60% Of Windows Vista Code To Be Rewritten

Alien54 writes "Up to 60% of the code in the new consumer version of Microsoft new Vista operating system is set to be rewritten as the Company "scrambles" to fix internal problems, according to this report. In an effort to meet a deadline of the 2007 CES show in Las Vegas Microsoft has pulled programmers from the highly succesful Xbox team to help resolve many problems associated with entertainment and media centre functionality inside the OS. Much more at the link."

Comments

Please Don't Interpret this Incorrectly

[eldavojohn]

Ok, we all know how the majority of Slashdot feels about Microsoft. It's not a positive feeling. I myself don't like them.

But please don't use this 60% figure as proof that Vista will suck. Because it doesn't necessarily mean that.

Once again, we have the Slashdot spin to deal with:

Up to 60% of the code in the new consumer version of Microsoft new Vista operating system is set to be rewritten as the Company "scrambles" to fix internal problems, according to this report.

Scrambling to fix problems? If they're saying their release date is sometime in 2007, I don't think they need to scramble. They actually seem pretty lax about when this is going to be released. Hell, I heard about Longhorn years ago and they sure haven't been "scrambling" to do anything with that. Stop making it sound like Microsoft is running around with their heads cut off. Because I highly doubt it.

I interpret this to mean that Microsoft is stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility. They have identified so many problems that it needs major revision and good for them.

Do you remember Windows 98, first edition? Do remember how much better second edition was? I do. Why the hell they didn't just wait on the release is simple. Money.

They could release Vista prematurely but now we wait until 2007. And if you hate Windows, like I do, why do you care? We're still going to be using Linux anyways.

So please, look at this move as a gesture to try and release a quality product and not slop out some POS OS that they are only releasing for the sake of income.

Re:Please Don't Interpret this Incorrectly

[spaztik]

I'd rather they wait and get it right before releasing Vista rather than going through the excruciating process of installing security updates/service packs/second editions on a hastily released product. Or even better yet, having to go out and spend money on security software to fix the holes that shouldn't exist in the first place. Please get this one right Microsoft.

Re:Please Don't Interpret this Incorrectly

[TheRealBurKaZoiD]

I agree with you mostly, but I swear I remember reading an article a couple of years ago where Allchin (sp?) commented that Vista was a from-scratch complete re-write of the OS, that they didn't port anything over. Of course I could be mistaken, but it just sounds really weird to remember that, and now the talk of a major re-write. 10%, 25%, 50%; does it really matter how much of a re-write it is? At 50+ million lines of code that's no small re-write. And I assume everyone here on /. has at the very least worked on small to medium-sized project development teams. You all know the difficulties and politics in teams of that size. Can you imagine the cluster-fuck in coordinating development using literally hundreds and hundreds of programmer?

Personally, I really don't care when it comes out. I waited until sp2 to jump on the xp bandwagon anyway, and I typically wait a couple of years before adopting a new operating system, just to let the bugs shake out.

Re:Please Don't Interpret this Incorrectly

[bperkins]

I don't think they need to scramble.

Are you kidding?

Let's put aside the possibity that the 60% figure is probably total hogwash, because that's not what you're arguing.

Rewriting over half the code of a project that you've spent years working on and are supposed to release in about a year is a desperate situation. It's not possible to acomplish. If they said they had to rewrite 10% of the code, I'd say they were in a bad situation, since that last 10% of the code often takes the most time.

I don't believe the 60% figure, because if it were true, the project leaders would be looking for new jobs already.

Re:Please Don't Interpret this Incorrectly

[AeroIllini]

From what I can tell, they're removing some of the suck, and a few incremental improvements, what motivates me as a consumer to want it?

The truly sad part is that it doesn't matter, because they're going to sell millions of units anyway. Every single new Dell sold in 2008+, and every computer at companies that uses Windows desktops (which is almost all of them) is going to have Vista installed on them, and Microsoft is going to be paid for every one of those copies.

Just because no one will go out and purchase a $400 upgrade from a Best Buy shelf doesn't mean Microsoft isn't going to sell any. They have a captive audience. For the majority of the world, Microsoft Windows is inseparable from the computer. (I realise this sentiment is not true on Slashdot, but the people who read this site are of a slightly different breed.) Telling people they can buy a computer without an operating system, and that they can install their own, is like telling people they can go buy a car without an engine, and then download a free one from the internet. Even if it's technically possible, it doesn't even occur to them. And as for MacOSX: most people who buy Dells are looking for the equivalent of a Honda Civic. A Mac is like buying a BMW.

And keep in mind that we (of the Slashdot kind) have been beating into people for years the need to keep their Windows machines all patched and updated. Well, isn't Vista just an update? Of course they will upgrade; their data needs to be protected from the evil identity thieves and hackers lurking in the intarweb!

In short, Vista will be everywhere as soon as Microsoft releases it, whether it's better than XP or not. And they're going to make a bundle.

Re:Please Don't Interpret this Incorrectly

[boingo82]

It's Slashdot spin, because people read the "up to 60%" and they hear "60%".

In fact, you'll notice the submitter and/or editors did exactly that - they took the "up to 60%" in the article, and changed it to "60%" in the headline.

In fact, "up to" means any number equal to or smaller than. So the actual amount of code rewritten could be 0%. It would also be accurate to say that the code is being rewritten entirely "up to 9 times", because that "up to" would include scenarios where the code was not re-written at all.

It's spin, plain as day.

60%?

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

I've scanned TFA an ungodly three times: “60%” occurs in the title and summary, but nowhere else; can anyone divine its provenance? I'd wager it hails from the statistical nether-æther of sensationalist journalism.

That said, I think there's trouble brewing for any company that chants “innovation” like some apotropaïc mantra: you have it or you don't (and it tends to go hand in hand with testosterone).

The Mythical Man Month.

[khasim]

A good book and it discusses how adding MORE programmers to a task means the project will take LONGER to complete.

So, adding more programmers to a late project, and not slipping the date even more to account for them, [b]probably[/b] means that the final result [b]will[/b] suck.

Re:The Mythical Man Month.

[SeeMyNuts!]

In any given project there are just so many parallel tasks. The optimum number of developers is about the same as that level of parallelism (plus a secretary and a manager). It allows compartmentalizing things, so each developer has a chance to become an expert in that area and be productive. Adding more developers just increases communication overhead, training overhead, petty squabbles, micromanagement of the mess, etc. Taking away developers leaves holes that will require additional time to complete.

I hope the article summary is wrong and that Microsoft isn't so incompetent as to substantially re-write an operating system in the last year of its development! Talk about a death spiral.

"That's no moon, it's the accumulated mass of all our new bugs!"

60% Is NOT IN THE ARTICLE

[ThinkFr33ly]

Go ahead. Do a find on the page. The only place where the number 60 is even in there is in the article's title and in a link back to the SAME article at the bottom of the page.

In fact, this 60% number is made up. Not only would this be impossible in less than a year, 60% of the code in Vista isn't even new to Vista.

Hey Slashdot editors... I know you guys are really into MS bashing and you want to satisfy the thirst that most Slashdotters have for MS blood, but at least check to make sure that articles your posting have a shred of truth in them.

Sounds like "Telephone"

[overshoot]

Frankly, I doubt it. It sounds like something that mutated from either:

• 60% of modules require some change (as distinct from "rewritten") or
• 60% of <insert section> needs to be rewritten (as distinct from "Vista).

You can think as little as you like of Microsoft's management (and you'd have to go pretty low to match me) but I can't see even them being so flagrantly (stupid|dishonest) as to promise a 2007Q1 delivery of a 60% rewrite of something that took five years to get this far.

Re:Already covered and discussed on digg.com

[ender-]

http://digg.com/software/60_Of_Windows_Vista_Code_ To_Be_Rewritten

And yet we don't FSCKING care! If digg is do damned great, why are you here? Go back and play with the other digg idiots. Us Slashdot idiots don't want you here if the most constructive thing you can come up with is "We're already discussing it on digg". I'm sure it is being/has been discussed a lot of places online. Now we're discussing it on Slashdot. Get over it.

Karma be damned!

Cairo?

[Gr8Apes]

Hell, I heard about Longhorn years ago and they sure haven't been "scrambling" to do anything with that.

I first heard about Longhorn under another name, in the early 90s when it was called Cairo. Take a look at the "feature list" of that vaporware sometime. Then recall that the feature list was in response to OS/2's actual features, that existed in 93...

How far we haven't come in 14 years.

BTW, take a look at the original feature list for Longhorn, and the current list. It's interesting too. And we're now 2 years later than the original "Longhorn" date, and only 14 years past Cairo.

MS is just stalling - to avoid the DOJ

[mgpeter]

The ONLY reason I can think that "Vista" has not been released yet is because the "probation" period of the DOJ settlement is due to expire (probably) in November 2007.

Microsoft is a maximum profits kind of company and Windows is one of their Cash Cows. If it wasn't due to the fact that until Nov 2007 they have to somewhat play by "fair" rules, there would have already been at least 1 newer version of windows, I mean it has been over 4 YEARS !

Microsoft is just playing the stall game to keep itself in the media, trying to keep the public view on Windows and not GNU/Linux or whatever. Mark my words, the next version of Windows (Vista) will be released mid-Nov 2007, just in time for Christmas 2007. And yes it will probably include their own media player, web browser, Anti-Virus, Anti-Spyware, Photo Editor, Desktop Search, Kitchen Sink, etc.