Windows 9
-
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Vista was longhorn 2.0
Longhorn was the code name of Vista. I have the beta. :cool:
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Go buy a mac
Never! X|
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
Chicken before the egg. Longhorn is an operating system without purpose created right out of the box with the .net framework 1.1. Vista is an attempt to make money off an incomplete project, and is the only reason it failed. Windows 8 is also longhorn. I was trained by Microsoft in 2002 in .net 1.1 before it was publicly released, we used to say longhorn, in it for the long haul.
-
The consecutive roll out was taught in class from my teacher who works for Microsoft training me to work for Microsoft. When someone is wrong about news you should stop listening to them.
If he works at Microsoft, he'd be under non-disclosure. As for the update; not having more consistent roll-up updates was a big mistake in XP and Windows 7. Everything I've read indicates that Windows 9 is still on schedule for April 2015. BTW, all that said, I think Microsoft is now changing version numbers too fast! The Visual Studio situation is especially annoying.
-
Chicken before the egg. Longhorn is an operating system without purpose created right out of the box with the .net framework 1.1. Vista is an attempt to make money off an incomplete project, and is the only reason it failed. Windows 8 is also longhorn. I was trained by Microsoft in 2002 in .net 1.1 before it was publicly released, we used to say longhorn, in it for the long haul.
I don't know where you're getting your information nor why you are acting so rude. I suggest going to Paul Thurrott's http://winsupersite.com/[^] which has good information. Here is [one of] his "article[s]" on Longhorn: http://winsupersite.com/article/faqtip/windows-longhorn-faq[^]
-
I don't know where you're getting your information nor why you are acting so rude. I suggest going to Paul Thurrott's http://winsupersite.com/[^] which has good information. Here is [one of] his "article[s]" on Longhorn: http://winsupersite.com/article/faqtip/windows-longhorn-faq[^]
If you didn't notice the article does not say longhorn is vista. thanks for playing.
-
If he works at Microsoft, he'd be under non-disclosure. As for the update; not having more consistent roll-up updates was a big mistake in XP and Windows 7. Everything I've read indicates that Windows 9 is still on schedule for April 2015. BTW, all that said, I think Microsoft is now changing version numbers too fast! The Visual Studio situation is especially annoying.
He also said it in the Microsoft virtual academy videos. The whole point of continuous roll outs from 8.1 - 8.9 is to keep the concept of windows 8 while advancing the system away from the desktop. If people would adapt windows 8 faster visual studio wouldn't have been so annoying.
-
If you didn't notice the article does not say longhorn is vista. thanks for playing.
Longhorn was the development code name, Vista the commercial name. (Whistler became XP, Blackcomb became Windows 7.) One reference: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Pushing-Forward/[^]
-
He also said it in the Microsoft virtual academy videos. The whole point of continuous roll outs from 8.1 - 8.9 is to keep the concept of windows 8 while advancing the system away from the desktop. If people would adapt windows 8 faster visual studio wouldn't have been so annoying.
What's happening with Visual Studio is independent from Windows 8. The problem is that by changing the major release name costs money where incremental updates are typically free. One point of continuous updates is to avoid this (which also has a huge impact on resellers, who usually require that a vendor rebuy or "flush" the supply when then a major version number is changed.) The other point of updates is to make it easier to "patch" a system up to the latest version.
-
I don't care what you think. The dot net framework is a paradigm shift which happened in 2003, and metro is the dot net framework as an operating system and the desktop is nothing but the old code. Get over it.
Your enthusiasm for metro is great, but I think you're just missing the fact that metro targets a fairly narrow set of devices/apps. There are many scenarios where a touch-centric fullscreen store app is a great thing. But this environment doesn't have what it takes to replace everything. This is why metro isn't a paradigm shift, its simply a new avenue for creating apps which do work well in that limited context. Also, MS has confirmed the desktop is and will continue to be a key piece of the puzzle moving forward. So, no, the desktop isn't going anywhere and isn't for "old code", its for code which doesn't fit in the rather narrow definition of fullscreen touch-centric store apps :) Additionally it sounds like they'll be bringing the start menu back and allow running store apps in a window on the desktop. So the desktop is actually getting new focus and emphasis moving forward.
-
Your enthusiasm for metro is great, but I think you're just missing the fact that metro targets a fairly narrow set of devices/apps. There are many scenarios where a touch-centric fullscreen store app is a great thing. But this environment doesn't have what it takes to replace everything. This is why metro isn't a paradigm shift, its simply a new avenue for creating apps which do work well in that limited context. Also, MS has confirmed the desktop is and will continue to be a key piece of the puzzle moving forward. So, no, the desktop isn't going anywhere and isn't for "old code", its for code which doesn't fit in the rather narrow definition of fullscreen touch-centric store apps :) Additionally it sounds like they'll be bringing the start menu back and allow running store apps in a window on the desktop. So the desktop is actually getting new focus and emphasis moving forward.
It will be a key piece in windows 8. Your opinion on the paradigm that did happen means nothing. The .NET Language Paradigm[^]
-
What's happening with Visual Studio is independent from Windows 8. The problem is that by changing the major release name costs money where incremental updates are typically free. One point of continuous updates is to avoid this (which also has a huge impact on resellers, who usually require that a vendor rebuy or "flush" the supply when then a major version number is changed.) The other point of updates is to make it easier to "patch" a system up to the latest version.
Windows 8 is fueling the changes to visual studio as windows 8 is the .net framework as an operating system, the code for visual studio and windows 8 are the exact same.
-
Longhorn was the development code name, Vista the commercial name. (Whistler became XP, Blackcomb became Windows 7.) One reference: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Pushing-Forward/[^]
Longhorn is an incomplete operating system. Vista takes Longhorn and turns it into an operating system but vista is not longhorn, its an attempt to sell the project. Get over yourself.
-
Windows 8 is fueling the changes to visual studio as windows 8 is the .net framework as an operating system, the code for visual studio and windows 8 are the exact same.
Windows 8 is NOT "the .net framework as an operating system". I don't know where you get your information. Windows 8 RT requires you write user applications in .NET, but .NET is not the operating system. Having a Visual Studio 2012, 2013 and 2014 are about marketing, not engineering. It seems you never had a question, but are simply arguing for the sake of hearing yourself. (And it seems to have not occurred to you that many of us are well read on the history and inner workings of Windows and know people, including the actual engineers, who work on it at Microsoft.)
-
Longhorn is an incomplete operating system. Vista takes Longhorn and turns it into an operating system but vista is not longhorn, its an attempt to sell the project. Get over yourself.
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Get over yourself.
Why are you being so rude and confrontational? You are not the only person who knows someone who works at Microsoft or knows the history of operating systems. The fact is that Longhorn was the code name for the release that was scheduled between Whistler and Blackcomb. Whoever told you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
-
It will be a key piece in windows 8. Your opinion on the paradigm that did happen means nothing. The .NET Language Paradigm[^]
Colborne_Greg wrote:
It will be a key piece in windows 8.
Yes, the desktop is a key piece in Windows 8. The metro start screen with its store apps is sort of a parallel environment. They're both there and they fill unique roles. But to say that metro replaces desktop or that there's a shift from desktop TO metro misses the fact that metro doesn't do everything needed by desktop apps and provides a much more narrow focus. If rumors are true, the desktop will be getting increased emphasis in Windows 9.
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Your opinion on the paradigm that did happen means nothing.
You sound very defensive regarding your position. Why did you post in the lounge if you thought any other opinion had no meaning? I'm beginning to think I've been feeding the troll :)
-
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Get over yourself.
Why are you being so rude and confrontational? You are not the only person who knows someone who works at Microsoft or knows the history of operating systems. The fact is that Longhorn was the code name for the release that was scheduled between Whistler and Blackcomb. Whoever told you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
I never said that it wasn't a codename, what I am saying is that it is different from vista. How do I know this because I was trained internally by Microsoft in 2002-2004 on dot net 1.1 and its attempt to turn it into an operating system. Longhorn was an operating system used by people, other code name projects only went as far as beta testing.
-
Colborne_Greg wrote:
It will be a key piece in windows 8.
Yes, the desktop is a key piece in Windows 8. The metro start screen with its store apps is sort of a parallel environment. They're both there and they fill unique roles. But to say that metro replaces desktop or that there's a shift from desktop TO metro misses the fact that metro doesn't do everything needed by desktop apps and provides a much more narrow focus. If rumors are true, the desktop will be getting increased emphasis in Windows 9.
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Your opinion on the paradigm that did happen means nothing.
You sound very defensive regarding your position. Why did you post in the lounge if you thought any other opinion had no meaning? I'm beginning to think I've been feeding the troll :)
The desktop is code based on 1960s technology, the only reason people love it is the fact is has history, its a dinosaur and we only have to wait for the world to catch up - it will be gone because it can not advance.
-
Windows 8 is NOT "the .net framework as an operating system". I don't know where you get your information. Windows 8 RT requires you write user applications in .NET, but .NET is not the operating system. Having a Visual Studio 2012, 2013 and 2014 are about marketing, not engineering. It seems you never had a question, but are simply arguing for the sake of hearing yourself. (And it seems to have not occurred to you that many of us are well read on the history and inner workings of Windows and know people, including the actual engineers, who work on it at Microsoft.)
Windows 8 is the .net framework, nothing you say is going to change that.
-
The desktop is code based on 1960s technology, the only reason people love it is the fact is has history, its a dinosaur and we only have to wait for the world to catch up - it will be gone because it can not advance.
I've been using Windows since 3.1 and the desktop has advanced significantly since then. So I believe its incorrect to say that the desktop environment can not advance, since it has done just that. I get that you're enthusiastic for a new metro environment, the problem is just that the new environment doesn't do everything needed. Maybe someday something will be able to replace the desktop, but I think metro isn't it at least not in its current state. That doesn't mean it can't do a great job for what its designed for -- full screen touch-centric store apps. But its not really a replacement for the desktop.
-
I've been using Windows since 3.1 and the desktop has advanced significantly since then. So I believe its incorrect to say that the desktop environment can not advance, since it has done just that. I get that you're enthusiastic for a new metro environment, the problem is just that the new environment doesn't do everything needed. Maybe someday something will be able to replace the desktop, but I think metro isn't it at least not in its current state. That doesn't mean it can't do a great job for what its designed for -- full screen touch-centric store apps. But its not really a replacement for the desktop.
Research the 16 bit offset. The desktop has it. Metro does not. This is the paradigm shift. People can believe in god - but that doesn't make it true.
-
Research the 16 bit offset. The desktop has it. Metro does not. This is the paradigm shift. People can believe in god - but that doesn't make it true.
I'm not following you. Perhaps something more concrete to explain the point you're trying to make would help.