Jump to content

Longhorn/Vista? XP Warmed Over?


Swad
 Share

46 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

What do you guys think of Longhorn. I'll have to say, I've been slightly disappointed with what I've seen so far in the RCs. It seems like they've had to cut a lot of the things that were going to make it good, so now it seems only slightly better than XP. Maybe Bill still has a few tricks up his sleeve.

 

And why are they porting everything back to XP, also? Are they actually trying to keep people from upgrading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ChrisAshtear

it depends on which beta you get... its not a RC yet, far from, actually.

 

4074 is probably the best, it gives you an idea of the cool stuff itll have, and it also has the aurora effects engine in it, although it takes some work to get it working.

 

if you have the winHEC version 50** something, i agree, its {censored}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're right about the RC thing. I mistyped. :)

 

Anyway, yeah all the reviews that I read said the WinHEC version sucked.

 

And why have they taken out all the good stuff, as in the new filesystem, etc?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually followed longhorn pretty religiously up until 4074. I was kinda impressed with how it was coming along but then there was all the announcements that various features were being pushed off and not going to be in longhorn, i just stopped following it. I think the winpe installation is pretty sweet though, its about damn time {censored} stopped being dos based for the first stage of installation. I can say for at least me, i dont like the whole image based copy thing they have going on. I can see how it offers some security? benefits... it really annoyed me. I was pretty amazed though how those guys had enough free time to recompile the system into a regular i386 cd installation. i do give them props.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

After being a Microsoft Hater for several dozen years, I've grown to appreciate some of their innovations. I certainly think that their emphasis on backwards compatibility is a real drag -- a nice thing about Apples is that, generally, if the OS can be installed on a given machine, the machine will run the OS well (or at least decently). XP can be installed on machines that really shouldn't be running anything more than Win98, and damn near every machine running Win98 should be running Win95, and so on... another complaint is the wretched security, but unless I'm mistaken there are quite a few app-level kernel hooks in the ol' OS X, too...

 

My real problem is that Windows is made for Grandmothers. I am not a grandmother (last I checked), and would appreciate being able to, say, disable the GUI and use the computer as a service machine. Or at least I would have until I discovered Linux, the BSDs, and OS X.

 

I dunno, I just don't even view Windows as an option anymore. I want OS X on my desktops, Linux on my hobby boxes, FreeBSD on my servers, and OpenBSD on the firewall (even though I loathe Theo De Raadt). And I wouldn't mind having a Zeta machine to tinker with, come to think of it, and MorphOS looks cute although I've heard it's a piece of {censored}. I had a NeXTStation, a few SGI boxes, Solaris running on a short-lived Sun Ultra 10, and I'm ashamed to say that I've even attempted to run GNU/HURD ;-)

 

That got a bit out-of-hand. I guess what I'm trying to say that yeah, Windows is an option... but only as much of an option as IRIX. Which is not going to happen. MS can hold my hand and guide me around the highly-complex and confusing process of clicking "Internet Exploiter" as much as they want (or, more likely, filing a bug report), but I have serious doubts that I'll ever go back to that {censored}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...