Slashdot Mirror


Five Ways Microsoft Could Change After Gates

Might Squirrel noted a perfectly mediocre story to chat about on a boring post-holiday weekend Monday. This one is a look at 5 ways Microsoft could change after Gates. From accepting Open Source to serious interoperability work, there are definitely 5 things on that list there. Nothing about my solid gold rocket car.

4 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Don't expect any radical shift by dc29A · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft have already done one kernel rewrite, going from Windows 9x/Me to Windows NT.

    Erm ... no. Microsoft had already finished the NT kernel when they decided to ditch the Win9x/ME "kernel" for the one in NT 4.0 and Win2K (NT came out ages before ME). It wasn't a kernel rewrite at all, just two different kernels running side by side until MS decided to kill the weak one and use the good one.

  2. Re:Don't expect any radical shift by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Erm ... no. Microsoft had already finished the NT kernel when they decided to ditch the Win9x/ME "kernel" for the one in NT 4.0 and Win2K (NT came out ages before ME). It wasn't a kernel rewrite at all, just two different kernels running side by side until MS decided to kill the weak one and use the good one.

    The plan was to replace Windows 9x/Me from the start. In fact the original plan was that Windows 98 would be the last Windows based on the old kernel mode code and the transition to the NT kernel would be complete by Windows 2000. Windows Me was launched by popular demand. By the time Windows XP was launched the transition finally happened.

    So the plan was always to kill off 16 bit Windows and replace it with an NT based OS. This wasn't quite ready as of Windows 2000 so they had to launch on extra 16 bit OS, Windows Me as a stopgap waiting for Windows XP.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  3. Re:ok, let's chat by Graymalkin · · Score: 3, Informative

    It appears the point completely missed you and apparently impaled an innocent bystander behind you. The XBox 360 has a long history which you're not properly accounting for. Before the 360 was the original XBox which did unexpectedly well especially considering the fierce competition of Sony and Nintendo. However before the XBox was Microsoft's work on the Dreamcast which did not do so well and sank Sega's hardware business. Before the Dreamcast was Microsoft's PC gaming division which only had a handful of real hits to its credit. Microsoft did what smaller companies could not do, fail repeatedly until they managed to get something working right. They were able to buy out game studios like Bungie and Rare in order to get some heavy hitting first party titles developed for their console. The XBox 360 is a good console because Microsoft has spent more than a decade struggling with a gaming business. XBox Live has a similar story, they bought out "The Village" which got rebranded Internet Gaming Zone which eventually became the MSN Gaming Zone and served as the conceptual basis for XBox Live. Again because of their size and money they could throw resources at a lackluster product and eventually make it stick. Other companies don't have that same luxury, look at Sega. Two successive market failures and it was lights out for their hardware division.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  4. Re:Don't expect any radical shift by DogDude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seriously, are you going to trust a mission-critical program to run on a Windows box in the first place.

    Sure. I have several in place right now. As do millions of other companies. Suggesting that it's a bad idea, or that it doesn't happen is FUD.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.