I've seen a lot of Longhorn screen shots, and installed version build 4074, it looks nice. But why did Microsoft changed view and reseted everything? Why did they thought it was necessary to reset and then re-add all/some of the longhorn features? kind of strange, though?

And the build numbers went up, but the progress went down...

Nice example: (Build 5001 after reset, everything back to xp)
http://www.betaarchive.com/imageupload/ ... .47526.jpg
(Maybe they liked this wallpaper better )

Because it was a disaster. Longhorn was not half the operating system they wanted it to be, and was never going to achieve those goals because things had got out of hand. The dream was great, but as with all dreams, they tend not to translate so well into the real world.

was it that worse? Couldn't they just change some things underway, instead of begging again from scratch?

For a start, the entire .NET side of things (which pretty much made up all the big changes - the shell, WinFS, etc) wasn't going to happen at that time. .NET itself was not a mature technology, and they were trying to do that alongside Avalon, which really wasn't ready at all. So all that had to be chucked. The process of splitting the OS into modular components was started too late as well - ideally, you'd do that first and then organise the new features into components as they come, which is what they did with Vista, but in Longhorn, they tried to do it the other way round.

I think the biggest problem with Longhorn is that they focused on the UX at expense of the core, and then realised they couldn't quite make the UX work without serious work on the core. Put simply, if Longhorn had carried on, we'd have an OS that was a step back from XP in Reliability and Security. Instead with Vista and subsequently 7, we have an OS that is practically bulletproof in comparison. I'd even go so far as to say that if Longhorn had carried on, by now, Windows would be consuming more resources for no extra gain. People were quick to criticise the increased demand Vista placed on resources, but it was a necessary move. I love Longhorn, and think the vision was frankly the pinnacle of what is achievable in the medium term, but I'm glad it was cut, because we've got a better OS instead, even if it's lacking some of the thrills and spills Longhorn offered.

Side note: Longhorn was never based on Windows XP in any way, shape or form.

Wait a minute linuxlove Windows Longhorn was the codename of Windows Vista, and it has been created from Windows XP.

Nope. From the pre-reset Longhorn builds to the post-reset Longhorn builds (Longhorn Omega-13 if you must), they were never directly based on Windows XP.

At least it looks much like XP, don't you think? EDIT: If they thought a reset was needed, they aren't basing anything on something from before the reset...

Looks can be deceiving

On what were they based than? Win2000 ?

Nope. Server 2003.

Because server was more stable?

Indeed. Server 2003 with the themes service enabled by default and other goodies. This is why it looks similar to XP. If you enable themes service in Server 2003, it selects Windows XP's (Luna?) Theme as default. Go try it in a VM.

And probably because Server 2003 was still being developed by the time they started the Longhorn project.

Of course though, after the reset and with Vista RTM, Microsoft had screwed the Server 03 base sideways to the point of it's sluggishness on 90% of the computers it ran on (Exaggeration, it ran fine on some systems but on a lot of 'Vista Capable' machines had issues with Vista. Even Steve Ballmer privately admitted that MS screwed up the Vista Capable program. For citation, there is a 2007 issue of PC (Pro or Plus?) that states this.
HERPA DERP LET'S IMPLEMENT 2007 GRAPHICS ON 2004 HARDWARE ~ Skynet commenting on Windows Vista

In this picture (http://www.betaarchive.com/imageupload/ ... .36521.jpg) , The build states itself as Windows xp Pro, but it's surely a pre-vista!
Or does Server 2003 always says it's a XP pro (is it playing hide and seek?) ?

That's a pretty good question that we have no answer to. The base is Windows Server 2003 however.

Yep.

The true Server 2003 product doesn't refer to itself as Windows XP Pro anywhere.

Longhorn has always said Longhorn Professional, or Windows XP Pro for some of the really early builds. It's still Server 2003 whichever way you look at it.

strange, it's Server but it has the SKU from xp pro... well, ok..

It does identify itself as XP because it needs to for XP for x64, which was being developed at the same time, and also used the Server 03 base, despite the fact it was called XP.

soulman, haven't seen the glass by default in 4074, but the slate theme is in it (but not transparent..). And I can only one time use that build.. after restart it is stuck at the 'welcome' screen..

hounsell, so Longhorn was based upon a xp that was based upon a Server? true?

This is what it looks like: http://www.betaarchive.com/imageupload/ ... .16208.PNG

o, and 4074 is a wreck, nothing is working like the way it should...

If you're asking "Was Longhorn based on a version of Windows XP that was based on Server 2003", then I think you're wrong. All that I've heard indicates that Longhorn was based on Server 2003 code and not Windows XP x64.

Also, cool triple post bro.

A brief answer: The staff realized that Longhorn was becoming further from the original project, with its lacking of stability.
(May need to be fixed.)

My point was that the two (Server 2003 and XP x64) are the same thing. Which is why any client build based on the Server 2003 code still identifies itself as XP, even though it isn't. Longhorn was based on Server 2003, which calls itself XP if it's a client SKU (such as Home or Professional), simply because Microsoft did the same trick for XP x64 (porting that codebase to x64 as well as the main 2k3 code was too much effort for an inferior end result, so they didn't).