How Microsoft Plans To Get Its Groove Back With Win7

shawnz tips a blog post up at thebetaguy that details Windows 7's huge departure from the past, and the bold strategy Microsoft will be employing to maintain backward compatibility. Hint: Apple did it seven years back. There are interesting anti-trust implications too. "Windows 7 takes a different approach to the componentization and backwards compatibility issues; in short, it doesn't think about them at all. Windows 7 will be a from-the-ground-up packaging of the Windows codebase; partially source, but not binary compatible with previous versions of Windows."

Comments

I love the lack of understanding

[filesiteguy]

I run vista on two machines - and actually like it better than that crappy earlier version of NT (XP) and even 2K. I was curious about Singularity. In any case, I love the quote from the article:

For Windows Vista, Microsoft had to change their design and development strategy in order to comply with the DoJ and EU regulations regarding the anti-trust issues present in previous versions of Windows; specifically, the integration of assistive applications such as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player into the core operating system. Competitors complained that offering internet and media solutions with the operating system harmed competition in the marketplace (despite other operating systems such as Mac OS X and Linux apparently being immune from such criticism). Funny - I didn't know linux came bundled with ANY media player or browser. I know distributions do, but not Linux.

Legacy support may happen

[oahazmatt]

From TFA

...This should allow the majority of legacy applications to run perfectly, while still retaining native performance for applications compiled specifically with the Windows 7 platform in mind. Seriously, what is it with all the editing of story submissions? Lately every summary has a knee-jerk reaction, but if you RTFA it's not nearly as bad as implied.

So that's what slowed Vista down?!

[Coryoth]

Some interesting comments in TFA regarding the "source" of Vista's performance issues:

In response to this, Microsoft made fundamental changes to the way Windows Vista was linked together; shifting more towards modular designs rather than the monolithic processes used in previous versions of Windows. This increased amount of componentization, while satisfying the DoJ and EU, also led to performance issues due to the increased number of libraries which comprise the operating system. On traditional hard drives, the more separate files which the operating system has to load, the more seeking across the hard drive is required, and therefore overall performance takes a hit. and then later

Another reason for Windows Vista's performance issues is the way in which Microsoft approached backwards compatibility in Vista. The operating system stores multiple copies of core system libraries, as each revision of a library typically adds/removes functions, and applications compiled with dynamic links to a specific version of a DLL file may call on functions not present in the currently installed library. So, apparently, Vista being slow is all the fault of the EU and the DOJ asking for a more modular design that didn't have everything tied into monolithic core systems. The thing is, unless I missed something, most Linux and *BSD already have exactly what is described: a very modular system with literally hundreds (if not thousands) of shared library files; moreover, versioned shared libraries have been around for a very long time as well. If having to split things out into many library files, and keep multiple versions around is such a death knell for performance, then surely something like GNOME would absolutely crawl. For those who say GNOME does crawl, note that, in comparison to Vista on the same hardware it flies -- it's only in comparison to to other lighter linux options that it looks slow. So I have to say, I'm just not buying the excuse. Modular functionality in lots of versioned library files shouldn't be a problem. I suspect it has more to do with blaming poor performance on EU anti-trust regulations than reality.

Re:Seriously, Copy Apple Again

[UnknowingFool]

I think Apple's market share actually helped them when it came to the transitions. There were fewer applications to migrate. Those applications that did exist were often specialized enough to make sure that they migrated. Incidentally enough moving to OS X opened up many of the Unix applications to Apple. Often times a port was needed and not a full rewrite.

GPL'ed Windows XP clone ReactOS

[Orion Blastar]

might be the answer. ReactOS should be ready for at least beta testing by 2010. No need for Microsoft to GPL XP as ReactOS is a Windows clone built by GPL code to run Windows XP etc programs in it and use Windows drivers.

Re:Seriously, Copy Apple Again

[Blakey Rat]

Well, Apple was also pretty bad at it. Anybody who used a Mac "back in the day" remembers how many applications designed for System 6 broke when System 7 came out, and how many 680x0 apps simply failed to run on PPC Macs even despite Apple's compatibility layer. And don't get me started on the Classic environment in OS X, and the transition of Carbon apps between Classic and OS X, both of those moves broke more applications than I care to remember.

Maybe I used too many crazy indie apps, but I'm pretty sure Apple only really tests the big players when they make moves like this.

Re:All Vapor.

[BlueWomble]

Absolutely, that article was ridiculous.

Any article that uses "loading excessive library files forced on us by the DOJ" as the first (and presumably therefore most significant) reason for Vista slowness should be laughed out of town.

Re:The Netscape Thing is a giveaway.

[rahrens]

What lie? Internet Explorer IS tied into the OS!! That IS the way they screwed Netscape! I do desktop support for the Feds, and we CANNOT remove IE, even to reinstall it. There just is no way to do so, the system will not allow IE to be uninstalled. That was the original complaint, and continues to be in the EU. If Win7 removes that roadblock and allows IE to be uninstalled, then they have answered that complaint. Frankly, if they DO toss out all the old Win code and start over, that'll be the smartest thing they've ever done, but it'll be eight years too late and again, waaay behind Apple!

Re:Wo-ow

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the posting histories of the accounts in question:

Twitter, Erris, InTheLoo, Gnutoo and Mactrope (not Macthrope btw, who is actually a vocal twitter critic).

There was never really any question whether Twitter and Erris were the same person. On more than one occasion Twitter would actually respond with the wrong account by mistake, exposing the sockpuppetry (of course anyone who reads any Erris/Twitter messages can easily see how similarly they are writen).

The newer 3 accounts he made after Twitter and Erris fell into karma hell a few months ago, and if you look at their posts you will find that they reply to each other "agreeing" almost all the time. This alone could be coincidence, but they always post just minutes apart from each other, in addition to many similarities in style (which I encourage you to explore/investigate yourself, if interested).

Luckily with the newest 3 accounts Twitter seems much more well-behaved than he was with Twitter/Erris. He still misrepresents facts and outright lies, but at least he's dropped the "M$ Windoze" childishness. As such I dont really care much about what he says, but I agree with willyhill that it's a dishonest way to engage in an online discussion (heck, Ive gotten by for years with NO account, does he really need 5 or more?).

That said, if anyone out there is into Twitter sockpuppet hunting, one good way to spot them is to look at the subject line when he replies to other posts. For some reason he seems to feel the need to always change the subject instead of just leaving "Re: whatever". Even when posting as AC! It's actually kind of strange that he hasn't learned to better impersonate multiple people after all this practice, IMO.

Re:Who cares? It's over.

[CrazeeCracker]

You can't put MS Windows on a Mac

Yes you can.