Slashdot Mirror
Preventing Another Vista-like Release With Windows 7
CRE writes "An article at the OS News site details how Microsoft could best avoid Windows 7 becoming another Vista-esque release. The author advises Microsoft to basically split Windows in two. Windows 7 would be a new operating system based on the proven Windows NT kernel, but with a completely new user interface, with backwards compatibility provided by VMs. In addition, to please business customers and other people concerned with backwards compatibility, Microsoft should create 'Windows Legacy', basically the current Windows, which will receive only security and bug fixes. Relatedly, APCMag is reporting that Microsoft has moved Julie Larson-Green (the driving force behind Office 2007's Ribbon UI) over to work on Windows 7's interface."
Horrible idea, would never be put into practice. MS already spent years merging the 9x consumer brand into the NT-based line. There's no reason they would then spit it again and have to deal with two not fully compatible platforms, requiring a separate support base for each one.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Keep It Simple Stupid the problem with Vista was that Microsoft wanted to make the Ultimate Operating System, that would put all other Operating Systems to shame (And give to us all the features they promiced us in Windows 95)... But with all the problems with such a large project then ended up with an OS that is arguable slightly better then their old one. I have tried myself to do ambisious projects and they always go over budget and over time, and end up having to do a lot of cuts. I learned not to go crazy and make the ultimate just get it to work correctly and impove on the other one, That way everyone is happy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
As long as Microsoft can maintain a quick pace of innovation, Linux will always be chasing behind it.
Once the problem becomes well defined and stable, Linux will catch up and O/S will commoditize.
The longer the release cycles- and the more windows UI changes with those releases, the more likely people will change to linux. I'm ready except for Everquest. Everything else is open source on my boxes now.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
How about releasing a single OS that scales suitably and automatically to the users' dynamic needs, rather than piling options on the user who neither knows nor cares what the options do.
"Make it go."
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Vista wasn't ill received because of the incompatibility. Plain and simple, it was not a step forwards. It wasn't something that improved your working, playing or surfing experience in any way. If anything, it was a step backwards.
Add various real and perceived problems with privacy, the data hunger of MS, the dread of DRM/TCP and other rather negative reviews, and you see the reason why Vista wasn't the next Win95 hype.
The problem is that XP already has everything the user wants. It can play games, it's compatible with almost any current hardware right out of the box, there is no USB (WinNT) or WiFi (2k) that would require him to update, whatever hardware he wants to plug in, XP can take care of it. Whatever software he wants to run, XP can do it. DirectX10-only games are still far from reaching the shelves, and no business software that I'm aware of requires Vista. The user interface of XP has all the main features that make working, surfing and playing in Windows enjoyable, and all the kinks and wrinkles were also taken care of by third party software vendors (where "vendors" does not necessarily mean you had to pay anything for the soft).
Basically, the reason why Vista didn't sell like hot cakes was simple: It was not needed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have been saying essentially the same thing for years and years since the discussions about Win32 weaknesses that cannot be fixed without a restructuring of the API.
The Win32 API is a complete mess. Backward compatibility is important to be sure. But the future of stable operating systems is also an issue. Apple couldn't have been bolder in their move to create OSX. They created an entirely new OS and provided some really buggy means to run OS9 software... believe me, it certainly sucked but it generally "worked." It was more than enough motivation for people to migrate to the OSX versions of the same packages they've been using, but for those not willing to make the move for whatever reason, they were able to limp by.
Applying the same idea to a new Microsoft OS would probably work better. Virtualization environments on the PC have come a long way in a relatively short time. One might even suggest that it's fairly mature technology. (I'm not quite ready to say that myself though.) But to provide backward compatibility through virtualization while at the same time creating something like "Win64" and making it completely new, more modern and at the same time tossing backward compatibility out the window (figuratively speaking) would probably bring new life into the "struggling under its own weight" OS and the company who makes it.
..create MORE 'Windows Legacy?' This is one of the major, abyssmal design choices in current Windows versions responsible for truck loads of the issues every Windows user and their grandma have come to hate said OS
This is at least somewhat correct. Legacy support is responsible for a lot of Windows's problems.
However, it's also perhaps the biggest single reason for its success.
At least Linux gives you a choice of user interfaces...
The fact that Microsoft can't figure out that making a massive non intuitive change to the UI (when it isn't required for functionality) is insane. Business needs simple and straight forward solutions. It doesn't need a 'cartoon' interface.
BTW - How come their new, more secure OS lists EVERY USER NAME at login? (and you can't turn it off...)
Lets play "Guess which user has a weak password"! The game is much easier if you start with all of the user names.
I'm still trying to figure out what XP and Vista do that Windows 95 didn't, which requires them to take up so much more HD space than it did.
Win95 ran happily on a 1GB HD, with several hundred (maybe as much as 700, IIRC) MB left for apps, and I can't really think of more than one or two very minor new things that XP does that I actually use. Image/video thumbnails are nice, I guess, and having a CD/DVD burning program integrated into the file manager seems like a no-brainer, except that the one they made sucks so badly that I only use it as a last resort, usually on someone else's machine, so frankly I could live without it. The new network management system is obviously better, but doesn't justify more than 2-3MB of extra disk space usage, tops.
Why are XP and Vista so huge? Is there something I'm overlooking, or has MS' code really become so bloated that it takes 1.5+ GB to accomplish what 200-300MB did before? Hell, I can fit a Linux desktop that does SIGNIFICANTLY more in that much space, with Openoffice and a real CD burning app, full-featured media player and all kinds of other goodies. Why does the basic MS OS take up so much room?