Questions about Longhorn UI

I know i won't get exact answers but i would like to know what you think about these questions:
Will it be more consistent? Will it be more customizable?
Will it beat the so-called "prettiness" of Mac OS X?

I have a lot of questions but these covers most of them basically.

Yesterday I found Tjeerd Hoek's blog but there's no much information about the user interface. That's a personal blog.

Certainly i've already read the interview with Hillel Cooperman and Tjeerd and i saw the Kam VedBrat video on Ch9 but it's not enough

Finally i've found a Codeproject article about the UI changes. It's a very interesting read.
http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/LHChangesUA1.asp

I hope you understand that the article you referenced is extremely old. I don't see a date on it, but it acts as if WinFS is still around, so it's at least a  year old.

Since then, the following has been dropped:

1. Avalon and Indigo won't be part of the default install for Longhorn, it will be a separate user-initiated install. (As of a recent Chris Anderson interview). This means applications can't depend on Avalon being installed on WinXP or Longhorn.

2. WinFS has been dropped. (Not being part of the initial release will mean people won't download it, just like .NET is languishing at a 20% adoption rate).

3. WinFX has been dropped (as of the 5000 series of builds). This it the ".NET stuff they wasted so much time on" as mentioned in the Mini-Microsoft blog.

4. Longhorn Help has been dropped (customers told Microsoft they were not interested in this feature). Expect more of the same in this arena, which renders 75% of that article useless.

Also, consider the following:

1. Microsoft itself doesn't use .NET, so I doubt they will use Avalon or Indigo either. Most other companies will stick their current massive libraries of Win32 code. Don't expect an Avalon version of Photoshop ever.

2. Microsoft has been trying to get people to create "task-based" applications since Office XP came out, and no one has bothered.

3. Microsoft added skinning capability to Windows XP and promptly required all skins to be signed by them. It'll be the same for Longhorn.

4. Microsoft wants all applications to look the same, but the skinning craze happened anyway without their approval. Expect more of the same.

5. Microsoft has already said that since corporate customers don't want to retrain their users, don't expect too many UI changes. It may look prettier (but most companies force the Win2000 battleship gray look anyway), but don't expect any consistency.

6. Yes, you'll still see a single sloppy window with a 16-color 16x16 Windows 95 icon, a 256-color 32x32 Windows NT icon, a 64k-color 32x32 Windows XP icon and a true-color 128x128 icon in Longhorn on the same screen. And a single sloppy screen with a "Longhorn-type" button, a hardcoded "Luna-type" button and a hardcoded "Win2000-type" button.

7. Everything in this article is opposite of how I use a computer, so there is no way Longhorn can be user-friendly to me or any other power user. Things look bleak.

8. In the name of backwards compatibility, Microsoft has never been and will never be able to break the shackles of the limitations of Windows without a complete rewrite. This is a well-known fact.

Actually, I started to pick the crap above apart, but after rereading it all, I simply gave up.

ROTFLMAO....

Heh. I'm also rather baffled at what he's rambling about.




mVPstar

stgeorge wrote:

I hope you understand that the article you referenced is extremely old. I don't see a date on it, but it acts as if WinFS is still around, so it's at least a  year old.

stgeorge wrote:

Since then, the following has been dropped:

stgeorge wrote:

Microsoft itself doesn't use .NET, so I doubt they will use Avalon or Indigo either.

stgeorge wrote:

Don't expect an Avalon version of Photoshop ever.

Tom Servo wrote:

Actually, I started to pick the crap above apart, but after rereading it all, I simply gave up.

3DUI and that's no FUD bud!

eagle wrote:

3DUI and that's no FUD bud!

Great question.  Although, I have a suspicion it is going to be more the latter than the former.  "If" they provide true window texturing on polygons (I.E. Avalon) that will be amazing.

But if they previous guy was right, and Avalon isn't central to Longhorn, I doubt it.

It is weird how a while back Microsoft promised it was going to be so "Open" about everything it does from now on.  I heard the evangelists at the PDC 03 screaming "transparency"!

But now that many features have been dropped or compromised, and new ones yet to be announced - it seems we are back to the old Microsoft.  That is, as far as Longhorn is concerned.

Maybe they decided transparency wasn't so great after all?  Or maybe it just isn't easy.

stgeorge wrote:

I hope you understand that the article you referenced is extremely old. I don't see a date on it, but it acts as if WinFS is still around, so it's at least a  year old.

Since then, the following has been dropped:

1. Avalon and Indigo won't be part of the default install for Longhorn, it will be a separate user-initiated install. (As of a recent Chris Anderson interview). This means applications can't depend on Avalon being installed on WinXP or Longhorn.

2. WinFS has been dropped. (Not being part of the initial release will mean people won't download it, just like .NET is languishing at a 20% adoption rate).

3. WinFX has been dropped (as of the 5000 series of builds). This it the ".NET stuff they wasted so much time on" as mentioned in the Mini-Microsoft blog.

4. Longhorn Help has been dropped (customers told Microsoft they were not interested in this feature). Expect more of the same in this arena, which renders 75% of that article useless.

Also, consider the following:

1. Microsoft itself doesn't use .NET, so I doubt they will use Avalon or Indigo either. Most other companies will stick their current massive libraries of Win32 code. Don't expect an Avalon version of Photoshop ever.

2. Microsoft has been trying to get people to create "task-based" applications since Office XP came out, and no one has bothered.

3. Microsoft added skinning capability to Windows XP and promptly required all skins to be signed by them. It'll be the same for Longhorn.

4. Microsoft wants all applications to look the same, but the skinning craze happened anyway without their approval. Expect more of the same.

5. Microsoft has already said that since corporate customers don't want to retrain their users, don't expect too many UI changes. It may look prettier (but most companies force the Win2000 battleship gray look anyway), but don't expect any consistency.

6. Yes, you'll still see a single sloppy window with a 16-color 16x16 Windows 95 icon, a 256-color 32x32 Windows NT icon, a 64k-color 32x32 Windows XP icon and a true-color 128x128 icon in Longhorn on the same screen. And a single sloppy screen with a "Longhorn-type" button, a hardcoded "Luna-type" button and a hardcoded "Win2000-type" button.

7. Everything in this article is opposite of how I use a computer, so there is no way Longhorn can be user-friendly to me or any other power user. Things look bleak.

8. In the name of backwards compatibility, Microsoft has never been and will never be able to break the shackles of the limitations of Windows without a complete rewrite. This is a well-known fact.

Larry explains well why no new features are being announced yet..

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=2&PostID=76285#76285


I guess patience is a virtue...


mVPstar

I hope its pretty lookin' from a user-stand point, and from a developer standpoint has more advanced widgets (hello, task-panes should be part of the default widget library =D).

W3bbo wrote:

eagle wrote:3DUI and that's no FUD bud!

How "3D" are we talking?

Like... window = texture on polygon with cool shader and transform effects on the shape, or like MacOS-X and WindowFX where the window is only animated for transitions?

So Avalon's gone, WinFS is gone, what's left of it? What's so Longhorn about Longhorn?

Sure it's nice of them to give us all this functionality for WinXP, but I don't think that fact in itself packs enough punch to keep Windows going.

People just aren't going to see the significance of WinFS. Unless it's installed in the OS to begin with, people are just going to dismiss it as a powertoy for power users.

I'd really just have to have Longhorn than have to have Avalon and WinFS and WinFX and yadda yadda yadda. The whole dependency and fragmentation thing is part of Linux's problem; it's the problem most practical users point out.

Stgeorge does have a point. I'm tired of people telling me they don't want to install .NET. 23mb is too much for most broadband users (many of them hardcore pirates), if it's coming from Microsoft. And don't tell me it's not mature enough, it's five years old already.

I guess this is part of Steve Ballmer's gradualist strategy, but I really don't see it working at all.

I'm sure it's been discussed 489753656903 times already, but could someone please point this out again to the big guys?

reinux wrote:

So Avalon's gone,

reinux wrote:

WinFS is gone, what's left of it? What's so Longhorn about Longhorn?

reinux wrote:

Sure it's nice of them to give us all this functionality for WinXP, but I don't think that fact in itself packs enough punch to keep Windows going.

reinux wrote:

People just aren't going to see the significance of WinFS. Unless it's installed in the OS to begin with, people are just going to dismiss it as a powertoy for power users.

reinux wrote:

I'd really just have to have Longhorn than have to have Avalon and WinFS and WinFX and yadda yadda yadda.

reinux wrote:

The whole dependency and fragmentation thing is part of Linux's problem; it's the problem most practical users point out.

reinux wrote:

And don't tell me it's not mature enough, it's five years old already.

eagle wrote:

3 DUI and that's no FUD bud!