[Kamikaze]

Damn, if they implement hardware **** in the x86 architecture I'm leaving it for PPC or Sparc or something.

I've also heard about a relational database on top of NTFS (called WinFS) which annoys me, I've heard it would be somewhat slow (and I'd much prefer a directory structure like Unix instead of a relational database). However they're getting rid of drive letters (only hiding them, they're not eradicated yet).

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Turnsky
the taskbar seems a helluva lot cleaner(and better looking) than Xp's.. and i see that they've dropped the 'green jellybean' start button:nod:

I've found the XP taskbar to be very clean. Locking it gets rid of the ugly dividing lines between the various toolbars on it (as well as preventing you from moving/resizing it by accident, something I've done on several occasions), the fact it tucks inactive systray icons out of the way also cuts down on the amount of clutter and finally, program grouping keeps the various taskbar buttons neat and organised. Oh, and the new "Start Menu" is handy too, I hardly ever have to drag out the "All Programs" menu anymore as everything I need is either pinned to the Start Menu or in the "most used" list below it. The "green jelly bean" never bothered me in the least.

[Turnsky]

i just thought that the green start button broke up the continutity of the taskbar somewhat, i woulda preferred if they gave you the ability to change the color of the start button..

[Bobboau]

why give you the oportunity, green is a nice color and you will like it!

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Bobboau
why give you the oportunity, green is a nice color and you will like it!

seems the case with an xbox

[Nico]

Originally posted by Turnsky
i just thought that the green start button broke up the continutity of the taskbar somewhat, i woulda preferred if they gave you the ability to change the color of the start button..

you can also do like me and choose classical look in the display properties. grey rules

[Rictor]

Does anyone have some screenshots of Longhorn running? I'm too lazy to search for them, and since you guys are talking about how it looks, might as well.

As for the security, well, I hope that it all works out. The major components here (The OS maker, the chip makers and the government) are all after the same thing, so I doubt any of those would interfere with the plans of any of the others. The government would gladly let Microsoft spy on you, so long as they have access to the info..

[J.F.K.]

[q]From the link:

Thanks to the DCE, windows can flap around as you move them with the mouse.[/q]

Heh... all our technological wonders, and we're just trying to recreate paper. Well, not entirely, but it's funny to muse on.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I can't believe anyone could choose asthetics over usability, that just doesn't make sense when it comes to operating systems. In this respect I find win2k to be vastly superior to XP. LSD you claimed that 2k was an alpha? How can an OS that's so clean and stable be an alpha? Have you had a bad experience with using it?

XP IMHO is a system hogging monster, what is the point of installing an operating system which actually degrades from your ability to use a computer? Half those 'bells and whistles' M$ installed are completely redundant hard drive fillers used to try and vilify an increase in price.

What a joke.
[/color]

[Tiara]

1). I have XP and it works without nearly ANY system hogging. (Could be due to the fact that I run a AMD3000+ 1 gig RAM but still... not even the slightest system hogging)
2). 2k crashed more then 98SE for me
3). with a 200gig HDD I need not worry about XP filling my HD. It takes up a mere 1.5 gigs now
4). And half those 'bells and whistles' you don't use can be uninstalled or not even installed from the start....

Still... LINUX ownz j00!

[Nico]

Originally posted by Tiara
1). I have XP and it works without nearly ANY system hogging. (Could be due to the fact that I run a AMD3000+ 1 gig RAM but still... not even the slightest system hogging)
2). 2k crashed more then 98SE for me
3). with a 200gig HDD I need not worry about XP filling my HD. It takes up a mere 1.5 gigs now
4). And half those 'bells and whistles' you don't use can be uninstalled or not even installed from the start....

Still... LINUX ownz j00!

I more or less agree with you:
1) same here, I have about no crashes with XP ( considering I never shut my PC down ). and my rig is a puny 900mhz with 384mb ram.
2) 2k could²n't run half my stuff and crashed like crazy ( but it didn't reach the win98 record of 5 or 6 crashes a day )
3) with 120 gb, same here
4) yeah

Linux: no Linux is useless unless you like to brag about using a useless OS or unless you're doing network stuff.
Linux is for geeks who like to waste HD space otherwise, or for professionals, to sum up.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Venom

Linux: no Linux is useless unless you like to brag about using a useless OS or unless you're doing network stuff.
Linux is for geeks who like to waste HD space otherwise, or for professionals, to sum up.

Yup, I do my "work" with linux but games, chatting and stuff on windows. Easier to use indeed.

[LtNarol]

Operating System: Win 98
Time in use: 5 years
Hardware: recently upgraded from a 550mhz processor to an Athlon 2.6ghz, 128mb ddr ram and 18gig hdd. TNT2 video card.
Crashes experienced: 2
Typical background software: ICQ, MSN, AIM, PSP7, LW7, Winamp, TS5.1 (yes, at the same time)

It should probably be noted that both crashes were due to my stupid mistakes while programming (endless loops and undefined array elements).  XP's only real advance is visual appearance, which runs about dead last as far as importance goes in my book; LH doesn't look much different, the only thing useful seems to be translucent windows, which can come in handy for code and messenger.

[Nico]

just to answer:
win98SE, crashes experimented... mmh.. i'll make a quick approximation:
I've ran it for, let say 4 years. so 1460 days. between 4 and 10 crashes a day, so let say 7 crashes a day.
I've experimented 102220 crashes with win98SE.
It rocked

with XP, I hardly have 2 crashes a week ( same PC ). I'll say the improvement over 98 is more than cosmetic, but that could be me.

[LtNarol]

4-10 crashes a day on an average day is rediculous, did you piss off a lot of people who know how to hack PCs or something?

[Tiara]

Win98SE - average 1-2 crashes a day
WinXP - 1 crash a month tops

[Nico]

Originally posted by LtNarol
4-10 crashes a day on an average day is rediculous, did you piss off a lot of people who know how to hack PCs or something?

no, I use my PC a lot.

[Taristin]

I get at most, 1 crash a month on my system with win2k. So.. I dunno what you guys are doing wrong...

[LtNarol]

I usually have my PC running whenever I'm home (and supposed to be awake), which means about 8 hours a day during the school year and about 14 hours a day durring the summer.  Keep in mind that until 3 weeks ago this was on a 550mhz processor and 128mb of 'normal' ram.

[Unknown Target]

I get multiple freezes on my PC a day, causing me to restart, but I only have about 1 crash every 2 months, but when it crashes, I have to re-do my computer completely. Or at least install windows again.


EDIT: I have XP.