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."
Shouldn't this article instead be from the "twenty-years-too-late" department?
Nice! I bet it's going to ship with Duke Nukem Forever Part Deux
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
The three states of matter are solid, liquid, and this announcement ;-)
But seriously, does anybody think this announcement was intended to dissuade businesses and government agencies from trying the alternatives to Microsoft Windows that exist now? And will it work?
Yeah, you know what would be *funny*? If Microsoft licensed OS X.......
:-)
No, seriously..... OS X runs on Intel now, and Apple is working hard on compatibility layers for multiple OSs and it is the slickest, most stable, most beautiful mainstream OS out there right now. It would be especially funny as back some years under Gil Amelio, Apple actually looked at licensing Win NT for the new OS when Copeland was in horrible shape. Thank gawd that never happened or Apple would be where SGI is now (or worse).
Hey, you know that Microsoft has used Apple as their R&D arm for years now, right? Why not just formalize it?
In all fairness, I am not saying that Microsoft can't do it themselves, I'd just like to see a return to the good 'ol days when Microsoft made good, solid applications and were not trying to be all things to all people. They used to you know...... I am thinking of the early versions of Excel (Multiplan) and Word on the first Macintoshes along with Microsoft MacEnhancer, Chart and Basic.
Although one has to wonder what is going on when Microsoft's programmer team for Windows is in the several-thousands and Apple's development team for OS X is around 300.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Lets not forget all of the "useful" features that they have cut out of it along the way. If Vista fails, it won't be just because of delays.
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
What I think is odd about this is that the NT architecture has never really even been fully utilized, at least on the consumer side of Windows. In a lot of respects, NT is a pretty clever system, including highly individualizable security for files, processes, etc. It also supports multiprocessing well, contrary to the implication of the article. Point being, I'm not so sure the solution for Microsoft is to throw out NT and move on to something else (Singularity, or whatever it may be). I would suggest they instead look at the features already in place with NT and look at ways to actually enable and present them in a reasonable way in their consumer OSes. I guess this is the plan in Vista, but we'll see. The other thing I'd like to see Microsoft do is separate out the kernel-level framework (NT system, drivers, etc) from the UI framework, so that it would then be possible to treat those two elements separately, in the same way that Linux has the kernel and X/Window Manager stuff totally separated out. But, I guess that would make it harder for them to make money, so it's unlikely.
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
"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.
Maybe MS should pay attention to the fact that they have never taken full advantage of any processor's power. Most products they have put out these days just hog system resources, forcing systems to have more powerful processors, more RAM, etc. without ever really harnessing their power. The increase in power is just to make it seem like the bloat-ware is running better than it actually is.
Support a true independent artist - Leila Lopez
"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.
Operating systems are suppose to use all our processing power?
I think Microsoft already knows what to do as a successor to Windows...
Just wait for Google to show us what a Google OS would look like... then do that.
I actually find this really interesting. Not that Microsoft is talking about a new OS after Vista, but that they're talking about it being a successor to Windows, not a new version of Windows.
.Net runtime whatchamajigger, so new .Net apps will run seamlessly on either Windows XP, Windows Vista, or the new OS. Then they'll hack VirtualPC to make a stripped-down XP or Vista run transparently in the background, and run old applications inside of that (and new hardware will be fast enough that performance won't be a problem). It's basically the same idea that Apple did five years ago with Classic, the Mac OS 9 emulator that runs on Mac OS X. Chances are, just like Apple modified the Mac OS Toolbox, named it Carbon, implemented Carbon in the new OS and added the CarbonLib library to the old OS so Carbon apps could (sort of, in theory) run on both platforms with no modifications (it didn't actually work that well, but it did make it possible to port existing apps without rewriting the whole thing), Microsoft will probably come up with a derivative of Win32 that apps can be ported to that will run on the new OS. Meanwhile, they'll move as much as they can over to .Net.
.Net and emulate Windows, then they'll have the flexibility to move to a different processor architecture if they want, without the compatibility problems that Apple is going through with that.
Microsoft has been trying to dig themselves out of the hole that they dug themselves into for several years now, and they can't do it (i.e. fix Windows) without breaking backwards compatibility with old applications, and as long as they keep releasing new versions of Windows, they have to maintain that backwards compatibility, or word will spread quickly and people won't buy it. Besides, if you have to buy new applications when you buy your new PC with the new OS, why not buy the Mac version of those apps instead, and switch?
But then Microsoft bought VirtualPC, and a solution began to unfold. If they release a new OS, and don't call it Windows, then they don't have to maintain backwards compatibility with existing Win32 applications in the OS. They'll port the
And hey, if they move what they can to
Flame on!
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
"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!
They've been pondering Linux for a long time now.
Part of me feels like that even at this early stage the idea at MS is to add even more whiz bang bloat to Windows Next by "taking advantage of dual-core chips." Let the applications take advantage of them and the OS be a translator.
No sig for you!!
Vista won't fail, it doesn't really matter if it's far better than XP or not. Will Vista be more stable or secure than XP? Probably not. Will that matter? Probably not. It will look different and all the PC manufactures will preinstall it on their machines, everyone that buys a new PC will get and use it, and within several years after it's release it will be used by the majority of PC users (since the majority will have bought a new PC by then). 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). But the majority of PC users won't know or care. To them it's a new feature when it shows up in MS Windows. The only thing that will break the cycle of everyone adapting MS's newest OS is the ability to effortlessly run Windows apps on Linux, or Mac. It's sad but true.
Bleh I'm gonna get modded down for this but oh well. If they want to do long term work, work on the stability and security of an operating system. Let's face it. Microsoft is here. Linux coming to a desktop may happen but as of now it's in pre-natal care. Microsoft does need to take some hints from *nix. Be secure. Be quick. Be able to be to customized. They need to work with the community (by that I mean other software companies like gaming companies) and make strict guidelines how it should be written to work with Windows correctly. But they also need to take input. Software companies well say, "well hey we need to do this because..." and instead of MS saying "nope" they should say "well we built the OS and know it so this won't work becasue.....but if you do this...". I started my experience using MS, I'm a linux user looking for a linux job, but at least in linux developer comminicate and things are implimated correctly. Windows is easy to use, windows is easy to fuck up, windows is hard to repair. Usually the best repair is a re-install. This need not be. Eye candy is great, but we need stability and security.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Then maybe a clever student, frustrated because the license won't allow him or her to modify it, will re-impliment a new OS out of Singularity. If they allow a lot of other people to contribute, it could get big really fast...
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The next generation of windows, I think, will erase some of our antiquated notions about what an operating system "must" have (a boot sequence, a file system, etc.) To me, and I'm sure many other slashdotters who can remember MS-DOS, Windows XP seems like a very souped-up version of MS DOS. OS X (while it has a boot sequence, file system, etc.) just some how does not seem like MS-DOS. Every iteration of Windows so far seems to pile on more and more disguises for an elaborately dressed MS DOS. This pattern needs to stop.
Does anyone else see a future code merge revealing that the protoypes work off horribly incompatible file systems?
The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
1. Blinds.
2. Gates.
3. Sunscreens.
4. Smokescreens.
5. Chairs.... or rather, Chairs! Chairs! Chairs!!!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Personally, I think it would really r0x0r if the new OS shipped with an object-relational file system that had metadata, and a SQL-esque query syntax, and automated fall-over network distribution and...
um... how 'bout Linux. Worked for me at least.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I vote Linux! If not that then any posix system is ok......thanks!
Before Vista is even out of the gates, a Microsoft exec was talking Wednesday about Windows' replacement at a VC conference.
.. this dual core thing has got us stumped... we're figuring out how to slow things down with dual core.
Gates looked at Vista, and left, holding his nose! Before we let this beast loose on gullible folks, we want to pacify them, saying we're working on a better alternative...
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,"
Our policy has always been "Whatever Intel giveth (in speed), Microsoft taketh away!"
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.
Well... we've taken a long while to build some junk, we've thrown out all useful stuff we promised.. don't worry, we'll keep working harder and longer in similar fashion.
And it won't be built overnight: There is no timetable for a Windows successor right now.
WE WON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF ANNOUNCING TIME TABLES AGAIN... NEVER, EVER!!! The successor to Windows could come in the next centruy... we won't be there, we won't care, but there's nothing wrong living in hope... We'll announce this non-event, non-timetabled non-initiative in Slashdot though!
But early work on this effort has not yet been organized
We are proud to declare that we have NOT YET started this NON-INITIATIVE
With five or six small projects afoot in various places throughout the company, Barnett said.
Some five or six groups of disgruntled employees have given up on Vista.... and now, they're talking about joining Google to Build The Successor To Windows...
Actually, we should've posted this in Ask Slashdot... but we aren't part of the OSDL, and we have our pride.. so we announce it as News for Nerds... Thanks for your suggestions!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
The only thing that will break the cycle of everyone adapting MS's newest OS is the ability to effortlessly run Windows apps on Linux, or Mac.
I agree with everything you said except for that last one. Trying to adapt to run Windows programs is what killed OS/2, which at the time was a much better OS than Win3.1 (what wasn't?). A true object oriented, multi-tasking, 32-bit operating system that ran circles around Windows, except of course in running Windows apps. Why should anyone even bother to develop for another OS if any new one will just try to run Windows apps as well as Windows? If that's what you want well, then just get Windows!
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
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
Marketing is one thing, lying is another. Oh, wait, this is MS.
I so hate them when they speak about SW and OSes like there would exist nothing nowhere besides Windows. So, no wonder I don't ever like what they say.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
IBM had to totally re-invent itself. It had been the major player in the computer industry and was in danger of fading away to nothing.
Microsoft is, or will be soon, in the same boat. There are fewer and fewer reasons that one needs Microsoft. FOSS is becoming more and more viable. At some point ATI and NVIDIA will have to start playing nice with the open source community. Microsoft will be faced with the choice of evolving or fading away into obscurity. Usually companies fade away when thwacked upside the head by a disruptive technology (like Linux).
Talking about a successor to Windows just shows that they haven't realized the magnitude of the problem yet. (Or maybe Bill has and he's bailing out.)
Well, then Ozzie should stay out of Texas. The use of such technological 'devices' is illegal there even for consenting, married adults:
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2005/03/03/O
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
blah, blah, blah
Games
When games I buy at the store can be popped into my Linux system and installed with no fuss... Linux will have arrived. I want to install a linux os in a few minutes, run an OS updater, install several random top shelf games, and have them all run flawlessly (no matter what type of hardware I have). Until that happens linux will ALWAYS be a novelty OS.
Video games drive what OS is used for a majority of users. That is the way it has always been, and the way it will always be.
I run Windows XP-64. I would love to run linux instead, but I know I will not be able to run DDO, WoW, Doom3, etc etc without some major headaches with compatibility, drivers, libraries, etc.
For now, I satisfy my linux cravings by running linux in vmware.
32303036 204D5620 41677573 74612042 72757461 6C652039 31307320 53696C76 65722F52 656400
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.
In 1983, Apple's latest and greatest was the Apple IIe. Although Lisa/Lisa II tanked, Apple did OK with a new machine it rolled out in 1984.
As numerous books and articles have detailed, the Macintosh development unit was given preferential treatment, many resources, and an impossible mandate. The result was a computer that radically altered the personal computer industry. The hardware was new, the OS was new, the applications were new - everything about it was new. Nothing like the Mac had been seen in the computer market.
Microsoft already has competitors, in the form of Apple, Linux, Google, and web app vendors who want to kill the desktop altogether. One more competitor, loaded with cash, unencumbered by a requirement to maintain backward compatibility with Windows, and given a well-articulated mission might be able to come up with something radically new and better than anything currently available.
If MS doesn't recognize that their golden goose is fast becoming a lead albatross, they're going to continue to lose their ability to shape the market. Getting by on marketing and control of PC OEMs isn't going to cut it any more. They need to put some of that massive stockpile of money into something truly bold. The question is, are they organizationally equipped to do so? Is it in their DNA, or have they become too atrophied?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
There is no timetable for a Windows successor right now.
:D :D :D
:))
This is the best joke I've heard in a long while
They kept pushing and postponing Vista's dates and continuously dropping features for how long now ? Right. Now what can you read above: no timetable for the one following Vista. Ok.
I can of course understand that for a company it is very important to show that they have long term plans. And they need to tell that convincingly. Right now, I'm not convinced about neither.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
The next Microsoft OS is quite likely to be based entirely on interpreted/dynamically compiled languages, obviously the CLR. The actions over the last 2 or so years seem to indicate that Microsoft wishes to deprecate native code. They would probably run existing x86 Windows programs in a sandbox so that untrusted code (aka all native code) cannot damage the system. The OS would deny even the computer owner the right to run native code with any authority unless it's signed by Microsoft. We can already see this coming with Vista: unsigned code cannot run in the kernel at all in x64, and in all versions unsigned code cannot request that dialog box to ask the user permission for admin access. (This last one was never announced by Microsoft and was slipped into a build. Developers filed it as a bug; Microsoft declared "as design" with no comment whatsoever.)
.NET programs could run unsigned. (They'd probably require signing to do anything interesting like write files to disk.)
It works great for DRM, because sandboxed code cannot manipulate other code. If implemented correctly, something that Microsoft has shown to be possible with the 360 (though with native code), it would be unbreakable other than at the hardware level. Microsoft would make it so that only Microsoft-signed programs are allowed to run natively, whereas
This is terrible and I hope Microsoft meets a lot of resistance.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
It also has the goal of being a fully managed operating system, so it should be possible to host it on a variety of devices.
When it comes to a point where they have to abandon the windows code-base or sink under the weight of it, I wonder if they will turn to Singularity?
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
What else were they promising recently that is never going to be delivered? Must keep hyping something.
Vista may not end up being the best thing since sliced bread, but let's act as introduced geeks on the subject and not compare Vista to xgl.
xgl is a layer for the window manager, Vista is an operating system. Graphics subsystem. Operating system. Apples. Oranges.
I mean, does xgl come with the BitLocker technology? Does it let Linux make use of USB memory sticks as virtual RAM? See also its new features. I know, many features are already shared by Linux distros, but that still doesn't make an xgl <-> Vista comparison any less idiotic. Compare with Aero as you like, but not Vista. You don't compare KDE with e.g a full distro often, now do you?
I don't understand how such major flaws in an argument can give a +5 Insightful.
No wait, it was defending Linux.
Nevermind.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Vista is what XP used to be when it released...everyone call it (XP) an OS with Fisher Price interface. well...is Linux anywhere near XP's desktop marketshare?
Didn't Vista start out pretty much the same way? "Total rewrite from the ground up", everything shiny and new, new paradigms for file system handling and coffee making?
Look what we ended up with.
History repeats itself, repeats itself, itself...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Hasn't anyone ever seen an Adam Sandler movie ?!
It's going to be the biggest slack-assed OS out there that eventually gets a fire lit under its' ass & saves the OS day.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
The only thing that will break the cycle of everyone adapting MS's newest OS
is what you yourself wrote a few sentences before: Breaking MS stranglehold on the OEMs. If windos were something that you had to buy extra, people would start looking for alternatives.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
All the more reason we really need XUL.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Microsoft should buy OS/2 from IBM.
agree with you so far
Yep - agree here too.
Now this is where I disagree. You made good arguments that the reason Vista won't fail is because the PC builders will all pre-install it and then ignored that fact when making your closing statement.
What will break the cycle is when people can walk into/browse the website of a PC vendor and purchase a PC with whatever OS they want on it. As long as the vendors/manufacturers are locked into agreements with MS then the average PC buyer has no choice and the dominance of MS on the desktop continues. Many PC users are too lazy to install a new browser or patch their existing OS let alone install a whole new OS. Until they can buy a PC without Windows installed they simply won't bother to change. Trouble is few manufacturers are prepared to take the risk (to their profit margin) of challenging their MS agreement and we end up in a cause-effect loop.
Doubtful. Just because there are options doesn't mean that people will go out of their way to investigate them. Or do you really think that, when an average new computer buyer is given the option between Windows, something that they've heard of and have probably used before, or one of the various flavors of Linux, something that they probably haven't heard of and more than likely haven't used, that they won't choose Windows? More likely it'll just be just another additional cost that they'll grumble about and pay anyway - like USB cables with printers or HDMI cables with new DVD players.
I'm not saying that these people are stupid - it's just that there are things more important things to them than the operating system that their computer uses. They care about what it can do, not what it runs. Which is as it should be.