How Microsoft Plans To Get Its Groove Back With Win7

shawnz tips a blog post up at thebetaguy that details Windows 7's huge departure from the past, and the bold strategy Microsoft will be employing to maintain backward compatibility. Hint: Apple did it seven years back. There are interesting anti-trust implications too. "Windows 7 takes a different approach to the componentization and backwards compatibility issues; in short, it doesn't think about them at all. Windows 7 will be a from-the-ground-up packaging of the Windows codebase; partially source, but not binary compatible with previous versions of Windows."

Argh, i can't beleive

[zsouthboy]

how many times Microsoft has gotten away with "Our current version has issues, but the NEXT version of x will be great! Make sure you use current version in the meantime - we're announcing this only because our competitors DO have a better product/will be releasing a better product soon!"

I'm not even an MS hater - but damn, they have crushed more than one alternative by doing something similar, even NEVER releasing, sometimes, whatever it is they announce (I recall reading an account from a fellow ./'er stating that they did just that to his small company - funding dried up because they didn't want to compete with MS, and MS never released whatever it was anyway.)

I love the lack of understanding

[filesiteguy]

I run vista on two machines - and actually like it better than that crappy earlier version of NT (XP) and even 2K. I was curious about Singularity. In any case, I love the quote from the article:

For Windows Vista, Microsoft had to change their design and development strategy in order to comply with the DoJ and EU regulations regarding the anti-trust issues present in previous versions of Windows; specifically, the integration of assistive applications such as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player into the core operating system. Competitors complained that offering internet and media solutions with the operating system harmed competition in the marketplace (despite other operating systems such as Mac OS X and Linux apparently being immune from such criticism).

Funny - I didn't know linux came bundled with ANY media player or browser. I know distributions do, but not Linux.

Legacy support may happen

[oahazmatt]

From TFA

...This should allow the majority of legacy applications to run perfectly, while still retaining native performance for applications compiled specifically with the Windows 7 platform in mind.

Seriously, what is it with all the editing of story submissions? Lately every summary has a knee-jerk reaction, but if you RTFA it's not nearly as bad as implied.

So that's what slowed Vista down?!

[Coryoth]

Some interesting comments in TFA regarding the "source" of Vista's performance issues:

In response to this, Microsoft made fundamental changes to the way Windows Vista was linked together; shifting more towards modular designs rather than the monolithic processes used in previous versions of Windows. This increased amount of componentization, while satisfying the DoJ and EU, also led to performance issues due to the increased number of libraries which comprise the operating system. On traditional hard drives, the more separate files which the operating system has to load, the more seeking across the hard drive is required, and therefore overall performance takes a hit.

and then later

Another reason for Windows Vista's performance issues is the way in which Microsoft approached backwards compatibility in Vista. The operating system stores multiple copies of core system libraries, as each revision of a library typically adds/removes functions, and applications compiled with dynamic links to a specific version of a DLL file may call on functions not present in the currently installed library.

So, apparently, Vista being slow is all the fault of the EU and the DOJ asking for a more modular design that didn't have everything tied into monolithic core systems. The thing is, unless I missed something, most Linux and *BSD already have exactly what is described: a very modular system with literally hundreds (if not thousands) of shared library files; moreover, versioned shared libraries have been around for a very long time as well. If having to split things out into many library files, and keep multiple versions around is such a death knell for performance, then surely something like GNOME would absolutely crawl. For those who say GNOME does crawl, note that, in comparison to Vista on the same hardware it flies -- it's only in comparison to to other lighter linux options that it looks slow. So I have to say, I'm just not buying the excuse. Modular functionality in lots of versioned library files shouldn't be a problem. I suspect it has more to do with blaming poor performance on EU anti-trust regulations than reality.

Re:Seriously, Copy Apple Again

[UnknowingFool]

I think Apple's market share actually helped them when it came to the transitions. There were fewer applications to migrate. Those applications that did exist were often specialized enough to make sure that they migrated. Incidentally enough moving to OS X opened up many of the Unix applications to Apple. Often times a port was needed and not a full rewrite.

Re:Pure Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of this thread is twitter responding to himself. What a nutbar.

Re:Has "fail" written all over it

[samkass]

Microsoft has done it before. Win16 ran in WindowsNT in a compatibility box. I suspect that's exactly what they'll do with Win32 in Windows 7. It actually makes a lot of sense to me.

Re:Has "fail" written all over it

[tepples]

If it it not in the product, what reason do people have to stick with windows.

But it is in the product, in a way. When you buy a copy of Windows 7, you get a free copy of parts of Windows 5 (XP) and 6 (Vista) to run in the same VM. The genuine Windows DLLs are be more compatible with apps tested on genuine Windows DLLs than Wine will ever be.

GPL'ed Windows XP clone ReactOS

[Orion Blastar]

might be the answer. ReactOS [reactos.org] should be ready for at least beta testing by 2010. No need for Microsoft to GPL XP as ReactOS is a Windows clone built by GPL code to run Windows XP etc programs in it and use Windows drivers.

Re:Seriously, Copy Apple Again

[Blakey Rat]

Well, Apple was also pretty bad at it. Anybody who used a Mac "back in the day" remembers how many applications designed for System 6 broke when System 7 came out, and how many 680x0 apps simply failed to run on PPC Macs even despite Apple's compatibility layer. And don't get me started on the Classic environment in OS X, and the transition of Carbon apps between Classic and OS X, both of those moves broke more applications than I care to remember.

Maybe I used too many crazy indie apps, but I'm pretty sure Apple only really tests the big players when they make moves like this.

Re:All Vapor.

[BlueWomble]

Absolutely, that article was ridiculous.

Any article that uses "loading excessive library files forced on us by the DOJ" as the first (and presumably therefore most significant) reason for Vista slowness should be laughed out of town.

Re:The Netscape Thing is a giveaway.

[rahrens]

What lie? Internet Explorer IS tied into the OS!! That IS the way they screwed Netscape! I do desktop support for the Feds, and we CANNOT remove IE, even to reinstall it. There just is no way to do so, the system will not allow IE to be uninstalled. That was the original complaint, and continues to be in the EU. If Win7 removes that roadblock and allows IE to be uninstalled, then they have answered that complaint. Frankly, if they DO toss out all the old Win code and start over, that'll be the smartest thing they've ever done, but it'll be eight years too late and again, waaay behind Apple!

Re:Has "fail" written all over it

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution:

Download Ubuntu for Free. Install Ubuntu. Download VMWare Player for free. Download blank VMX file w/ virtual drive for free. Install your old Windows 95 / Windows 98 / Windows XP (for, er, free kinda, since you paid for it a buhzillion years ago). Fire up Wolfenstein 3D, Ultima Underworld II, etc. 100% backwards compatible.

Done.

Re:over ambitious

[Ark42]

As long as you don't want to install on a HD bigger than ~120GB, or use a wireless network easily, then yes, windows 2000 is pretty much the same thing, without the fancy graphics.

Re:where does the 7 come from?

[Shados]

It comes from the NT line.

NT 4.0, Win 2k (NT 5.0), Win XP (NT 5.1), Vista (NT 6.0).

Notice that XP -officially- used the same major version number as 2k.

Re:Credit where credit is due

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody has already criticized the basic Win32 API, so I won't go into that here. (If you can't see what's wrong with having functions named things like "CreateProcessEx5" which is the 6th iteration of the same basic API, I don't know what's wrong with you.)

Just because the GUI is written in Objective C doesn't mean the rest of the application has to be. Yes, Cocoa takes full advantage of Objective C--just like how Qt takes full advantage of C++. That doesn't mean you can't link code written in another language into the program. The Mac and Windows APIs are sufficiently different anyway that there's probably relatively little cost to an Adobe in maintaining a separate Cocoa/Objective C code base for the GUI parts alone, over maintaining a Mac port at all.

The crown jewels of an application like Photoshop, however, isn't the interface (however important that may be for end user productivity), but in the processing engine at the core which actually applies all those fancy filter effects and what-not. For Photoshop to make sense as a cross platform application at all, that code has to be written portably. While Objective C and C++ share a C-like subset, that's really not enough for this kind of code.

Therefore, what you end up doing is writing a (probably) C++ library that is platform-neutral for doing all the backend work (where all the features live), then linking that to a GUI which is platform-specific. (Or you could just write to a toolkit which is platform-neutral, like Qt, or roll your own, but the Adobes of the world aren't likely to adopt that option, because it abandons most of the benefits of maintaining separate GUI code bases.)

Re:Wo-ow

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the posting histories of the accounts in question:

Twitter, Erris, InTheLoo, Gnutoo and Mactrope (not Macthrope btw, who is actually a vocal twitter critic).

There was never really any question whether Twitter and Erris were the same person. On more than one occasion Twitter would actually respond with the wrong account by mistake, exposing the sockpuppetry (of course anyone who reads any Erris/Twitter messages can easily see how similarly they are writen).

The newer 3 accounts he made after Twitter and Erris fell into karma hell a few months ago, and if you look at their posts you will find that they reply to each other "agreeing" almost all the time. This alone could be coincidence, but they always post just minutes apart from each other, in addition to many similarities in style (which I encourage you to explore/investigate yourself, if interested).

Luckily with the newest 3 accounts Twitter seems much more well-behaved than he was with Twitter/Erris. He still misrepresents facts and outright lies, but at least he's dropped the "M$ Windoze" childishness. As such I dont really care much about what he says, but I agree with willyhill that it's a dishonest way to engage in an online discussion (heck, Ive gotten by for years with NO account, does he really need 5 or more?).

That said, if anyone out there is into Twitter sockpuppet hunting, one good way to spot them is to look at the subject line when he replies to other posts. For some reason he seems to feel the need to always change the subject instead of just leaving "Re: whatever". Even when posting as AC! It's actually kind of strange that he hasn't learned to better impersonate multiple people after all this practice, IMO.

Re:Has "fail" written all over it

[macslas'hole]

Apple did just this with Mac OS X. When I run an old 68k app, it starts Classic and runs the 68k emulator there. I have Hellcats Over the Pacific [wikipedia.org]; it runs full screen and smooth even under Mac OS X, smoother than it ran on my Powerbook 140 [lowendmac.com].

Entire article is ridiculous uninformed bullshit

[DECS]

i Dev,

I read your article on Windows 7 and have to say it was dripping with problems. I'd like to hear your response to some of the things I noticed.

Blame the DoJ for Bad Engineering?
You neatly blamed the performance issues of Vista on the DoJ, saying that Microsoft "shifting more towards modular designs rather than the monolithic processes used in previous versions of Windows. This increased amount of componentization, while satisfying the DoJ and EU, also led to performance issues due to the increased number of libraries which comprise the operating system."

The DoJ didn't force any sort of modularization on Microsoft; it demanded the company not tie products representing new markets to its existing monopoly position in desktop OS software. The DoJ was supposed to be demanding a removal of the tying of IE from the core OS as an inseparable system component that users could not realistically replace with a competing product.

Oh Noes, Too Many Files!
And this sounds good, but is just wrong: "On traditional hard drives, the more separate files which the operating system has to load, the more seeking across the hard drive is required, and therefore overall performance takes a hit."

A default install of Mac OS X has tens of thousands of files. It does not have the performance problems of Vista, but has instead gotten faster with every release. Linux distributions have similar numbers of files to load, but run on simple hardware that even XP struggles to run on. Vista's performance isn't strangled by the number of files the DoJ forced Microsoft to use, but rather the poor engineering of Windows combined with legacy cruft Microsoft did a poor job of managing.

The fact that Microsoft jumped through loopholes to cram IE and WMP libraries into the core OS in order to argue that there was no way it could not tie those products together is not a problem caused by the DoJ, but by Microsoft's insatiable monopoly expansion tactics. Microsoft shot it self in the foot.

Backward compatibility
The comments on breaking backward compatibility are also a bit specious. Microsoft has always courted its existing customer base. Windows continues to maintain conventions from DOS, such as 70s era drive letters. That's there to be familiar to users stuck in the past. That's the user base Microsoft serves.

Apple courts an outside installed base of new users with products targeting the future. It drops old conventions as rapidly as possible. It even moved past traditional problems of Unix by inventing new mechanisms that are clean from the ground up, such as launchd. Even the Linux market is too conservative to adopt those types of aggressive, modernizing changes.

That's why Mac OS X could rapidly usher in new technologies, such as its groundbreaking display compositing engine with a fundamentally new graphics model from 2001. Microsoft couldn't copy that until Vista in 2007, and has ran into problems getting graphics vendors to support it properly, and getting it to perform decently, even on modern hardware. That can't be blamed on the DoJ.

Apple could migrate developers to Carbon from Mac OS 9 because Mac OS X offered both them and existing Mac customers major new features. What big feature gap will Windows 7 bridge for PC users? Vista didn't offer enough value to attract attention as a retail upgrade, and many users getting it installed on new computers are having it rolled back to the more familiar XP. What in Windows 7 will change that, less compatibility with existing apps?

Vista's DirectX was supposed to push gamers to the new platform, but has largely failed. Will Windows 7's limited backward compatibility serve gamers better? What about enterprise customers who are firmly suck in the past, and haven't embraced Vista at all? Are they going to jump on Windows 7 because it gets rid of backward support?

And how exactly will Windows 7 be a fresh break from the past if, as you say, Microsoft will be "offering new API frameworks as

Re:All Vapor.

[Richthofen80]

What was underdeveloped about .NET? .NET is a great sandbox for rapidly developing web and windows apps. It certainly not the be-all, end-all tool, and not every part of the Windows API is exposed to .NET yet, but its getting there. And you can get unmanaged Windows API calls if you care to write your own wrappers. (IntPtr is your friend!)

If you ask me, .NET was a win when MS needed it. All its other development platforms were always sort of a mystery, never really had a good roadmap, and never really made it quick and easy to get started. Plus ASP as a web framework was sorely lacking just as PHP was emerging. .NET I felt was a great thing to release; Certainely better than the Cocoa or Objective-C efforts on Mac and easier to learn than C++ programming on *nix

Re:Who cares? It's over.

[CrazeeCracker]

You can't put MS Windows on a Mac

Yes you can. [apple.com]

Re:Who cares? It's over.

[JohnBailey]

If a linux iTunes is such a show-stopper why hasn't someone written one?

Isn't that what OSS is all about? The author of a linux iTunes would have brimming tip jar.

Pretty simple answer really. Because it would have to interface with the Apple store and use Apple's DRM. Neither of which will happen in the near future. Apple would not allow it, and the developer would need Apple's permission to do so.