Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ponders Windows Successor
InfoWorldMike writes "Before Vista is even out of the gates, a Microsoft exec was talking Wednesday about Windows' replacement at a VC conference. Speaking at The Venture Forum conference, Microsoft's Bryan Barnett, a program manager for external research programs in the Microsoft Research group, said multicore architectures are of particular interest when weighing what to put in future operating systems at the company. "Taking full advantage of the processing power that those multicore architectures potentially make available requires operating systems and development tools that don't exist largely today," Barnett said. Well, with Vista in the pipeline as long as it has been, you must admit it is not surprising Microsoft is taking the long-term view. And it won't be built overnight: There is no timetable for a Windows successor right now. But early work on this effort has not yet been organized, with five or six small projects afoot in various places throughout the company, Barnett said."
No.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
"Taking full advantage of the processing power that those multicore architectures potentially make available requires operating systems and development tools that don't exist largely today,"
ahem... a*hem*
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple back in 1997, as an enticement for Apple to use IE instead of Netscape. Don't know if they still own those shares, but at a minimum they did once own part of Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
Ya, I still reminisce about wire-frame FlightSim as well. Ya, playing that game on the AppleII, MicroSoft was the bomb.
More like subLOGIC or Bruce Artwick was the bomb. As I recall, Flight Simulator was originally created by Bruce Artwick nee subLOGIC. The version of Flight Sim I played on my Apple ][ was a subLOGIC product and I believe Microsoft purchased it from subLOGIC for the same reason they bought Bungie. They wanted Flight Sim to show off the new graphics capabilities of the new IBM PCs much like they wanted Halo to show off the X-Box. I don't know if the subsequent Bruce Artwick Organization was a formal/informal subsidiary of Microsoft or if it was a consulting gig, but Bruce stayed on to do Flight Sim for some time. Anybody know where he is/what he is doing?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Meanwhile the Mac lovers will call it a cheap ripoff of Mac OS X (which it probably is) and the Linux users will say you can get that stuff for free (watch the demo of Novell Linux 10 with xgl, it demonstrates all the cool windows effects MS is saying will be in Vista, and then some). The difference between Xgl and Avalon in Vista is not its performance, or rollerdex Windows or transparent Windows. The difference is in how easily these are accessible to application developers. Avalon apps run all that graphics goodness with a simple XML derivative called XAML, and well supported by a Photoshop like designer (Called Expression) to actually design the UI. This tool again generates XAML layouts and eye-candy, which is fully compatible with the Visual Studio IDE. Conveniently forget this difference, and there lies one reason why Windows is so popular.
Life is a conviction.
What microsoft has been trying to do from day one is to avoid the ideas and basics of Unix.
what day was it when they bought zenix and tried to market their own unix based os?
was day one the day they sold that to sco and agreed to a contract that said they would never create a unixlike operating system that would compete with sco unix?
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Do not forget that Windows NT is based on VMS. VMS lost long long ago from Unix, and for a reason. In the 70s and eary eighties, Digital shipped their hardware with VMS. Even though the operating system came with the hardware, many users replaced it with Unix because they liked it better.
.net lately) so you don't have to deal with NT directly.
I have been unfortunate enough to have to work with VMS (system programming) myself, and I can tell you that it was a nightmare. Yes it was stable (Unix also) and still has a good reputation for that. But VMS, and Windows NT also, are so extremely inelegant, just plain ugly that it hurts your eyes if you have to deal with it at the system call level.
Where Unix has tried to make things simple (e.g. the paradigm "everything is a file") and orthogonal, VMS is brute force (just like NT) and has special system calls for everything with multitudes of parameters and very complex structures. Just a simple example, in Unix a tape streamer behaves just like a file, the handful of file-related system calls, each with just a few parameters, apply to many devices including tapes. VMS has special system calls for tapes, for disks, for files, for terminals etc. etc.
No wonder that the full potential of the NT architecture has never been utilized: it is too complex and overloaded. It is so inelegant and agly that it is hardly possible to actually use the full potential in practice. For me, NT was the return of a nightmare, with the only positive side that it has been hidden deeply under various API layers (win32 +
NT has always worked like this. Each UI instance is a "window station" and like X, you can have multiple window stations on one machine. It's just only recently that Microsoft decided that it would be to the home user's advantage to be able to utilize Windows' support for multiple window stations on a single local machine. For what it's worth, this has always been possible since the very first releases of NT.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
All the more reason we really need XUL.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Who the heck cares about the kernel?! OS X has a BSD userland, therefore it is based on BSD!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz