»

[ottomobiehl]

M$ has a history of (re)releasing software with out any significant improvements to it (other than the version number.) :-P

Now I am reading about Longhorn and all that it is supposed to do and I think, "so what." A 3D accelerated GUI? A new file system? What else is there?

I also see where Linux is starting to look and act more like Windows. And open office (though nice to have a choice) is just as complicated to use as is Word.

This got me thinking. What features could M$ add/remove from their software to make it truely innovated. What could they do to their OS to make it different (in a good way) than all of the other versions of Windows. How could they impove their GUI? How could Word (or any other word processor) be made to be better? Etc.

Actually, I guess this goes for all companies and software makers.

I guess I am looking for specific answers rather than, "make it stable!" :-D

[whabang]

Longhorn uses a database-driven filesystem...
The GUI won't be improved it will be re-written, i.e. more eye-candy but less demanding.

[JetFireDX]

For any OS, what I think would be truely innovative would be as much as possible hardware agnostic system. . . I know its been said before enough times, but still I think somebody needs to really take it to the next level be it Linux, Amiga, MS, or Apple. Make your software run unchanged on anything and I am sure people will flock to it. . . and at the same time give them the right to run it on whatever they own.

The next idea I think would be great to have implemented (at least from MS's point of view) would be to make all of their software (Media Player, Office, a paint tool thats not paint, Windows Movie Maker etc...) extensions to the system. For example, I open a jpeg in the viewer. If while I am looking at it I decide I want to work on it a bit, I simply go to the file menu and choose something like "Change to editor", and the very same window instantly gets editing controls added to it, maybe top/side rulers, etc... when I am done, I can save it and just as easily close it as select "Return to viewer" or something. Every program could be accessed this way, instead of launching multiple programs to work on files, you simply change to the appropriate mode for editing or viewing of any file type directly. 3rd party apps could be extensible the same way. For example, instead of Photoshop being a program itself, it just integrates its controls/plugins/filters/etc into Windows and when you choose to edit a picture they are available to you.

There are other simple things that MS could change in Windows to make it more comfortable for me. I detest having the same File, Edit, View, etc. . . menus in every friggin window. Why not just make it available with a right mouse button click context menu that is already there? As well as put it at the top of the screen. . . but doesn't Amiga (or Gateway) hold the patent on changing a screen title bar to a menu system with the right mouse button? At any rate, most people I know love their screen / window space and repeating the same information in every window is just a waste.

There are many many other things I would like changed (or changable) in Windows, but I won't go any further here. Aside for trying some radically different approach to UI layout that will likely scare novice users I don't think any OS has anything "unique" or "innovative" to offer anymore.

[voytech]

Ever thought about 3d OS?? I mean not some cool fancy, eye-candy 3d graphics for background, but a real 3d system, when if you want to run something, you have to click an icon "inside" your workspace.. Some time ago I've read that some company's working on such a"thing", but I can't find it any more..

[bloodline]

whabang wrote:
Longhorn uses a database-driven filesystem...
The GUI won't be improved it will be re-written, i.e. more eye-candy but less demanding.

Interesting topic... Some weeks ago, on the AROS mailing list we were disscusing Fle systems, and the idea of a Database file system came up... What do people here think of them?

[whabang]

I theory it would be kinda cool, but I don't know how good they'll be IRL.
The longhorn betas are still using NTFS. :-(

[bloodline]

whabang wrote:
I theory it would be kinda cool, but I don't know how good they'll be IRL.
The longhorn betas are still using NTFS. :-(

I'm having difficulty visualising the advantages over normal a FS?

[mikeymike]

I'm having difficulty visualising the advantages over normal a FS?

Currently, a journalling filesystem is the holy grail of filesystem design.

I can't find an explanatory URL so here goes:

The basic idea is, in theory, increased data integrity in the case of disaster. Say for example the machine crashes during a write operation, the idea of the "journalling" is a database-type setup, where you keep a record of the old data/transactions, and allow rollback to old data if there is a need.

I don't think performance is an advantage. I think developers are hoping to equal modern FS performance.

Come to think of it, what's the point for WinNTx, NTFS is pretty damn good already.

[ottomobiehl]

bloodline wrote:

Interesting topic... Some weeks ago, on the AROS mailing list we were disscusing Fle systems, and the idea of a Database file system came up... What do people here think of them?

I guess a database file system would be nice if they were implemented right. I think that performance would take a big hit. Of course, I'm not sure how filesystems are used to store data on a hard drive so I guess my answer is pure speculation. Anyone care to clarify this for me?:-D This might also answer my question why it isn't possible for someone to write an app in Windows to read other files systems (do they have these?)

Also It seems I read somewhere that the new GUI in Longhorn was going to take advantage of the latest in Direct X. Is this a good thing? :-? Are they going to be able to improve redraws or refreshes using Direct X or is the average user going to have to buy new hardware to run it.

[ottomobiehl]

more eye-candy but less demanding.

Bill Gates keeps talking about freeedom to innovate. How is eye-candy innovative? What does a user really "need" from a GUI other than sparkles? I think that is one of the many questions their GUI designers should be asking themselves.?

[mikeymike]

Bill Gates keeps talking about freeedom to innovate. How is eye-candy innovative? What does a user really "need" from a GUI other than sparkles? I think that is one of the many questions their GUI designers should be asking themselves.?

The problem is, most Americans seem to love the Disney-XP-look :-(

[Karlos]

mikeymike wrote:

The problem is, most Americans seem to love the Disney-XP-look :-(

Yuk. XP's eyecandy is the suckiest suck that ever sucked.

Man, those 'improve your wordpower' lessons were worth every penny

[ottomobiehl]

mikeymike wrote:

The problem is, most Americans seem to love the Disney-XP-look :-(

<southern hillbilly stereotype>
Time fer an' ol' fashion re-education pa!
</southern hillbilly stereotype>***

I think that all new computers users (and some old ones) should have to use a command prompt interface for a year (in the USA now) before they can graduate to a GUI. That way they can appreciate the GUI and if they lapse into some sort of stupidy involving pretty colors on their GUI then it's back to the prompt!

***The use of stereotypes can be dangerous so use all of your stereotypes in a safe and non-threatening manner.

[mikeymike]

I think that all new computers users (and some old ones) should have to use a command prompt interface for a year (in the USA now) before they can graduate to a GUI. That way they can appreciate the GUI and if they lapse into some sort of stupidy involving pretty colors on their GUI then it's back to the prompt!

I think the only thing that will fix this problem is a credible alternative to the competition. AmigaOS/compatibles in a few years' time, hopefully. Something that'll show people that there are ways desktop computing can improve, and some things aren't set in stone even though MS try to persuade people they are.

[Rodney]

nteresting topic... Some weeks ago, on the AROS mailing list we were disscusing Fle systems, and the idea of a Database file system came up... What do people here think of them?

From what i've heard, MS fielsystems are going to have the normal folders etc as in normal filesystem, instead directories and what files belong to them will all be software . That is, configurations should tell where files go. Which isnt a bad idea, i guess this means all files will go into the root of the file system and file will be selected to be placed in certain categories/directories...

I dont know if i've described it right, but i was thinking this same thing can be accomplished with Assigns in AmigaOS with a lot less bloat. I like the idea of Assigns and may we should use them more?

Maybe we can enhance assigns to act like directories or make be able to embed assigns in other assigns so we can have directory paths like sys:/bla/

that is sys: would be the root and then maybe you could run an assign that would create bla and embed it within sys: like

Assign bla/ sys:

and then to access it you get sys:bla/

And then you can add things to sys:bla like

Assign somefile sys:bla/

and all files show in sys except if they've been alocated to a sub assign of sys?

anyway I guess the advantages of this is that you dont really have a file system but a heap of files on the disc and use software or icon file to show what group they belong too... or what assign they blong too... assign = group... ? do i make sense?

But i have no idea what the advantages are of this... Would it make searching for files faster since all files are actualy on the root of the filesystem and the whole assign thing is just a front end for it? Have no idea.... noo idea...