How Microsoft Plans To Get Its Groove Back With Win7 612
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."
Has "fail" written all over it (Score:4, Insightful)
They just keep... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just be patient, folks (Score:5, Insightful)
So, this is the new Longhorn (Score:5, Insightful)
Same tune.
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they could just keep XP and save some cash (Score:3, Insightful)
Drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to remember Vista was supposed to be a huge departure from what was done before - and then reality hit.
The mistake they are making (will make) is that that they think their software is what is broken - when in fact the software is just a representation of the business model they have chosen. Their system design is market driven not engineering driven - and whatever they produce from this point on will be the same as all the others. Windows, OSX, Linux, Unix etc are all products of the ethos in the organizations in which they are created.
If the mould is defective, there's no point is making a second one in the hope that it will turn out differently.
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:4, Insightful)
Were it not the fact that they (eventually) got something to stumble out of the door, that honour would fall to Vista.
The idea that Microsoft are really going to rip it all up and start again, with a company as profoundly conservative as they are, seems unlikely to me.
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:2, Insightful)
They're far, far stupider. They're going to run them in a virtual machine.
People already complain about how Vista is half as fast as XP (which is being generous). Imagine how much slower Windows 7 will be, when all your existing software is being run in a virtual machine.
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I suspect that I'm the minority even there. Most people just want a current version of word, internet explorer, itunes, and maybe something to touch-up their photos.
What they REALLY want is a way to transfer to the new computer painlessly.
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, MS bought VirtualPC, and has been giving it away for free. Integration of the OS with VirtualPC would be pretty easy for MS to do. I've been waiting for it for a long time.
Customers win because they now have an OS that's not crap. Developers win because they just re-code the UI and sell a new version. And hopefully they have better UI libraries to do it with. MS wins because Windows7 isn't a joke.
Let's just hope that this doesn't get the same treatment that WinFS did. I'd rather they not under-promise and over-deliver, but that doesn't seem to be the microsoft way.
Poor article (Score:5, Insightful)
For once, I'd say just read the article summary
Seriously, Copy Apple Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Move to new technology, but provide a compatibility layer so legacy apps still work, even if they are in some sort of emulated environment?
The new hardware people will be using with the new system will be fast enough that even an emulated environment will be as fast (or faster) then their previous machine.
With the virtualization technologies available today this should be even easier to do then, say, Apple's transition from 68xxx chips to PowerPC chips, or PowerPC chips to Intel, or OS 9 to OS X.
Were they all seamless transitions? No. But they were arguably better then then the transition from XP -> Vista has been so far.
Microsoft seems to want to either take the course of backwards compatibility at the expense of progress, or progress at the expense of backwards compatibility.
Why not go for the best of both worlds through emulation/virtualization?
This reads like a 7th grader's English paper (Score:4, Insightful)
"In the face of the mass-media criticism of Windows Vista, mainly with regards to the performance issues present when compared to Windows XP on hardware with similar specifications. However, very little information has been presented with regards to the performance of Windows 7, this article however shall change that."
All Vapor. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is always promising the next Windows will be built new from the ground up so not much is really new this time. The only difference here is the promise to break backward compatibility. Thebetaguy contradicts himself about that by having the balls to promise, "This should allow the majority of legacy applications to run perfectly," while Vista provided less than 60% of the same.
There are lots of other contradictions because thebetaguy does not really want to admit several things and he's angry about the few he's given in to. The Microsoft way of doing things was inadequate, but the change is blamed on legal challenges that competitors strangely don't have. He cites some of Vista's insane processes but fails to mention digital restrictions or the last minute elimination of XP drivers as reasons for poor performance. It's funny to watch a fanboy admit Microsoft is following Apple, but it would be nice for him to also admit that Apple followed free software and Unix practices.
Like I said, there's not much to this article. It's mostly a fanboy making excuses and casting blame for the failure of his favorite operating system. No real details have been announced and the game plan will, as usual, change before release - a sure sign that there's nothing really open about the "new" Microsoft. They are going to keep their secrets and continue to mess with anyone who's got any revenue potential.
Re:I love the lack of understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course Vista was supposed to be this great OS with modulazation, a real command line, a fancy database file system, that ran older windows apps in a fancy VM(Virtual PC anyone?).
MSFT broke those promises, Windows 7 will have lots of hope but it too will fail. MSFt management is stuck in a rut and that won't change until all the managers do.
Re:Seriously, Copy Apple Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Two articles within one (Score:4, Insightful)
The second part of the article is telling us the real problem Microsoft is facing. Code bloat. Dll hell. They have decided that they canÂt hold it any longer and they are going to start from scratch and run the old windows apps on a virtual machine for backwards compatibility.
There is a third part that is missing in the article. Most people around here suspects that some of VistaÂs performance problems, specifically on the the multimedia department are caused by the interference of DRM code. Is Microsoft removing all this code from Windows 7?
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:2, Insightful)
As a personal consumer, you're right, I don't care much. So long as my personal stuff comes across cleanly, I'm happy.
As a IT Professional, I have to be concerned about maintaining the legacy applications my company has been running since 1988. If the new version of Windows will make that more difficult, I will be less likely to recommend following the upgrade path.
Business purchases drive MS's profit for OS's, not home computers. If Business fails to adopt, it's over.
TFA is just a troll.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 early builds was already demoed and there's no evidence that it will be backward-compatible.
Also WinSxS (side-by-side dlls) is what windows xp uses to maintain different versions of runtimes from the start and obviously it has little to do with OS speed.
While reading this article the only thought prevailed - wtf author is smoking. Complete rubbish.
Re:All Vapor. (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is one key aspect of the X story that has to be remembered: Apple was effectively a dead platform with a small user base. The vast majority of active Mac users today are new to the platform, or on a new-ish machine. There was little to no installed base to lose.
To think that Windows can pull off the same stunt strikes me as ridiculous. There is hope, surely, in the rapid rollout of ever-better virtualization systems, and API mappers (like WINE). But does anyone really think that the MASSIVE FREAKING installed base of Windows can afford a semi-solution like Classic while new versions of their software ships?
Case in point: I looked into the
Hey, maybe they'll pull off a miracle and make a compatibility layer that totally kicks ass. You know, like the new Office kicks ass.
Maury
Am I supposed to take this guy seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
No numbers. No estimations. Just some hand waving of "they are doing something different". The article doesn't change that fact at all.
Because OS X and Linux aren't de facto monopolies with 80%+ of the market.
Yes, because loading 1 MB of code as part of one executable is vastly faster than loading it as 1 MB of library. This is especially true when loading 10+ different executables that have the same code statically linked in. That is way faster than loading it once. More efficient too.
No, wait...
Besides, that code (such as MSHTML.DLL) was already an external library. Just about every operating system tends to get new libraries with major upgrades. Windows was not one monolithic executable before. Heck, it wasn't way back in the 3.11 days.
That has not always been the lure. The lure was it was pretty and not a DOS prompt. Then the lure was simply that there were more programs for it when it became dominant. But then again, Leopard runs programs designed for Tiger and before. OS 9 ran programs designed for OS 7. Just about every OS does that, including many UNIXes.
You've GOT to be kidding. "Proven" for OS 9? It didn't have memory protection. It didn't have preemptive multitasking. Heck, you still had to pre-allocate memory to programs at launch, didn't you? It was a fine OS design for 1992. It didn't work so well in 2000. It was a weight around Apple's neck and would have killed them if they didn't try to escape. It needed to updated, and previous projects had failed. A clean break was a very smart decision.
This is somewhat true, (quite on the laptop side later in life with the G4s), but it's also highly troll. "...in order to obtain the hardware-locked user experience of their new flagship operating system"? That's unnecessary.
It's not like anyone had ever thought of that before. If only Windows had a virtual environment in it. Maybe since 95. It could have run old DOS programs. Oh, wait, it did. Then there was WoW, Windows on Windows, that let 95 and up run old Win16 programs. Emulating older stuff is a common way of handling it.
Re:Those who think in operating system... (Score:4, Insightful)
What Microsoft is doing here is a bold move. We all benefit if it pays off with an improved product.
Who cares? It's over. (Score:1, Insightful)
We can sit and arm chair direct Microsoft in to all sorts of fun things, but why bother when we could just pick up some free software codebase and do better for ourselves? Hopefully hardware makers will start thinking like this rather than going down whatever SDK path Microsoft tries to sell them next.
With this announcement of total backwards break, Microsoft has declared complete defeat for their business model. It would be nicer if they would fly the white flag and be good sports about it. The free software community will welcome them if they just GPL their code and act nice. Hell, XP would survive longer than 2010 if they GPL'd it because the community could really make what they want. They don't seem ready to do that, so they can sink for all I care.
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Windows 7 is coming from a company that has not displayed itself as capable of meaningful innovation at the core of the platform for a while now. They promise doing things 'different' and claim it will be 'better', but they had the same thoughts and promises regarding a lot of the aspects of Vista that blew up in their face. They *thought* file copying would be faster, and quite the opposite happened because they mischaracterized a rare corner-case as being overly important. They again with Windows 7 claim multithreading will be faster, because they ditch ring 0 stuff, but who knows what the state of new hardware will bring to make perceived benefit evaporate and who knows what pain will happen. Will Windows 7 be any better than XP/Vista for the end-user, probably not. Will a compatibility layer be glitchy, with their history, probably so. Will Wine at that point be solid enough for most people to make the Linux platform of the day roughly comparable with Windows 7? Possibly.
Hardware vendors should want Linux (making a commodity of the software stack means healthier margins), businesses should want Linux (a level playing field means your software vendor can't aggravate you even a little bit without reprisal, MS can piss off customers and not sweat it). Software development companies should like Linux, they can't ask for a more transparent set of APIs. Home users probably in general don't care, except for the market of ~100 dollar systems that are made possible by lack of MS tax. It seems the market is ripe to take a big 'screw you' like this and jump ship given the frustration anyway..
What is this bullshit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I love the lack of understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:4, Insightful)
Example: Microsoft has better system APIs than does Apple. For an application on a Mac (with an Apple library), your choices are pretty much either Carbon or Cocoa. Cocoa only works with Objective-C code (see the recent article about them having to port Photoshop from C++ to Objective-C. This should not every happen). But Apple has chosen to make Carbon not available for 64-bit apps. Microsoft provides the C API, a C++ wrapper, and the
Microsoft has the ability to make a platform that's much more friendly to developers and users alike. They have the ability to make a secure platform, and to address flaws that have existed in the design since its inception. If the seize the opportunity and truly redesign their system, they have the ability to beat Apple at this, and also to make a platform that is appealing to Linux users. If Microsoft produces a good operating system that is useable, good to develop on, and not overly costly, I will likely dual boot because I would like it. Apple would have to fundamentally overhaul their business methods before I would enjoy using a Mac (disclaimer: I do not use many of the things that are advertised for Macs on any platform. I use the command-line almost exclusively).
Microsoft is currently experiencing a powerful internal conflict between the status quo and new technologies. People deride them for making attempts like OOXML and the open source covenants because they don't mean anything, but I don't think that's it. Many of the newer and younger programmers, developers, and researchers have used or contributed to open source. The traditional corporate hierarchy, though (read: Ballmer), have their own opinions. So we get compromises that look like half-hearted attempts at embracing new technologies. Microsoft will soon have to swing one way, and I desperately hope that it will be towards openness. IBM knows how to unite a proprietary business with an open perspective. Apple is a bit unsure, but thinks they do. Microsoft doesn't, but wants to. If they actually figure it out, they will regain their position of superiority.
Re:They just keep... (Score:2, Insightful)
I just flat-out don't believe Microsoft. Little of what they hype up actually gets released in the form in which it was originally described, if at all.
The article is a bit silly anyway, claiming it was antitrust issues that "forced" Microsoft to make Vista modular which somehow slowed it down due to the "increased number of libraries that comprise the system." The article reminds me of Paul Thurrott, another Windows cheerleader who doesn't really grasp the technical details of what he writes about. For example, it says the next version of Windows will break compatibility by using new APIs, but then it says all the previous APIs will still be provided anyway.
Going through the article, there's not actually anything interesting in the article. It just says Microsoft will provide new APIs...that's all the new info there is.
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:over ambitious (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two articles within one (Score:4, Insightful)
The first problem was Microsoft using bundling as a way to force Netscape out of the market. They tied IE to the OS after already getting sued (and losing) for using monopoly power in the market to influence hardware vendors (by giving drastically cheaper rates for exclusive contracts that forced competitors out). Part of that agreement was that they couldn't force bundling of products they own, either (which was mostly MS-SQL databases and MS Office).
So they were already being blocked from releasing competing products and what do they do as an encore? Release a media player. The only reason this was a problem was it was in their anti-trust agreement that they wouldn't do it.
To be honest, I don't have a problem with them releasing a media player or a browser - it was the tie to the OS that bugged me. This tie will finally be removed with Win7.
I seriously doubt DRM code is causing Vista slowness - why would that have an effect on game performance? Maybe when sound files are loaded, but general performance is slower. I suspect it's partially tied to resource issues, especially when Aero is used (Aero uses hardware resources) and partially due to insufficient profiling of code in a rush to shove it out to market. Remember Vista was a hack - it was meant for Win7 (probably even with the VM model described) and they pulled it off the top and grafted chunks of it onto Windows 2003. That's probably also the main reason WinFS support was dropped (if there's any feature I want in Win7 it's WinFS - a metadata supporting filesystem - finally).
Re:Listen to Twitter, AC, it will do all of us goo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you insane? The native c api for win32 is about the worst api ever designed, and absolutely the worst api that is still in use.
And the c++ wrapper(I asume you mean MFC) is a hack job too. Even microsoft have admitted that. And MFC is not at all a part of windows, it is a part of "visual studio", which is not part of windows. Hint: You can't make an application that static link with mfc and which are compiled with a port of gcc.
Microsoft should just buy a full license for QT4 from trolltech, and declare that QT4.4 + whatever extra microsoft need is not the new standard for gui development for windows. (Microsoft would still be required to rewrite the part of win32 that is not cowered by QT).
Re:All Vapor. (Score:2, Insightful)
Installing and using is believing, and things else is wishful nonsense.
Um, did ANYONE read the article? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So, this is the new Longhorn (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of it another way - Lucy pulling the football out of the way every time is funny because we know, in real life, Charlie Brown would have told her to fuck off already.
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no good answer for Visual Studio + MSDN in the Linux community yet (mono is on the right path, but they are only just out of beta now) and that is one of the primary reasons that I and many other
Re:Who cares? It's over. (Score:2, Insightful)
With this announcement of total backwards break, Microsoft has declared complete defeat for their business model. It would be nicer if they would fly the white flag and be good sports about it. The free software community will welcome them if they just GPL their code and act nice.
Re:Who cares? It's over. (Score:5, Insightful)
With this announcement of total backwards break, Microsoft has declared complete defeat for their business model.
We're to the point now where processors are fast enough now to handle VM's. Let VM's handle the backwards compatibility, translating old code for newer uP/uC code.
I, too, would like to see Microsoft's practices of messing with their user base to satisfy their customer base stopped. But for the sake of competition, I don't think Microsoft sinking is a good option, either.
(I would also like to say it's the year of the penguin, and signs are showing that people are fleeing MS Windows... they just also happen to be fleeing the WIntel world, too, towards Macintosh.
the ol' "Windows Next" is going to the messiah (Score:3, Insightful)
See also Sony Playstation for another example of the same "marketing strategy".
Re:Has "succeed" written all over it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what I've been suggesting for some time now -- a modular version of Windows (consisting of core OS, drivers, networking, and a basic browser suitable for downloading a better browser with) where I can install as much or as little of it as I wish, and a VM to run my old shit that won't work with this new modular Windows.
Also, it's a great razor-and-blades marketing opportunity for M$: make the core OS cheap or even free, and charge for various levels of "Plus Packs" suitable for people who WANT a monolithic software experience.
The big OEMs can make hay from that too -- basic machines with the core OS only would be cheap, while "complete solutions" (with all the Plus Packs) would be proportionally more expensive. And I'm sure the OEMs could make a good enough deal with M$ for bulk licenses that they could make a hefty profit -- exactly as they do now with preinstalled software.
If M$ were to include VMs for both WinXP and Win98-atop-DOS, everything would be covered, including old games (maybe even DOS games!), old apps, old installers, old drivers...
Also, there is some security imposed by running potentially vulnerable OSs/apps in a VM, if only because it's harder for malware to reach. A few malicious apps can "jump across" into a VM, but most can't.
Also, at a guess the new core OS will be more UNIX-like or even *NIX-based, which ought to make y'all happy.... after all hasn't "*NIX is better" been the mantra around here since forever??
Cairo all over again (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just like Microsoft's ill fated Cairo OS. It will never happen. The only way I'll believe that MS will actually succeed in creating a successful OS is if they throw out their old OS completely and start again from scratch. This is exactly what Apple did, and it led to an extremely stable and secure new system. The legacy systems can be supported by some sort of VM, again, just like Apple did when it went from OS9 to OSX. The future increases in computing power will negate any drops in performance in legacy programs.
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Netscape Thing is a giveaway. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Apple isn't taking huge chunks of market share away from Microsoft, I don't believe it's too late to do anything. That's what's great about being a near monopoly, you can take your time and drag your feet.
Re:So, this is the new Longhorn (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 2003 R2 however, you have to choose ahead of time whether you want 64-bit or 32-bit. Then, if you choose 64-bit, 32-bit applications get dynamically recompiled at runtime, 32-bit apps get installed to a different path, some registry keys are written to custom redirected locations, applications that use regkeys can break because they don't know that Windows redirected them, and so on and so forth. So if you want to run 32-bit apps, your still better off running 32-bit Windows. This is why support for 64-bit is so lackluster, even though the product has been out for years. No one is rewriting the apps for 64-bit support. I have a GIS app running on 64-bit windows, which was the biggest mistake I've made lately. It's now running with IIS in 32-bit mode, with 32-bit Tomcat because 64-bit support was so bad.
As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft isn't a technology company. They don't seem to be driven by technical prowess, a la HP when engineers ran things, or google now. They are a marketing firm that employs programmers.
Re:Microsoft's answer to code bloat - bigger DLLs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, it's worse than that. In a few years Apple could be selling a cheap iPhone for $150 that's more than twice as powerful as today's model. It'll probably support an external monitor and wireless keyboard, via a little docking cradle. It'll have 160+ GB of internal storage, and the ability to connect to your network storage, at home or at work.
So why buy a "PC" at all? If you're a company, just outfit your employees with iPhones and wireless headsets. They dock them when at their desks, use a keyboard and full-sized monitor, then take their relevant data (and their work) with them wherever they go. If you're a consumer, why buy a "PC" when you can just use your phone? Apple could sell portable docking cradles with a built-in monitor, keyboard and a big battery. Instant "laptop".
The future belongs to companies that control both the hardware and the software. It'll be the only way to have the kind of product control it'll take to lure consumers and business to your platform, and it's also gonna be the only way to earn the margins it'll take to survive. I don't want to say MS is doomed, but I think they're gonna be pushed into the server and application space by this development. Sorta like what happened to IBM over the course of the PC revolution.
Re:The Netscape Thing is a giveaway. (Score:3, Insightful)
Far far better to refactor particularly bad code and restructure at higher levels. Takes less time, advances the product, and has a far better chance of actually being completed.
Re:GPL'ed Windows XP clone ReactOS (Score:3, Insightful)
It opens the door for alternatives like Linux to suddenly seem a lot more attractive. Remember, we're talking 2010 (2012 at best, realistically). That's 4 years. Ubuntu/Gnome/KDE/etc. will be a lot more polished by then. New technologies may conquer the desktop in the meantime (Adobe for instance is moving in strongly with AIR, Mozilla with Weave and XULRunner etc.)
I'm afraid that this move comes late. Vista is a detour that should have never been taken. It ate precious time at a very sensitive moment in IT evolution. It may come to be remembered as the second Windows ME (although arguably doesn't have the stability issues that plagued ME).
Re:Has "fail" written all over it (Score:3, Insightful)
There's your problem. You assume it's "your" operating system running on "your" computer. By installing Windows you are agreeing to let Microsoft decide how your computer gets used (i.e., it becomes, essentially, their computer), and they want most of it for themselves, and the media companies. Windows is all about serving Microsoft's wants and needs and none about yours. The only thing that matters about users is that they pay.
Is this article a joke? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is apparently immune from such criticism? Linux's total lack of an integrated media player, must be awfully subtle for it to merely be "apparent." A Toyota Corolla apparently doesn't have 7 wheels (but we're not quite sure, huh?).
Just how many thousands of libraries does the average application load? If you can actually perceive this load time on modern hardware, it must be an awful lot. And I guess they haven't learned the trick of .. oh, I don't know .. leaving libraries in memory until there's a memory crunch. Is this guy running Vista on 386SX with only 2 megabytes of RAM and a hopelessly fragmented 40ms drive?
Actually, I think the anti-Microsoft naysayers will say, "It's about time; you're only a decade or three behind the common everyday practices of every other computer programmer in the history of civilization."
Re:Who cares? It's over. (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole reason why I have stuck with Microsoft for this long (as well as many other people), is that apps I use aren't compatible with other OS's. If I could have iTunes for Linux, my wife would let me switch at home. Why doesn't Apple provide it? Because Linux doesn't have the marketshare. Why doesn't it have the marketshare? Because there aren't enough of everyone's favorite apps.
How much of the corporate reluctance to migrate to Vista is because of incompatibility with current apps? Some people are still running Windows 2000 to support old apps that were never updated to be compatible with XP, muchless Vista.
I understand that MS would have reasons to want to "cleanse" itself, but doing so would make them lose the one major advantage they have over Linux. If software companies have to re-write every app to work with Win7, why even bother with it? Who would use Win7, since all the apps are broken? Why not just write for Linux or Mac? The Apple market may always stay relatively small because of the price and the limited number of PC configurations, but Linux doesn't have either of those issues.
Linux has been in a tough spot for years because its marketshare is tiny next to Windows. But with no functional applications, Win7 would be starting over on marketshare, with no good reasons for anyone to buy into the new OS. Apple was able to start over with OS X because there was a relatively small number of users, who are fiercely loyal, and the change enabled them to get more users. I don't think MS can risk pissing off 90%+ of all computer users. Their biggest problem is that they could lose users, and breaking backwards compatibility can only increase the probability.
I'm sure they'll have some type of virtualization-enabled "Classic Mode", but you can do that from other operating systems as well, and if we have 2 years to prepare for it, Apple and the Linux community can have solutions that are just as elegant (or more so) than what Microsoft will cobble together, because whatever solution MS provides will most likely be an afterthought, since it's just a stop-gap solution until all the developers move over to Win7... if they ever do.
Re:All Vapor. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yawn.
Microsoft will, most likely, bow to the demands of their customer base and not break backwards compatibility. They'll release another half-done operating system that's a major drop in performance over the last version but has a few new bells and whistles bolted on to make it look like it's not a total failure.
Re:GPL'ed Windows XP clone ReactOS (Score:3, Insightful)
How come other every other OS vendor can build on a perfectly good codebase (Unix) and not wind up with a fragmented, unsupportable mess which requires tricks like WinSxS?
OK, it sucks to be an application vendor and have to recompile your application when the new OS comes out - but testing under the new OS has been necessary with every new OS release on every platform in the whole of history.
Re:So, this is the new Longhorn (Score:3, Insightful)
Before Windows 95 was released, IBM had already released OS/2 Warp. It was 32-bit, could run legacy DOS and Windows (16-bit) apps, had a GUI, did multitasking, etc. etc. People could have used OS/2 (by the way, that's IBM OS/2, rather than Microsoft OS/2, which later became Windows NT). But they didn't. Everyone was waiting for the All Glorious Windows 95, which would soon be there, and which would be the best thing since sliced bread. Nay, better than that. It would be better than sliced bread!
Then Windows 95 was released. It was a memory hog. It crashed all the time. It wasn't compatible with lots of existing hardware (in all honesty, I think that went for OS/2, too).
Ever since then, Microsoft's operating system releases have been "not as good as people expected, but the concerns will be addressed in the next release". The conventional wisdom became not to upgrade to a new Microsoft OS immediately, but wait for the first service pack. Leading up to every OS release, there has been a huge media circus. Remember the Windows 98 that crashed while Bill Gates was showing it to the world? Media circus.
Windows Vista was no different. For years before the release, the Internet had been abuzz with stories about the exciting new features that would be in Vista (most of those never made it in, by the way). In the days leading up to the release, the media were going absolutely nuts. _Every_ newspaper and _every_ TV channel I saw at the time devoted a lot of attention to the upcoming Windows version.
And then it was released. And the reports started pouring in. Amid all the negativity, I managed to notice that, at least, the new Aero interface was very pretty. But I know of nobody who wants to get Vista. People are either apathic or want to stay away from it as far as they can. Vista is a fiasco.
I really wonder where people are going to go next. Upgrade to Vista when support for XP finally runs out? Or decide it's time to get out of the threadmill and try an OS from a different organization? Or perhaps Microsoft will play it's favorite trick again...pour out a torrent of magic dust that has everybody holding their breath for the _next_ Microsoft OS, which is going to be the best thing since Windows 95...nay, better!
Re:Should have done what? What a backstab! (Score:3, Insightful)
Will they really do what Apple did and help themselves to a new round of BSD injections or are they just going to shuffle their own cards into new piles?
God, I hope not. The world doesn't need another UNIX.
Please don't try to blame those "lazy" "third party" developers again.
What ? Upwards of 90% of Windows's "problems" are directly attributable to third party code.
The only explanations for Vista's lack of backward compatibility are incompetence or malice.
There are few products that have better backwards compatibility than Vista.
You have to be off your rocker if you think that Microsoft does not view the ability to run legacy applications as a competitive threat.
The level of delusion necessary to look at Microsoft's history and come to this conclusion is truly staggering.
Re:GPL'ed Windows XP clone ReactOS (Score:3, Insightful)