Windows Longhorn

[Noia]

it'll be Windows PE I think..I have a beta some where....but it's about as stabile as a Sumo wrestler doing Ballet while holding 231 cup's of Hot Java......to say the least....it ain't very good yet..and u need a power house to use it.....one plus though...it installs very very fast...
the Final Version is going to be better, but the one I hve is kinda pants.

- Noia

[allenb1963]

Originally posted here by ZomBieMann77
acording to the article i saw on it in PC Mag. its supposed to be freshly coded. Not based off of windows at all. I dont know much about programing so i dont know how plausable that is. and i think most everybody can remeber all the bugs is 95 when it came out.... that was " from scratch" programing Hmmmm I think ill stick with xp for a while

As both Noia and I can attest, "Longhorn" is VERY FAR REMOVED from being a "built from scratch" operating system. It is, at this point, a dressed up version of XP that sucks up system resources harder than a two dollar hooker on a Saturday night. And like said hooker, it has on plenty of makeup on to make it look attractive but turns out to be a "coyote trap" in the true light of day.

For those who might not understand the coyote trap reference....

Coyote Trap- when you wake up with your arm around someone so ugly that you would rather chew it off at the shoulder and slink away than wake them up.

[romanticcowboy]

im gonna stick with xp for awhile ,i might run a box with longhorn when it is a couple of months old to test it

[MemorY]

dont be hatin on newbies for askin stupid questions... we are the next generation hackers ... we have to learn....

awwww wasn't i cute when i was a Newbie

btw: one year later now and i have tested longhron beta...many...many bugs, but also nice features..uses too much RAM...there is thread about it here on AO i made, you can go to Advanced Search.. type in my username and longhorn in the search box, you'll find it for sure...

[gore]

Yea, it was just so cute someone dragged up a thread over a year old to tell everyone they will be sticking with XP...Which it's not like they could switch to LongWAIT anyway, as it's not even released, or close.

[pooh sun tzu]

many...many bugs, but also nice features..uses too much RAM

It's alpha. I would expect the same from an alpha release of any nix distrobution as well.

[cheyenne1212]

Is it where you can download a leagl beta copy of it or do you have to go through other means of obtaining the software?

[lumpyporridge]

What really got me about longhorn is the specs,
"Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature 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."
(from microsft-watch.com )
Now how many people need/want such a machine? , how many people want the power bill from such a machine?
Most people just browse, check email...... I really wonder how well this will go over?



edit --- I believe "other" means are needed to get a copy (its all over p2p)

[pooh sun tzu]

"Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature 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."
(from microsft-watch.com )

That was a fake slashdot story that had a primary purpose of placing false information about the Longhorn requirements, which then spread as "official news" like wildfire. As a beta tester, I can tell you they are NOWHERE near that. Right now we are looking at around roughly for a minimum requirement system of:

- Pentium III 1ghz
- 512 MB RAM
- 3G storage for the OS
- Normal ethernet card (1GIG built in? come on guys.. learn to lie better)
- Any 3d compliant card that runs as powerful as an Nvidia GeForce 2 MX w/ 64 Megs of RAM.

Those specs are the expected ones for min, althought they may go up a tiny bit, but not as astronmically deranged and disgusting as the lies spread about it. Here are the estimated (remember, I have documentation but am not allowed to release it to the non-beta testing public, so no references save trusting my word and experience on it?) recommended setups:

- Pentium IV 2ghz
- 1 Gb RAM
- 5G storage for the OS
- Normal ethernet card (1GIG built in? come on guys.. learn to lie better)
- 3d compatible card that meets the processing power of the current top of the line Nvidia card.

Now how many people need/want such a machine? , how many people want the power bill from such a machine?

Think ahead in terms, not behind. Just like Bill never saw the need to ever have more than 12 Mb of RAM, he knew that computers would eventually require it for some function or feature. Just as a pentium III would seem like a "OMFG WHY DO WE NEED THAT!" if shown to someone back in the commodor 64 days, a OS requiring these specs (the ones I listed, not the fake ones) because of the innate and under-the-hood features (no, not just eye candy, bloated does NOT always equal bad and unessessary) are something that will be common place when Longhorn hits.

And, like always. People who need the upgrade anyways will still upgrade. And people who still do not need the upgrade will still not upgrade.

[KeyserSoze]

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu

Right now we are looking at around roughly for a minimum requirement system of:

- Pentium III 1ghz
- 512 MB RAM
- 3G storage for the OS
- Normal ethernet card (1GIG built in? come on guys.. learn to lie better)
- Any 3d compliant card that runs as powerful as an Nvidia GeForce 2 MX w/ 64 Megs of RAM.

recommended setups:

- Pentium IV 2ghz
- 1 Gb RAM
- 5G storage for the OS
- Normal ethernet card (1GIG built in? come on guys.. learn to lie better)
- 3d compatible card that meets the processing power of the current top of the line Nvidia card.

Think ahead in terms, not behind. Just like Bill never saw the need to ever have more than 12 Mb of RAM, he knew that computers would eventually require it for some function or feature. Just as a pentium III would seem like a "OMFG WHY DO WE NEED THAT!" if shown to someone back in the commodor 64 days, a OS requiring these specs (the ones I listed, not the fake ones) because of the innate and under-the-hood features (no, not just eye candy, bloated does NOT always equal bad and unessessary) are something that will be common place when Longhorn hits.

True, machines like this might be the norm in several years more time, like the several years that passed between the Commodore and PIII you referenced. My two major points (FWIW) are:

1. At this point in time, and the next couple of years, requirements such as these are ludicrous. Six or eight years down the road, maybe not; but for now they are.

2. An OS that can take advantage of good resources is great. An OS that demands those resources to run anywhere near effectively is itself a poor OS, IMO. This is where *nix is going to be able to make good strides on the desktop market. Like mentioned above, most users are surfing, emailing, and typing. They don't want to spend $1000 on a new machine and $300 on its software to do what near-free software can do on the machine they currently have (or the ones they can buy for 3-400 from Dell et al) Hell, most regular users I know are still on 98 or me, with a few on 2000; really not too many have xp yet.

It has been my experience that the recommended requirements are the ones you need to run the OS efficiently. And taking your word (which I most certainly do, having read your posts before ) I must say that requiring a P4 and a gig of ram is currently, and still will be for several years, ridiculous.