Slashdot Log In
Heads Roll As Microsoft Misses Vista Target
Journal written by dinuraj (838444) and posted by
Hemos
on Mon Mar 27, 2006 08:48 AM
from the the-pressure-is-on dept.
from the the-pressure-is-on dept.
A reader writes: "Business version is on time, but the company won't make the key holiday consumer sales season.
After another delay in the release of its Windows Vista operating system, Microsoft last week put a new executive in charge of future Windows projects and replaced several other managers. The changes are designed to better align Microsoft's desktop and Internet software teams and get products to market faster." There's also a NY Times piece that discusses why Windows has been so slow (to come out). Worth the reading.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
NYTimes Article Access (Score:5, Informative)
Username: slashdot25
Password: Slashdot
The article in its entirety if you want to read it here:
Windows Is So Slow, but Why?
By STEVE LOHR and JOHN MARKOFF
Published: March 27, 2006
Back in 1998, the federal government declared that its landmark antitrust suit against the Microsoft Corporation was not merely a matter of law enforcement, but a defense of innovation. The concern was that the company was wielding its market power and its strategy of bundling more and more features into its dominant Windows desktop operating system to thwart competition and stifle innovation.
Windows 95 had 15 million lines of code. That grew to 18 million lines by the time Windows 98 launched, above. Windows XP, released in 2001, has 35 million lines of code.
Eight years later, long after Microsoft lost and then settled the antitrust case, it turns out that Windows is indeed stifling innovation -- at Microsoft.
The company's marathon effort to come up with the a new version of its desktop operating system, called Windows Vista, has repeatedly stalled. Last week, in the latest setback, Microsoft conceded that Vista would not be ready for consumers until January, missing the holiday sales season, to the chagrin of personal computer makers and electronics retailers -- and those computer users eager to move up from Windows XP, a five-year-old product.
In those five years, Apple Computer has turned out four new versions of its Macintosh operating system, beating Microsoft to market with features that will be in Vista, like desktop search, advanced 3-D graphics and "widgets," an array of small, single-purpose programs like news tickers, traffic reports and weather maps.
So what's wrong with Microsoft? There is, after all, no shortage of smart software engineers working at the corporate campus in Redmond, Wash. The problem, it seems, is largely that Microsoft's past success and its bundling strategy have become a weakness. Windows runs on 330 million personal computers worldwide. Three hundred PC manufacturers around the world install Windows on their machines; thousands of devices like printers, scanners and music players plug into Windows computers; and tens of thousands of third-party software applications run on Windows. And a crucial reason Microsoft holds more than 90 percent of the PC operating system market is that the company strains to make sure software and hardware that ran on previous versions of Windows will also work on the new one -- compatibility, in computing terms.
As a result, each new version of Windows carries the baggage of its past. As Windows has grown, the technical challenge has become increasingly daunting. Several thousand engineers have labored to build and test Windows Vista, a sprawling, complex software construction project with 50 million lines of code, or more than 40 percent larger than Windows XP.
"Windows is now so big and onerous because of the size of its code base, the size of its ecosystem and its insistence on compatibility with the legacy hardware and software, that it just slows everything down," observed David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School. "That's why a company like Apple has such an easier time of innovation."
Microsoft certainly understands the problem, the need to change and the potential long-term threat to its business from rivals like Apple, the free Linux operating system, and from companies like Google that distribute software as a service over the Internet. In an internal memo last October, Ray Ozzie, chief technical officer, who joined Microsoft last year, wrote, "Complexity kills. It sucks the life out of developers, it makes products difficult to plan, build and test, it introduces security challenges and it causes end-user and administrator frustration."
Last Mon
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:4, Funny)
Yes outrageous, litte innovative work has come out of Microsoft since Clippy!
Parent
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:3, Funny)
XP wasn't innovation. It was more of the same cruft with an interface that HAD to be licensed from Playskool.
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:5, Interesting)
"Windows is now so big and onerous because of the size of its code base, the size of its ecosystem and its insistence on compatibility with the legacy hardware and software, that it just slows everything down," observed David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School. "That's why a company like Apple has such an easier time of innovation."
I'm not so sure this is really why this time, or that it's the only reason...
People paying some attention to the Vista development may notice that during build 5000, Microsoft did basically a 180 turn and decided to throw out the new foundation of managed (.NET) code on an XP SP2 based kernel, and rather go with the Windows Server 2003 kernel. This required such massive rewrites that to the end user experience, the project was essentially restarted. This happened in September 2004, just less than 2 years ago. And people wonder about the feature cuts and delays.
MS did a major goof up in planning with this OS, and they're paying the price now. Just imagine if they could get the two years or so spent on developing on the wrong kernel and with an invalid design philophy back (it was later found out that
Parent
Re The Missing Fun Factor (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the code looks like this:
1) Setup & Initialize
Get an interface here, claim some memory, find another interface over there, register own functionality here and there, try something else in case something has failed until you succeed or run out of options
2) Delegation and Fallback
If some particular module is not available, fall back to other implementations, reformat the data, manage lifetime and ownership, synchronize with some other activities, and then delegate the call to some other interface
3) Error Handling and Recovery
After each call, perform error checking, pass back the result to the caller, potentially reformatting it again, or raise some exceptions or create new higher level error codes from lower level error code you got
4) Cleanup
When it is time, either because some reference count went zero, some termination function was called or a garbage collector comes by, free all resources claimed so far, deregister references downstream and upstream
The whole code is full of hungarian notation type casts, macros and microsoft specific language extensions, and the flow control statements are mostly branches. You are already lucky if you may write a loop that does some actual work, even if it is just collecting stuff from multiple calls.
And then, if you look at APIs, there are much more parameters and much more options than e.g. in UNIX counterparts, and many options are not orthogonal, so you are entangled in a web of obscure semantics almost everywhere. And you do not have one API for the same stuff, you got a shitload of them: Win32, WinMM, GDI, ATL, OCX, MFC, COM, DCOM, ODBC, ActiveX, DirectX, XNA and tons of product specific APIs. It is already a nightmare to decide which API to use, but to support them all in a bug-by-bug compatible way is programmer's hell. It is like travelling with a hospital ship full of corpses that are not completely dead and need to be kept alive by a team of doctors, high doses of painkillers and cardiopulmonary and dialysis machinery, just in case someone needs them because he speaks this ancient lanuguage noone else but these living dead understands.
With .NET, Microsoft did a good job at API design, but it is of no immediate help, it is just another API that has to be supported with all the other legacy APIs, so .NET does not reduce, but increases overall complexity and does not perform as well as the other APIs. Another problem with .NET is the lack of maturity, still requiring major changes on all levels, resulting in huge compatibility nightmares between different versions of .NET.
But even if Microsoft would throw away everything but the kernel and .NET, I still would not jump on it because I do not like to be locked in on a particular platform; I want to be able to run my Software in MacOS and Linux and have a chance to port it to some hardware or OS that does not exist yet.
If I were in charge at Microsoft, I would try some of the Google philosophy: Do not be evil, and give the people something they can like:
1) A solid, simple well documumented and rock solid foundation that manages device I/O using a small set of calls with clear semantics: open, close, read, write, ioctl seem to sufficient to do a lot
2)Choose the right atomic elements: Bytes, Characters, Numbers, Strings, Pixels, Images, Audio Samples, 3D-Polygons and video streams and make them first class citizens throughout the whole operating system.
3) Implement all APIs people seem to like in a rock solid, feature complete and efficient manner: OpenGL, gtk, POSIX etc.
4) Invent some new own cool High-Level APIs and frameworks and make sure they are available on Linux and MacO
Parent
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll readily admit that I don't much like Microsoft or their software, but they must be commended upon their due diligence on this one aspect. A lot of software from Windows 3.0 can still run on XP.
Parent
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:5, Insightful)
They're claiming this 'backward compatible' mantra so that they don't lose the current corral of developers, from Tier 1, 3rd party, and fan boys.
If they change their OS so that backward compatibility no longer works, they feel they risk losing everyone to the competition, whatever it is.
Mac did it in 2000 and kept backward compatibility through whatever method it is that kept Mac Classic on all OSX's through the Intel changeover.
I was actually looking forward for the originally planned Longhorn with WinFS and such but not this Vista crap.
I stopped being a MS fanboy with the announcement of XP activation but I realize them for the juggernaut they are and I respect that.
I don't see why they can't come up with a new OS and include legacy support in VM mode. Today's hardware can handle it. Vista is just smelly trash.
Parent
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in fairness backword compatability is the main thing that their customers care about. Normal people don't buy a computer to run the OS, they buy it to run their apps. If a customer's existing software won't work on a new OS they might just as well start looking at a different OS or, more likely just stay with the old system for a while longer.
Parent
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:3, Interesting)
They could release Vista Professional Edition that includes a VM which is certainly more than enough to handle any corporate app on today's hardware. Any hardware intensive app would obviously keep with the older software/hardware version until it became feasible enough to port over.
For the home market, they could release a basic Home Edition cheap with no legacy support unless purchased and release a Premium Home Edition with a VM so that whoever that runs that funky resume
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:4, Funny)
Multiple crippled versions of an OS....that would never work...
Parent
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:4, Insightful)
"Integrating" applications into a monolithic operating system does not help at all. It may have helped Microsoft to win the browser battles, but it is causing Microsoft to lose the ability to keep Windows as an ongoing OS.
Parent
No, backwards compatibilty is not the reason. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? They simply created a Virtual DOS Machine that was sophisticated enough to handle things properly, including running multiple isolated copies of a rewritten Windows 3.1 concurrently to protect 16-bit processes from each other.
Win32 compatibility doesn't require any of that.
The bloat we're
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course this is BS. What of the complete turn over when they discovered that
So much for
I guess all the other OS people that tirelessly pointed all of that out were right after all, and that the Windows camp was the home of the zealots.
It's going on with this BS about backwards compatibility. Excuse me ? I experienced first hand the change in the multimedia framework API, the drivers not working anymore (even a driver for a joystick converter, yes, a joystick converter, does not work anymore !!), the apps and games not working anymore (some working but very badly, needing lots of care and hacky patches),
but they must be commended upon their due diligence on this one aspect
BS.
A lot of software from Windows 3.0 can still run on XP
And a lot don't work anymore. So what's the point ?
Parent
It was one bad decision, but NOT compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)
The REAL poor design decision was electing to create a tightly integrated system. This was the root cause that made other questionable choices at Microsoft (compatibility and "Featureitis") difficult or impossible to correct. When Microsoft wanted to bundle its web browser with Windows it decided to take IE (which wasn't ingtegrated with Win95 at all initially) and sprinkle its libraries in the system directory and link a whole bunch of other components to it...to the point that even the GUI shell will not operate without IE components. It threw the GUI and all these drivers into kernel space. It made one big monolithic, multi-million-LOC pile of crap and justified it by doing it in the name of a "seamless user experience" at a good level of performance.
There is no excuse for this now--we have machines powerful enough to host full-featured virtual machines that can run self-contained copies of legacy OSes, so if customers really (often foolishly) want to run software that is over a decade old to do important things then they can take that route. The sad thing is that political reasons rather than technical reasons prevent Microsoft from taking the proper course of action. Microsoft should've "pulled an Apple" right after the release of XP and immediately set about developing a totally new OS as different from the NT-based XP as NT was from DOS (and the Win9x/Me derivatives). Apple smartly got out to market faster by building its foundation on open software.
The problem is MS is probably loathe to heavily depend on open source for its flagship product, and the problem is that Apple beat them to the most viable BSD-licensed option. Since MS has been asleep at the wheel there for far too long, they have two difficult options ahead: Firstly, they could bite the bullet and plan the first major, post-Vista Windows release around a BSD-licensed UNIX core as Apple has already done. MS would be risking a lot by doing this as they become less differentiated from Apple than before--can MS out-class Apple on the UI front, or maintain enough legacy Windows compatibility to keep its customer base? Second, they could try and engineer a new kernel/core system themselves and bolt on chunks of updated Vista as componenets. This could take longer than the first option but it is a made-at-MS solution. In the meantime competitors will have even more time to catch up.
Basically, Windows as we know it is fast approaching the end of its life cycle. I personally don't think it is really sustainable for even one more major release after Vista. Although this presents a great opportunity for Linux-based and OS X systems I don't think it is the nail in MS' coffin just yet. I figure that with the kind of shake up that looks possible to occur in the next few months at MS that in around 2010 we'll all be eagerly anticipating the release a completely new Microsoft OS--with a very UNIX-like architecture (holy shades of XENIX batman!) under the hood but something very 21st centurey on top.
Parent
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, what is Windows as we know it?
The windows natural market position is this: it's the world's dominant desktop operating system, the one that almost every worktation, no matter what it is used for, is almost certain to use. But it's not anymore, because Windows has an identity crisis. It's been seen by Microsoft as a lever they could use to enter and dominate new markets, such as home entertainment. It leads to a lack of focus.
Consider Apple: You have a choice of two operating systems from them Mac OSX 10.4 (Tiger) and Mac OSX Server 10.4.
From Microsoft: XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center, XP Tablet Edition, XP Pro 64 bit Edition, Windows Server 2003 and of course the embedded/mobile versions (Windows Mobile and Windows 2000 Core OS) which arguably don't count.
The thing is, Apple is doing everything with vertical integration that Microsoft is trying to do. They've just drawn the lines around projects differently. I wonder, though, whether this makes the difference.
Parent
Re:NYTimes Article Access (Score:5, Funny)
Curtains for Windows ?
Parent
Unfixable (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to see the major corps get behind a push to reimplement the Windows APIs (IE, Wine or similar) so all OSs could run Win32 executables. Then the big MS lockin would be over and we users could have some choices.
So...wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) MS is rewriting key components from the ground up ( tcp/ip for one ).
2) They are pushing for a faster and faster release cycle
3) They are replacing managers working on vista.
4) DRM will be built into vista
Yeah huh. If it's all the same to you guys, I think I'll stick with xp on my home system ( just recently upgraded, btw ). Vista sounds like it's going to be a painful upgrade for the world at large, and I'd rather not experience that if at all possible.
Re:So...wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, what is Vista advertising to do that Linux/OSX haven't been doing for years? And why do I need those vital features (such as 3d interfaces, widgets, and an online podcasting service) when XP runs great as long as you reinstall it once a year and filter what you put on it.
Way to go Microsoft, you created a market nobody needed, filled it with crap, and are trying to spin that crap into gold instead of cleaning out the crap
Why the delay? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why the delay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Does if feel like 1993 in here? (Score:3, Informative)
XP is better than crash_every_single_keyboardklick but its not that stable. Im not impressed until Windows is better than Linux or *BSD. Why shouldnt something i pay good money for be much better than som
Cutting off your toe to spite your face (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought it was delayed because of DirectX 10 and game\media\PVR issues. Now that 60% is being rewritten will hardware manufacturers like ATI have to ditch their millions of dollars of R&D and start their Vista drivers from scratch?
Re:Cutting off your toe to spite your face (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Cutting off your toe to spite your face (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so. Remember DirectX 10 is only an API, there is no sgnificant code base behind it. So I don't think it casued delay, and don't think hardware manufacturers would be wasting significant efforts if there are changes in it. The only important thing is speci
Microsoft Innovates (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, Microsoft discovers modular design and good interfaces 30 years after the rest of the world went that way.
Wife wont get Vista For Christmas (Score:3, Funny)
The truth is that MS is trying to get this on right, and waiting to ship Vista untill its done, at the same time they are being honest with us about ship date and features. Funny we bash them for shiping buggy programs and then bash them for holding back a buggy program.
Mty suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)
From Dave regarding NT:
Or, get someone with a trackercord of delivering a modern OS. Like Maybe Linus.
Or, hire Christopher Walken as a Project manager
Re:Mty suggestions (Score:5, Interesting)
Is *anyone* qualified for this? Linus, for example, just works on the low-level Liunx kernel. Vista is a kernel + the
Parent
Re:Mty suggestions (Score:3, Insightful)
What would probably replace all their development team, and spend any income they get.
Debian is big, not only on the number of CDs it use. But that was the better sugestion until now :)
Re:Mty suggestions (Score:4, Informative)
What the hell does Linus know about delivering a modern OS? He's a Unix kernel guru. I doubt the kernel is what's giving Microsoft problems.
Now, maybe they could get in touch with RMS instead? After all, the OS based around Linus's kernel is mostly of his creation... Or maybe not. Though it would be amusing to read the reports in the news of Windows users' heads exploding the day after they find that their new Windows shell was in fact xemacs.
Parent
You know what'll happen then, right? (Score:3, Funny)
Walken: Well guys, Vista looks good, but I tell you what... it needs more cowbell.
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read some of the postings on the minimsft blog, you see that Sinofsky has been brought in to streamline things, but the question abut what to do with all the legacy management overhead still remains.
They have so many people which they promoted up over the years that they'll need to figure out how to flatten the organization whilst thinking about what to do with all these people in middle management. That'll be the interesting question in the coming years, I think.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Informative)
Dare I Say It... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I spent some time last night reading through a Microsoft employee's blog discussing this very issue. While it might sound like big trouble in little China, it's likely to be well glossed over by their PR campaigns. Heads will roll at MS, but not the right ones. The big guys there will say that this was the work of either an "astroturfer" who doesn't even work for MS, or a disgruntled employee who really didn't have a grasp on the business end of things. In other words Ballme and company will be saying, "nothing to see here, move along".
As a side note, I found one of the comments on that blog particularly insulting. Someone had the audacity to say that Microsoft is becoming more and more like DEC. This couldn't be furthest from the truth. DEC was run by the engineers, meaning that the entire company was nothing but engineers. No suits. No business men. Just pure brain. That's why DEC's systems pretty much defined the phrase "just works". MS isn't even close. They tried and they got Cutler to design NT. But then they threw out everything that he had laid out in NT when they hit 2k for business reasons. If you want a great OS, you forget about business reasons. If you want to run a great business, then you need to accept that there will always be compromises and you'll always have a subpar product when compared to the output of pure engineering. Them's the breaks folks. That's why the FOSS world outshines Microsoft at every turn in terms of design and doesn't really make much of a dent business-wise. And it's why MS is so successful as a business but can't create an OS that you'd trust your life with.
Ray of Light (Score:4, Insightful)
Well Ray should know, he does work there.
I think in Microsoft's desire to be the everything of operating systems, they have bitten off more than they can chew. They need to re-think their strategy and aim to a secure, less-complicated and smaller operating system. Then later, they can release a huge Vista at a time of their choosing.
Who wants DRM? (Score:3, Insightful)
The strange thing is that its not any users of Windows. DRM gives the manufacturers a new unpreceedent tool for administrating users computers without they having a say about it. Once you install an application that uses DRM your computer isnt yours anymore.
Who would want that? Good thing is it will make Linux look so much better.
It's Their Development Model (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to bring up Apple, but look at their OS. They've put an awful lot of features into their software, with less programmers and with much more of an idea of what they want to achieve - and I think that last point is the key. It just sounds as though some marketing people at Microsoft have been moving the goalposts shouting "Right, we need seven versions to extract more money!", "Oh right, now we're doing media!", "We're doing 3D eye candy!", "We're doing TV!", "We want support for new DRM hardware to please film studios!", "We want integration with some pointless app for social networking!" etc. etc. It seems to me that no one has drawn up a set of proper requirements for Vista. I get the Vista betas through MSDN, and honestly, I just cannot see how they couldn't have achieved where they got to now by evolving from Windows XP SP 2 and 2003 in a far shorter timescale and then building other products and components on top of it when it got finalised.
Two-fold, on top of that, I'm also convinced that because of all those teams putting code into Windows, and having Windows interoperate tightly with other components and products and vice-versa, Microsoft are having very serious integration and communication problems. What's that saying? Nine women can't have a baby in one month? It seems as though Microsoft's "let's just throw programmers at it" strategy is doomed now and post-Vista, and they're going to have to work out what they're going to do. The big problem is, Microsoft don't know how to develop any other way, and changing a few managers around will change nothing.
Computers that do speech? Intelligent systems? A digital home? Media systems running Windows? Flat touch-screen panels running Windows in every area of your house? On top of developing a base version of Windows, Office, development tools.....all inter-connected?! Fat chance. There's no way they'll be able to co-ordinate that kind of development complexity with the kind of absolute reliability that's demanded there. Windows still has a future, obviously, but I'm sorry to tell Microsoft that they're not going to be leading us into this new brave world they think we're going to buy into.
Re:It's Their Development Model (Score:3, Funny)
Plain and simple. I remember when Windows 2000 came out, and that was hyped to the hills as the most secure and high quality Windows that was really going to replace Unix everywhere. Funnily enough, the hype sounded like Vista now
So instead of recycling code, they are recycling marketing material.
At least they are recycling something!!!
Re:It's Their Development Model (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy who wrote that blog post yesterday hit on it too and he didn't even realize it:
"I was upset at missing the back-to-school market. Now we're missing the holiday sales market. All of those laptops and PCs are going to have XP on it."
Yup. What's the price for Microsoft's failure to deliver? Nothing. They get the cash anyway. The only downside to this latest slip is the unusually high amount of publicity it's getting.
But, you say, if they keep slipping competition will catch up... Well, maybe, but not this decade. There is nobody even close.
Apple? Please. Businesses won't pick a platform that locks them into a single vendor's hardware anymore, and most home users won't buy anything without a 35% sticker on it (does Dell ever sell stuff at full price?). Even if they found a way around those problems, history will show that they're really good at blowing it.
Desktop Linux? Nope. It's got two permanant and fatal flaws. No huge marketing department, and no goons breathing down OEM and channel partner throats.
Microsoft's development model, their schedule, their everything is based on the fact that there is no financial incentive for success, and no financial disincentive for failure. They'll fire people, or whatever, but nothing will prompt the kind of change that needs to happen there until they have some serious competition. And we should be glad. Their failure to deliver creates jobs for software and operating system engineers outside the Redmond area.
Parent
Well the way they're suggesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, if you were looking at a new application today, if you're not considering cross-platform compatible apps (Java or
The solution is so simple... (Score:3, Funny)
Every significant feature of Vista has already been removed, they might as well remove the rest.
Voila! They make their ship date, PC manufacturers have a merry Christmas, everybody is thrilled at how backward-compatible it is and how little retraining is necessary.
Nobody will get upset but a few literal-minded techies. Anybody dissatisfied with Windows as we know it migrated away years ago.
Mythical Man Month and Apollo (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, how can projects like the Apollo Space Program succeed? Compared to any computer project, it's unbelievable that anyone can manage all the parts, companies, and research that went in to sending a man to the moon. I read a book, available on NASA's website (sorry, don't have the URL) which described what it took just to build the crawler and superstructure, and I think it was hundreds and hundreds of pages of minutia that I can't believe actually came together.
What's worse of all is that it's one thing to say "this time it's different because...", but with Microsoft they're not saying anything; they seem resigned to the screw up and figure that their monopoly will simply carry the day. "Yeah, we've botched it, but so what? You're gonna use it, you have no choice!"
Time to switch OSes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even after Microsoft wised up to their development blunders like IE, they still have a near unmanagable beast in 50+ million lines of codebase. The #1 weakness that Microsoft has is it's refusal to drop legacy support out of it's products. It may even lead to their undoing. They have allowed feature after feature to snowball into the massive clusterfuck that Windows currently is. In order to meet the demands of the future, Windows will have to simplify. I know it sounds like that is a step backwords, but think about it. How did Apple make such a successful product in OS X? They blew up OS 9 and started from scratch with a proven codebase. That is what Windows needs to do to keep up. Only after Microsoft ditches the i386 legacy and bloat that's suffocating them, will they get some much needed breathing room. Apple had to take a big step back to get ahead to where they are today, and I'm sure it wasn't easy for them, but it's already paying massive diviends. Imagine how wonderful it would be for everybody in the long run if MS took this same approach. Windows has turned into a massive out-of-control beast that has everything including the kitchen sink in it, with about 7 different variations of home and office OSes that are enough to confuse anyone in the industry, let alone the poor consumers who have to figure out which version of Windows best suits them.
That said, there is really only one roadblock for switching to Linux full time (at least for me), and that is the fonts. I've tried everything from grabbing the MS fonts from my Windows partition, to any combination of AA and/or hinting and DPI resolution I can think of. The fonts just come up weak IMO. I know a lot of you love the fonts in Linux and just wouldn't have it any other way, but I guess I have a different opinion then most of you out there. Windows and OS X fonts look about 100 times better to me. Say what you want, but when I boot up into Windows after spending a few hours in Linux, it's like cleaning a layer of grease off of my glasses.
You may joke about it, but (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Deja Vu? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:How many will use Vista? (Score:3)
Re:How many will use Vista? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is What Google Has to Look Forward To (Score:3, Interesting)
Prove it. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that making such a broad statement with nothing to back it up is likely to draw "I call B.S." comments. (As I'm doing now.)
Re:Is "dot net" to blame? (Score:3, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about?