ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

Careers

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows 7

IE 8

Hardware

Microsoft Arc Mouse (Red)

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Sponsors: SEO
Search Engine Optimisation
exterminator
lawn care
SEO
Search Engine Optimisation
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Marketing
PPC Management
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Optimisation
search engine optimisation
Cheap Web Hosting
Webanalyse
online credit card processing
Lenovo Laptops
Text Links
Business Gifts
SEO Services
SEO
cheap websites
Search Engine Optimization
Promotional Pens

ActiveWin.com: Longhorn Build 4008 Technical Screenshots

Time: 00:26 EST/05:26 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein

We have posted 17 more screenshots, this time trying to focus on some more technical sides of the OS. Screenshots included this time around include: registry editor, defrag, device manager, components wizard, shortcut delete, etc. If you haven't seen the screenshots we posted yesterday, please check them out as well.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 20 of 20

The time now is 1:11:28 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By donpacman (519 Posts) at 3/6/2003 4:04:36 AM

Will Longhorn "Final release" use a NTFS?
and be able to run 9x, NT, and x86 programs?

This post was edited by donpacman on Thursday, March 06, 2003 at 04:06.

#2 By nomdlev (298 Posts) at 3/6/2003 4:42:26 AM

don, Microsoft is licensing HFS+ from Apple so it can try to catch up to the superior experience of the Mac.

#3 By JaggedFlame (2581 Posts) at 3/6/2003 9:44:51 AM

Man, you're pathetic. It's infinitessimally funny when you rant by yourself, but don't feed false data to someone with a genuine question.

#4 By ToddAW (580 Posts) at 3/6/2003 9:52:09 AM

#1, I bet NTFS might be an option however MS will be pushing its new file system, WinFS. As far as programs go, I think most of them should work, but there was a report out a while ago that contradicted that... so a lot of it is just waiting to find out :)

#5 By Blynk (53 Posts) at 3/6/2003 10:27:53 AM

Did anyone else notice the WinFS.exe process that was using 100MB of memory. I wonder if this simply the proxy process to the actual file system. It could be used for caching frequently used data and meta data for the rest of the OS.

- Blynk

#6 By sphbecker (1135 Posts) at 3/6/2003 12:18:34 PM

#2, I know that was a joke, but HFS+ is not something licensed by Apple. Anyway, NTFS is faster then HFS+, and I do not know of anything HFS+ supports that NTFS does not.

#5, I think that is an Alpha thing. The end product should use less memory.

I am pretty sure that older programs will work correctly on Longhorn. Backwards compatibility has been a high priority of Microsoft for a long time. There are some venders who have not taken the time to rewrite their interface. We use a database program that still has a text based dos-16 interface and it works correctly on XP.

#7 By stubear (574 Posts) at 3/6/2003 12:29:11 PM

Don,

Longhorn will use WinFS. However, WinFS will provide a plug-in like architecture for other file systems to work with the system. It has been stated before that NTFS support will be offered in this way. As for support for 9x and NT programs (x86 is really not in this class), I'm betting dollars to donuts that the recent acquisition of Virtual PC is going to allow MS to offer a Classic Mode much like the way OS X did. This will allow Win32 apps to run seamlessly with newer Longhorn .Net apps.

#8 By bluvg (1834 Posts) at 3/6/2003 1:01:24 PM

Did anyone notice that Explorer.exe is using nearly 85 MB of memory as well? I hope this is an alpha issue.... I think it would be kind of cool if the Performance tab of the Task Manager also listed processor utilization for the graphics card, particularly if the GUI processing will be offloaded.

Stubear, do you think Virtual PC will really be necessary? Other than the filesystem change (which I think would affect Virtual PC as well--perhaps requiring separate partitions for other OSes?), I would think that the support for legacy apps would be similar to that of XP, not really requiring anything other than the subsystems that are already there.

#9 By sodajerk (3382 Posts) at 3/6/2003 1:12:53 PM

It's all speculation, but I could foresee problems running older apps in emulation/using Win32 code at the same time as working with LH apps/WinFS files particularly in the same partition. Why? The VFS can do lots of mapping to make the filesystems compatible, seemingly operate in the same way, but major differences are still going to exist. These differences would largely be transparent (not produce negative side effects) if you only worked on FAT/NTFS files in Win32 and only used WFS files in LH apps. But if an uneducated user starting modifying NTFS files in a LH/.Net app or a WFS file in Win32, file properties could quickly get mangled.

#10 By dabassmonkey (3 Posts) at 3/6/2003 3:21:34 PM

Most of the screen shots look like Windows XP with a new skin. I wish they'd do something more than that.

#11 By sphbecker (1135 Posts) at 3/6/2003 5:01:22 PM

I agree, I do not see the need for Virtual PC. OS X needs Virtual PC to run classic aps because it used a completely different Kernel (UNIX in place of the old Apple Kernel), but Longhorn is still NT so emulation should not be needed.

WinFS should provide an emulation layer for aps who expect a classic directory structure environment. When I say emulation I do not mean platform emulation like Virtual PC, but simply creating a table in the database that represents a classic file system, such as FAT32 or NTFS.

#12 By sodajerk (3382 Posts) at 3/6/2003 5:06:41 PM

"OS X needs Virtual PC to run classic aps because it used a completely different Kernel" Uh, no, but I guess we know what you meant. Sort of.

#13 By sphbecker (1135 Posts) at 3/6/2003 5:36:18 PM

Well whatever they call it, I am not a Mac guy. I guess it is called Classic Mode, but I thought it was based on the Virtual PC product.

#14 By sodajerk (3382 Posts) at 3/6/2003 6:09:57 PM

No, it's wholly Apple's creation--no one else could build it and there's no need to emulate x86 or the Win32 instruction set--they needed to emulate the Apple Toolkit. It's much more akin to DOS emulation in NT5 than it is to VPC.

#15 By markyello (1 Posts) at 3/16/2003 7:58:19 PM

I think that they should make the design alittle more diffrent without taking so much room from the side, with that big options thing...
anyways i hope longhorn is a NON-Freezing System

#16 By Moduz (1 Posts) at 5/30/2003 3:16:31 PM

The only issue that I have with the screenshots are that there are numerous instances where the loading window says Windows XP. My question is why? I mean when I saw the initial screenshots of Windows XP, even the faked windows 98 skinned ones of Whistler, I don't remember a time when I saw the actual Windows 98 logo on a screen. Why would Microsoft spend all of this time effort and money to revamp the whole OS without changing the Windows name that they are supposedly so ready to get away from or god forbid the XP logo which is so obviously (according to everything that I am reading) a previous OS version.

I'll tell you what. I have heard people say that Longhorn looks like Desktop X and Windowblinds and I am not convinced that it is not. I have no proof, beyond that which is easily faked by skins and/or photoshop, that anyone has anything but a snazzy version of XP. I mean, hell, I run bluebox windows manager on my windows XP at home and it looks like I am running blackbox in Linux.

Now I am not out to discredit anyone and I am not saying that you are lying because honestly I don't even know. But I can tell you what, as a born skeptic I am about as confident that this is a new version of windows as I am that Elvis is alive. But hey what do I know, the truth is that the only thing that is able to weed through BS is time. So I guess its back to wait and see. If this turns out to be the next OS, I am sorry that I took the time to type this post-up... but I wont hold my breathe.

#17 By Empress_Inferno (2 Posts) at 8/26/2003 4:10:34 PM

I hate to make waves, but I can be silent no longer.

None of this is Longhorn. I am sorry.

This is mearly someone running Windows XP and maybe Windowsblinds with some fancy skins.

If you want the truth, keep reading.

The "task" bar element, that makes you think it is Longhorn, is actually a program called Side Show. It was developed my Microsoft Research and was used bymany people in the company, until someone leaked it to the public and Side Show was abandoned.

That was very sad. It was a nift little program.

However, it, likle a Phoneix, will rise again from the ashes. It was the inspiration for the "side bar" that will be a part of Longhorn. Side Show was just so darn useful, no one really wanted to see it go.

And by the way, Longhorn won't support legacy code. All your software that you run today will be obsolete. You might as well burn it all.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the truth must be told.

A very clever/sneaky perso is playing with your heads. The screen shots are null and void, but pretty good entertainment.

#18 By comradecid (1 Posts) at 2/5/2004 5:51:19 PM

Thank god for skins. Looking at these screens, I don't relish the idea of having to endure yet another Fisher-Price user interface.

Happily enough, it does appear that the Microsoft designers did realise how bloody irritating the blue/orange/sand XP colour combination was.

Yet they still have yet to get over their fascination with oversized controls & title bars, wizbang features giving you constant slide-show animation of content you couldn't give a rat's arse about, and global links to My Pictures. Bloody hell... they even misplaced 'My Computer'... it's now (in)conveniently buried in the depths of the Start menu.

Well, thank god I never actually access my hard drives, or do anything more complicated than write an email using MSN.

"Help! Help! I'm lost in a sea of blue!"

#19 By jackdaniels (1 Posts) at 4/5/2005 6:03:24 PM

could be a canard :-P that's just windows xp with more rubbish. we need a GB of RAM only for the OS, i guess. the programs aren't getting better with a newer windows - isn't it the job of an OS to make the usage of the resources comfortable and not to use them all for its own...??

#20 By ronnyb2004 (1 Posts) at 7/4/2005 3:30:53 AM

hi, after looking at your screenshots i noticed they are out of date, as longhorn 4000 series was scraped, i found this out from Paul Thurrotts super site, page can be found here,

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_5048.asp , as he wrote,

On May 4, 2004, Microsoft group vice president Jim Allchin provided a keynote address at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) 2004 (see my show report), during which he demonstrated Longhorn builds 4067 and 4069 and discussed such Longhorn features as Avalon, Indigo, and Aero. The company then provided build 4074 to show goers, and to MSDN subscribers. It looked like Longhorn was finally on track.

Not quite. Unbeknownst to those outside of Microsoft, Longhorn was about to take a major detour. The 4000-series builds that Microsoft had just shown off and handed out had already run their course and were destined for the technological dustbin. The problem, I was told recently, was that the underpinnings of Longhorn--then based on the Windows XP code base--were struggling under the weight of all of the technologies that Microsoft planed to implement in this release.

I'll make available an exclusive write-up about what happened next sometime in June 2005, but for now let's just say that Longhorn's architects went back to the drawing board. The 4000-series builds were scrapped, and the company started building Longhorn again from scratch, using the Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 (SP1, see my preview) code base (as it did for the x64 version of Windows XP (see my preview). The idea is that Longhorn needed to be better componentized from the start, so that the company could offer more discrete versions of the product to customers and more easily add-on the many disparate technologies it was developing. These versions of Longhorn are identified by their 5000-series build numbers.

So this makes your screenshots out of date as many features have been changed such as the removal of the side navigation bar found in the 4000 series of longhorn

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 20 of 20

The time now is 1:11:28 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us