This screens are used in Longhorn concept Video

<randomvisit>











</randomvisit>

-Stephen

Well this is interesting. What are those?

Concepts I guess...

Just more Longhorn concepts from back in the day.

Hmm... ONE thing stand. All unreleased concepts of Microsoft for other Windows OSs like Neptune, Odyssey, etc... find their place in some of the following Windows versions, but there is only one - Longhorn what has to many things to offer, but was never released, and Vista... Vista it's totally embedded demo OS, published only for filling the spaces between XP and the successor - in the case Win7.

Now I want to ask something, on average for abandoned software typically older than 10 years, mean Longhorn manufactured in 2003 and 2004 will be mostly abandoned by 2013 given the fact that even today there isn't operating system that may offer similar concept, I wonder if Stephan, ReflectiaX or anyone else has a stable version, or at least the version of which the videos was made, I think if he share with the public there would be many people who would work on it to fix the bugs, and finally after 10 years may all of us who love Longhorn, to be available for using like primary enthusiast professional operating system.

p.s. thanks ReflectiaX for videos that features/concept are amazing!

Longhorn was never released - all builds are in BETA stage. The 10 year rule does NOT apply for betas...

The screenshots from the first page of this thread come from the .fla/.swf files. So these are concepts. But they are very cool, and it'd be nice to actually remake that into Linux with some custom Emerald effects.

This is why Longhorn is so interesting to me.
I just can't describe how I feel when I see those concepts.

Longhorn was released, since "Longhorn" is just the codename for what was later given the final name Windows Vista (unless you mean the "old" Longhorn).

No offence to anyone here, but there are some people who believe that Windows Vista was a new project that replaced Longhorn in the same way that Whistler replaced Neptune and Odyssey, yet that is not true at all. The fact that the code reset occured most certainly does NOT proclude being the same project.

Time for another little goodie!



And, for your viewing pleasure, here's a clip from the demo that image comes from:



-Stephen

Wow. Thanks, ReflectiaX!
This is just... Amazing

I'm liking that Aero-Plex. Hmm... There's an idea for a Windows 7 theme...

ReflectiaX, when are these screenshots from? Also, was this exact design ever used for a physical build of Longhorn, or is it basically fancy Windows-themed "artwork"? Either way, however, I'm certainly going to look at it myself, since it seems very interesting.

EDIT: I noticed that you said the following in one of your earlier posts:
I hate to dissappoint you, but that so-called "Windows 97" is fake - all it is, really, is a copy of the original release of Windows 98, with all references changed to state the product name as being Windows 97, rather than Windows 98, even in the file dates (May 11th, 1997, when Memphis was still in Beta 1 testing stage, rather than May 11th, 1998, when the RTM build of Windows 98 was actually compiled).

Also, iapx432, the same person who sold us some Windows NT 3.1 builds (the October 1991 pre-release, Build 239.1, and Build 319.1), posted a picture of his Neptune CD-ROM, though it turned out to be just another copy of Build 5111, which of course, we already have, but still. You might want to search some of the older posts, just to see what you may have missed, that is, if you weren't still reading posts at the time.

EDIT 2: Fixed quote.

These are concepts packed into a Flash file.

All of this is internal prototyping. Anything you see that looks like this is what Microsoft immediately starting building towards in the early 3xxx LH builds, then continuing with in the pre-slate 4xxx builds. For example, in the picture/video above, you can see the task bar looks more akin to 4xxx plex, while the explorer window is closer to 3xxx plex.

As per the Windows 97 builds, what I'm referencing is something from a time well before whatever fake Windows 97 build(s) you're referencing. The Windows 99 fake was around back when my collecting was in full-swing, but the Windows 97 builds I'm referring to are ones that I am fairly confident were compiled (it may have been only one, or none at all, as I'll explain). Without getting too elaborate with my explanation, I used to know a guy who worked on the Windows core team (NT, directly under Cutler, from day-1) and, over the course of time I knew him, he told me quite a lot about his team and the 9x team.

He said Windows 97 was a heavy topic of discussion for a brief period of time and that a few builds of Windows 97 were compiled directly after Nashville was nixed. In fact, he thought he still had a couple of them on discs from the burn lab back then, but he never got around to digging up any of that stuff for me. Unfortunately, I lost touch with him and I have no idea if he was just remembering something different, or if there really were internal compiles of Windows 97 between Nashville and Windows 98-branded Memphis builds. With everything I was given by this guy, I've never doubted his Windows 97 recollections, but who knows. I'm trying desperately to track him down so I can get in touch with him again. Once Alchin was out and Sinofsky was in, the guy I'm referencing disappeared into the ether.

I definitely need to hit up iapx432. I caught up on some of the conversation about all of that, but not enough to be clear as to who it was that currently owns that disc.

So, to conclude, I'm not 100% sure that there were any Windows 97 builds. I have absolutely no concrete proof, and, really, I don't want to be the reason that anyone starts/continues believing in the existence of Windows 97 builds. If it weren't for me personally knowing this guy and hearing as much from him as I did, I would have never hung on to the thought of Windows 97 builds existing.

-Stephen

Oh, sorry for the mistake then. However, if possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you tried to continue contact with him, if you still have a valid email address for him (or even a valid physical address, for example, home, work, and/or friends and/or relatives of his), and/or if you find another way to contact him.

Anyway, iapx432 does indeed own the Neptune CD-ROM, just to clear things up - he didn't just post a picture of it, he did indeed have it, yet judging by the NTOSKRNL.EXE, it was still Build 5111 in any sense (although the NTOSKRNL.EXE could have been from an earlier build of Neptune, yet still used in a later build).

Finally, if you're interested, I once tried to rebuild Janus (Windows 3.1 codename) Build 43d. Rebuild, that is, because yksoft1 found that such applications as for Word for Windows 2.0 have certain files (such as the SHELL.DLL) from this build, having even provided a screenshot of it (confirming my theory that the 43x series builds of Windows 3.1 used a somewhat differently colored Windows flag logo with no "Microsoft Windows" text):


The original topic is here:

Also, there are other Windows-related files contained within the above mentioned applications, including COMMDLG.DLL, among others - I've tried merging it with the Build 34e files, the Build 61d files, and even the Windows with Multimedia Extensions 1.0 (version 3.00a) files (since its multimedia files would have almost certainly been the same or similar ones used for this particular build), but with no success yet (I'm now working on three projects, a Windows 8 review for everyone here, continued work on the version of the Microsoft OS Checklist for The Beta Group and AbandoNet, and the rebuilding of my old 486 system, currently in its data recovery stage as I write this). So, really, I don't have time at the moment, but once this calms down a bit, I might find time to continue on with the project.

I might have other things you might find interesting, but I'll have to search harder for them.

Please is here any acceptable and logical explanation why Microsoft after code reset was turn whole development progress in other direction?! -To make my self clear, why when they finally realized that the SP1 RC code is not stable for further development, they don't start over making the SAME things over the new code, if that has been done in that days, we'll never discuses for code-reset like for something big, and we will have longhorn betas instead of alpha versions for making better.

Many thanks to you, ReflectiaX, for videos and screenshots! They are very great!

I can't understand one thing. Were that videos made on test PC with installed Longhorn, or were they made in some animation program? They are so like the real ones... Maybe someone has those great builds.......

They were mockups, not real builds.

There's a lot of these mockup and concept videos. But most of these animations and effects didn't make it to reality...

Well this is interesting... Especially the Windows 97 story. It would be really nice if it really exists.

I know plenty of people who ever said to me they had an old pc on the ceiling, "old crap running windows 97". The first thing I say then is that Windows 97 never existed. But who knows, maybe I lied to them...

Either it was fake, or those owners almost certainly misreferenced other versions of Windows (such as Windows 95, almost certainly Windows 95 OSR 2.x, or Windows 98) as being "Windows 97". That being said, I seriously do not deny what ReflectiaX has said, it's just that when other people (outside of Microsoft and its close connections) refer to "Windows 97", it's almost certainly either a fake, or it's a mistyping (or even both, in some cases).

I agree with WinPC about "Windows 97", but I guess you never can tell...

They didn't mean fake versions, they just have no clue what their talking about and either mean windows 95 or 98, confusing with office 97 etc... Just noobs