling to byte code and using JIT is really fucking silly.

Had to happen eventually, all versions of Windows in development are codenamed after Canadian ski lodges, would you rather have Windows XP or Windows Whistler?

Compile once, run in both 32 and 64 bit platforms.  No need to distribute multiple libraries.  And 64 bit is hardly the end of the OS cycle.

As far as non-MS environments there is a stable .NET for BSD and Mono is coming along nicely.  The ECMA spec is available for anyone that wants to implement it - has been for several years now.  The real issue is licensing so we'll probably continue to see Windows-only .NET in the commercial world.  And then there are some really interesting hybrid tools like Mainsoft's Grasshopper and ZeroC's Ice.

A VM will never be as performant as machine code.  That's the .NET framework's strength - MSIL compiles on-demand to machine code and uses machine code libraries for things the Java VM provides through emulation.

Porting Java code across JVMs used to give me fits.  Let alone trying to port code through different Java app containers.  And the tools - sheesh what a nightmare.  I'm hellaciously more productive with .NET and respond shitloads faster to my employer's changing demands.  Fricking business users...

Isn't the answer obvious?

Windows Whistler would kick lots of ass.

Speaking of which, I need to find a way to get up there this winter.

The ECMA specs for the C# language and the CLR - yes. Both of which are useless without the libraries that the Mono project have to reverse-engineer, hoping that Microsoft won't hit them with suits over all the patents they hold for the non-ECMA parts of .Net which is to say most of it.

Um, Java code - unless forced to run interpreted - runs native 99% of the time. Hotspot does the same as the CLR except it doesn't cache the compiled code. Don't go dissing Java over experiences with pre-Java2 versions.

It still runs through the JVM.  Whose VM you use is problematical but anyone not using IBM's is asking for it.  The current JITs are still slower than native C++ but yes I'd agree within range of MSIL.  But there is no warmup in the NET world like there is for the optimizers like Hotspot, no deoptimization phase as the Java JIT "learns".  The memory footprints of Java are still significant, and the light JVMs make compromises not found in NET.  RTJ has a lot of promise but it seems its future is embedded systems.

Anyway these are interesting points but the real issue is cost of ownership and time to market.  NET still has a ways to go as Microsoft learned a lot about enterprise licensing these last two years.  Productivity between the two platforms still is no comparison even when traditionalists like me insist on MVC on NET - we've met initiatives in just a few weeks that in our J2EE phase would have been months.  Since I insist on MVC models we can parallel deploy on either/both platforms and get the most out of the respective hardware host.  To minimize the productivity obstacles in the Java world I still wind up working with a very finite number of vendors or I spend all my time fighting incompatibilities.  Lord knows IBM is still as much a PITA as they've always been.  I still have to work with them.

Sheer performance is nifty but at the end of the day it's about meeting the needs of the business.

I've made my living for the past 10 years writing VB6 code and have been hesitant to switch completely over to .NET.  After playing with the VS.NET 2005 beta this summer though, I think I'm about ready to embrace it. 

You're going to love the changes.

My advice though is go straight to C#.  Seriously.  You're going to have to unlearn a lot of VB to use VB.NEt fully anyway so you may as well go to a language that is much cleaner, more Java/C-like, and better supported in documentation/community.  VB.NET is extremely wordy.

No, Macromedia's Lingo(used for Shockwave 'apps' made in Director) is wordy.  VB, .Net or otherwise, doesn't even begin to touch it.

As for the whole .Net thing... I've played with a bit, and find I prefer either actual C/C++ or VB, depending on the task at hand...  The mish-mash the .Net CLR made of most of the languages is just wacky.  I admit, VB certainly could benefit from the changes...  but the VB.Net IDE is rather different(from what I recal from several months ago) from what it was in VB6.

Alkiera

So does .NET code.  Both JVM and .NET are managed environments running natively.  There isn't that much difference between them really, except that .NET has slightly better performance than JVM.  The advantage that JVM has is portability, but really, it's uncommon that you want to port business apps between Linux and Windows.  If you're running desktop, you're almost solid Windows.  If you're running server, you're either -ix or Windows, depending, with some mainframe monsters hiding in corners on occation.  In any case, you're unlikely to run the same type of application in multiple environments from a server/mainframe POV.  Cross platform usually means you have components on different systems (ie, DB and app logic).  Otherwise, more boxes usually means clustering / load balancing, which is same OS.

In either case, managed environments are a godsend to devs.  They are less efficient than C++, but very few applications need that level of performance.  Few applications have such scalability issues that you can't just throw hardware at it and forget about it, at least when looking only at managed env. vs. C++ish environs (bad code is still bad code, and can kill any hardware you have). 

As to whether to go .NET or Java?  Usually comes down to more a business decision and less a technical one.  In our case, we made the decision to go MS, so .NET is our pick.  It integrates really well into MS apps, which makes my life easier.  It's also great that the web and desktop apps are the same language.  We went VB over C# since we had some skillsets in VB, there are more VB devs than C# devs, and VB is generally easier to read (imo).  Some people hate it because it has a stigma of being "kiddy", but really there isn't much of anything it can't do that C# can (operator overloading... which I hate anyway).  Good reasons to go Java too; if you go -ix, you're pretty much locked into it.  If you support multiple environments it may be easier on the skillsets you learn.  It has good web support.  Etc.

That's one of the things I like, actually.  It isn't like being wordy slows down how quickly I can code; with auto-complete and typing at 30-80 wpm (depending on coffee intake), it isn't like END IF is a big difference from }.  However, it does make a big difference when trying to read a bit of code.  Much easier ot eyeball lineups in code blocks when they are END SWITCH, END IF, END WHILE and whatever else as opposed to }, }, }.  And there's the "cute" habbit of C-esque devs to cram as much onto one line as possible.  Or operator overloading, when it isn't apparent at all what objHouse1 + objHouse2 means.

IMO that's a problem with formatting.  Too many people like C++ formatting for my tastes - starting with MS.  I like blocked Pascal-like formatting since it's very easy to read and take in all parameters/conditions at a glance, prints out conveniently, and since it's visual errors leap out at me faster.  I also do not use hard to read conventions like shorthand if-else instead requiring clearly blocked if/else or case.  Multi-team code maintenance > Single dev typing time

Anyway I realize this sort of thing is personal.  VB devs usually take some time making the shift to OOA/D and the syntax differences from traditional to VB.NET are significant enough I'd just recommend making the leap completely.  YMMV.  :)

VB.NET allows overloading on all operators except '='.  Sorry.

No it didn't, not initially.  It does in Whidbey.

In other words it allows overloading of all operators except the assignment operator?

No, not all versions of VB.NET allow for op overloading.  The latest does - but that wasn't available when we made our language consideration, which is what I was talking about. 

Yeah, I didn't want to make a new thread.

I guess some guy working on a web page accidentally uploaded the page he was testing on to the public microsoft site. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060221/tc_nm/microsoft_vista_dc)  It was a help page that described eight different versions of the next version of Windows (Vista).

The thing I found interesting was the second last sentence:
I'm going to be pretty upset if I have to not only upgrade my video card but also my OS to play certain PC games.  What if developers release games that only play on "Vista Ultimate" instead of the regular versions of Vista?  The article also called it a high-end product in the context of all the other versions, including the overpriced corporate ones.  I might go nuts once every few years and buy a $400 video card but there is no way I'm paying that much for my OS.

In an (unlikely) worst case scenario where Ultimate Vista costs as much as a good video card and developers target games for it I think PC gaming would be dead to me.

Making games designed only for the most expensive version of their OS is not Microsoft's style. They want everyone to buy all their software. It's a bit tin foil hatty to think that as the worst situation. But then, we've seen stupider from the software industry.

I had read about Vista Ultimate previously, but I can't recall where.  Google "longhorn" or "vista" and something is bound to turn up.  I believe that Ultimate will just have a load of moderately-useful shit like maybe a VOIP app, preloaded gamepad drivers, fancy display options, or other junk that any PC gamer should already have.  I'd look it up but the information was probably speculative, and I don't really want to.

The only developers that might release Vista-Ultimate-Only titles are going to be the ones owned directly by Microsoft.  Any other developer has absolutely nothing to gain by such a maneuver, unless "Vista Ultimate" actually provides additional functionality that games can leverage (which is really doubtful), and even then they'd probably make it optional.

I'm concerned DRM will be too restrictive and will greatly diminish how we use our computers.

but I'm sure it will run on all versions of Vista.

Even having it run on Vista only is a bit fishy and something that I doubt any other developers are going to be doing any time soon.  Nothing I've seen of Vista so far suggests that a game which runs on Vista wouldn't run on XP unless there's some specific jiggerypokery in place to prevent it from doing so.

Why on God's green earth doesn't Apple jump on the cluetrain and destroy MS right now?  They've already got the OS, it's already geared for x86, and MS seems bound and determined to further piss off their customers.  Shit, when your competitor is sinking you throw him a stone, you don't sit back and watch him incompetently hang on to his marketshare.

Or better yet, if Apple really wanted to get in a deathblow they'd collaborate with Google to snatch up the x86 world.

Apple likes making margins on both hardware and software. Also, no one but nerds would buy it. Hardcore gamers would probably shy away from OSX as well considering that there's no DirectX, and thus, certain games just aren't going to be available.

Apple is now arguably a music/video/consumer electronics company rather than a computer company -- music business revenues (iPod/iTunes/etc.) are now ~60% of Apple's total revenues.

Apple doesn't like games.

Originally they didn't want the Mac to be seen as a toy machine so they purposely gave gaming the cold-shoulder. Every 2 or 3 years like clockwork since then they have some new initiative to make gaming on the Mac more viable, but it never really pans out because in the end they just don't care that much.

There's no etc.
There's only the iPod - everything else (iTunes et al) exists to sell more iPods. It's working so well, that it's making money as well, but it's all about the iPod.


Heh. Apart from a search engine and a being the media darlings du jour, what does Google have, that mak people believe they could put out a killer OS? I remember all the rumours up tp CES, and what did they show us? A cd filled with programs, they'd bought from small companies and made freeware - big whoopee!
And Apple definately isn't the same - freeware is the furthest thing from Apples mind. ITunes is free, because it seconds as a shop and it sells iPods.
OS X definately isn't free - and you get to pay for updates way more often than the 5 years that goes between new Windows version. If Apple made Windows, we'd have to pay for SP1 and SP2.

Vista looks good. We're not forced to upgrade, but being pc owners we'll eventually upgrade/buy a new system anyway - having it with Vista instead of XP won't cost that much extra. And having to own Vista to play Halo 2 still isn't different than having to upgrade a graphics card or buying a console to play it.
I'm no big fan of MS, but I don't get the hate either. I certainly don't see how anybody can see Apple as the saviour.

I seem to recall MS talking about moving their OS to a subscription-based plan. That was 2-3 years ago, that I recall hearing that, though. I'm not sure how many other software companies are doing this, but Autodesk has embraced the idea. (At least the stuff we're using, like base AutoCAD and Architectural Desktop.) 

Sure, you can still buy the stand-alone app, but any support, upgrades, patches, etc have to be purchased. They're "FREE" if you have their service subscription, and hey they'll even give you a break on the next version and the upgrade to the current version if you buy the plan, because they're such nice guys.  Also, the software seems to deactivate after a certain amount of time if you don't have it hooked-in to the net to do a version check.

After working on the library's maintenance guy's home pc last night, I seriously recommended he buy a mac. His pc was so laden with virii and spyware I wouldn't even plug my thumbdrive into it. Rife. Laden. I had worked on it a week ago and cleaned it out. He surfs the internet indiscriminately, so does his wife, his kids love 'free stuff'. They can't figure out why the machine keeps slowing down and 'acting up'. When I explained it's their usage patterns, they were incredulous. I got questions like "So everyone who isn't a nerd has these problems?" (pretty much) and "Where can we download music for free for our ipods?" (blooooood).

Therein lies Apple's billions.

If they add in gaming via some kind of directx abstraction, it'd be gravy. I'd buy one. But simply being a bit more secure and not dealing with mountains of spyware and virii at the home user level is probably the single biggest selling point and necessity in the computing world today.

Oh, and fuck that registry noise. MS should be ripping off the .app scheme, bundle everything right in the application package instead of taking random dumps all about my disk.

There is a safe sex/small penis joke to be made here, but my caffeine-deprived state prohibits me from doing so. I will leave to my more alert compatriots to do.

Did he get some penicillin (http://www.digitalriver.com/v2.0-img/operations/trendmic/site/multi.htm) for that case of the clap?

Sorry, I'm not Mr. Funny.

Problem is, that advantage is a direct result of Apple having small market share.  If more people used Macs, spyware and virii would be targetted at them, and they'd end up having the same problems.  Guaranteed.

Macs are a hell of a lot better than they were before OS X, but the fact that you still can't run more than a handful of games on them eliminates them from consideration whenever PC upgrade time comes around for me.  Not to mention that you can't build them yourself for half price.

Okay, now someone pop in and tell us about Linux.

Linux sucks whale balls.

Good man.

Yep, I know. I work on macs and game on my home pc. I was an ardent mac-hater at first, until OSX 10.1 (we had 1.x server which was NOT a great implementation of OSX, the old ASIP we had before that was much easier to admin and more stable). Love OSX.

My point was really that all that doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW Macs aren't susceptible to all the crapware. People could buy them up and surf relatively safely for a few years, maybe even the life of the mac. When the market share got too huge, it'd swing around a different way, sure. Meeellions of dollars later, though. Maybe Beeellions.

This is very true.  It just wouldn't be very clever for Apple to make "Macs are spyware-proof" their long term marketing strategy is all I'm getting at.   :wink:  Linux weenies have also been blowing the "Linux is more secure than M$ Windoze" horn for years and years now, and I'm positive that if anyone used Linux other than Linux weenies, that would be proven false very quickly.  In the end, any system is only as secure as its user.

Sure, I agree. If my parents weren't on the cheap side, it would save me hours of frustration if they would just buy a Mac mini instead of an endless stream of overpriced hand me down pc's. Games are not a consideration here.
But I don't see Apple as the great saviour that frees us from MS:

Breakdown of the upcoming Vista versions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4754462.stm

It's interesting that the new Aero UI is not going to be available in all versions.

The user comments at the bottom of that article are a gold mine.



etc...

The nearly all have something negative to say.

I agree with the "looks a bit too Mac" comment.  That was definitely my first reaction to it... a lot of brushed-steel-looking grays and blacks.  Fortunately, all that stuff is skinnable.

There were some aspects of Vista I did like, like the extra Explorer bells and whistles.  The main thing I didn't like about it was the abysmal performance, but I'm assuming they'll fix that before they ship (or that they already have since Beta 1), since it would be downright suicidal to put out an OS that performs worse than what you've got out there right now.