3 ms·

Why Windows Software Could Use a Rush of Fresh Air

3 points by nickb 18y ago

pavelludiq 18y ago
Is it possible that after the incredible disasters that windows 7 will be, Microsoft engineers a new OS with an UNIX kernel and a proprietary layer on top of it? Just a thought.
Lagged2Death 18y ago
The best solution is ... starting over? Really? Because Microsoft actually did that at least once, and this writer apparently missed it. They called it Windows NT. Windows Vista isn't version 12, it's NT 6.0. (Open a command prompt and see.) Which is why the next version is called Windows 7. The author actually suggests that MS should write a new OS and run old code on some sort of VM or compatibility layer, apparently entirely unaware that every modern Windows PC already does pretty much exactly that. Love it or hate it, Microsoft's devotion to backward compatibility is a big part of what got it where it is now. There are upsides and downsides to everything. I don't even like Microsoft. But the insanity that gets hurled its way is ridiculous.
morisy 18y ago
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, I think the article has some serious flaws while making some great, fundamental points. The biggest flaw? Stealing an underdog's strategy when you're not the underdog just doesn't make sense. Mac had almost no enterprise (outside of a few verticals) deployments when they decided to scrap it all and go for broke. Their customers were used to having to upgrade software (think Adobe, sound editing programs, Quark) every few years anyways, and they had those companies buy-in for the upgrade. Contrast that to Windows where if they did, as the author suggests, start over from scratch, that would provide a HUGE opening to Mac and Linux. They would essentially be giving up their dominant market advantage. And for what? Have they been hurting some? Sure. Vista's reception, while not a total disaster, has been lackluster at best, but their growth in other areas (home consoles, media centers) is strong, and their enterprise play is still a near strangle-hold (sure, you got a few oddballs running Mac, but very few enterprise grade deployments, where the real money in licensing and support is). Why would they give all that up to copy-cat (and probably a poorer copy cat) their competitors' strategies?

3 points by nickb 18y ago

Is it possible that after the incredible disasters that windows 7 will be, Microsoft engineers a new OS with an UNIX kernel and a proprietary layer on top of it? Just a thought.

Lagged2Death 18y ago

The best solution is ... starting over? Really? Because Microsoft actually did that at least once, and this writer apparently missed it. They called it Windows NT. Windows Vista isn't version 12, it's NT 6.0. (Open a command prompt and see.) Which is why the next version is called Windows 7. The author actually suggests that MS should write a new OS and run old code on some sort of VM or compatibility layer, apparently entirely unaware that every modern Windows PC already does pretty much exactly that. Love it or hate it, Microsoft's devotion to backward compatibility is a big part of what got it where it is now. There are upsides and downsides to everything. I don't even like Microsoft. But the insanity that gets hurled its way is ridiculous.

morisy 18y ago

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, I think the article has some serious flaws while making some great, fundamental points. The biggest flaw? Stealing an underdog's strategy when you're not the underdog just doesn't make sense. Mac had almost no enterprise (outside of a few verticals) deployments when they decided to scrap it all and go for broke. Their customers were used to having to upgrade software (think Adobe, sound editing programs, Quark) every few years anyways, and they had those companies buy-in for the upgrade. Contrast that to Windows where if they did, as the author suggests, start over from scratch, that would provide a HUGE opening to Mac and Linux. They would essentially be giving up their dominant market advantage. And for what? Have they been hurting some? Sure. Vista's reception, while not a total disaster, has been lackluster at best, but their growth in other areas (home consoles, media centers) is strong, and their enterprise play is still a near strangle-hold (sure, you got a few oddballs running Mac, but very few enterprise grade deployments, where the real money in licensing and support is). Why would they give all that up to copy-cat (and probably a poorer copy cat) their competitors' strategies?