4 ms·

Ask HN: Is it time for Microsoft to start a new OS?

5 points by gtirloni 5y ago

PaulHoule 5y ago
No. Microsoft’s strength is backwards compatibility. If Microsoft broke that they face an uphill climb to get anyone to develop software for it.
LinuxBender 5y ago
No. The same developers and leaders will repeat the same patterns.
- allears 5y ago
  Exactly. MS certainly has the technical talent to create a great new clean-sheet design. But the company has never been about engineering excellence above all. Instead, they've used their considerable resources to corner the market, lock in their users, and try to monetize everything in sight. The only reason I stick with Windows is because of the vast ecosystem of applications. Without that, I'd switch to Linux in a heartbeat.
  - simonblack 5y ago
    The only reason I stick with Windows is because of the vast ecosystem of applications. Because I went from MSDOS to UNIX to Linux, never ever having used Windows as my day-to-day OS, I don't have that applications lock-in. What I've never had I never miss. I used to, back in the 90s, try to work out ways of using MS-Office under UNIX because of the ubiquitous .doc format that many documents I received were written in. Sun Microsystems had a system called WABI (Windows Applications Binary Interface) at one point back then. But I haven't bothered about Microsoft Office for decades.
    - linkdd 5y ago
      I went from 98 to XP to Linux. I stayed on Linux for more than 10 years, then I switched back to Windows 10. I was tired of having to configure my system, or fix the problems after each breaking update. Too much choice, kills the choice. Cross-compiling to Windows was a real pain, now on Windows with the WSL, it's just so easy. Also HyperV (for virtual machines) is just way more performant than KVM or VirtualBox. The only thing I would complain about Windows would be the occasional lag when doing Disk IO. Don't get me wrong, I still love Linux, and I am still grateful for the Open-Source community. But saying that the ecosystem of applications is good enough on Linux is a lie: - Gimp is nowhere near Photoshop for Graphic Designers - Cubase doesn't run on Linux, which is a widely used software for audio editing - The Adobe suite (After Effects, ...) for video editing is absent too on Linux - ... Yes there are free/open-source alternative, but they are never the standard in the work field. EDIT NB: Cubase works best on Mac
simonblack 5y ago
I keep suggesting to Softies that MSFT should 'do an Apple'. In other words, keep the Windows interface, but put it on top an open-source OS like BSD or Linux, just like Apple did decades ago. To maintain backwards capability with all the earlier Win32 stuff (etc), it would use an emulation interface that only needs to be written once, and used forever. That would free up hundreds (thousands?) of MSFT programmers to concentrate purely on the 'Windows' UX while leaving the underlying OS to be maintained by the open-source guys.
- linkdd 5y ago
  What about drivers for graphic/audio/etc... cards? The kernel architecture is drastically different, and many things would need rewriting. This could take years, even decades. Wine still does not emulate everything. The graphic stack (wayland/X.Org) is also completely different, this would require a complete rewrite of the Windows UI. Could also take years. I fail to see how your suggestion would be feasible.
  - simonblack 5y ago
    Drivers should be the domain of the manufacturers. If they can't write drivers, who can? Historically, they've only supplied drivers for MSFT and Apple. (Intellectual property - closed source drivers). If MSFT starts using (say) BSD as the underlying OS, you'll immediately see those drivers appear. The graphic stack (wayland/X.Org) is also completely different, this would require a complete rewrite of the Windows UI. Could also take years. Why should MSFT have to use the Wayland or X.org GUI system? They already have their own GUI system, just as Apple have their own GUI system. In the near-term, they would just need to write an interface layer between the the current GUI and (as above) the BSD underlying OS. Over time they would streamline the interface between their GUI and BSD, eventually getting rid of the interface layer altogether.
- sircastor 5y ago
  I don’t think we’ll ever see that, but it’s a fantastic idea. I’ve wonder what MS’ income is from Windows, and if it’s worth the effort.
mikewarot 5y ago
[Edit ooops, wrong OS] Are you suggesting a Singularity Subsystem for Windows? Microsoft could fairly easily support most of the existing Windows applications on top of almost any other OS, if they want to support capability based security, its mostly a matter of denying all file system access by default, and restricting it to only resources set up at install time, or via a PowerBox from the user. Desktop GUI programs just have to switch from calling a dialog, then using the result of that dialog to then open a file, and instead just take the handle from the PowerBox.
_448 5y ago
search the web for "Microsoft Research" and "Operating System", you will find the answer. I once worked for an OS company. It is difficult to replace the incumbent commercial OS with new OS because of the ecosystem around it. I once suggested internally at the company for a different graphics stack for the OS and the next day got quite interesting reply from a very top-level tech executive at the company :) Lot of people at the companies like Microsoft, Intel etc know they have to change, but it is like moving hundreds of hundred pound gorillas at once. So either they don't do it or it takes lot of time to change. Microsoft has been, by the industry standard, very successful at managing change.

5 points by gtirloni 5y ago

No. Microsoft’s strength is backwards compatibility. If Microsoft broke that they face an uphill climb to get anyone to develop software for it.

LinuxBender 5y ago

No. The same developers and leaders will repeat the same patterns.

allears 5y ago
Exactly. MS certainly has the technical talent to create a great new clean-sheet design. But the company has never been about engineering excellence above all. Instead, they've used their considerable resources to corner the market, lock in their users, and try to monetize everything in sight. The only reason I stick with Windows is because of the vast ecosystem of applications. Without that, I'd switch to Linux in a heartbeat.
- simonblack 5y ago
  The only reason I stick with Windows is because of the vast ecosystem of applications. Because I went from MSDOS to UNIX to Linux, never ever having used Windows as my day-to-day OS, I don't have that applications lock-in. What I've never had I never miss. I used to, back in the 90s, try to work out ways of using MS-Office under UNIX because of the ubiquitous .doc format that many documents I received were written in. Sun Microsystems had a system called WABI (Windows Applications Binary Interface) at one point back then. But I haven't bothered about Microsoft Office for decades.
  - linkdd 5y ago
    I went from 98 to XP to Linux. I stayed on Linux for more than 10 years, then I switched back to Windows 10. I was tired of having to configure my system, or fix the problems after each breaking update. Too much choice, kills the choice. Cross-compiling to Windows was a real pain, now on Windows with the WSL, it's just so easy. Also HyperV (for virtual machines) is just way more performant than KVM or VirtualBox. The only thing I would complain about Windows would be the occasional lag when doing Disk IO. Don't get me wrong, I still love Linux, and I am still grateful for the Open-Source community. But saying that the ecosystem of applications is good enough on Linux is a lie: - Gimp is nowhere near Photoshop for Graphic Designers - Cubase doesn't run on Linux, which is a widely used software for audio editing - The Adobe suite (After Effects, ...) for video editing is absent too on Linux - ... Yes there are free/open-source alternative, but they are never the standard in the work field. EDIT NB: Cubase works best on Mac

simonblack 5y ago

I keep suggesting to Softies that MSFT should 'do an Apple'. In other words, keep the Windows interface, but put it on top an open-source OS like BSD or Linux, just like Apple did decades ago. To maintain backwards capability with all the earlier Win32 stuff (etc), it would use an emulation interface that only needs to be written once, and used forever. That would free up hundreds (thousands?) of MSFT programmers to concentrate purely on the 'Windows' UX while leaving the underlying OS to be maintained by the open-source guys.

linkdd 5y ago
What about drivers for graphic/audio/etc... cards? The kernel architecture is drastically different, and many things would need rewriting. This could take years, even decades. Wine still does not emulate everything. The graphic stack (wayland/X.Org) is also completely different, this would require a complete rewrite of the Windows UI. Could also take years. I fail to see how your suggestion would be feasible.
- simonblack 5y ago
  Drivers should be the domain of the manufacturers. If they can't write drivers, who can? Historically, they've only supplied drivers for MSFT and Apple. (Intellectual property - closed source drivers). If MSFT starts using (say) BSD as the underlying OS, you'll immediately see those drivers appear. The graphic stack (wayland/X.Org) is also completely different, this would require a complete rewrite of the Windows UI. Could also take years. Why should MSFT have to use the Wayland or X.org GUI system? They already have their own GUI system, just as Apple have their own GUI system. In the near-term, they would just need to write an interface layer between the the current GUI and (as above) the BSD underlying OS. Over time they would streamline the interface between their GUI and BSD, eventually getting rid of the interface layer altogether.
sircastor 5y ago
I don’t think we’ll ever see that, but it’s a fantastic idea. I’ve wonder what MS’ income is from Windows, and if it’s worth the effort.

mikewarot 5y ago

[Edit ooops, wrong OS] Are you suggesting a Singularity Subsystem for Windows? Microsoft could fairly easily support most of the existing Windows applications on top of almost any other OS, if they want to support capability based security, its mostly a matter of denying all file system access by default, and restricting it to only resources set up at install time, or via a PowerBox from the user. Desktop GUI programs just have to switch from calling a dialog, then using the result of that dialog to then open a file, and instead just take the handle from the PowerBox.

_448 5y ago

search the web for "Microsoft Research" and "Operating System", you will find the answer. I once worked for an OS company. It is difficult to replace the incumbent commercial OS with new OS because of the ecosystem around it. I once suggested internally at the company for a different graphics stack for the OS and the next day got quite interesting reply from a very top-level tech executive at the company :) Lot of people at the companies like Microsoft, Intel etc know they have to change, but it is like moving hundreds of hundred pound gorillas at once. So either they don't do it or it takes lot of time to change. Microsoft has been, by the industry standard, very successful at managing change.