Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Won't Have Compact "MinWin" Kernel
An anonymous reader points us to an interview Microsoft's Windows 7 development chief, Steven Sinofsky, did with CNet. He reveals that Windows 7 will be a further evolution of Vista, and will lose the rumored MinWin kernel. "We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same. We're going to not introduce additional compatibilities, particularly in the driver model. Windows Vista was about improving those things. We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you've been talking about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well."
oooooh that was quick.. /marks that one off the list/
shall we have a pool as to what will be next?
(and yes I know powershell was released as an addon)
The current fortune cookie ("User hostile.") at the end of the page is somehow very fitting...
Why would we believe these guys in Redmond again? They have sold us vaporware for decades. They promised the cool new file system in Vista and it was scrapped early in. They are going in the right direction--abandoning the hamstring of backwards compatibility--but who has any faith in Microsoft's ability to execute? I think I know the reason too. Microsoft has always selected the highest rated developers. Well, ratings may judge raw intelligence but not creativity. And it is the latter thing that is in short supply. Microsoft just does not attract creative rule benders. Instead, it attracts go alongs--people who followed the rules and did the right thing all along--which leaves them with high scores on standardized tests but bereft of any creative initiative. This has been my experience, at least.
"..and will lose the rumored MinWin kernel." So in other words, the only thing really going for Windows 7 has been dropped. I feel that many businesses were holding out for Windows 7 to fix all the problems that Vista introduced.. it looks likely that this is not the case. If this shift is confirmed, then I really suspect that a lot of Microsoft houses will begin to dump the platform altogether.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Great, an article telling us what Windows 7 isn't. While they're at it, somebody should write a story about how it doesn't use the Linux or MacOS kernels either. From the start Microsoft has been telling us that MinWin is an experimental, non-production kernel and that it wouldn't be in Windows 7. Now CNet reports it and its like new news all over again. Yawn.
We saw this only too well with Vista. /. readers) are experiencing.
...'
Now the same with Windows 7. The more and more I hear about it the less I'm inclined to beleive that this new OS release will fix the problems that have been all too evident with Vista ( slow file copy, nagware etc etc etc) that the majority (non
Everything seems to being rushed out. I wonder how many cases of Duct tape are being deivered to Microsoft this month.
Remember the slogan 'The WOW starts
All I here is "WOW is it that bad"
Will it become worse that Vista? That is the $64 Zillion question.
In related news, the US Military is going to build off the success of the Iraw war, the travel industry is going to build off the success of the Titanic and David Letterman is going to build off the funny of this comment.
We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7
What, all five of them?
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Disappointing that the first exciting thing coming out of MS OS in a long time is now not even to be a part of Vista part 2. MinWin had me thinking that MS was starting to change back into the company of its golden era (i.e. late 80s - 90s) when it released operating systems with new features that made one excited to buy the latest and greatest OS.
Oh well, maybe this will enable the year(s) of the Linux on the desktop (smile)?
...now, what exactly?
Not only could the average user not find an advantage in Vista over XP (remember, users rarely care what's under the hood, they just want to use the system), now even geeks won't see a difference between the old and the new system?
Ok, let's be constructive. We heard now what will not be different between Vista and "Windows 7". So what will? Because, well, if it's the same... I'm no marketing guru, but I guess even the marketing guys in Redmond might have a hard time selling the same product again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's see now... MS develops great new technology, but only so far as so that it can be seen what potential it has. MS hypes (to a greater or lesser extent) this new technology. MS explains that actually this new technology won't be used in the next version of MS Windows.
What was that really good filesystem we were going to see in Windows XP, sorry I mean Vista?
Oh right, this time it is because of backwards compatibility, rather then any other reason. But still, people keep saying it, why doesn't MS just dump the crud, go with a great new secure system (MinWin sounded like a good start), and use emulation to support all the old software?
With drivers (the specific reason given here), they could easily have a backwards compatible layer implemented above the microkernal for drivers that needed it.
Meh.
I wank in the shower.
I thought moving towards a componentized design was the evolution of the kernel. I don't get from the article that moving toward the concept of MinWin is no longer a design goal.
Is there anything actually wrong with the NT6.1 Kernel?
I mean, Vista has it's problems, granted, but can any informed person here state what's so bad about the Kernel itself, since that's what's causing all the fuss??
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
So this is going to be business as usual? I tought that the production of Vista was quite a traumatic experience.
But maybe doing a leap instead of evolution would overburden the company's structure. Or is the strain (of users and/or MS) not high enough?
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
Isn't this slow and steady 'removal of promised features' what got us Vista in the first place?
If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
Oh well, In that case I expect Windows 7 to ship in 2010, and be only slightly more bloated. Apart from that it will be pretty much the same as vista, a big non-event that might as well be released as Vista service pack 2.
"drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same"
Bzzt! Logical inconsistency detected! Abort/retry/fail?
apterous.org
Augh. The entire concept of MinWin has been lost to time. It's NOT a custom kernel. It's NOT a kernel rewrite. It is, and always was, the literal minimal version of Windows. MinWin was never a shipping feature that any customer would care about - in fact in the first iteration it was intended as the first, required, component of Windows embedded - the fully componentized version of Windows.
If my Vista Ultimate is less than a year old, do I get a free upgrade? I have a VERY bad feeling about this.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
"We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7"
Windows 7 will be incompatible with just about every third party application. Any compatibility with other Microsoft will be purely incidental.
"We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel"
We're making it an even larger resource hog. Idling, Windows 7 will likely occupy 2 or more cores, and 4GB of ram.
"The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well."
We're going to try our best to make Windows 7 so convoluted that no one can possibly discover the vast security holes.
Hope this is a bit easier to read.
Heck, as long as they fix the many problems with Vista and make it the product Vista should have been, it will probably sell quite well. In fact, they've practically created a new OS market with all that nice new hardware going out the door with Vista pre-installed: the "Vista replacement market". Currently that huge market need is being satisfied by Windows XP (a sale is a sale), Linux, and (if people get fed up enough and switch hardware) Mac OS X.
Who would have thought Microsoft could have figured out a way to sell *two* Windows licenses per machine (one for Vista, and one XP license when people downgrade)? It's brilliant! Well, as long as too many people don't switch to other alternatives, but en masse migration is a long way off. Still, it would be nice if Microsoft offered a more modern "Vista replacement OS" once Windows XP is completely phased out. Windows 7 could fit that bill.
Well, unless it is so bad people will want to downgrade to Vista. That's a scary thought.
M$ is hoping for a "WinWin" kernel.
Invenio via vel creo
Vista kernel was a rewrite (and great success..). Now they try to build on said great success, instead of rewriting it again. Makes sense :-)
http://revj.sourceforge.net
"We have no idea if drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work at all on Windows 7; in fact, they didn't work on Vista either. We're going to introduce additional incompatibilities, particularly in the driver model. Windows Vista was about perverting those things. We are going to build on the relatively lack of bad publicity of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you've been complaining about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an incompatible fork of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further incompatibly forked up fork of that kernel as well."
(I'm sorry)
In my home business, I'm down to ONE program that runs only on Windows (ebay Blackthorne). ONE. (Wine doesn't cut it).
Otherwise, I could be running on OS X for 1 laptop and the PCs would be switched over to Ubuntu or something similiar, maybe RedHat.
Years ago, the internet was hamstringed by many windows only incompatibilities. Firefox evened the playing field there. Most programs were windows only (Quickbooks and Tax Programs can run on Mac now).
Windows grasp in my business is tenuous indeed. Granted, mine is a small business - but aren't many in America?
Plus in Linux, it's simple not to include a webbrowser. You can do the same in Windows, IIRC, (actually just turn it off), but there always seems to be a workaround on firing it up again. Those are one of the biggest productivity killers - my employees should be surfing at home.
It's not that I care about licensing fees, but my operation is too small to hire someone technical who knows how to do everything the right way and I find the Windows boxes need the most babysitting. Time killer = Money Wasted.
Couldnt they just forget Vista2 and just fix XP for newer hardware?
Damn. You beat me to it. :)
That's not a contradiction at all. It's not unreasonable to think that of all the drivers and software that work on Windows Vista (perhaps 10% of all the the drivers and software developed for Vista) will continue to work.
Now, if they managed to get all the stuff (you know, the other 90%) that doesn't work on Vista as it should to work really well, that'd be something else.
The Internet is generally stupid
Even worse, he then said "We're going to not introduce additional compatibilities", so there's a chance that they're planning to introduce a few incompatibilities.
which is totally what she said
Microsoft really needs to admit that it lacks any courage and hire Steve Jobs as a consultant to blaze a new path for them. Never have I seen a company with such a lack of vision or daring.
"...and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well."
Could you guys just go back and evolve Windows 2000 instead?
The Microsoft OS development model:
1. Promise the next version will be a geek's wet dream
2. Over the course of the several years of development, slowly step away from each and every major feature
3. Release the new version which is, at best, a minor upgrade from the previous version.
4. Profit!
We are currently at step 2.
Well, I guess not totally unbelievable. Slashdot readers are capable of complaining about both Vista's biggest non-imaginary problem (hardware compatibility) and in the same post, complaining about the solution (building on the existing core rather than rewriting again, thereby making new driver development much simpler).
...I, for one, welcome our Vista Service Pack 2 overlords.
If the OS works and functions like Vista with no major changes or increased hardware support (multi-touch... pffft just make my damn printer work), it sounds to me more like a SP release than a full-blown new OS.
The game.
No-one wants an OS that requires a beefy machine just to run. We want a tiny OS that leaves us most of the machine to do with as we will. The desktop is morphing into a form of client via the browser. Who would want a fat OS to run their browser when a thin one will also run their browser, but faster on the same client machine. This is what the sub-laptops are all about. Thin OS, means you can have a thin/cheap client. Using a old OS isn't really a solution, you want one that scales with the hardware. I.e Linux. If MS wants to compete, they need MinWin. Not that I want them to, I want source code for when the docs fail me (though the Wine source is quite good for Win32 questions if msdn isn't answering you ;-) ).
Polish that turd up good, boys! I want to see my face in it!
I am really happy about this.
as a linux user, (i befriended the penguin after one day of vista) watching MS drop the ball a second time is good news.
i can feel it.....
2010 will be the year of linux on the desktop.
(at least for some people it will be, just like how 2007 was the year of linux on MY desktop)
-I only code in BASIC.-
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Goodbye only reason I was interested in Windows 7, and Microsoft in general.
So that's 'further evolution' as in "we're dropping loads of cool new features". Microsoft really have lost the plot in the last few years, and Canonical for one are willing to capitalize on any weakness on Microsoft's part. They may still have the market share to impress, but Microsoft are going to have to make Windows 7 count in order to regain the sort of mind share they've lost as of late.
If you read the entire piece, that is what he said in answer ANOTHER question, but when asked directly- What was this idea then that got talked about in terms of a kind of minimum kernel? Sinofsky: Well, why don't we stick at a higher level today, because I think that I don't want to really dive into the implementation details today. It's still out there.
/LabMonkey09
Ever since the VMS guys left, there hasn't been any forward development in windos. They still have the big dreams ("database filesystem!") but they lack the ability to turn them into reality. When W7 arrives, everyone will be disappointed. You can quote me on that.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That's like saying bicycles will be vindicated when we run out of fuel for other vehicles. They may work in their own fashion, but I'd still prefer to use a car or a plane for travelling really long distances. In this case, MS could probably quite easily implement IPv6 in XP, they just choose not to. That would be like retrofitting fuel-burning vehicles with amazingly efficient solar cells and electric motors or something along those lines*.
*Car analogies ftw >.> I use them without even realising
which is totally what she said
Windows 7 = Vista 1.1
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Maybe not exactly what people had in mind, but here's a quote from the Vista blog by Chris Flores:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/05/27/communicating-windows-7.aspx
Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista. While these changes will increase our engineering agility, they will not impact the user experience or reduce application or hardware compatibility. In fact, one of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7.
MS are spending a lot of time saying to Enterprises that their move to Vista is very important as it will make the move to Windows 7 a lot easier.
Its terrifying that they are saying' please buy our product, it won't do anything special for you but it will make it easier for you to buy our product again later' and getting away with it !
I don't think this is the kind of stuff that anyone, especially Microsoft shareholders, wanted to hear about their plans for the next version of Windows.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
In related news, I just heard a bottle of champaign pop over in Cupertino.
Full Tilt
Where "improving" should be read as "adding several layers of DRM protection"
So the next version of windows will have the same performance-boggling, customer-hostile driver model? Well, thanks for the advance warning, I suppose.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
I think Microsoft got burnt after the faliure with developing Vista, the first try that they had to scrap and start over. This and their spaghetti codebase has made them very reluctant to do other than minor adjustments of the current codebase.
Windows 7 looks to be just Vista with some new icons and some bolted on userspace applications. A new theme^wservicepack is all we get.
HTTP/1.1 400
Am I the only one who's leaving system administration over Vista?
It's being rammed down our throats right now and it's just way too awful. It's actually the reason I'm quitting my sysadmin job and am going back to college for a non-computer related degree this fall.
"We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same."
Ah!
Ha!
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
If Microsoft were to break backwards compatibility, it would first and foremost mean that all current windows users would evaluate the opposition. And to beat the competition Microsoft would have to offer better quality at a better price. From scratch, from day one. Yeah right.
This is the exact reason why Microsoft keeps extending its flawed product while pretending to fix it.
Stop the brainwash
...the fact that they say they're building on top of Vista does. It suggests to me that Microsoft truly has shifted over to protecting its installed base by any means necessary, and that any form of innovation that even hints at breaking backwards compatibility will eventually be thrown out.
It's clear that Microsoft is clearly rooted nowhere but in the here-and-now because innovation is full of risk, and Microsoft doesn't want to take any risks. They simply are incapable of turning their boat like Apple did with the move from OS9 to OSX, yes because their installed base is larger, but I also believe because they rightly or wrongly believe that the vast majority of users simply won't follow; Microsoft products are the thing that you're forced to use, not because you want to. To make sure people are never given a choice, Microsoft will simply increment Windows tiny step by tiny step; I think Vista shows that they're incapable (and their users are unwilling) to accept any bigger steps from them.
Nonsense, .NET is quite possibly Microsofts one winning strategy in the programming language world.
.NET, I don't see it going away any time soon.
.NET compatible version of Python. That's bordering on seriously cool.
I'm guessing you haven't used it, since you mention hearing it's dying, but not your own experience with it. You should give it a go, it's actually rather nice in its c# form.
Given that it is compatible with both Linux and Mac versions of
While your at it, try IronPython, the
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Don't Vista licenses come with downgrade rights for XP? Maybe they'll keep that up with Windows 7.
If it's just a small evolution of the existing kernel, shouldn't it be Windows 6.2 instead of Windows 7?
On the other hand Microsoft has never been logical with version numbers, Word 2 -> 5 -> 97 -> XP -> 2007. Exponential growth seems to be what they're aiming for.
Erik Dalén
Of course the drivers and software that run on vista are going to run on Windows 7. Clearly, all they're going to do is rebrand Vista, change some eye candy, and pray it sells thistime around!
They'd be doing it now, but they need to wait long enough that people will believe they've done some actual work on it.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
FYI, the "Windows explorer" for the local filesystem is actually another browser window. Type an URL into the address field, and hey presto - you're surfing the internet ;-)
Personally, I'd like to get rid of that too. Not because I'm anti-surfing but because it is a waste of system ressources to use a full-blown web browser for looking at your directories. Bloat like that is responsible for Windows getting more ressource-hungry every new version.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Don't. There's plenty of shops out there that have yet to let go of 2000 Pro / 2000 Server let alone XP Pro / 2003 server. I don't have a single Vista-shop client (though it's not to say I haven't talked a few folks out of it that really were thinking about it..) There's still plenty of common sense left in people to not fix what's not broken. Or you could take a RHEL cert class, and broaden your horizons :)
Vista was supposed to be a LOT of things. They pulled out all the good stuff and left a bunch of crap that nobody wants. Some might argue the new visual enhancements [eye candy] is appealing for some, but better than that is available through 3rd parties on XP.
I've been very interested in Windows 7 since I've heard they are going to return to a smaller, simpler design leaving legacy compatibility to virtualization. But now that the words "Vista compatibility" are used, I'm disappointed.
With all their money and resources, I have no doubt that they can do what they said they would do. So why aren't they?
Worse: How much longer will I be able to stretch the use of WindowsXP?
Why, can't find jobs as a Unix, web server or even plain networks administrator?
Computers != Microsoft.
What Windows 7 really needs is to be built from the ground up. Make it work well in a small package, and not be a gigantic resource hog. An OS is to run programs and be an interface to the system, not to look super pretty. An OS should not require a large graphics card to function.
The Windows releases have pretty much just been adding more stuff into an already overly large OS. And make it so that it doesn't load everything under the sun at startup.
Scrap it and make some clean code. For compatability have a windowed emulator mode that will allow legacy apps.
- now, is that a good thing, or a bad thing? I, as a vista-non-user, wonder. Seriously...?
SAN FRANCISCO, Redmond, Friday (UnGadget) - With Vista(tm) just out the door, Microsoft is drawing up plans to deliver its followup, codenamed Windows 7, by the end of 2009^W2010. That would be a much faster turn-around than Vista, which shipped more than five years after Windows XP.
... Except Vista, of course. That's pretty good. But Windows 7 is just so amazing. Wow(tm)! It's the most fantastic thing ever. Incredible. Mac OS 10.4 can't possibly hold a candle to it."
Vista's uptake has been stupendous, with copies flying off the shelves and midnight queues on release day turning into major street riots, police deploying water cannons and rubber bullets, to rival the release scenes for the PlayStation 3 and the Zune. It is expected to give a significant boost to the computer hardware industry, per the Mended Windows Theory of economics. But Windows 7 aims even higher.
"We have a radical vision for Windows 7," says Steve Sinofsky, corporate vice-marketer for development. "It's definitely the one to wait for. You should avoid buying any other operating system or even looking at them until you see Windows 7
So what will be the coolest new feature in Windows 7? According to Sinofsky, that's still being worked out. "We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe it's hypervisors, or a new user interface paradigm for consumers, or rotating cubes like in Ubuntu, or WinFS, which is definitely due to ship with Windows NT 4 in 1994. Or whatever Apple puts in Mac OS 10.6, really. Hell, I dunno. What's really shiny?"
The much-derided Digital Rights Management system in Vista will be worked over. "We'll be including user-downloadable 'tilt bits,' which you can configure to your own liking. It'll require every user to supply a blood sample for DNA analysis, but of course that's only if you want to play *premium* content."
Independent bloggers Wiki Jelliffe, Patrick Durusau and Alex Brown were incontinent in their praise. "I am so excited about $NEXT_VERSION of Windows. It will surely go beyond just solving all of the problems with $CURRENT_VERSION, it will be an entirely new paradigm. Forget about security problems, that will be all fixed with $NEXT_VERSION. And they?ll finally be ridding themselves of $ANCIENT_LEGACY_STUFF. Also there will be $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM. It?ll be awesome! I wonder how $NEXT_VERSION will compare to $NEXT_NEXT_VERSION."
"It's too early for me to talk about it," added Sinofsky. "But over the next few months I think you're going to start hearing more and more."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Microsoft likes to talk a good game, but in the end they have to remain backwards compatible and therefore it just becomes more bloated.
Why bother?
Their products are lousy, yet people are buying them anyway... Why bother investing millions improving them to try and capture the trivial amount of marketshare lost to linux/mac?
This is the reason monopolies are bad, they don't need to bother trying to compete.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
To me it feels like Microsoft has passed 'peak Windows' and should work on a graceful decline of the Windows platform instead of yet another pie-in-the-sky version which does not add anything computer users are really asking for, and takes whatever hardware performance increases have been made for its own purposes.
Windows as a platform is being phased out. It will be replaced by something network-based, focused on network-delivered services but offering local processing and storage capacity. You can fill in your own favourite buzzword here, be it 'Web something.zero' or some virtual machine which runs everywhere, or the next great API to rule the world after Win32 or whatever. Main thing is that development strategies are no longer geared towards heavy and relatively static Windows PC's but towards flexible networked clients.
Sure, we've heard the same before, 'the network is the computer' and more like that. This time around 'the network' actually is getting close to be up to the job. Never mind that a substantial part of the actual processing still will take place on the client device (in one of those 'run everywhere' dialects, something not platform-specific), the main premise is that future development will not target 'the operating environment known as Windows' but instead targets 'the client environment available via the network'.
At least that is how I see it, and have been doing it for the last few years...
--frank[at]unternet.org
Can someone point out where in the article it actually says that MinWin will not be included?
Yah. Windows Vista has been a bit of a learning experience for them. What they discovered is that the popular press, overflowing with security concerns, was not entirely representative of their customer base. Their customer base does want security, but they by no means want their security ahead of compatibility... or even convenience, for that matter.
Vista's mistakes are understandable from a certain point of view.
Really, they should take a major hint from apple. Go ahead and make major transitions, but use virtualization to bridge the gap. Under no circumstances break compatibility.
C//
Now we're talking about Windows 7 and 08, I think they should call it Windows 10 as it is going to be released in 2009. Or better, they should call it Windows X. Then they can add something along the lines of 10.1 to it, you know like Windows X 10.1. That sounds more interesting. And along the lines of this development, they should call for the Office Assistent to twist his legs and fill the position of mascotte and to pose on the boxed version.
I should clarify this a bit -- when I say modern business apps, I don't mean something like Quickbooks necessarily (though for all I know it could be), I mean more along the lines of, company X needs a custom application to automate or better manage aspect Y of its business.
By it either by using compatibility layers like Wine (which reaching a 1.0 milestone) or using virtual machines like VirtualBox, VMWare, Xen, etc... (I saw the "seamless integration" mode of VMWare on a MacOS X and its really nice). And these virtual machines are only running out-of-the-box plain Windows on out-of-the-box plain hosts. Imagine what Microsoft could achieve, given that they control the software and can re-design the "free Windows XP / Vista virtual OS" to take special advantage of the system and integrate even better.
I think the main reason they're not doing it is exactly that :
they maintain their market monopoly by leveraging the lock-in people are experiencing because of thousand of legacy Windows applications that they depend on.
If Microsoft go the "Virtual OS" route, they'll suddenly bring to the general population's attention that their software runs perfectly inside virtual machines. The users would suddenly realise they might NOT be forced to pay once again a Microsoft upgrade tax. They could use a well integrated virtual machine on which ever OS they chose and simply keep their old Windows version for which they've already bought a license anyway to run their legacy applications inside a virtual machine.
Suddenly Microsoft would be at risk of seeing masses of users switching to VMWare fusion running on Macs or the then descendants of EEE PCs (which, I suspect, by then could have enough horse power for a virtual machine. Although maybe not a Vista one)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
AFAIK Microsoft's biggest cash cows are Windows and Office. Immediate competitors are Linux and Apple's Mac OS X for Windows and Open Office for Microsoft Office. All of these are not specifically "enterprise" software, but aimed at pretty much every user. And the Open Source alternatives look pretty nice at least from a user perspective.
;-)
There is also stuff like Exchange/Outlook, SQL Server and the developer tools. This is what I would call "enterprise" software. Here Microsoft looks good and Open Source seems to lag behind (feel free to correct me) but I don't think that is where the big money is.
And then there is customer-specific "enterprise" software that is written for the particular needs of some company, department or project. Usually by some small vendor that does custom development or inhouse developers. Here you will find lots of abysmal software, but AFAIK Microsoft is not in that market. Too bad for them, because in this area they could outcompete most of the others on quality
C - the footgun of programming languages
Aside from mentioning a continuation of the Vista and Server 2008 kernel, the article has no surprises and no really interesting information.
Nothing new to bash, really - although I'm sure plenty of old rants will be re-hashed. Either Sinofsky can't talk about anything really new and interesting, or there is nothing really new and interesting to talk about.
Personally, I see only two things necessary to make Windows 7 a success:
1. Better device and driver compatibility and stability.
2. Much lower system requirements and better performance. With tens of thousands of developers and five years of development, you would have thought Vista would outperform XP, and not vice versa. Windows 7 is Microsoft's chance to redeem themselves.
Dude, where do you work that is "forcing it down your throat"? I've seen no business Vista use (granted I'm not exactly in the business of surveying other businesses about their OS choices). My impression is that Vista is nearly non-existent in the corp arena. Perhaps you could get a job....anywhere else, and thus not have to worry about dealing with Vista as a sysadmin. I'm also puzzled how being a sysadmin has anything to do with Vista. Normally sysadmin implies server mgt. and the like. I would think of dealing with Vista as desktop support or something. Anyway, not important, just curious. In the end, "leaving system administration" over Vista is idiotic. If you like sysadmin and you're good at it, get another job administering systems you enjoy (Linux, Unix, Windows Server, etc.). I didn't see many sysadmins leaving in droves over Windows ME.
You're correct about Konqueror, and Linux with KDE is similar to XP in memory consumption. I find this a tad disappointing on part of the Open Source desktop developers, even if my current PCs can handle it easily.
Well, maybe I'll have too much time someday and go into Gnome/KDE hacking...
C - the footgun of programming languages
iPhone has MultiTouch and IMHO it works really well. Also, IIRC Steve Jobs said "And boy, have we patented it!" I wonder how is this going to work out for MS?
Never mind that by the time of release the only remaining application to support Multitouch in Windows 7 will be Paint, where you will be able to draw trees using all your fingers.
It's like Microsoft DESPERATELY want to fail.
Windows 7's MinWin promise actually got me thinking about buying it when it arrived on the scene. Thats not going to happen.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
You mean like how Apple never really bothered to port their m68k code when they switched to the PPC architecture? OS7 thru 9 could have been one hell of a lot faster and more stable if they'd just pulled their finger out.
Virtualisation/emulation is useful, but there are limits...
Nobody else has this sig.
From a technical point of view, that might be the best they can do. Having the source code to the original Win32 stuff, they should be able to do better than the WINE team.
But I don't think they will use WINE as it is, because it is a Windows -> Linux API translation layer. So their new system would have to implement the Linux API, which is design restriction of its own.
Also, WINE is GPL'ed, so they would have to give away any improvements they make along with their version. Which would mean that Windows 7 backward compatibility would be pretty much equal to Linux + WINE. Not a good situation if you want to charge a few hundred dollars for the better versions of your OS.
C - the footgun of programming languages
We're rolling it out, even though none of the IT staff (just the manager) wants to. We just see it as being a hassle -- retraining the staff as well as ourselves -- with no real benefit, as all the software anyone needs to use works fine on XP.
Not to mention that we'll now be running an OS which contains code specifically designed to prevent the computer from working. We've already had one system fail to activate using our key management server, and we've only rolled out half a dozen. In a perverse way, I'm actually looking forward to when every desktop is running Vista and then decides it's not activated and nobody can do any work while we try to fix a problem caused by code that shouldn't be there in the first place. A high profile screwup like that could be the death knell for shitty license activation schemes.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if every machine in your organization suddenly decides its not authorized and refuses to boot, it won't help you at all. The IT staff will be blamed even if they recommended against it. We did the same thing with regards to MS Exchange at a place I worked at a few years ago. The company hired a new VP for Tech, and he was a seagull manager (fly in, shit all over everything and then fly out again) who had no idea what was what. He insisted we move to MS Exchange and easily sold it to the top execs because of the stupid scheduling feature. We spent probably 250k or more in upgrades and licensing. We replaced one reliable Linux box with 2 Top end servers, a DB server, 3 expensive tape back up units and a loadbalancing setup, and it was no more reliable than the linux box, but boy could you schedule a meeting easily :(
When it went down, we had the boss of the company standing in the center of the IT space screaming out that it was costing the company $10k a minute when the email was down (he worked it out apparently). The VP then left the company a month after we were done implementing things.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
What sort of training or preparation would you recommend for that kind of a role to someone with only cursory experience with *nix?
And how do you find those positions?
If you look at the people Microsoft R&D has hired, the projects they work on, and the output that consumers actually see from it - the only conclusion you can come to is that Microsoft R&D is a way to collect really smart and creative people, to put them on display and (more importantly) keep them from producing products from anyone else, even if Microsoft never makes use of their output.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Out of curiosity have you tried asking for an OS X or Linux port of Blackthorne? If others have the same bottleneck for upgrading, it can be possible to show demand, or at worst pool resources and get WINE or Cedega to support it. Tools built with normal cross-platform languages like Java, C, C++ and so on can use cross-platform GUI toolkits like Qt and GTK+
Alternately, what is the one thing that Blackthorne does that similar tools don't? (Aside from you have it installed already and are presumably familiar with it.) Maybe there's a new tool or new version of an old tool that scratches that itch.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
How does Apple help me run my 68k or PowerPC apps from before OS X then? They only support stuff from before the last transition and no earlier.
(I agree that virtualisation would make a lot of sense for Microsoft, but Apple may not be the best example.)
Killing MinWin, in order to turn Windows 7 into Vista plus some more bloat, is pretty much the end of the product line. By the time it's out, people will have the choice of an even more bloaty Microsoft offering or ReactOS (free GPL Windows) which will have become stable and usable by this stage. Most commercial software is tooled to be compatible back to Windows 2000 (and often back to Windows 98), so a stable ReactOS will be sufficient and, unlike Windows 7, exceptionally trim. Currently, a ReactOS vmWare image is all of 22M and is already capable of running complex software for Windows such as Mozilla's collection. Even if you treble that size for 2-3 years more ReactOS development and it'll still perfect for getting the most out of your hardware, even down to the smallest UMPC. The bloated bohemoth that is a MinWin-free Windows 7 will be slaughtered like a stuck pig.
THIS is what XP was like. I guess MS is really slipping if Vista's supposed to be the new Win2k.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
Would it make more sense to subscribe to windows, then have windows just evolve? Instead of these painful, and silly, "upgrades?"
A valid issue is that rarely is a new OS pushed down IT's throat. In my limited experience IT evaluates ahead of time, decides whether the risks outweigh the benefits and proceed accordingly.
Sysadmin does apply to servers but it also applies broadly to desktops, you're not going to fix that printer issue or help with an Excel problem but you would be responsible for pushing software out and patching. Not all businesses perform in this way though as many don't have central software distribution.
Personally I don't know why Vista would scare a sysadmin except that there is a lot of learning that needs to happen. A sysadmin shouldn't be afraid to learn a new system in my mind though. Vista in many ways is designed to give IT more control over the end-user thus allowing us to lock it down while keeping workers productive. That's the idea at least. The few Vista machines I've deployed here work fine thus far although it's mostly limited to IT as I'm getting my whole staff familiar and making sure all out software works with it. So far it's all good.
We agree though, leaving system administration over Vista is not a bright move. I know personally I enjoy both the Linux world and the Windows world and use both as I see necessary. My Oracle boxes run Linux, my application servers run Windows/IIS, my phone server runs Linux, thank you Trixbox!
The world is getting more interesting now that a lot of this stuff plays better together.
Run SheepShaver.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Driver compatibility will come with time as people like Nvidia get their act together.
Streamlining Vista can already be done though, it doesn't have to take a lot of resources unless you want all the eye candy and the resources. I think you still have a valid point, with all the work that went into it you would think it would work faster. Personally I don't notice any lag, but I'm running on new hardware.
It remains to be seen what Windows 7 will offer that will redeem it. The vast majority of people see no reason to go to Vista and as a home user I understand their feelings. As a sysadmin though I understand why Vista is the way it is and how it's desirable for a corporate environment.
It's the same basic issue that developed when the 9x line died and everything moved to NT. We can all agree that the NT model is far superior to the old real-mode model. The problem is that you have a business optimized OS being pushed on home users, in an attempt to make the home users happier you screw the business users and you end up with Vista where no one is happy.
Of course if the whole thing was more modular then it would be less of an issue. Then Microsoft would be doing what the Unix world has been doing for 40 years and what Apple caught on to a few years ago.
Big companies take a long time to adapt though, look how long it took IBM to recover from a failing business model, almost 10 years. I think Windows 7 will be Microsoft's wake-up call if Vista isn't already. Execs have a habit of being hard-headed about stupid things though so I wouldn't be surprised if that was holding things up.
I'm also puzzled how being a sysadmin has anything to do with Vista. Normally sysadmin implies server mgt. and the like.
:/
IANAWSA*, but the parent post probably will have to deal with figuring out ow to integrate Vista into their existing Active Directory infrastructure, which I imagine will involve a significant level of desktop support.
*I A Not A Windows System Admin, in case you are wondering.
It's clear (to me, at least) that Steve Sinofsky was made boss of Windows development more for his mastery of spin than his technical skills. Exhibit A: the C|NET interview with Ina Fried. Any politician reading this masterpiece of doublespeak will turn emerald green with envy, and I defy anyone here to distill any meaning out of his long, rambling answers to Fried's questions. Fried begins to get exasperated about two-thirds of the way through ["It sounds like you're saying"..."If I'm understanding correctly"..."seemed like you were saying"...], and attempts to pin him down to solid answers, alas to no avail. Typical example plucked at random:
Granted, Sinofsky is being very cagey about not revealing specifics, but I've gotta say that the man displays real skill at saying nothing in a very long-winded fashion. He could have been the White House press secretary. I think Steve Jobs and many, many posters on Slashdot were correct in saying that the marketing people have gained ascendancy over the engineers at Microsoft.
Nowhere does he say there will be no "MinWin". It's entirely possible Vista compatibility will be built on top of MinWin. Not sure what the basis for the article summary is.
Hey guys - I'm a program manager on the Windows Server team, and having been a long-time lurker on slashdot, wanted to point to the most cogent public explanation of what MinWin is.
Eric Traut's speech at UIUC got a lot of attention but has been largely misinterpreted. The interview at http://edge.technet.com/Media/567/ explains the relationship between Server Core and MinWin, and if you're interested in the subject matter, is worth watching (at the very least, for the inadvertent use of night vision by the cameraman).
Brendan
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Tell us all about how it'll work and everything will be just great. Pleeeeze. I was just talking with someone who has factory installed Vista and how SP1 would not install because of a Vista driver already installed isn't "compatible" with the update. He then told a story of how he installed a new Vista driver which didn't work but allowed SP1 to install and then re-installing the original Vista driver got sound working again.
It's all marketing-speak from the same old Microsoft we've known for 20 something years. yawn.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I think that WinFS is probably off the list permanently. There was never a lot of information on it that I could find. But it wasn't -- except for one brief period in 2005 or so -- touted as a file system as we usually think of a file system (e.g. ext3 or NTFS). Instead, it seems to have been replacing heiarchial file system search and select with metadata search and select.
... If it had worked. My guess is that it didn't. And I'd further guess that's because the metadata (what kind of file, content, etc) proved to be too meager, erratic, and hard to work with for ordinary users.
Not a bad idea with desktop system file counts in the hundreds of thousands. A better file search would be a good thing, I think. I, and most everyone else spends entirely too much time trying to find files.
If anyone actually knows, I'd like to hear about it. And so, I suspect, would others.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
All they need to do is virtualise GDI, and run Win32 and Win16 apps in a "Classic" subsystem...
- Well, that's a great question.
- There are a number of elements of the question...
- In a way that's a different question.
- What I think I want to say is what I just said...
- I didn't actually say that.
I know that I've just pulled some quotes out of context and sometimes that makes things look worse than they are, but does anyone else see my problems? Do you have a hard time even reading the answers? Very disappointing but, again not unexpected of Microsoft.KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
Windows 2008 and Vista SP1 use the same kernel right now.
10.4 and earlier supports the Classic runtime, which is theoretically capable of running applications built according to Inside Macintosh circa 1983. Of course, things have changed a lot in the intervening 25 years, so most applications won't be compatible (Classic doesn't support FPU and many traps/managers have been eliminated), but the facility is there.
you had me at #!
They've had plenty of time. The problem isn't that NVidia hasn't had time to get their act together, the problem is that Vista introduces all kinds of requirements to the driver model for "content protection" that they're required to implement. They've pushed back on a few issues, but the fact is that they're still spending more of their time on making the system so that the user can't do anything that is "disallowed" by whatever media company cares to flip the bits, rather than working on actual functionality. The driver situation will NOT get better with time, given the requirements that they need to meet.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The guy's an engineer, but he's talking like a politician. He is not actually saying anything. He did not answer even one question. He's just spewing out empty word shells. (Not even minding the fact that he uses the word "really" in just about every sentence.) If I ever get into a position where I have to behave like that, I'm gonna kill myself. I couldn't look at myself in a mirror.
I'll confess, I'm a MS hater. I could just care less, but these guys have brought so much shit upon the world, there can be no ignoring them. I'm always hoping for something that will challenge my opinion of them, but whatever news there are from MS always just manages to undermine my perception of MS as a big bunch of spineless, soulless, greedy children.
Oddly, I know people who left systems administration for the opposite reason over Vista. These folks managed rollouts to hundres of thousands of desktops, and when the big corps they worked for decided to give Vista a miss, most of the jobs dried up. I wonder if Windows7 will give these corps any reson to leave XP, as it still seems to be just eye candy with no kernel improvements.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I was under impression that their last bold statement was that finally the kernel of the server os and client os, those of vista and 2008, were finally the same, not that one was an improvement on another.
The kernel has been the same on Windows client and server releases since the release of Windows NT 3.1 (the first version of NT) in 1993. It was the same with Windows NT 3.5, 3.51, 4.0 and 5.0 (Windows 2000). What happened after Windows 2000 was that the client and server releases became staggered, so that XP was NT 5.1 and Server 2003 was NT 5.2 (although the x64 version of XP also used the NT 5.2 kernel).
With Vista and Server 2008, Microsoft have just returned to the pre-XP policy of using the same kernel version for both the client and server releases, ie Vista uses the NT 6.0 kernel, and so does Windows Server 2008. (At least that's what I've read, but I've never actually seen or used Windows Server 2008.)
As for the comment in this article about MinWin, it sounds like nonsense to me. According to what I've read, MinWin isn't a different kernel to the normal NT kernel, it's just a project to separate the NT kernel and some core components from a lot of the rest of the Windows OS, so that more customised 'distributions' can be created. It's similar to the way Linux can be built without building a full GNU/Linux distribution, but that doesn't mean a 'minimal Linux kernel' (ie the kernel and some basic userland tools) is different to the 'Linux kernel' in Ubuntu, RedHat or SUSE.
In other words, the comment by the submitter of this article doesn't really have anything to do with the article itself, and is just more of the mindless Windows bashing typical of Slashbots who think they're terribly clever, but don't actually know what they're talking about.
Driver support will not be an issue. If they can use Vista drivers. Well, by the time Windows 7 is released there will be 4 years of hardware made to support Vista. Now if you bump the hardware requirements up just a little for the new OS. You should not be running Windows 7 on hardware older than 4 years old.
Thus Microsoft will have their first success with Windows 7. Hardware compatibility and plenty of working drivers.
vi +
Seriously, Micrsofties. Don't you feel stupid masturbating in tandem to all the Windows 7 pronouncements when it's clearly Microsoft's ploy to distract everyone from the Chrome Turd of Vista? Doesn't this remind you of anything? Like how Vista was going to fix all the ills of XP? Or how XP was going to fix ME? Do you see a pattern? Microsoft copies so much from Apple, they couldn't resist copying Apple's Copland debacle. But once wasn't good enough. Microsoft made vapourware and integral part of it's business plan, and no one seemed to notice.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
Given the state of ATI drivers on Vista I gotta disagree with you. They don't seem to be having the same troubles getting it to work on Vista.
The DRM is not being forced down their throats, if they don't support it then they won't be able to display DRM protected media plain and simple. The presence of DRM support in Vista has always been way overblown as it only matters when the media you're playing requires it. My home DVDs play just fine.
I'll say that the blame does belong with Microsoft but also with third parties. Microsoft is to blame for creating an OS that allows these kinds of problems but every OS with device drivers which is all operating systems has the same issue with bad drivers. Lord knows I've encountered this in the Debian world, I recently built a router box with a solid state hard drive, the installer can't write an MBR for it because it thinks there are too many cylinders. CentOS strangely enough installs just fine.
I also remember when drivers for Windows 2000 were in rough shape and that smoothed out over time. XP added some additional headaches which also smoothed out over time. I see no reason Vista wouldn't have better drivers over the next couple of years.
It's both.
It's the same major generation of kernel, but of course they're also making evolutionary improvements to it while keeping binary compatibility, minimal api changes, driver scenarios the same, etc.
It's better to say that Vista SP1 is very close to the same kernel as Server 2008, and Windows 7 will be further evolution along the same major kernel generation.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So he confused the words "compatibility" and "incompatibility"? Isn't that pretty bad?
#1 will happen as a matter of course, since its the same driver model as Vista and Server 2008 use. So every month that goes by, the driver 'ecosystem' gets better.
/.).
#2 is just being silly. Thats just flat not a market requirement. Only the tiny percentage of techies want this, the 95% of the users out there dont care and have no expectation of this. They only want it to perform reasonably on the hardware it comes with.
People that say they're expecting this just dont get the market forces at work. There is NO DEMAND for an OS that performs better than the old one. It's not even going to be on the feature list at MS. No one cares (except for a subset of the people here on
Hell, just a cursory examination of some of the improvements they made to the internals of Vista would rule that out. They moved a LOT of drivers out into userspace. It's inevitable that this will have a performance impact, but with the bennie of improved stability once the IHVs learn how to write drivers properly for the product.
What about 68k support? I remember playing 'Vette!' as a kid and thinking how great it was (had a level of detail that you rarely get today, even with GTA you can't go to a gas station to fill up your tank yet). I've got an Intel Mac now and downloaded a whole bunch of old ROMs that I have fond memories of, but Hellcats and Vette! don't work.
which is totally what she said
When you're writing a new operating system.. yes!
which is totally what she said
They don't.
What they did do was make classic usable but painfull enough that users would strongly preffer native apps (unlike the transition from win16 to win32 which was invisible to users meaning that win16 apps stuck arround for a VERY lonh time). That meant that when it came time for the intel switch they could drop classic without causing thier users too much trouble.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
XP does support IPV6, there are some issues with the implementation (you have to use two sockets if you want to listen on both v4 and v6, you have to use the command line to configure it and your dns servers must be ipv4) but it is certainly usable.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
SheepShaver runs Mac OS 9 on top of the existing OS. Mac OS 9 provides 68k emulation. It should "just work" so long as the app in question could run on a PowerPC-based Mac and you have an appropriate version of Mac OS that was capable of running the app. I could be wrong, though. There might be some PPC instructions (probably supervisor mode) in the 68k emulation code that can't be emulated by Rosetta and/or SheepShaver. At some point, it might be easier to run a 68k emulator directly rather than running an emulator on top of another emulator.
http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/macintosh.shtml has a list of other emulators you might try. I'd imagine that any of the Linux-compatible X11-based 68k emulators would be pretty easy to port to Mac OS X's X11 implementation (if nobody has done it already).Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
What makes it Windows 7? Did they add lens flare to the shiny buttons? Did we get a 32 bit integer to store the value of specularity for each button? More importantly, will I need a new monitor to be able to appreciate the awesome shininess?
What functions DOES Windows 7 have that make my life better and easier? Why in hell should I switch from XP? With 2 GB of RAM and a dual core processor on XP it runs fast. On Vista it ran OK. OK is not worth two hundred bucks. They promised me Longhorn, all I got was bull.
You will of course understand that virtualization and emulation are different technologies. In one technology, most instructions pass through "as-is" to the CPU. In the other, they do not.
So, virtualization will work find for compatibility layers insofar as you do not switch CPU architectures. Performance is generally pretty damn good.
C//
I'm aware that the two aren't the same, and I think my point still stands. There is overhead on both technologies, (albeit much more with emulation), and it's bad for the customer when companies take the lazy way out.
Nobody else has this sig.
Nope, you're not the only one. I'm switching from sysadmin to go do multimedia school next year (but in management, not production.)
Vista is so complex that normal users and even sysadmins are suffering. While I'm that navigating through the labyrinth that is Vista's various control panels and settings gets easier with time, it mainly shows an almost total lack of communication between the various development teams at Microsoft.
I also imagine that Microsoft's lack of direction is making them panic. Kicking out various managers, like Allchin, but keeping king size buffoons like Ballmer only make the situation worse. Not knowing how they can improve on the disaster that is Vista, they variously try to copy:
a) Google,
b)Apple,
and when the going gets really rough, even
c) Linux.
The touch screen thingamabob they demoed today must have Apple employees laughing so hard they must be crying. If you think that Vista has enormous hardware requirements, and it really does, can you imagine what that touch screen thingy will require, which is in reality, just Microsoft trying to do a vapourware job on Apple.
The problem is that the media have grown up (partly at least). No one is going to fall for MS vapourware until Microsoft produces concrete implementations on commodity hardware. Apple's iPhone can do all that on an embedded CPU...
Vista is proof, and Windows 7 will be more proof, that M$ has no real idea on how to write OS code. They are still using the same NT kernel that is nothing more than modified OS/2 code. I bet if you look at the full code it will have comments that say OS/2 or IBM. And there is probably one line of code left in there from OS/2 that nobody at M$ has any idea of what it does or how it works. All they know is if you remove that line the OS fails to work.
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
There is not particularly much overhead with modern virtualization, no. SPEC CPU benches score at around the 97% level or so. I know, I've run them.
Some forms of I/O are hit by 15-25% (in particular the network), but this matters little to the home user, as the low speeds the average home is wired with are not hit at all.
As for your judgment that doing such things is "bad for the customer," I disagree. Customers discriminate heavily towards some very simple things. One of them is compatibility.
Another one is cost.
C//
By contrast, I've sat at dozens of Vista machines (I used to install internet) and found them consistently: slow, resource hogging, confusing in layout, and unstable (call it tilt-bits, DRM, bloat, or whatever you like; the experience is what it is).
So go ahead and argue that Server 08 has a great kernel and that Vista's is no different, but the glaring reality is that the Vista experience is teaching millions about PTSD, and until MS starts pricing Server 08 for the desktop, they don't really have a product to offer the desktop user.
db
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I had a Quadro lying under my bed for the last few years, though I think I threw it out, would have been an easy method of trying to play Vette had I thought of it (the idea didn't occur to me that I could find really old games on the net back when I used it a bit more regularly) *facepalm* Well, I've had several Macs (from the Classic up until my current Macbook Pro), most of which died or were thrown away, though one was given away. I wouldn't feel guilty about downloading some old ROMs and OS CDs anyway :)
which is totally what she said
Well, it's maybe better to assume that other people are idiots who understand cars better than computers ;) Actually, I probably would have a much better chance of designing a working car than a working computer.. a combustion engine is a lot simpler than a memory management unit.
which is totally what she said
Thats just flat not a market requirement.
Like hell it is! Imagine if a company with 500 Windows XP Professional PCs could upgrade to Windows Vista Business without buying a single piece of extra hardware! Millions of PCs are still running Windows XP, and will never be upgraded because the added cost of hardware upgrades or complete hardware replacement for Vista or Windows 7 is more than the company/government organization/whatever is willing to pay.
Imagine if home PC buyers could get a full feature, full performance version of Vista on a home PC for $100 or $200 less in hardware costs than what they need now, and with no 'Vista Capable' scandals. For laptops, the cost effects of the requirements jump from XP to Vista is even larger - right now, the cheapest $400 and $500 laptop configurations from most vendors are blazingly fast on XP, but if you want equivalent performance on Vista you need to spend $300 or $400 more.
PC gaming enthusiasts aren't particularly bothered by the new system specs, because they will buy pretty robust machines regardless. Everyone else would benefit tremendously if Microsoft worked on reduced system requirements for Windows 7. It's a sure thing Microsoft would have sold a lot more copies.
There isn't much synthetic overhead when resources are unlimited, however, its not hard to argue that there is a great deal of overhead when resources are limited.
For example, applications running in Windows XP, on Parallels, on my OS X Leopard system might run at near native speed, all else being equal. However, XP itself consumers nearly 300-400 MB of Ram, and applications running under XP load all sorts of shared libraries which are not shared with OS X. Parallels uses a good 100-200 MB of ram itself, and of course the whole mess uses 10+ GB of disk space, even with just a couple of apps installed. Even on a system with 2-4 GB of ram, there is generally a significant performance deficit exposed when you've got to allocate 500-1000 MB to a single application, when running that same application in native mode might only use 100-300 MB.
That being said, I agree that virtualization is definitely the best way to deal with legacy applications, since it entails a fairly static resource cost (i.e. you're safe assuming you can virtualize XP as long as you put an extra 2 GBs of ram in the system, and thats a nice, fixed cost).
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
What MS should have done would be to do the 'Vista Capable' thing accurately. Then for the folks who want a $300-400 computer, they would buy an XP box. And they would see the Vista boxes right next to them, costing a couple hundred more, but faster hardware and (as perceived) more features. That would be an effective differential pricing plan.
I installed Dapper Drake a while ago, in a dual boot machine, and my wife ended up using Windows because many key applications didn't just work. I recently installed Hardy Heron in our new computer, no windows, and most things have worked right away or are a google/download away. My wife hasn't asked me to install Windows at all. She was saying that she was happy with it. It is truly amazing how much it improved in so little time. Give it another try. :)
There has been this trend of lightweight virtualization lately, that people are investigating for the purpose of containerizing single applications. Think "security," if you want to know what they're thinking about.
Anyway, in those environments, it is perhaps not necessary to have much "installed" in the OS area at all. Not even a fully featured OS at all. It just needs to be able to run programs.
What I'm thinking about here is a sort of "XP compatibility mode" checkbox that really works.
A couple of gigs of storage and a small memory footprint are increasingly irrelevant. $25/GB last I checked, for RAM... although of course prices vary. *wink*
C//
Kill off XP, and remove the only feature worth waiting for in Windows 7!
By ${DEITY}, they'll stop at nothing to sell VISTA!
You may be right about home users, but I think you're wrong about business users.
Microsoft doesn't care what they sell to a business, as long as they have plenty of revenue. But if the business is going to spend, say, an average of $200 per employee on the next version of a Microsoft operating system, the ability to avoid an additional $400 per employee in Vista-capable hardware is extremely nice.
On the other hand, it's not too crazy to guess Intel, AMD, and PC manufacturers are subtly urging Microsoft to keep increasing system requirements. If Vista and Windows 7 ran fine on hardware that supported Windows XP, new hardware sales to businesses would drop dramatically. The ever-escalating system requirements can be viewed as planned obsolescence.
Champaign is the city in Illinois. Champagne (DOC) is the French sparkling beverage.
you had me at #!
Guaranteed revenue stream... protection money... ;)
you had me at #!
Perhaps you're right, but I'd say only if this backwards compatibility is optional. I wouldn't want to have to wait while windows 3.1, '95 and '98 compatibility layers were installed or loaded onto my system, nor have them taking up Hard drive space, if I don't run such programs.
ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?: