Longhorn will be faster than XP!

[cindik]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24731

Of course, if you don't want to wait for longhorn, just make XP faster: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24749

[ryount]

Probably because by the time they release it, everyone will have faster computers!

[kitchin]

Here's what it says:
Subject: Microsoft claims Longhorn will be, er, faster

The only reason why its faster is they added a superfetch feature to the prefetcher. If you look at the key:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\Prefetcher

you will notice in windows xp

EnablePrefetcher = 3 and you will notice in windows longhorn
EnableSuperfetch = 1

Well, guess what? You can put the EnableSuperfetch = 1 in windows xp and get the same speed.

Wow, Microsoft just added a feature that was already there in xp.

snakeye

[At your own risk, Ed.]
So I Googled on "EnableSuperfetch" and nothing came up, except two posts identical to the above in Groups. Always pays to click on Groups. Well... I'll wait... and then it will be in Google linking right here!

[Andilinks]

From what I've heard Microsoft and Longhorn have become so hopelessly encased in their own bureaucratic sludge that when this becomes widely known MS stock will take a catastrophic tumble.

But that might be only a rumor, I am certainly no insider.

Andi

[Randall]

So I Googled on "EnableSuperfetch" and nothing came up Hey, I did that already. No copying! except two posts identical to the above in Groups. Always pays to click on Groups. Oh. I didn't do that part. Never mind... :blush: But that might be only a rumor It's no rumor that I think Longhorn's Aero interface is boldface ugly, whether anyone actually asked me or not. :dopey:

From what I've seen of its current incarnation, they've combined some of the worst parts of XP, OS X and some l337 gamer's WindowBlinds skin (which could explain the dozens of Longhorn skins loitering out there).

If the end product looks like that, I'll barricade the door and let them pry XP out of my cold, dead hands. :EG:

OTOH, the XP beta interface was very different from what they shipped in the end. (I think I actually liked that one better than Luna.) So maybe the GUI folks are just slumming. :safegrin:

Randall

[Randall]

Well, it looks like Longhorn has a name now: Windows Vista (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/233633_windowsvista22.html).

I guess it could have been worse -- anyone remember Windows Millennium, aka "Windows Me"? :rolleyes:

Randall

[Andilinks]

Will anyone drop "Longhorn" as in "Windows Vista formerly Longhorn" before the software is officially released? Is the "Longhorn" legacy unfortunate? What clever variation of "Vista" will emerge when it hits a rough patch (equivalent, Longhorn = Longwait)? Has MS ever faced a more critical release since Win95?

Just thinking outloud...

Andi

[Wassercrats]

What clever variation of "Vista" will emerge when it hits a rough patchIf the name is changed again, or when the next version comes out, the headlines will be Hasta La Vista.

[Andilinks]

: rimshot :

[Rich]

Vista - what a perfect name since this represents something far off in the distance

[Randall]

Will anyone drop "Longhorn" as in "Windows Vista formerly Longhorn" before the software is officially released? How many people remember XP's original codename? (No points if you have to use Google to find it.)

I think we've become so cynical about Microsoft's ever-changing (and frequently shortsighted) brand strategy that we just shrug our shoulders and do a mental search & replace. I'll be surprised if the Longhorn name is still showing up in the mainstream press two months from now.

In fact, I'm starting to wonder if that's the reason why Apple has been keeping the codenames for its OS X releases. It's such an un-Microsoft thing to do.

Randall

[cindik]

How many people remember XP's original codename? (No points if you have to use Google to find it.)

I remember WIn95 was Chicago.

Wasn't there a Joliet too?

[Andilinks]

The reason I ask this question about Longhorn is that Longhorn is different. I don't recall there being such a looong run up to XP, we went from W2K and Win me to XP in under two years. XP was not facing as strong a competition from Apple. Security issues in the innocent days of 2001 were much different.

My point was not about codenames, it was about the nature of this release.

Andi

[Velimir]

I somehow like to belive that MS has learnt the lesson... otherwise, end of 2006, I am off from WinTel and on to MacTel platform :wink: ... I got used to some things and am not going to change... so yes I think/hope Longhorn is different or...

Regards,
vee

[lynxtrax]

hmmm hard to believe that it'll be faster ... last I heard (at a presentation about a year ago) the codebase is shaping up to be about 400% larger than xp. If it is faster, that'll be more of a commentary on hardware than on software.

my .02

[Randall]

I remember WIn95 was Chicago.

Wasn't there a Joliet too? Joliet is the CD filesystem developed for Win95, which is still called Joliet. No shiny marketing label for that one. The reason I ask this question about Longhorn is that Longhorn is different. I don't recall there being such a looong run up to XP, we went from W2K and Win me to XP in under two years. XP can be viewed more as a delayed successor to Windows 98, which would make it just over three years.

It's easy to forget that Microsoft planned a home version of Windows 2000, codenamed Neptune, that would have been the final nail in the coffin for MS-DOS. Win98 was supposed to be the end of the 9x line -- otherwise, I don't think they would have dropped the "NT" moniker at that point. When MS realized that it just wasn't happening, they put out Windows Me as a stop-gap (causing no end of confusion), and Neptune was folded into Whistler, aka XP.

And Win2K itself was already very, very late. The original release target for NT 5.0 was 1997. That became 1998, then 1999. The name changed to Windows 2000, and then it got pushed back yet again. It was such a huge project that people wondered if they'd have to rename it Windows 2001...

When you put XP in context as NT 5.1 -- a point update to Windows 2000 -- the run-up to Vista (they've already redirected the Longhorn page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_longhorn) at Wikipedia) is even longer. :wink: XP was not facing as strong a competition from Apple. No, but Win2K Server was a direct challenge to Novell and Unix, in a market where Microsoft was the niche player. NT 4 needed a major overhaul and 9x was a dead end, so the pressure was intense (they spoke of "betting the company" when it was still called NT 5.0). I don't know if the situation is nearly as dire now, OS X and Linux notwithstanding. Security issues in the innocent days of 2001 were much different. That's the real danger. If the spyware and virus situation deteriorates, if Vista doesn't go far enough, if the Mac keeps its reputation for security intact, people may start jumping ship for real. But it's more likely that things stay more or less the same, and Vista delivers on some of its promises.

What happens after Vista, I think, is totally up in the air. By then we should be feeling the effects of the Apple-Intel alignment, and if Apple changes its stance on Mac clones it could be a real free for all.

OK, that's enough prognostication for one year. :soapbox:

Randall

[Andilinks]

That is a good history lesson Randall, thank you. But general public is unaware of it and unlikely to ever grasp this nuance.

To the vast majority of us there were a succession of new and improved Win OS's (and editions) between the summer of '95 and October '01, then only two clumsy service packs during the following five years. So in the public's mind there is a HUGE improvement due from this long awaited new release. If Longho... errr, Vista stumbles (again), a public already fed up with Microsoft will rush eagerly to a newly invigorated Mac-tel. Many of us will be pleased to see that happen.

MS could go with the slogan, "We didn't just Alter Vista" mmmm... maybe not.

Andi

[Randall]

To the vast majority of us there were a succession of new and improved Win OS's (and editions) between the summer of '95 and October '01, then only two clumsy service packs during the following five years. So in the public's mind there is a HUGE improvement due from this long awaited new release. That should be four years, I think. :wink:

Based on observing other people, I'd argue that 95, 98 and (to an extent) Me were pretty much indistinguishable. The UI didn't change much (on purely visual grounds, you'd have a hard time telling them apart from NT 4 and 2000 for that matter), and they all crashed to a greater or lesser degree, not always in direct relation to their age...

So to the non-techie, I think the demarcations would look more like this:

1992 - Windows 3.1
1995 - Windows 95
2001 - Windows XP
By that yardstick, Vista won't be missed until 2007 -- and the strict mathematicianists amongst us might allow them 9 or 12 years to cough up the goods. :rasberry: If Longho... errr, Vista stumbles (again), a public already fed up with Microsoft will rush eagerly to a newly invigorated Mac-tel. Many of us will be pleased to see that happen. I'd be pleased to see more people using Macs myself, but not at the expense of those who don't (or think they don't) have the option.

IOW, I hope Vista doesn't suck. :safegrin:

Randall

[Andilinks]

That should be four years, I thinkXP was released in October 2001, MS is hoping to release Vista in late '06. That would be five years.IOW, I hope Vista doesn't suck.Except for price and availability of applications MS has always sucked relative to Macintosh, I doubt that will change.

Andi

[sheila]

Except for price and availability of applications MS has always sucked relative to Macintosh, I doubt that will change.
There is one thing that I must admit MS does not suck at.
Spreadsheets.

Excel is without a doubt the best spreadsheet app available for the average computer user.

Yes, I finally cracked and coughed up for MS Office for my Mac last month. Open Office just didn't cut it.

Now, for operating systems...uh, you can do better. :P

[Randall]

XP was released in October 2001, MS is hoping to release Vista in late '06. That would be five years. There was nothing in your wording to suggest that you were counting a year that hasn't happened yet. :wink:

Besides, if they release Service Pack 3 before October 2006 -- all we've been told so far is that it's supposed to arrive before Vista -- it will be "three clumsy service packs during the following five years"...

Incidentally, Service Packs have been a standard "feature" of the NT line since the beginning (NT 4 had six of them). But when you think about it, which would you rather have: a big honking Service Pack 2; an "XP Osr2" that you can only get with a new system; or an "XP Second Edition" that you have to pay for all over again?

It's bad enough that Windows 2000 isn't getting the security benefits of XP SP2, let alone the upcoming IE 7. It's as if they think corporations (who are in no hurry to upgrade if they just finished standardizing on 2K) don't have to worry about spyware and its ilk. Except for price and availability of applications MS has always sucked relative to Macintosh, I doubt that will change. My last contact with the Mac was ten years ago, so I can't argue the point. But your average Windows user has never seen a Mac, let alone used one. They can only judge Windows by another version of Windows. So when I say "I hope Vista doesn't suck," I'm not saying it has to be as good as OS X Leopard -- only that it shouldn't feel like a step backward from XP.

Randall

[Andilinks]

There was nothing in your wording to suggest that you were counting a year that hasn't happened yet. I actually thought "five years" more than suggested it but stated it outright.your average Windows user has never seen a Mac, let alone used one. That will change.

Thank you for your astute and valuable analyses.

Andi

[Randall]

To the vast majority of us there were a succession of new and improved Win OS's (and editions) between the summer of '95 and October '01, then only two clumsy service packs during the following five years. "Were" is clearly referring to past events, and because I read "following five years" as something that also happened in the past, I had no sense of a tense shift. So to me it just looked like you can't count. :rasberry:

Randall

[Andilinks]

I positioned myself temporally at the Vista release perspective. I unfortunately then had no memory of the release of Service Pack three. I will probably never install it. Sorry about any confusion this may have caused.