Microsoft "Longhorn" Discussion

Can I like a Microsoft UI and still like an Apple UI better? Or do I have to hate the MS UI? ;-)
 
To senne and Jason:
No comment! :p

To fryke:
Like the Windows 98-2000 UI, hate the XP and LongHorn UI (so far) and Love the OS X one! :D ;)
 
hulkaros said:
To senne and Jason:
No comment! :p

To fryke:
Like the Windows 98-2000 UI, hate the XP and LongHorn UI (so far) and Love the OS X one! :D ;)
Click to expand...

I agree, the default XP look is as ugly as it gets. But the nice thing is how easy it is to make Windows look like whatever you want it to look like. Mine currentally looks alot like Panther. You can also easily change OS X around but I like it enough to leave it alone. As long as Windows is easy to make look nicer I won't complain about how ugly the default look is.
 

Attachments

  • new-2.jpg
    new-2.jpg
    73.5 KB · Views: 23
thank you :)

(to be a little more indepth)

I've always been a fan of a black GUI, but rarely, VERY rarely is it done well enough to look good, be usable, and not become tiring, and IMHO this is one that does all that well... but thats just my opinion :)
 
<<...Microsoft said the new version (Longhorn) will have better security, make it easier to organise and find files and need to be restarted much less often...>>

Didn't they say the same every time they announced a new version of their os?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3220017.stm

By the above mentioned statement, I want to thank M$ for admitting that their current dominance of the pc market is a whole bucket of nothing with a product full of holes and bugs.

Peace.
 
i think its just a matter of taste.
i dont like the longhorn ui... if i was ever forced to use it (god bless.. i wont) ... id change its looks with an app like windowblinds(if it still exists)

what i wonder now with panther is.. how far can apple go?? what else is there to introduce in 10.4 in order to impress us... ... ahh.. my mac feels good
 
I think we need to see something more substantial of Longhorn than just a few XP-like screenshots before we can make any judgments. That being said, I certainly hope it doesn't look like XP or anything earlier than that; XP has way too much eye candy, with the whole Disney on acid thing going on, and before that it's just too dull and boring to have to look at.

Tony: If you're going to make your PC Mac-like, go a step further and put your Taskbar at the top of the screen! Then the Start menu will act like the Apple menu, you'll have the menu widgets, and the clock will be in the right position. :)
 
arden said:
I think we need to see something more substantial of Longhorn than just a few XP-like screenshots before we can make any judgments. That being said, I certainly hope it doesn't look like XP or anything earlier than that; XP has way too much eye candy, with the whole Disney on acid thing going on, and before that it's just too dull and boring to have to look at.

Tony: If you're going to make your PC Mac-like, go a step further and put your Taskbar at the top of the screen! Then the Start menu will act like the Apple menu, you'll have the menu widgets, and the clock will be in the right position. :)
Click to expand...

I had it like that for a while but it just got in my way since the File, Edit, etc... menus are attached to the programs. I typically hide the bar and go about my business.

I'm not so much trying to emulate OS X, I just wanted something simple and it seems the majority of Win themes just change the color of Luna or make it worse. It just so happens that OS X's interface is everything I am looking for in the apperance department. Plus since I am running them side by side it keeps my screens uniform.
 
That's because they fix all the holes that the previous version had without fixing any of the new ones they've introduced.
 
citizentony said:
I agree, the default XP look is as ugly as it gets. But the nice thing is how easy it is to make Windows look like whatever you want it to look like. Mine currentally looks alot like Panther. You can also easily change OS X around but I like it enough to leave it alone. As long as Windows is easy to make look nicer I won't complain about how ugly the default look is.
Click to expand...

That's not the OS X UI! That's an OS X UI wannabe :p There are more complete OS X UI solutions for Windows out there! Search and you will find ;)

Of course you are right that you can use previous Windows UI versions in XP but still... Plus the same can be done via themes in OS X! You can make it look like Windows XP :eek:

But I think that you pretty much said what I'm trying to say in this thread in your other post:
"It just so happens that OS X's interface is everything I am looking for in the apperance department."

Thanks a lot! :)
 
I'd personally rather have an OS that functions properly, runs quickly and looks decent....than one that is super flashy, has tons of eyecandy, runs like crap and crashes...a balence needs to be achieved...and we aren't quite there yet. We had the windows9x, which wasn't pretty to look at and didn't get the job done, os 9, which wasn't pretty and got the job done, now we have os x..which is very pretty and gets most of the job done...just a little slower usually than os9 and then we have Windows XP, which looks "good"(eh)and gets the job done, but slower than any other windows.....and it's rippled with security holes. Yay....heh
 
hulkaros said:
That's not the OS X UI! That's an OS X UI wannabe :p There are more complete OS X UI solutions for Windows out there! Search and you will find ;)

Of course you are right that you can use previous Windows UI versions in XP but still... Plus the same can be done via themes in OS X! You can make it look like Windows XP :eek:

But I think that you pretty much said what I'm trying to say in this thread in your other post:
"It just so happens that OS X's interface is everything I am looking for in the apperance department."

Thanks a lot! :)
Click to expand...

Your welcome. ;)

I've seen the better emulation's but I just needed something that did not hurt my eyes, and this one fits the bill for now.

Total Konfuzion: I have no complaints with speed or security while using XP. Just keep it up to date and it is fine.
My only complaint with OS X.3 is that it still lags when I resize a brushed metal window and Expose gets a bit jumpy when I have memory extensive programs running, but other than that Panther really takes care of all of the speed issues I had. This is running on my 867Mhz PB 12" w/ 256mb of ram. I figure more ram would fix everything.


The main goal of any operating system is to not be noticed. It's purpose in life is to make using the computer easy, and giving applications a nice place to be used. "Eye Candy" as used in OS X are a welcome part of the experiance because, for me, they make the computer feel more intuitive, or a pleasure to use. Longhorn should make use of the same type of features and I will welcome that. It's a fact of my life that I will be using both Windows and Mac and the better each is the better my experiance gets. I for one like the fact that each "borrows" the others finer fetures and impliments them in their own little way. It give them a reason to innovate new things. I like new things.
 
senne:
Now we all missunderstood that, didn't we ;)

Hey all...

Let's calm down and post more interesting posts "in depth" than the usual "windows s*cks" this or "mac's rules" etc.
What's the damn point?

Not only have we read these uninteresting threads that go on and on for ever but frankly, they are also downright stupid and OH SO booring.

If the topic is about Longhorn, so then, lets discuss it in a more mature way than "I like" or "I hate".

*Why do you not like, in more detail?

* Will the OS be more secure?

* What about the GUI? Is "Billy-Bob and his crew" JUST looking at Apples GUI and immitating it or are there things in there that actually are original and perhaps good?

*Is there anything that sticks out and if so...from what perspective is that good for the user?

*Is there anything innovating about Longhorn behind the GUI?

There are hundreds of questions that can be discussed.

Since the OS is not out there for the masses we have less to go on but does that mean we have nothing to say about the things we so far have seen?

The only thing I HATE is a thread going ABSOLUTELY nowhere with just crappy comments that take up place on a good forum and doesn't make anyone more smart or educated after reading the posts.

I, myself, do not take pleasure in anything Windows comes out with or use a PC (unless I have to at work) and absolutely LOVE Mac but that doesn't mean I constantly have to type that in every fora.

Let's upgrade this topic abit, shall we?
Pretty please? ;)

Regards,

/Gambit
 
I don't know what Microsoft is going to have up his sleeves with Longhorn. But from my own experience starting with DOS 2.11 over Win3.11 through OS/2 then Linux but switching to FreeBSD and ending up with OS X after i found out that OS X uses FreeBSD as their platform I think i can say that Microsoft had only released one decent product sofar and that is Win2000.

Just out of pure curiousity i wonder how this Longhorn will perform. But if it needs such astronomical hardware requirements like WinXP i will NOT even try to install it on my AMD 1700XP+ since Win2k can do everything i need to do and there is no need to upgrade to WinXP. If Microsoft wants to get customers back, they better make sure that Longhorn is going to be FAST even on slow computers like mine.

I think Apple went the right direction when they decided to use open source as a platform for the future and also release all their developments for Darwin as open source. Its a give and take and Apple surely profits from that 'communist' (like some Windoze bigots call it) concept, since FreeBSD has proven itself for years as an extremely stable and reliable open source *nix platform. Heck, even Microsoft copied the BSD TCP/IP stack to use in their closed source Windows, thats how good that stuff actually is.
Now through that open source concept Apple has enough resources free to really concentrate their efforts on the GUI to make it faster, more reliable and more userfriendly since they don't have to worry about the underlaying platform.

Microsoft on the other hand just cannot grasp this concept and relies only on their pure market dominance to stay ahead of their competitors, but sooner or later i think Microsoft will loose. I mean, hell, even the biggest companies and governments are starting to think out loud about a switch to open source just to get away from Microsoft.

I believe with the WinXP registration Microsoft shot itself into the foot. Only through pirated Office and Windows has Microsoft gained this dominance in the computer market. If 15 years ago i would have not been able to make a copy of DOS 3.3 because of copy protection and actually had to pay for DOS 3.3 so i could use it, i would have never EVER bought it and would have started to search back then for an alternative for my trusty 8MHz 8088. Instead i did buy OS/2 2.0 from IBM later on, since it was simply the better OS. Now i've bought Panther, since it is simply the better platform than Windoze.
Windoze with copy protection is worthless, anyone who has some history with computers and how Microsoft actually gained the monopoly through pirated software will ever buy a Windoze OS.

EDIT:Oh, in case any lawyer from Microsoft reads my post, don't get your panties in a twist, the DOS 3.3 back then and Win2k i use right now came with my computers in the bundle, i didn't pirate it.

Thomas
 
Scummer said:
I believe with the WinXP registration Microsoft shot itself into the foot. Only through pirated Office and Windows has Microsoft gained this dominance in the computer market. If 15 years ago i would have not been able to make a copy of DOS 3.3 because of copy protection and actually had to pay for DOS 3.3 so i could use it, i would have never EVER bought it and would have started to search back then for an alternative for my trusty 8MHz 8088. Instead i did buy OS/2 2.0 from IBM later on, since it was simply the better OS. Now i've bought Panther, since it is simply the better platform than Windoze.
Windoze with copy protection is worthless, anyone who has some history with computers and how Microsoft actually gained the monopoly through pirated software will ever buy a Windoze OS.
Click to expand...

I really doubt MS or for that matter any company, counts the folks that have pirated their software when they count the User base. I figure it comes from the amount of licenses sold.

The forced registration was quickly and quietly removed from XP. I, plus the many people I know that run XP never had to do the famed registration process. I just installed it and went on with my life.

Microsoft has made billions of dollars off of the sales of their various operating systems and Office. When someone pirates the software MS gets no money. Their is also no way to count that user since the software was sold to one person and is being used by more than that one user. How is it that MS would either gain market share or make money anytime a person pirates their software? They can't and don't, and thinking they do is an odd way to think.

The fact that people pirate software has no bearing on the fact that Windows is the most widely used OS. The main reason Apple has a smaller share is due to mistakes they made when they were starting out and more mistakes later in their history. They are now gaining share but I doubt they will ever control the majority. Which is fine, their innovation is due to the fact that they are the underdog. They have far better products because they have to in order to keep their current user base and to gain more users. This benefits any Apple user.
 
citizentony said:
I really doubt MS or for that matter any company, counts the folks that have pirated their software when they count the User base. I figure it comes from the amount of licenses sold.

The forced registration was quickly and quietly removed from XP. I, plus the many people I know that run XP never had to do the famed registration process. I just installed it and went on with my life.

Microsoft has made billions of dollars off of the sales of their various operating systems and Office. When someone pirates the software MS gets no money. Their is also no way to count that user since the software was sold to one person and is being used by more than that one user. How is it that MS would either gain market share or make money anytime a person pirates their software? They can't and don't, and thinking they do is an odd way to think.

The fact that people pirate software has no bearing on the fact that Windows is the most widely used OS. The main reason Apple has a smaller share is due to mistakes they made when they were starting out and more mistakes later in their history. They are now gaining share but I doubt they will ever control the majority. Which is fine, their innovation is due to the fact that they are the underdog. They have far better products because they have to in order to keep their current user base and to gain more users. This benefits any Apple user.
Click to expand...

People got used to DOS or Windows, because they could just copy it without a problem, therefore getting used to that system without having to look for an alternative. Now those people have become decision makers in companies for IT departments and what do they buy? Of course what they know best, Windows/Dos/Office. People have to start using that software now in companies they work for and get used to it. What do they start buying for their home use? Comps with Windoze on it of course, because thats what they know best from work. And so on and so on. You think every home user can just shell out 700$ for a office package? I'd say, the minimum does that. Its companies that buy the licenses because they don't know better, since as i mentioned before, the decision makers don't know anything else but winblows.
My god, i remember what a friggin pain in the ass it was to get some of the programs to run right by editing autoexec.bat and config.sys. It was HORRIBLE! You think people would buy such crappy software? No way. It was either bundled with the PC or copied.

Thomas
 
citizentony said:
The main reason Apple has a smaller share is due to mistakes they made when they were starting out and more mistakes later in their history.
Click to expand...

Some of Apples "mistakes" are known to me somewhat but I'd like to just ask for some more specifications on these "mistakes" on Apples part.

Would you mind sharing the ones you have in mind and think have made a diff. for Apples future value?

I'm just a curious person overall and would like to hear what you think.

Regards

/G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top