Monday, July 25, 2005
Windows “Longhorn”: Already Long in the Tooth?
I’ve been reading up on Microsoft’s next Windows Operating System (OS) codenamed “Longhorn” in this article http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,121435,00.asp . This OS is to be released in 2006, though according to some in the know, it was suppose to have been released in 2001 and that Windows XP was a stop-gap because Microsoft couldn’t get “Longhorn” off the ground. Also Windows XP64 is considered a stop-gap of a stop-gap because Microsoft has had so many difficulties programming “Longhorn”.
“Longhorn” requires 512 MB’s of memory to start up. This is astronomically high considering Windows 98 required 64 MB’s to start up, Windows NT and Windows 2000 required 128 MB’s, and Windows XP also required 128 MB’s to start up (though the minimum recommended for Windows XP on techie sites was 184 MB’s). There is already speculation that “Longhorn” will require 2 GB’s to 4 GB’s or even 8 GB’s to function properly. This is a monstrous amount of RAM since 98 could run with 128 MB’s, Windows NT and Windows 2000 could work well with 256 MB’s, and Windows XP could run properly with 512 MB’s of RAM. (Note: 1,000 MB’s=1 GB)
Furthermore, “Longhorn” requires a modern graphics card to run its Avalon graphics engine for screen effects. Microsoft is including Avalon to compete with Apple’s OS 10 graphics effects even though Apple doesn’t need a graphics engine or a modern graphics card to run screen effects. Besides, who ever heard of an OS needing a graphics engine like a PC game such as DOOM, Quake, or Half Life especially when Windows XP, Apple, and Linux run perfectly fine with out it? On top of it all to meet their self-imposed 2006 deadline, Microsoft won’t even ship the WinFS file system, which is to replace the Win32 file system Microsoft has used since Windows 95. Paying full price for a partial OS sounds like a bad deal to me.
Besides I read this old article on the Internet, http://www.devx.com/DevX/Article/17899, and it sounds like Microsoft is ripping off the Open Source and Free Software movements and calling it proprietary. Mozilla has been using the setup Microsoft wants switch to and Mozilla can do it cross multiple OS’s without being bloated or slow.
If Microsoft is going to scavenge other people’s ideas, why can’t it take security ideas? Linux creator Linus Torvald added security features to the Linux kernel he just released such as an “address space randomization” to make it harder for virus writers to write viruses to attack Linux ( http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121531,00.asp). Right now, “Longhorn” is only as secure as Windows XP SP2.
The only reason I’m not happy is because when I was working in a computer lab, I talked with a professor, who was one of the beta testers for Windows XP. He gave it rave reviews and said that XP was the system to wait for and not to even consider Windows 98 Second Edition or Windows 2000. For the most part he was right, aside from critical and chronic security flaws, it is one of the best OS’s Microsoft has produced. The reviews of “Longhorn” are far less encouraging and this doesn’t bode well for the final product.
Update: Windows “Longhorn” officially named Windows Vista.
“Longhorn” requires 512 MB’s of memory to start up. This is astronomically high considering Windows 98 required 64 MB’s to start up, Windows NT and Windows 2000 required 128 MB’s, and Windows XP also required 128 MB’s to start up (though the minimum recommended for Windows XP on techie sites was 184 MB’s). There is already speculation that “Longhorn” will require 2 GB’s to 4 GB’s or even 8 GB’s to function properly. This is a monstrous amount of RAM since 98 could run with 128 MB’s, Windows NT and Windows 2000 could work well with 256 MB’s, and Windows XP could run properly with 512 MB’s of RAM. (Note: 1,000 MB’s=1 GB)
Furthermore, “Longhorn” requires a modern graphics card to run its Avalon graphics engine for screen effects. Microsoft is including Avalon to compete with Apple’s OS 10 graphics effects even though Apple doesn’t need a graphics engine or a modern graphics card to run screen effects. Besides, who ever heard of an OS needing a graphics engine like a PC game such as DOOM, Quake, or Half Life especially when Windows XP, Apple, and Linux run perfectly fine with out it? On top of it all to meet their self-imposed 2006 deadline, Microsoft won’t even ship the WinFS file system, which is to replace the Win32 file system Microsoft has used since Windows 95. Paying full price for a partial OS sounds like a bad deal to me.
Besides I read this old article on the Internet, http://www.devx.com/DevX/Article/17899, and it sounds like Microsoft is ripping off the Open Source and Free Software movements and calling it proprietary. Mozilla has been using the setup Microsoft wants switch to and Mozilla can do it cross multiple OS’s without being bloated or slow.
If Microsoft is going to scavenge other people’s ideas, why can’t it take security ideas? Linux creator Linus Torvald added security features to the Linux kernel he just released such as an “address space randomization” to make it harder for virus writers to write viruses to attack Linux ( http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121531,00.asp). Right now, “Longhorn” is only as secure as Windows XP SP2.
The only reason I’m not happy is because when I was working in a computer lab, I talked with a professor, who was one of the beta testers for Windows XP. He gave it rave reviews and said that XP was the system to wait for and not to even consider Windows 98 Second Edition or Windows 2000. For the most part he was right, aside from critical and chronic security flaws, it is one of the best OS’s Microsoft has produced. The reviews of “Longhorn” are far less encouraging and this doesn’t bode well for the final product.
Update: Windows “Longhorn” officially named Windows Vista.
# posted by Keith Gallistel @ 2:29 AM 
