Slashdot Mirror
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."
The thing is, the only reason most people run Windows is so they can run legacy Windows applications. A Windows that can't run Windows apps? Yeah, that'll sell like an iPod that can't play MP3s.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Over ambitious as always. I say work on improving XP . Make it more efficient and add features. Perhaps get all those other features that were promised 10 years ago working. Like WinFS. Like a dozen other things. MS is just digging itself deeper.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
No really... we'll get it right next time. The last five years were a mistake, but give us a few more years and we'll be more Mac-like. Honest!
I mean Cairo, I mean the next piece of vaporware that will be used to keep Microsoft in a dominant market position even though their current product is inferior to the competition in both the desktop and server space, because why migrate off when "Windows 7" is just a few years away and will be SO FAAARRR ahead of everyone else.
Same tune.
My Babylon
Wasn't this what Vista was supposed to do in the first place? It was supposed to be a dramatic departure from previous versions, but too much politics pressured developers into making backwards compatability a little too over-bearing on the system. This is clearly what they were trying to accomplish with Vista, but higher-ups were too afraid to do it, so they told them to half-ass everything to make it all work. After seeing what a disaster Vista has become, both on the development and user experience side of things, the Higher-ups have no choice but to listen to what their devs wanted in the first place; kill legacy. Not build it in and make it limp along half-working and hard to develop for, but just start with a clean slate and build a kickass base OS and worry about compatability with older applications and frameworks later. Basically, they tore a page out of OS X's plan of action.
...but not binary compatible with previous versions of Windows Sure Vista does that now.I seem to remember Vista was supposed to be a huge departure from what was done before - and then reality hit.
The mistake they are making (will make) is that that they think their software is what is broken - when in fact the software is just a representation of the business model they have chosen. Their system design is market driven not engineering driven - and whatever they produce from this point on will be the same as all the others. Windows, OSX, Linux, Unix etc are all products of the ethos in the organizations in which they are created.
If the mould is defective, there's no point is making a second one in the hope that it will turn out differently.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Unfortunately, the article itself is a work of fiction. The guy has lots of bad reasoning, poor memory and is desperately lacking in technical understanding.
;-)
For once, I'd say just read the article summary
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Why can't they do what Apple has done about 3 times now?
Move to new technology, but provide a compatibility layer so legacy apps still work, even if they are in some sort of emulated environment?
The new hardware people will be using with the new system will be fast enough that even an emulated environment will be as fast (or faster) then their previous machine.
With the virtualization technologies available today this should be even easier to do then, say, Apple's transition from 68xxx chips to PowerPC chips, or PowerPC chips to Intel, or OS 9 to OS X.
Were they all seamless transitions? No. But they were arguably better then then the transition from XP -> Vista has been so far.
Microsoft seems to want to either take the course of backwards compatibility at the expense of progress, or progress at the expense of backwards compatibility.
Why not go for the best of both worlds through emulation/virtualization?
...releases lost the game long ago. It is useless to think in an OS as a package, much less something you put in a box. Given that the OS is the first software building block of a system and due to the sheer complexity of the thing, it has evolved into a continually updated and polished piece of engineering, where you take snapshots of the development and call them releases.
An operating system evolves and you don't sell it. You either provide it as a service, or provide it for free, so that you can hook people on some service you offer.
I'll tell you why Win 7 will be a huge flop: since it breaks almost all compatibility between itself and previous windows releases, it has to compete on the same grounds as Linux, *BSD and OSX. Which means, that without the massive inertia of the previous windows releases, those three will kick the living crap out of Win 7 in terms of maturity, usability and price.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I couldn't get past the first paragraph.
"In the face of the mass-media criticism of Windows Vista, mainly with regards to the performance issues present when compared to Windows XP on hardware with similar specifications. However, very little information has been presented with regards to the performance of Windows 7, this article however shall change that."
Microsoft is always promising the next Windows will be built new from the ground up so not much is really new this time. The only difference here is the promise to break backward compatibility. Thebetaguy contradicts himself about that by having the balls to promise, "This should allow the majority of legacy applications to run perfectly," while Vista provided less than 60% of the same.
There are lots of other contradictions because thebetaguy does not really want to admit several things and he's angry about the few he's given in to. The Microsoft way of doing things was inadequate, but the change is blamed on legal challenges that competitors strangely don't have. He cites some of Vista's insane processes but fails to mention digital restrictions or the last minute elimination of XP drivers as reasons for poor performance. It's funny to watch a fanboy admit Microsoft is following Apple, but it would be nice for him to also admit that Apple followed free software and Unix practices.
Like I said, there's not much to this article. It's mostly a fanboy making excuses and casting blame for the failure of his favorite operating system. No real details have been announced and the game plan will, as usual, change before release - a sure sign that there's nothing really open about the "new" Microsoft. They are going to keep their secrets and continue to mess with anyone who's got any revenue potential.
Apple used FreeBSD and this was a success. What Microsoft needs is a service based operating system kernel, such as this one. It would be nice to see it used. ;-)
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
The first article tries to push the idea that all problems Microsoft is experiencing come from the antitrust wrist slapping they have got. This is stupid. Also takes some jabs at Apple and Linux.
The second part of the article is telling us the real problem Microsoft is facing. Code bloat. Dll hell. They have decided that they canÂt hold it any longer and they are going to start from scratch and run the old windows apps on a virtual machine for backwards compatibility.
There is a third part that is missing in the article. Most people around here suspects that some of VistaÂs performance problems, specifically on the the multimedia department are caused by the interference of DRM code. Is Microsoft removing all this code from Windows 7?
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
No single link to source - where did they get this info, just unfounded speculations.
Windows 7 early builds was already demoed and there's no evidence that it will be backward-compatible.
Also WinSxS (side-by-side dlls) is what windows xp uses to maintain different versions of runtimes from the start and obviously it has little to do with OS speed.
While reading this article the only thought prevailed - wtf author is smoking. Complete rubbish.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
From the article: 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. ... In Windows 7, Microsoft will break from the Windows' norm by breaking previous API compatibility, offering new API frameworks as a native solution, and providing support for legacy frameworks (COM, ATL, .NET Framework, etc) through monolithic libraries designed to provide the functionality of all previous revisions of the modules in question.
And so, the answer is to put everything in one bloated DLL?
It apparently hasn't yet penetrated to the Windows 7 group that computers aren't going to get much more powerful for years to come. That stopped once laptops started outselling desktops. In laptops, what matters is size, weight, and battery life. The future is the OLPC and the Asus Eee. In a few years, laptops in bubble-packs for $89.95 will be hanging on racks at the drugstore. Microsoft isn't ready for that.
Progress now will come from reducing software bloat. Microsoft has, in desperation, extended the life of Windows XP for little machines. That's only a stopgap measure. Now they need to de-bloat their whole product line and get their costs down.
If Microsoft was at all smart, they would use a light weight "Windows on Windows" strategy similar to how they implemented 16 bit Windows on the NT base on a new VERY stripped-down 64 bit Windows kernel and use virtualization of every Windows application.
In this day and age, it makes no sense to me to write another massive OS.
No numbers. No estimations. Just some hand waving of "they are doing something different". The article doesn't change that fact at all.
Because OS X and Linux aren't de facto monopolies with 80%+ of the market.
Yes, because loading 1 MB of code as part of one executable is vastly faster than loading it as 1 MB of library. This is especially true when loading 10+ different executables that have the same code statically linked in. That is way faster than loading it once. More efficient too.
No, wait...
Besides, that code (such as MSHTML.DLL) was already an external library. Just about every operating system tends to get new libraries with major upgrades. Windows was not one monolithic executable before. Heck, it wasn't way back in the 3.11 days.
That has not always been the lure. The lure was it was pretty and not a DOS prompt. Then the lure was simply that there were more programs for it when it became dominant. But then again, Leopard runs programs designed for Tiger and before. OS 9 ran programs designed for OS 7. Just about every OS does that, including many UNIXes.
You've GOT to be kidding. "Proven" for OS 9? It didn't have memory protection. It didn't have preemptive multitasking. Heck, you still had to pre-allocate memory to programs at launch, didn't you? It was a fine OS design for 1992. It didn't work so well in 2000. It was a weight around Apple's neck and would have killed them if they didn't try to escape. It needed to updated, and previous projects had failed. A clean break was a very smart decision.
This is somewhat true, (quite on the laptop side later in life with the G4s), but it's also highly troll. "...in order to obtain the hardware-locked user experience of their new flagship operating system"? That's unnecessary.
It's not like anyone had ever thought of that before. If only Windows had a virtual environment in it. Maybe since 95. It could have run old DOS programs. Oh, wait, it did. Then there was WoW, Windows on Windows, that let 95 and up run old Win16 programs. Emulating older stuff is a common way of handling it.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Looks like things are playing out as Joel predicted. It should be interesting to watch.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"We can sit and arm chair direct..."
And here I thought Balmer was in charge of "directing" the chairs around here.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
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.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
With this announcement of total backwards break, Microsoft has declared complete defeat for their business model.
I don't think that announcing breaking backwards compatibility is declaring defeat for a business model. It is more a cleansing process. And I welcome that. A lot of the hardware and software we use could be a lot more efficient and, quite possibly faster, if backwards compatibility were dropped.We're to the point now where processors are fast enough now to handle VM's. Let VM's handle the backwards compatibility, translating old code for newer uP/uC code.
I, too, would like to see Microsoft's practices of messing with their user base to satisfy their customer base stopped. But for the sake of competition, I don't think Microsoft sinking is a good option, either.
(I would also like to say it's the year of the penguin, and signs are showing that people are fleeing MS Windows... they just also happen to be fleeing the WIntel world, too, towards Macintosh.
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!
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
And...I'm all for them trying something new. Start over! Look at apple. They've started over a few times, and I think it's been worth it...there's just not as much community pain felt because the install base is relatively small.
If you want a stable, mostly command line, system that'll be backwards compatible for decades to come, use your flavor of *nix...but if you want a fancy graphical interface with pretties (targeted at an audience who enjoys them)...you're gunna have to deal with sdk's and API's...that's just smart/efficient programming...where have you seen anything else?
In my opinion, it's marketing that screws the tech of MS. They come out with stupid as claims before knowing what the final product will be, over hype everything, and seem to get their hands in determining code paths. Their sdk's and api's (directshow for instance) and are mostly pretty neat. Marketing makes it so abstract and burried in coined tech terms that somehow make their way into the msdn (I consider this in the marketing goup...cause an intelligent software engineer would never make something like msdn) that it takes all the fun, desire, and some ability to learn it (at least for me)!
I agree, they are admitting defeat...but that comes with a realization that the customers (us) obviously want something better (sales of vista), but are limited with the current platform/code organization/model that they use now. Sounds like innovation/renovation to me...and that should be something constant in any field.
You're right, let them sink!
Let them perish in that huge heap of cash they're bringing in. Look how their utterly failing business model is killing them. St00pid ancient business model. They're just bringing in 16 billion dollars per quarter. Muahahaha! S00 sp00pid. Linux FTW, etc, etc.
The Linux vs Windows flame war was fun back in 1995. Can we move along?
Apparently you didn't RTFA in its entirety. How does M$ plan to handle the backward-compatibility issue? by including a Virtual Machine to run all your legacy apps... exactly what Apple did with "Classic" for OSX.
This is exactly what I've been suggesting for some time now -- a modular version of Windows (consisting of core OS, drivers, networking, and a basic browser suitable for downloading a better browser with) where I can install as much or as little of it as I wish, and a VM to run my old shit that won't work with this new modular Windows.
Also, it's a great razor-and-blades marketing opportunity for M$: make the core OS cheap or even free, and charge for various levels of "Plus Packs" suitable for people who WANT a monolithic software experience.
The big OEMs can make hay from that too -- basic machines with the core OS only would be cheap, while "complete solutions" (with all the Plus Packs) would be proportionally more expensive. And I'm sure the OEMs could make a good enough deal with M$ for bulk licenses that they could make a hefty profit -- exactly as they do now with preinstalled software.
If M$ were to include VMs for both WinXP and Win98-atop-DOS, everything would be covered, including old games (maybe even DOS games!), old apps, old installers, old drivers...
Also, there is some security imposed by running potentially vulnerable OSs/apps in a VM, if only because it's harder for malware to reach. A few malicious apps can "jump across" into a VM, but most can't.
Also, at a guess the new core OS will be more UNIX-like or even *NIX-based, which ought to make y'all happy.... after all hasn't "*NIX is better" been the mantra around here since forever??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I am seriously curious twitter, you spend a lot of time on Slashdot, you talk incessantly about honesty - when did you decide you were going to turn it into a mockery and a circus by organizing these "bad zealot-good zealot" clusterfucks where you use the troll accounts everyone knows about (twitter and Erris) to give your other sockpuppets an opening to blabber their way on to karma heaven?
The problem here is not what you're saying on this particular post for example, which I suppose might be considered halfway insighftul without the "fuck shit rape fuck M$ Winblozes LOLOL" tone of your earlier accounts. The problem is your blatant gaming of the comment and moderations systems. You call Slashdot a community and you spend a lot of time talking about "us" and "we", but you sure seem to spend a lot of time lying (and therefore ridiculing) to everyone as well.
How long do you figure this can last?
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
Why throw out the old code? This is about the worst thing Microsoft could do. Rewriting code is just an invitation to introduce all the bugs that have already been fixed and to introduce a new set of bugs.
Far far better to refactor particularly bad code and restructure at higher levels. Takes less time, advances the product, and has a far better chance of actually being completed.
I am not a script!
The whole reason why I have stuck with Microsoft for this long (as well as many other people), is that apps I use aren't compatible with other OS's. If I could have iTunes for Linux, my wife would let me switch at home. Why doesn't Apple provide it? Because Linux doesn't have the marketshare. Why doesn't it have the marketshare? Because there aren't enough of everyone's favorite apps.
How much of the corporate reluctance to migrate to Vista is because of incompatibility with current apps? Some people are still running Windows 2000 to support old apps that were never updated to be compatible with XP, muchless Vista.
I understand that MS would have reasons to want to "cleanse" itself, but doing so would make them lose the one major advantage they have over Linux. If software companies have to re-write every app to work with Win7, why even bother with it? Who would use Win7, since all the apps are broken? Why not just write for Linux or Mac? The Apple market may always stay relatively small because of the price and the limited number of PC configurations, but Linux doesn't have either of those issues.
Linux has been in a tough spot for years because its marketshare is tiny next to Windows. But with no functional applications, Win7 would be starting over on marketshare, with no good reasons for anyone to buy into the new OS. Apple was able to start over with OS X because there was a relatively small number of users, who are fiercely loyal, and the change enabled them to get more users. I don't think MS can risk pissing off 90%+ of all computer users. Their biggest problem is that they could lose users, and breaking backwards compatibility can only increase the probability.
I'm sure they'll have some type of virtualization-enabled "Classic Mode", but you can do that from other operating systems as well, and if we have 2 years to prepare for it, Apple and the Linux community can have solutions that are just as elegant (or more so) than what Microsoft will cobble together, because whatever solution MS provides will most likely be an afterthought, since it's just a stop-gap solution until all the developers move over to Win7... if they ever do.
Will they really do what Apple did and help themselves to a new round of BSD injections or are they just going to shuffle their own cards into new piles?
God, I hope not. The world doesn't need another UNIX.
Please don't try to blame those "lazy" "third party" developers again.
What ? Upwards of 90% of Windows's "problems" are directly attributable to third party code.
The only explanations for Vista's lack of backward compatibility are incompetence or malice.
There are few products that have better backwards compatibility than Vista.
You have to be off your rocker if you think that Microsoft does not view the ability to run legacy applications as a competitive threat.
The level of delusion necessary to look at Microsoft's history and come to this conclusion is truly staggering.
Yes you can.
Of course I didn't RTFA.
Apple didn't introduce a new OS that was only source-code compatible with existing applications. Apple introduced a new API that was very similar to the old API, restricted in some areas, expanded in others, designed to run efficiently on both the old and new operating systems. They did this before the new OS was released. Then, in the new OS, old applications that were not written to the new API ran in an emulator, and old applications that were written entirely to the new API ran native on the new OS.
.NET this way: that .NET code would run on some future Windows platform, but Win32 code would only run in an emulator.
.NET, or Microsoft is doing something completely different from Apple... and what Apple did was risky enough to start with.
At the same time they introduced two more APIs, one that was an enhanced version of the old compatible one that took advantage of the new OS, and one that was new to the new OS. They also introduced a new development environment that generated code for the new APIs.
When they introduced the Intel-based Mac, they abandoned the oldest API, provided an emulator for existing code, and code written in the enhanced API using Apple's development tools could be recompiled in a mode that supported both Power PC and Intel processors.
At no point was there a stage that broke code written within the previous two generations of APIs.
I was under the impression that Microsoft was planning on using
Either the article is wrong about Microsoft abandoning