Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Looming 'Single Windows Ecosystem'

jfruhlinger writes "Xbox on Windows 8? A shared PC-tablet OS? Hints have been coming fast and furious from Microsoft about what their next-generation OS strategy will look like. It may be that at its heart, Microsoft is doing what it should have been doing for the last 5 years: building a set of modular OS components for different platforms that work together when need be, rather than a group of competing and incompatible OSes with superficially similar branding. In other words, the company may be getting out of its own way, at last."

163 comments

  1. It's no surprise by Flyerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering the strength of Windows comes from its backwards compatibility with a large field of Programs(before they were called Apps), it makes sense that Microsoft will want to leverage that over all available media.

    It's a very good decision, which is surprising in it's own right.

    1. Re:It's no surprise by rbrausse · · Score: 2

      not bad, but you're missing at least 100 lines of text to be a realistical substitute of the one and only apk

    2. Re:It's no surprise by Elbereth · · Score: 2

      Yeah, for a true apk post, it needs to be ten paragraphs of rambling, stream-of-consciousness ranting. Don't forget the attacks on Drinkypoo, Countertrolling, and gmhowell. Also, it never hurts to have some kind of bizarre, self-congratulatory "I WIN, BECAUSE YOU FAIL LOL ROFL" series of statements at the end, proclaiming victory and the ritual pwning of noobs. On the whole, it was a good first attempt, but the real apk is near irreplaceable. He may be an arrogant, pseudo-intellectual kook, but he's our arrogant, pseudo-intellectual kook.

    3. Re:It's no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're trolling Bing search results! At least use Google!

    4. Re:It's no surprise by webmistressrachel · · Score: 0

      Although I'd love to see a post by my favourite black-hat troll, this isn't one of them.

      apk, where are you? What's the point of somebody HOSTing this thread if you won't attend? Rachel...

      ps... check my posting history for lots of apk baiting goodness...

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    5. Re:It's no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I don't see how backwards compatibility with old Intel-based Windows applications is of much use at all. As a Windows Phone or Xbox owner, why would I care whether my device runs some old version of Excel? The UI associated with desktop applications is completely inappropriate to anything but a desktop.

      On the other hand, I do care a lot about very low interrupt latency. Maybe Microsoft can maintain this with a modular OS. I haven't been terribly impressed with Windows 7 in this regard, though.

    6. Re:It's no surprise by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      They were called Programs? All that time I thought they were Excees!

    7. Re:It's no surprise by fbjon · · Score: 1

      You forgot the mandatory signature in the middle of the post, followed by "PS." and the rest of the rambling.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    8. Re:It's no surprise by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Considering the strength of Windows comes from its backwards compatibility with a large field of Programs(before they were called Apps), it makes sense that Microsoft will want to leverage that over all available media.

      It's a very good decision, which is surprising in it's own right.

      Indeed, but legacy apps aren't likely to make an appearance on ARM-powered phones and tablets any time soon.

    9. Re:It's no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft will want to leverage that over all available media.

      You accidentally verbed a noun.

    10. Re:It's no surprise by Flyerman · · Score: 1

      Assholes have been verbing it for quite some time before I came around. I am merely the latest in a long line of assholes.

    11. Re:It's no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...large field of Programs(before they were called Apps)...

      While Windows has traditionally called them “programs”, I come from the Mac world where they have always been called “application programs” — typically shortened to “applications” or “apps” — to distinguish them from driver programs (extensions, CDEVS), font programs, PostScript page description programs, or even the kernel program. To me, the change is welcome and sounds very natural. (And, no, Apple does not even remotely deserve a trademark for App Store.)

  2. Kinect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I predict Laptops and PC will start coming with Microsoft Kinect / Webcam.

    1. Re:Kinect? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      That sounds correct. Whenever there is profit to be had by sale of personal information that they will rename "anonymous", Microsoft is competitive with Google.

    2. Re:Kinect? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0

      Yeah... Sure. Off-topic. Mmmhmm.

  3. LOOMING ?? NOTHING TO FEAR BUT FEAT, SMELLY FEAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looming ?? Scared of this looming thing looming out there ready to unloom your ass ?? Just get on with things that matter !!

  4. "building a set of MODULAR OS components for by unity100 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    different platforms that work together when need be ...."

    doesnt that already define linux ?

    1. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No in Linux they only work sometimes

    2. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It defines what they have been doing already. Reusing their investments in DirectX, .Net, SQL Server, the NT Kernel, Office and Avalon/WPF/Silverlight on different platforms and media. What else do you think "OS components" means? There's absolutely no news or big shift in direction here. This is basically pseudo-technical sounding marketing tripe.

      The only ugly duck in the family was Windows CE, and it's dead. Let's move on, shall we!

    3. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think this does.

      a group of competing and incompatible OSes with superficially similar branding

      .

    4. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by alphatel · · Score: 0

      Newsbreak: Windows decides to be more like Apple. Stay tuned.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    5. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that dumb bloat word again. You realize a smartphone is orders of magnitude more powerful then a computer 30 years ago. They are even more powerful then computers from 6-7 years ago. This isn't some microcontroller that runs on a watch battery.

    6. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean my phone's powerful enough to run Windows 2000? Cool -- knew I was saving that CD for something.

    7. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, yeah.. A kernel, graphics subsystem, api layer and window manager are all silly bloat things that nobody needs on their computer.

    8. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      The only ugly duck in the family was Windows CE, and it's dead. Let's move on, shall we!

      Really? Windows Phone 7 has Windows CE at its core, and it's live and kicking. It's also used for lots of embedded systems (what it's designed for, as opposed to crappy netbooks).

    9. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give them some credit. Some things (ALSA, wi-fi, ...) will break only on every other update.

    10. Re:"building a set of MODULAR OS components for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays they're even powerful enough to run Java without too much of a lag.

  5. You Mean MS's Sony Eye Toy Ripoff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft just had what most people have called the worst E3 in history thanks to their shitty me-too motion controls they bought from a company Apple, Nintendo, and Sony all passed on.

    No one gives a shit about Microsoft's shitty motion controls bolted onto their laptop.

    1. Re:You Mean MS's Sony Eye Toy Ripoff? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I'm no big fan of the Kinect, but it was a great move by MS. It's boosted sales for the 360 up to Wii levels. The PS3 Move turned out to be the abject failure of last year's E3.

  6. How many times do I have to say it? by gman003 · · Score: 1

    The "Windows 8 will play XBox360 games" rumor is COMPLETELY FALSE. It's economically infeasible - emulating that system playably would require either a breakthrough in emulation, or a set of system requirements so high as to be unheard of (I'm talking "dual-socket server processors", something very, very few PC gamers have, let alone XBox gamers).

    Now, maybe, just maybe, they'll be offering compatibility with the original XBox - that's completely feasible, although not very high-demand. Or, perhaps, they'll be offering a single programming environment for both, beyond the level XNA already provides, such that porting a game from the 360 to the PC requires just a recompile. Or maybe their next-gen console will be x86-based again, which would make emulation less performance-intensive. All of those rumors are plausible enough to believe, even though I doubt either would be true. But can we at least keep the physically-impossible rumors off /.?

    1. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      While it may be false, it is not be economically infeasible ..I mean what you seem to think they need to do would make it economically infeasible ,but they don't need to do that at all.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I suppose they could do some hypervisor (by way of Hyper-V) cookery, though they'd have to emulate the architecture as well.

      But that said, and seeing how PPC emulation actually works on x86? Err, yeah, not really seeing it happen, at least not very efficiently.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not if they only let you play the Live market games they have in their game store. That sounds far more likely.

    4. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What seems more likely to me is that the next Xbox will run on x86-64, and basically run a stripped down version of Windows 8. So there would be no emulation fakery required. Sure, the first generation of games would require very expensive PCs, but three or four years down the road, a decent gaming PC could boot into "gaming mode" and play Xbox games easily.

    5. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The claim that "Windows 8 will play XBox360 games" and "porting a game from the 360 to the PC requires just a recompile" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, that is the most likely scenario. Hosting ported Xbox 360 software exclusively in Windows 8 gives that OS a big selling point. The fact that Microsoft and it's customers aren't concerned with the fine points of porting verses emulation when they say things like "Windows 8 will..." is just a hangup on your part.

    6. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is the most likely scenario. OS unification is a forward looking task. It requires planning for the future. I can remember a time when MS was unifying corporate and consumer code bases. It seems to have worked out pretty good.

    7. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Most of XBox 360 comes from the video card, the much faster intel chips are more than capable of emulating the xbox 360 chip, just need a compatible video card, and away you go. Even now, especially in the years it will take this to come out. (Have Microsoft ever released a new OS on time, and no, Windows 7 is not new, nor was XP, nor was 98. 95, 2000 and Vista we noew OS's, as much as the fanboys would like to forget).

      Would they do it, that is the question.

    8. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that emulation is NEVER equal in speed to the original. In fact, emulating PowerPC is usually

      The GPU, however, is actually much easier to emulate. Especially given the non-ISA-specific nature of them - even the XBox uses the same shaders and functions that PC games use.

    9. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Except that the average gamer is going to see "Windows 8: Now Compatible with XBox360 Games", and then wonder why their pile of game discs don't work. There's no way Microsoft will be able to get every developer to recompile their games - after 6 years on the market, many developers have gone out of business, or lost their license for whatever IP they used, or something else. Others have already ported their games to the PC (or wrote them originally for the PC, with the 360 version being the port), and might not want to cooperate.

      Plus, a simple recompile won't fix certain issues. PC gamers expect and demand games to work with a mouse/keyboard setup. Very, very few 360 games do that - so you'd have to recode at least some stuff to get a decent port of earlier titles.

    10. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by quasipunk+guy · · Score: 1

      I don't have a newish Mac but doesn't Rosetta translate PPC instructions to Intel/x64? I'm not so sure it's really so impossible (though I do think it's unlikely).

    11. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That would be, because shader functions are backwards compatible. But you're sure not using shader v5 on a xbox.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      But that said, and seeing how PPC emulation actually works on x86? Err, yeah, not really seeing it happen, at least not very efficiently.

      As a rule of thumb that's pretty accurate for emulation in general. The only reason Apple were able to get away with it is because by the time they moved to x86 CPUs, the PowerPCs they had been using were falling seriously behind - even then there was apparently a slight performance penalty to running things under Rosetta on the first x86-based macs.

    13. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to emulate it.
      They can be recompiled for different architectures.
      Obviously not all titles would be, due to silly developers who refuse to.
      Hell, they could pull an Apple, create a 'rosetta stone', save the output and then run it.

      Point is, when you control the ecosystem, you aren't bound by the same rules we are.

    14. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be equal to the speed of the original. It has to be "just not slow enough that's it's slower than it was originally when emulated on a much newer processor." Anyway, a high end emulator, such as the type that was once made by the Transitive company for Apple's Rosetta product, is more like a just-in-time compiling emulator than anything else. I tested their SPARC-to-x86 version at one time, and it tore down SPECfp and SPECint benchmarks like no tomorrow.

      So while you did not say this, I detect a sentiment that emulators have to be slow. That instinct is incorrect.

      Of course there is the downside that there are few people in the whole world who can make just-in-time compiling emulators. IBM bought Transitive, and they were one of the few.

      C//

    15. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      and seeing how PPC emulation actually works on x86?

      Using JIT emulation or recompile in advance?

      Apple and Alpha both have shown on multiple occasions that you can emulate another architecture rather well if you put some effort into it. JIT types of emulation suck ass if you're not running on the same architecture, but using AOT recompilation makes the initial startup/load suck, but runtime generally is doable if it can talk to native libraries.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    16. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      The only reason Apple were able to get away with it is because by the time they moved to x86 CPUs, the PowerPCs they had been using were falling seriously behind...

      This year's Xbox 360 isn't much faster than 2005's Xbox 360.

    17. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      They would need to emulate a tri core dual threaded PPC CPU on an x86 machine.....

    18. Re:How many times do I have to say it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps what is meant by this is not that you will be able to play Xbox360(or next gen) games on Windows 8, but that it will be easier to stream/share/interact between your Xbox360(or next gen) and your Windows 8 PC. True, it is possible now, and relatively easy. However, it could be (and even should be) even easier to do so between two Microsoft products.

  7. Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What will likely happen is that it'll end up like recent Ubuntu releases. In case you haven't been following Ubuntu recently, they've apparently tried to support all sorts of devices, from netbooks to laptops to desktops to workstations to servers. The outcome hasn't been good, and many users have been very unhappy.

    What works for one type of device often doesn't work very well for others. Take Unity, for instance. While it might be only slightly shitty on netbooks, it's not pleasant to use on laptops, it's hellish on desktops, and it's an absolute disaster if you're using a workstation. Sure, you can switch to some other desktop environment, but it's a pain in the ass that one shouldn't have to endure!

    It's often good to specialize, and not be overly-generic. Being generic often means that you can't do anything well.

  8. Okay, but... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    Just one small question...

    How will these modules break up? I mean, if you build an app for Windows 8 on one UI paradigm, how does it suddenly translate to another (without a huge pile o' multi-anticipatory bloat at either the app or API side of the equation)? Or, err, is it all going to be lowest-common-denominator (e.g. the WP7 Metro UI) and called good? ...and how will legacy apps actually use that if a module critical to said app is missing? I'll just table the whole architecture thing for the moment, because I don;t think anyone is going to seriously entertain the idea of loading {existing application} onto a Windows 8 x86 desktop, then expect to do the very same thing with the exact same install binaries on a Windows 8 ARM tablet...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Okay, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't sweat the little stuff. Magic pixie dust and Balmer's retirement will make everything magically wonderful, and reverse Microsoft's present footprint from Titanic Public Utility to nimble, cutting edge, relevance.

    2. Re:Okay, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don;t think anyone is going to seriously entertain the idea of loading {existing application} onto a Windows 8 x86 desktop, then expect to do the very same thing with the exact same install binaries on a Windows 8 ARM tablet

      Why not? Apple has a way to aggregate several binaries for different architectures compiled from the same source code for years now. Of course you do have to compile separately for every platform, but why would the developer care? He just clicks "Build" in Visual Studio, and it does it all for him.

    3. Re:Okay, but... by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      There are multiple UI targets for the single OS platform. You can develop a native, rich, highly optimized, and awesome interface for the phone, xbox, or desktop if you want. The advantage is that everything else doesn't have to be rewritten. Simple apps will be more of a lowest-common-denominator with HTML/jscript-based UIs. That's more of your typical smartphone weather app example. On your desktop, you could just pin it in the sidebar. Developers would also want to think about touch and mouse/keyboard differently. If you want a gaming example, the Unreal engine is available on a ton of platforms: desktop, xbox, ps3, iOS.. In this case, they'd only need one main rendering path to target the 360, windows desktop, windows phone phone, etc. That's why everyone always says the 360 is the easiest to develop for. Not only is it familiar to PC developers, it's easy to try stuff out on PC hardware. But hopefully you'd see other things like your xbox friends list, voice chat support, etc on the phone and desktop as well. Give developers more free stuff on more platforms.

    4. Re:Okay, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Leverage? Paradigm? And not a single comment (rightfully) deriding you and the GP?

      What the fuck is going on here?

    5. Re:Okay, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up. Nobody cares.

    6. Re:Okay, but... by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      There was a video of Windows 8 a while back... it switched seamlessly back and forth between running tablet-style (Metro) apps and traditional apps. When switching to a traditional app, a regular old Windows desktop with a Start button and a taskbar came into view...

      Might be confusing or not ideal, but it would get the job done, and is something I'd be prepared to live with.

      Think I'll stick with Win7 for the next few years though...

    7. Re:Okay, but... by q.kontinuum · · Score: 1

      Hopefully in a similar way that Qt does: By separating the UI from the backend, providing a simple way to design new UIs. The only "drawback" might be that even Windows-targeted developers need to think about their SW Design and start to write better structured Quality-Apps.:-)

      --
      Trolling is a art!
    8. Re:Okay, but... by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      I don;t think anyone is going to seriously entertain the idea of loading {existing application} onto a Windows 8 x86 desktop, then expect to do the very same thing with the exact same install binaries on a Windows 8 ARM tablet

      Why not? Apple has a way to aggregate several binaries for different architectures compiled from the same source code for years now. Of course you do have to compile separately for every platform, but why would the developer care? He just clicks "Build" in Visual Studio, and it does it all for him.

      The problem is that you essentially need to write different UIs for the different form factors, which increases the amount of work for the developers. They'd more likely just write the one UI for their target platform form factor, and ignore that it doesn't work well (or at all) for the others.

  9. Something about "One Ring..." by sillivalley · · Score: 1, Insightful

    One Ring to rule them all...

    Hey, at least it will make the jobs of the virus, trojan, and rootkit writers easier -- cover multiple platforms with a single zero-day! That's progress!

    1. Re:Something about "One Ring..." by alukin · · Score: 1

      +100500

  10. One OS by gtall · · Score: 1, Funny

    One OS to rule them, One OS to bind them, One OS....to lead them all to perdition.

    1. Re:One OS by lucm · · Score: 2

      Maybe you mean one "iOS" ?

      Oh my mistake. Same thing, different monopolistic company.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:One OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent +3 Please!
      "If carpenters built houses the way that programmers write programs, the first woodpecker would destroy civilization."
      Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of Windows zombies of these?
      Now a script kiddie can infect everything you (p)OWN!

    3. Re:One OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this is basically "Write once, exploit everywhere."

    4. Re:One OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Same thing, different monopolistic company"

      eh, isn't that a contradiction in terms?

  11. All funded by Android by phonewebcam · · Score: 4, Funny

    based on Linux, a set of modular OS components for different platforms that work together when need be. Since 1991.

    1. Re:All funded by Android by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2

      Or based on Apple's success with iOS, which derives directly from OS X/Darwin.

      There are really big advantages to keeping one solid, portable 'core' OS and building libraries that can be 'scaled down' for mobile devices. Just look at how Apple's small team of OS developers have things set up:

      Darwin becomes OS X and iOS...
      Webkit is the browser and JavaScript app runtime on both platforms.
      The CoreAnimation API that accelerates OS X eye candy is used in iOS to do the screen drawing (ala DirectX on Xbox and WIndows).

      A mobile developer can easily graduate to application development on the main platform, code can be re-used, and security and performance improvements correlate on both platforms. I'd say that there are 'monoculture' security issues, and I'm sure there are, but I don't think that most 'buffer overflows' can be cross-platform by their very nature, and these portable devices are running on ARM, while the desktops are amd64.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    2. Re:All funded by Android by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's cute how Slashdotters think Linux is the center of the universe. Linux on the desktop is so statistically insignificant as to be practically non-existent, and platforms like Android are based on APIs that simply run onto of Linux but were written by commercial companies like Google (a proprietary search and advertising company, no less).

    3. Re:All funded by Android by grcumb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's cute how Slashdotters think Linux is the center of the universe.

      Linux is not the centre of the universe. Linux is the glue that holds the universe together[*]. Even Windows PCs would be a damn sight less useful if it weren't for the presence of Linux everywhere from Google to your home router.

      Linux on the desktop is so statistically insignificant as to be practically non-existent, and platforms like Android are based on APIs that simply run onto of Linux but were written by commercial companies like Google (a proprietary search and advertising company, no less).

      That's a non sequitur. Since when does liking Linux - and using it professionally or for fun - have anything to do with its commercialisation? Free is still Free. And for the less dogmatic among us, even proprietary software has a place in the Linux world.

      ----------------
      [*] Albeit in a wonderfully inconsistent, semi-anarchic way. ObXKCD: http://xkcd.com/224/

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    4. Re:All funded by Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up. no one gives a shit what you think.

    5. Re:All funded by Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love me some windows (its my bread and butter). But I am not so myopic to realize that linux is EVERYWHERE. You dont see it. Linux is in everything from cars to tvs to routers to cheap pcs to dvrs to cell phones to ebook readers. Linux is moving numbers MS could only dream of.

      On the desktop yeah it has no traction. The very utilities that linux is built upon came from the BSD world. The guy who was talking (the pulseaudio guy) is talking from his ass. BSD is still very relevant. Many of the better done systems in linux came from there and continue to come from there. The BSD guys actually seem to give a shit about compatibility and it working well. He is probably pissed off because the BSD guys told him to f off. As they care that things work *right*. It is their over reaching theme. He is right though that it relegates them to being 'toys'. As they spend too much time being 'right' and not enough figuring out what people want.

    6. Re:All funded by Android by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Modular in source, but still monolithic in runtime, since 1991. NT and OSX left behind monolithic kernels in the 1990s.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    7. Re:All funded by Android by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Linux is not the centre of the universe. Linux is the glue that holds the universe together[*]. Even Windows PCs would be a damn sight less useful if it weren't for the presence of Linux everywhere from Google to your home router.

      Neither home, my home ISP, my office, or the colo where our servers reside use Linux anywhere in their infrastructure. The colo obviously hosts some Linux machines for customers, but you use Linux for network infrastructure when you haven't grown up enough yet to use the proper OSes.

      Your little router might because you went out of your way to find one that did, most people don't, and neither does their router.

      That's a non sequitur. Since when does liking Linux - and using it professionally or for fun - have anything to do with its commercialisation?

      It doesn't, and thats the point, which you proved. Your lust for it has clouded your judgement, which is why you bring it up.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:All funded by Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux 1.0 was released in 1994. It didn't support dynamically loadable kernel modules and ran only on the Intel 386 (and its successors). It was heavily tied to the Intel architecture, so was not expected to ever be ported to anything else -- and the ports that eventually did happen required extensive rewriting.

      MS Windows 1.0 was released in 1985 and was composed of dynamically loaded modules. It ran only on the Intel 8086 (and its successors), with later versions taking advantage of some 386 protected memory features. Like Linux, it was heavily tied to the x86, but instead of trying to make it portable, Microsoft wrote a new OS to replace it.

      Microsoft's new OS, Windows NT, was released in 1993. Since it was portable by design, it ran on MIPS and the Intel 386 (and its successors) from the start, with an Alpha port added shortly after release and a PowerPC port added in 1994. NT also supported loadable kernel modules from day one.

      Microsoft may have made a mistake by developing Windows CE as a separate OS and creating an Xbox-specific fork of NT, but the environment today isn't the same as the environment of the mid- or late-90s. With the primitive hardware of the mid-90s, the stripped down CE kernel might have been the only viable option for small devices. Xbox also had relatively limited hardware compared with PCs. Hardware has advanced to the point that it would probably be reasonable to use the NT kernel everywhere, but that's only recently become the case.

  12. It will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Remember all the promises Microsoft has made before Vista about Longhorn, and modular OS with object FS, and all that cool stuff.

    In never happened. Any of it. ANY of it.

    1. Re:It will never happen by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair they tried something similar back when they named everything not welded to the floor ".Net"...

      Maybe this is just a reprise of that?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:It will never happen by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of it did happen. Compatibility issues and having to start over with vista due to the ass pounding they got in the security area forced them to rethink the strategy.

      WinFS was available for download for a while, as were many other things they worked on for Vista before they had to rethink it all.

      But hey, don't let facts get in your way.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  13. Computing power allows it now by msobkow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once upon a time, handheld and portable devices were extremely limited in power, necessitating a special-purpose cut-down OS.

    But with the advent of gigahertz plus and dual core CPUs for portable and handheld devices, it's now possible to run the same core OS on virtually all devices, enabling that common code base that allows a truly modular operating system. Sure Linux has been doing that already for years, but it was designed that way -- Windows wasn't.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Computing power allows it now by scamper_22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Sure Linux has been doing that already for years, but it was designed that way -- Windows wasn't."

      You say that as if what Linux did was a good thing.

      There's a reason MS dominated the desktop. They made the desktop work. While some Unix person would just deal with slow graphic performance on a consumer PC, MS did all kinds of tricks and integration to make it work. Just try windows 95 on an old computer. Then try Linux around that time. You will not find it comparable. Windows 95 produces a superior experience by far.

      *nix might have been designed a certain way... but its why they lost the war on the desktop. They built it in an ideal manner and closed their eyes when things didn't work nice. They ignored their customers.

      It's the same reason why Office became popular. MS did things like save the file in binary to improve save performance. A more *nix minded person would have insisted on a 'proper' file format.

      Microsoft has plenty of smart people who were more than aware of the *nix way of building an OS... most of this stuff was figured out a long time ago.

      And so MS begins the long transition to the ideal OS, dealing with backward compatibility... the whole works. Can they do it... who knows. Will it be successful... who knows.

      But I don't think there's any to be proud of in saying Linux was designed that way.

    2. Re:Computing power allows it now by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a reason MS dominated the desktop. They made the desktop work.

      No, they made the desktop cheap. Windows 3.1 was a joke compared to Unix workstations or even Macs of that era, but a PC with Windows cost less than a Mac and far less than a Sun workstation.

    3. Re:Computing power allows it now by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      There's a reason MS dominated the desktop.

      Lots of different reasons actually, of which the one you listed was a rather minor one compared to the rest of them.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Computing power allows it now by maxume · · Score: 1

      Saying that Windows is designed differently than Linux is like comparing a pickle to an orange grove.

      Now that I used a stupid analogy, allow me to explain myself. The Linux kernel and the NT kernel are different, but they aren't as fundamentally different as you think. The GUI configuration of Windows that Microsoft ships is a lot heavier than many Linux distributions, but that isn't really about the design of the operating system.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right about there being a reason MS dominated the desktop, but they certainly didn't make it work well. The reason they succeeded is because they're a large organization with that goal. Period. GNU/Linux doesn't need to, and never has competed on that level. Things being done right may take a while, but it when it's done right it speaks for itself, and to any serious engineer that's ALL that matters. In the end WE will remain, while commercial offerings will slowly fade away.

    6. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I used Linux back when Windows 95 was the state of the art. Granted, you had to yank the cover off the (486) box to get the brand info and jumper settings on the LAN and video cards in order to set it up (same as most ISA-bus OS's of the day), but one of the things I liked about Linux was that it booted faster than windows, required less memory, and consumed less of the CPU overall. And, for that matter, although the vendor support for hardware was dicier, the OS made up for it by producing more useful log messages as it booted up and ran.

      The main reason that Windows dominated the desktop was that Windows was from Microsoft and Microsoft/IBM was the corporate standard. You couldn't get fired for buying it and there were these things called MCSEs beginning to pop us who could ensure that Windows would run reliably and securely. And because everyone knew that Windows was just a purtier DOS and everyone knew DOS.

    7. Re:Computing power allows it now by Elbereth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Come on. AmigaOS, OS-9, and QNX all had amazingly modern features, back in the 1980s, running on, in some cases, 8 bit hardware. In fact, it turns out that RIM bought QNX Software Systems, according to Wikipedia. There's no reason for the OS to be special purpose or cut-down. The problem is with loading up the hardware with extraneous features, such as the ability to play DVDs or streaming media, while keeping the energy consumption minimal. The real innovation is that today's integrated hardware can easily play DVDs, while giving a useful life to embedded devices, thanks to both improved battery technology and energy consumption. It's not that the operating systems can finally have breathing space.

      Seriously. Take a look at what the Amiga could do with a 7 MHz 68K CPU and 256KB RAM. Then, once your mind is blown by that, try out OS-9 on a 6809 CPU, dating back to the late 1970s. Both have features that only appeared in the 2000s, in more mainstream operating systems. QNX can even boot up a GUI environment, with a web browser and networking stack, on a 1.44MB floppy disk. Linux, Windows, and MacOS X can only dream about that (not that they are bad operating systems or anything -- it's just something they can't do).

      It's a matter of priorities, really. Do you want to have your operating system coded in hand-optimized assembly language, with all the maintainability problems that brings? Or do you want an easy to maintain, C++-based operating system, that caches everything in the (presumably available) gigabytes of RAM of a modern PC? You can have features, performance, and low system requirements, but it takes a lot more effort than if you simply emphasize features. It also takes a lot more training.

    8. Re:Computing power allows it now by cusco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, a Windows NT machine was far less expensive than any of its competition (most large shops skipped 3.11), but what made it work was the simple fact that you could take something directly out of Excel and dump it into Word. You could connect Excel to your dBase or Paradox database, write a macro to do something with it, and print it in near WYSIWYG on any printer. Absolutely no one else could do that at the time. Not Sun, not AS400, not Linux, not Apple.

      My mom's coworker had three computers on her desk, a Wang word processor, an Apple running VisiCalc for accounting, and some ugly CPM machine with the customer and case file database. To get data from the customer database she brought it up on the screen and typed it into the Wang. Forget KVMs, none of the three machines had even vaguely compatible plugs on the keyboards or monitors. You'll never hear her bad-talking Windows, because she remembers what her work space was like before.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    9. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it is true. Windows NT was designed to be a true microkernel with user-mode application subsystems under which multiple platforms could execute and be managed concurrently and independently from one another. Linux was designed to be a monolithic kernel to run the GNU toolkit as a temporary solution while waiting on HURD. Both have come a long way from their origins.

      Microsoft didn't intentionally design the mess that is Windows. NT was intended to run OS/2 as the primary subsystem, which it continued to support up through Windows 2000. The Win16/32/64 API was a mistake, something slapped together to fulfill an immediate need. MS didn't anticipate the success of Windows 3.x, but as NT could support additional subsystems they just formalized and packaged up the API and included it. That success translated into the Win16/32 becoming the predominant API on NT

    10. Re:Computing power allows it now by rust627 · · Score: 2

      There's a reason MS dominated the desktop. They made the desktop work.

      No, they made the desktop cheap. Windows 3.1 was a joke compared to Unix workstations or even Macs of that era, but a PC with Windows cost less than a Mac and far less than a Sun workstation.

      No, they made the desktop (relatively) cheap, if you bought it bundled.
      They made windows ubiquitous.
      and with an ecology that made installing and running programs a relatively brainless affair (click on "install.exe") that anybody could do.
      Yes windows 3.1 was a joke compared to other stuff around at the time, but you didn't have to worry about "apt get" routines or broken dependencies
      If a program didn't work it was a rare thing and most people stuck with commonly available programs and just lived with BSOD. This is just how computers were.
      And while we all dreamed (and still do) of Linux on the desktop becoming more common, the reality is that as long as we don't have a simple unified ecology for installing ALL programs across ALL flavours of linux that we wish to see deployed in the common operating space, then Linux will continue to be seen as "too geeky" and our dream of Linux as an option for all is doomed to always being one step away.
      This is another area where the mac way of doing things (sorry to bring religion into this) works.
      a single unified system, Installing programs is a breeze, anyone can do it, even those who have trouble tying their own shoelaces.
      Linux is seen as the third contender, but unfortunately we are taking the same route as the music industry. Instead of unifying under a common banner, we are dividing and deviating under multiple different banners and ways of doing things.
      over the last 12 months i have heard of at least 20 different (and according to the fans) incompatible forms of heavy metal. the differences are subtle and the bands encourage it because it differentiates them from the others, but in the long run it hurts them all by dividing an already limited market into smaller and smaller subsets.
      KDE, Gnome and Unity all introduce their own incompatibilities, some minor, some that are irrelevant and some that restrict which version of a program you can run. Then there is the question of which distribution you are running, Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu, the list goes on, and now we are talking different install methods for different distributions.
      So to create a program that "just works" for Linux, you need to make sure it works for all the different GUI's (not just your personal favourite), and has install systems for All of the different Linux sects, i mean flavours.
      For anyone wanting to earn money for software, it is enough of a hassle to get a program up and running with equivalent functionality for both windows and Mac, and some companies don't bother with both.
      to then expect them to spend more time creating a Linux version and create all the extras needed to make it work (and easy to install) across all flavours of distributions and GUI's for a miniscule section of the market,plus the testing time to make sure it works, even just across the common variations......
      I am not saying we are losing the battle for the desktop, we are slowly gaining ground, but only with those who are open minded enough (and tech minded enough) to accept what we can provide, and the more we fork and deviate (no matter how valid the arguments), the more the management of Microsoft and Apple enjoy it. A small amount of FUD can then amplify the fear of the unknown in the generally technology fearing population. and they do not need to divide us to conquer the marketplace, We are doing that for them.
      And yes, I know of all the stories of "I installed (insert favourite Linux Distribution here) on my ageing mother/father/uncle/aunt/cousins computer and they have never looked back", but that is the point, you installed it for them, overcame their fears and helped them through the process, and are available to guide them when they try to in

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
    11. Re:Computing power allows it now by profplump · · Score: 1

      Microsoft originally wrote Office (or as it was sold at the time, separate programs for Word/Excel/etc.) for the Mac. It came out int 1984. The Windows version didn't come out until like 1989.

    12. Re:Computing power allows it now by stewbacca · · Score: 0

      I think you are the sole person on this planet not named Bill Gates who could say "superior" and "Windows 95" in the same sentence with a straight face.

    13. Re:Computing power allows it now by dbIII · · Score: 1

      And cut and paste between applications in MS Office didn't work very well for quite a few years after that.

    14. Re:Computing power allows it now by tsa · · Score: 1

      And cut and paste between applications in MS Office didn't work very well for quite a few years after that.

      And later they broke the cut and paste option again by pasting all the properties of a text with the text as standard. How annoying! And the worst part is that a while later the OpenOffice team had copied that behaviour from MS! Grrr!

      --

      -- Cheers!

    15. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wang WP, Apple II Visicalc and CP/M accounting were all 1980 or earlier. You then compare this to Windows NT and Office a decade and a half later. Do you think that everyone else stood still ? In 1982 Concurrent-CP/M-86 was released as a pre-emptive multi-tasking multiuser system while MS-DOS could only use floppy disks. It took MS a decade and a half to catch up.

      As fo 'compatible plugs', I say MDA, CGA, VGA, DPMI, HDMI, USB. In fact this is nothing to do with Office or Windows, many PCs had incompatible plugs.

    16. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You *really* have no clue what you're talking about!
      I switched to Linux (Slackware at the time) in my 386DX @ 40 MHz because of how crappy it was at running Win95 (Win 3.11 ran fine, but those 16 bits really couldn't handle 8 MB of RAM). Slackware with X11 (FWM2) was more responsive and infinitely more stable than Win95, and in plain old text mode it was immensely more developer-friendly than any other OS generally available, period. I *tried* Windows 95 in my computer ... in 1995! Then tried Slackware 11, RedHat 3.0-5.0, then Debian 2.0, also in 1995-1998: the Linux experience was always consistently superior. Windows NT 4.0 and onwards was really very stable in commodity hardware, and from that point onwards I started dual-booting NT/Debian; Win95, however, was never, ever, ever a "superior" experience as you claim.

    17. Re:Computing power allows it now by q.kontinuum · · Score: 1

      And there was stupid me thinking all these cases against Microsoft, abusing their monopoly (like punishing vendors with discriminating Windows prices when they want to offer PCs with pre-installed Linux as well, see VOBIS) and their embrace-extend-extinguish strategy of mudding Javascript with their own extensions so that 80% of web pages didn't display properly on competing browsers anymore, keeping their Word format messy and undocumented in a way that they were not even themself able to create any downwards compatible new version, not to mention keeping competing products incompatible, etc. would have to do with them keeping their quasi-monopoly so long...

      --
      Trolling is a art!
    18. Re:Computing power allows it now by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Sure Linux has been doing that already for years, but it was designed that way -- Windows wasn't.

      Didn't Linus Torvalds himself essentially say that Linux would probably never run on a non-x86 processor?

    19. Re:Computing power allows it now by KliX · · Score: 1

      You were literally the problem to the adoption of unix. You still are.

    20. Re:Computing power allows it now by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Linux was designed to be a monolithic kernel to run the GNU toolkit as a temporary solution while waiting on HURD.

      I don't believe that Linus Torvalds ever waited for HURD.

    21. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS had the Mac to learn from, of course they did a good job.

    22. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, Unix workstations never even targeted the home user, and Atari, commodore mac and IBM pc gear were all competitively priced with each other. People like to forget that things weren't as they are now, you were looking at $3-4000 for a new 386 or 486, which while much cheaper than a Sun, SGI or DEC workstation, was again, priced competitively with competitors in their own market.

      Microsoft did not hit the ground running, they didn't simply out-cheap Apple, Atari and Commodore-Amiga, they out competed them all to death. Atari had onboard MIDI, Apple and Amiga had multimedia and desktop publishing, Commie had brand-name recognition and the distinction of being the first giant-slayer of the market (Commie slew Texas Instruments out of the home computer market) but Windows had everything else, and even then, it wasn't until 9x came along that the deathblow was struck.

      It's especially funny if you look at the current situation with Linux, which is proof that simply racing to the bottom won't result in taking a market by storm. You can blame the evil dominant Microsoft for this all you want, but the fact is that MS had to start at the bottom against the giants of the time as well. You actually need to provide some sort of functional advantage, or at the very least, a lateral move.

      The comparison to Unix workstations of the time is a stupid one. It's like saying that today, the ONLY reason everyone and their mother doesn't have an M9000 or SunFire or RoadRunner or Jaguar at home is because Windows/OSX/Linux on x86 is cheaper. think about that for a moment.

      Also do keep in mind that contrary to what the Slashdot crowd likes to pretend, Microsoft came from a Unix background, and before moving into the emerging home computer market, they utterly dominated the Unix market with Xenix out-deploying ever other Unix, combined. There's a reason they didn't go with Unix after that, and there's a reason they brought in David Cutler and his VMS team from DEC when it came time to design and build NT (in the words of David Cutler himself, WNT = VMS+1)

    23. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking? And why do I smell troll dung?

      Windows was, and always has been crapola shoveled onto the masses through shady backroom business deals. I remember Windows 3.1. It crashed hourly. As in lose all your work and start over. Every hour, on the hour. Sometimes more often.

      Win95-A was supposed to fix that. It didn't. Same for Win95-B, Win95-C, Win98, Win98SE, WinNT, WinXP, Vista, and now Win7. I particularly liked the lecturer who bragged how WinXP was so stable it could go for almost a week between blue screens. We all laughed at him. We were running Linux. We measured our uptimes with a calendar. Multiple calendars, actually...

      I am ancient. I *did* use Linux back in the (Pre-Win98) Win95 days. One of my first Linux boxes was a 25Mhz 486. 25Mhz! You know what, Linux ran just fine. GUI, XWindows, the whole shebang! And it was stable. Linux was so stable that when Linux crashed, you started checking your hardware. (And every time, something somewhere had physically failed!)

      The problem with Linux is, and has always been, the extreme difficulty of installing it. Even today it's not as easy as it should be. But then, neither is Win7. Oh my god I can tell you some nightmares of trying to reinstall windows. It's just never simple, and even when it is simple, it's way beyond the abilities of most non-techies.

      Nearly every computer sold has windows (or MacOS) preinstalled. It's been that way for over a decade. Only now, with Android, is that even starting to change. (Like I said: Shady backroom business deals!)

      Inability to install leads to small market penetration. Small market penetration leads to a lack of applications. And that, my friend, is a vicious circle.

      It's sad that a business can be so successful selling such a shoddy product. But our history is littered with such cases.

    24. Re:Computing power allows it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple, Atari and Amiga's demise had nothing to do w/ Microsoft.

      Apple failed b'cos they took forever to first devise a strategy (one day it was Copland, another day it was Pink/Taligent, all b4 they finally bought out NEXT and settled on OS-X). Until 1995, of the 2 main players in the PC market, neither Apple nor MS had an OS that was pre-emptively multitasking. Finally, in 1995, Windows 95 was out, but b/w then and when Apple was finally out w/ OS-X, Windows was already way ahead.

      However, during the time Apple was struggling w/ the successor to MacOS, they had the various Mac clonemakers - Motorola, Power Computing and Umax - who had just entered the business of selling Macs, and were considering BeOS as a platform as well. Once Steve returned to Apple, he ended that program of Mac licensing, which destroyed the chances of the Mac proliferating, while saving Apple's revenue to an extent. All the above 3 companies exited the market, and Power Computing went out of business. Too bad they didn't just take their lumps, license BeOS and try making an attempt of it. Bottom line here - Microsoft had nothing to do w/ any of this.

      I dunno about Atari, but Amiga failed due to a combination of reasons - bad management, bad marketing, the latter which was highlighted by a failure to realize the importance of compatibility w/ previous generations. W/ Amiga, everytime they came up w/ a new model, the old software wouldn't run. That may work fine for geeks and fanatics, but is hardly acceptable in business, or mainstream users. If you can't support your own customer base on your own products, how can you expect them to support your new products? Every other market did better than this - whether it was MS w/ Windows, Apple when going from 68k to PPC, DEC when going from VMS/VAX to OVMS/AXP, and so on. I'm not sure how smooth things were when Sun moved from SunOS to Solaris, but aside from that, for every company, backward compatibility w/ their own legacy was important.

      Some of the workstations @ the time tried valiantly to compete w/ PC price points. Sun had various workstations, and on the NT side, you had MIPS offerings from NeTpower, Deskstation and initially, even Silicon Graphics, while on the Alpha side, you had DEC and later on Deskstation, Carerra and Aspen. Problem there was Microsoft never properly supported NT on these platforms by releasing even the minimal requirements like MS Office, w/ the result that they remained unattractive until companies like NEC and Compaq yanked their support.

      In fact, given how Microsoft today wants platforms for their 64-bit Windows which they can't yet get on ARM, one wonders whether they in hindsight regret letting NT for MIPS and Alpha wither on the vine?

  14. Re:Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases by Hatta · · Score: 1

    That's why it's modular. You wouldn't use netbook modules on a desktop.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  15. Everything old is new again by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A shared PC-tablet OS?

    The submitter sees value in this, but I'm not sure why - apparently he wasn't paying attention for the past ten years. Microsoft did exactly this with Windows XP Tablet PC edition... and that fell flat on its face.

    Seeing hints that Microsoft is still thinking the same way is not a surprise but a disappointment; and it shouldn't be construed in a positive manner by fans of the company.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Everything old is new again by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Now, if they had announced that Microsoft Surface would be the common code base for all platforms, they'd really have something.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Everything old is new again by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tablet PCs failed because they tried to be PCs first and tablets a distant second. The UI was never properly optimized for touch, for example - it was assumed that a stylus and handwriting input is all you need. That is why it fell on its face.

    3. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it did fall flat on its face, no denying that.

      And yet lots of people (myself included) are more-or-less happy with the Windows side of Windows on UMPC/tablet machines. Speaking for myself, my main gripes are the same as desktop Windows (I prefer UNIX of whatever sort, which is why I'm running a desktop Linux distro on my U820 now), and most importantly the sucky, sucky hardware.

      • x86 = sucky battery life
      • GMA500 = sucky graphics drivers (mildly sucky in WinXP, horrific in Linux, practically nonexistent for other UNIXen)
      • 90+% of devices = sucky screen resolution (100PPI is decades old, why is the small family of Fujitsu UMPCs (U820/UH900) the only ones >200PPI?!)
      • Mostly sucky input -- choose between resistive (pointy styluses work, but your hand can't rest on the display) or capacitive (palm rejection's good, but only sucky foam-tip jumbo styluses work), because nobody will put an active digitizer in.
      • and because they suck, almost nobody buys them, so low volume = super sucky prices!

      If you can get decent ARM hardware out there and run a desktop OS on it with a reasonably touch-friendly skin, a whole lot of people will be happy. Not everyone wants to trade real, uncrippled desktop apps for a 100% shiny iOS/Android/whatever interface.

    4. Re:Everything old is new again by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      Same OS doesn't mean the same UI. Examples: iOS = OSX, Android = Linux. This is more in reference to MS dropping the windows CE platform which I believe was the base for the 360 and WP7. You don't have to expect every edition to support the same features. The phone wouldn't have the 'standard' windows desktop for example. But at the same time, you'd want the phone to support the same audio, video, usb, etc drivers for simplicity. Then when you put an ATI chip in your phone, they don't need to rewrite everything. The games would all go through directx, etc.

    5. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to have a look at the windows 8 demos before you say that.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYSSdSNFjhU

    6. Re:Everything old is new again by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      What application can be written for a Windows tablet that cannot be written for an Android tablet that actually makes sense for the form factor?

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    7. Re:Everything old is new again by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

      Sure, the reasons for 'cannot' probably isn't what you were implying, but lets face it, those are 3 apps that people will want and you'll never see on an android device.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:Everything old is new again by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Word, etc.

      Real Office on tablet = niche*

      *see sales of iPad vs comparably priced Windows tablets on the market right now. Also note difference in sales between Windows Phone with "Office" and iPhones/Android handsets. Office on touchscreen devices does not appear to be a compelling differentiator to the mainstream market. That may change but no one can speak with a

      let's face it

      level of authority without a fully functional crystal ball. You don't have one because if you did, you wouldn't be putzing around on Slashdot.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  16. possibly a boon for malware by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All those connected platforms running one OS. This kind of exacerbates the monoculture drawbacks.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  17. Finally by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1, Funny

    Only read the summary, not TFA, but it sounds like they're finally switching to Linux.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  18. Price is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tablet PCs were cost more than $800 when they were on the market. A decent, new laptop could be had for ~$450. A year ago, a tablet from APPLE could be had for $500. Now, it is selling for $400. The price of laptops have not changed much in the interrum.

    1. Re:Price is important by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      This Windows 7 tablet is on sale at this very moment for 549 dollars. Less than a comparable iPad. Yet, it collects dust on the retailers' shelves.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  19. When will they learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This was Microsoft's previous failed strategy. Windows everywhere didn't work and they have failed to make any other compelling OS. So now it is back to Windows everywhere.

    Microsoft is trapped by their own success. In order to make a truly modern, compelling OS, they have to dump the old stuff and break compatibility. It is that very compatibility that has been their success so far. The big risk to breaking it is that once people have to start with a new OS, they start looking at alternatives.

  20. Re:Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Take Unity, for instance. While it might be only slightly shitty on netbooks, it's not pleasant to use on laptops, it's hellish on desktops, and it's an absolute disaster if you're using a workstation

    1. They were a bunch of ass-hats for releasing a too early buggy as fuck version of Unity (v0.2 or something) for netbooks back in October.
    2. They should be careful not to frighten their not so nerdy users by doing random not quite thought-through shit, since they are after all the only Linux-based alternative to M$/Snapple for normal users who don't want to make sweet love to their terminals.
    3. That being said, I do think it is a good idea that they actually try to challenge the desktop environment conventions by trying to make something that doesn't look like Windows or OS/X, for the sake of avoiding walls of text I will not go into details with the interesting aspects of Unity.

  21. Re:Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, that Grub2 shit pisses me off more. Tried 11.04 on 4 PCs, Grub2 by itself made it fail on alf of them. On one, a very vanilla mb+CPU/IGP+RAM.HD (no fancy dual-booting stuff, mind you), Grub2 just hung. On the other one, a Nettop with too many partitions for its own good, Grub2 just listed at least one entry for each partition, including the data ones, the restore ones, in a random order. Talk about user-repulsing wall of text as a first impresison of Linux... and don't even dream about firing gedit and editing that menu into shape: it's the new, better grub ! You can't do that anymore !

    It ain't broke... Let's fix it !

    Then, and only then, do you get to that Unity other shit, where the dock just HAS to be smack in the middle of my dual-screen setup, 'coz letting put it on the side would just be.. .would just be... would just BE ! Next version will put the dock across the middle of the screen, 'coz it's so nice, people need to see it more ! And don't try and put folders on there, 'coz no one needs shortcuts to folders !

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  22. The hardware wasn't there 5 years ago... by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and it's just silly to say they should have been doing this. It's only recently that a chipset that powered phones was beefy enough to run what people expect out of a desktop. Kudos to Microsoft for picking up on this as soon as they have. Android is a real threat. People love the idea of taking their phone, plugging it into a doc and having the same UI look & feel. Android + HTML5 apps + cloud is a credible threat to Microsoft. The cool thing is, they're moving on converging all the platforms as a result. Real innovation from competition.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  23. Re:"Modular". A word loved by know-nothings. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Yeah, all those modular accounting programs... totally useless. It's much better to use one program for your GL, another program for AR and hope like fuck your AP and job costing software somehow manage to integrate.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  24. Re:"Modular". A word loved by know-nothings. by razvan784 · · Score: 1

    Yes, I am sure that all modern operating systems where there's a kernel made up of many subsystems, a whole lot of drivers for tens of thousands of equipment types, a lot of standard libraries and utilities on top of that, a windowing system, a graphical shell, et cerea, are written by know-nothing manager types and unenlightened professors. They're a pain in the ass to use and generally idiotic. They'd better rewrite everything as a big, integrated, clean, streamlined, blob. Maybe make each application run on the bare silicon -- "Hey! It's my silicon, and I'll run whatever I damn please on it!"

  25. Re:Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    As the other poster said, that's why it's supposed to be "modular".

    KDE is already like this. Underneath, the components are mainly common to all platforms, but it has different UIs for different devices. The one for regular desktop computers is basically the same as it's always been, with start button, task tray, pager for multiple workspaces, etc. But then there's a stripped-down version aimed at netbooks that you can switch to.

    This is totally different from Unity and Gnome3, whose developers believe that the exact same UI should be used on all devices, to "reduce confusion" or whatever.

    If MS follows KDE's lead, then it's a smart move. I, however, hope they follow Canonical's lead with Unity, so that they crash and burn.

  26. Re:"Modular". A word loved by know-nothings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Modular accounting program" is just a short way of saying "$200-million unusable boondoggle that makes some consultants rich, the accountants miserable, and the business uncompetitive".

  27. LOL! Stupid Xbots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft blew 500 million dollar hyping their shitty Eye Toy ripoff.

    Result?

    Microsoft has sold 11 million Eye Toy ripoffs

    vs

    Sony selling 10 million Move controllers.

    You fail dipshit.

    1. Re:LOL! Stupid Xbots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    2. Re:LOL! Stupid Xbots by InsGadget · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      Yeah, where is the citation for that $500 million amount? You're probably confusing the marketing budget for Windows Phone, which was indeed that much.

      Kinect is a success ... get over it.

  28. Isn't HP already doing this? by Wormfoud · · Score: 2

    With webOS on their phones, Touchpad tablet, and soon (as announced) on their PCs - isn't HP already moving in that direction?

  29. There, fixed that for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One OS to rule them, One OS to bind them, One OS....to lead them all and in a patent bind them.

  30. Shame on MS & partners. TabletPCs lacked promo by N!NJA · · Score: 1

    The TabletPC platform failed because of the lack of promotion. Microsoft and the OEMs (Dell, HP, Lenovo, Gateway, etc) have never -- to this day -- to advertise Tablet PCs. I have never seen a Tablet PC ad anywhere. Ever! Not even in brochures mailed by the aforementioned companies! They don't even appear on the Home Page of those OEMs. They've bastardized the technology from the start. Then they waited for someone with more vision and interest in it to fully capitalize on the idea. This someone turned out to be Apple, who, since Day-1, has made enormous fanfare about the platform. Let's face it, Apple's remarkable marketing machine could convince an eskimo to buy an iFridge. Kudos to them.

    Shame on Microsoft and friends for their utter incompetence at showing people that they have had tablets for a decade and what such machines were like. And before someone starts bitching about the Tablet PC's initial reliance on a stylus (pen), know that Apple is currently working on a stylus for a future iPad. Once it comes out, people will think that Apple invented the tablet....and the stylus! Brilliant! :-D

    - Proudly owner of TabletPCs (TC1100 and TM2) for 5 years.

  31. Using other people's code! Never! by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    Exactly. These modern folks have it easy!

    Using code other people write is just lazy and shows your inability to code.

    That's why I wrote the web browser I'm using in C, a C compiler in assembler, an assembler assembler in machine code, and my microcode I wrote in ones and zeros that I entered manually onto my CPU with a paper-clip, a voltage divider, and some double-A batteries.

    (I have High Dexterity and Int. Very low Wisdom.)

    PS - modularity has advantages and disadvantages. Use it when it's the right tool for the job. Sounds like you just had a bad experience with a professor or a project where the granularity of the modules created transaction costs that outweighed the benefits.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  32. Having Microsoft everywhere will be great by MrKaos · · Score: 1, Funny

    We don't really need diversity in computers we should just learn to run Microsoft on everything from watches to mainframes because windows is the best operating systems ever. If it wasn't for Microsoft there would be no innovation anywhere so basically we should have a formal Microsoft tax and just pay Microsoft to own everything.

    It's a good thing that Microsoft use their patent portfolio to stop anyone else in the industry from trying to make anything new because Microsoft would do it better anyway so why even try. Case in point, Google, they should just give up on android and give that market to Microsoft because android is owned by microsoft anyway.

    All those dumb nerd who write that crappy open source software (that never works properly on anything) should be donating their time to Microsoft anyway, actually they should be paying Microsoft to be volunteers to write more software for windows. It's been proven in the past with IE6, the most successful and best web browser ever just how innovative Microsoft can be. Apple and Linux should just give up because everything Microsoft everywhere for everyone for ever will be good for all of us.

    It's a world I look forward to every day.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Having Microsoft everywhere will be great by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Wonderful post. I love your 2nd last semi-parseable sentence with 'every', every other word :)

      I would only add that developers should pay our saviour, yes, but also be locked in so that if they develop for Windows, they can't develop that software for other OSs, ever. After all, what would be the need?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  33. You have a short memory by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Win95 was so bad it drove me to linux. Win98SE was usable, but I challenge you to put bare first release Win95 on anything and see how crappy it was. For example, the drivers and the core behaviour of the thing were so bad it crashed me me every time I tried to close it down, simply because it decided to play an exit sound in a different way to all the other sounds it played.

  34. Re:Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

    But yet again the geeks here are missing the forest for the trees. When you say "Windows" to the common man it means something that the geeks here seem to be missing. to the common man Windows means those discs they have sitting on the shelf work, the disc of card games they got at the Wally world work, it all "just works" which is why MSFT is constantly releasing updates for Windows 7 that do nothing but add support for yet more older programs because that is what the folks want and boy do they get pissy when it don't work!

    Everyone here keeps praying for MSFT to "Do an Apple" like what Apple did with switching from System 9 to OSX, but first of all there really ain't nothing wrong with WinNT, and more importantly the selling point of Windows is compatibility and if it doesn't have that then why pay $100+ for Windows?

    If you want to see what sticking the word Windows on everything will do all you have to do is look at Criagslist. If yours is anything like my area you'll find an assload of ARM netbooks with WinCE on them, all have "barely used" written on them. Why are there so many? Because people saw "Windows" and expected to run their programs and when it didn't they shitcanned it, just that simple.

    The only nice thing that will come out of this is as the customers dump Windows products that don't actually run "real" Windows and get royally pissed we can FINALLY get that damned Ballmer F.I.R.E.D and bring in one of the office guys or maybe even Ozzie back. Because unless they have come up with some magical way to make ALL these devices run Win32 code? oh boy is this shit gonna bomb, and rightly so.

    There isn't 100s of millions of Windows users because they like the desktop wallpapers ya know. everybody and their dog and their dog's fleas all have Windows programs they want/need to run, and this will just confuse the fuck out of the market. dumb MSFT, dumb as hell.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  35. You eyes are turning brown cuz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're so full of shit.

    You say that there's a reason that MS has dominated the desktop, that's true, but it's not because of merit, it's because of freakin IBM handed them the keys to the kingdom and then they leveraged their position with extremely evil monopolistic practices (how many companies did they destroy?)

    You're insane to assert that Win95 was superior to Linux at the time. One of the main reasons that I switched to a Linux desktop, in late 1995, was so I could burn a CD and use my modem at the same time. I don't think you're old enough to talk about ANYTHING in 1995.

    The reality of trying similar computers in 1995 is that Linux would kick the shit out of Win95: Linux has always made maximum use of minimum resources while Windows has always made minimum use of maximum resources. I put my first Linux web server online in 1994 ... on a machine that wouldn't have run Win95. It had no problem with 100s of hits an hour, which was still better than MS could manage back them.

    Oh, Office you say? I don't suppose you actually remember WordPerfect and it's total dominance of the market, before Microsoft leveraged its OS to conquer the word processing market. Word's not better, it just came for "free".

    You're right, Microsoft is very away or *nix, they even stole our socket code. Go look up the controversy if you're still deluded about MS "doing it better than *nix cuz we already looked at that!"

    You're obviously qualified to comment on the topic ... or not, since you don't have the first clue about either operating systems or history.

    Ah yes, there's nothing like revisionist history coming from MSFT trolls.

  36. Bollocks by bazorg · · Score: 1

    It's not the mobile phone hardware that is catching up with desktop PCs. It's the expectations of the consumer that have been getting comfortable with a watered-down computing experience, one that feels like a reasonable trade of lower complexity for lower capability.

  37. Offtopic, but ... by thomst · · Score: 1

    God DAMN Crapdot 2.5 ... or whatever the fuck you assholes are calling this latest piece of shit. Now I can't even submit a story (Las Vegas Web site VegasInc reports that on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Hunt fined copyright troll Righthaven $5,000 for failure to disclose Stephens Media, Inc.'s financial interest in Righthaven's suits against Web sites it accuses of plaigarizing Las Vegas Review-Journal's copyrighted content. Hunt also ordered Righthaven to disclose the full text of its original contract with Stephens Media to prosecute alleged infringers on Stephens' behalf. Hunt's orders are in response to Righthaven's suit against Web site Democratic Underground, a case the judge dismissed on June 14th on grounds that Righthaven lacked "standing" to sue for violations of copyright that Righthaven itself didn't own. In fining righthaven, Hunt also commented, “In the court’s view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing more, nor less, than a law firm — which incidentally I don’t think is licensed to practice law in this state — with a contingent fee agreement masquerading as a company,” which could be an indicator of still larger legal problems for the copyright troll down the road.), because your Javurscript is so fucking broken that the "submit story" button on the popup window is now hidden below the browser window AND THERE'S NO WAY TO REPOSITION THE POPUP WINDOW.

    I give the fuck up. Screw you pinheads.

    --
    Check out my novel.
  38. Understand the device by MM-tng · · Score: 1

    You can not do this. Every device has it's own use case. Does it have a keyboard or not. Can you rotate it. How many pixels. What is the screen width. Where is it used. This can completely change what you can do with the device. What Microsoft is stuggeling with is that it does not have de design knowledge and does not really try to understand on a deep level what a device and user experience is about. Although article seems rubbish. Not very well put together and has stupid line spacing.

  39. Microkernels? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    With this and GNU Hurd possible in Debian 7, are we finally going to see mainstream OSes with microkernel architecture?

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Microkernels? by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

      Mainstream microkernels? You mean QNX?

      What's this HURD thing? ;)

  40. Re:Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases by jimicus · · Score: 1

    It ain't broke... Let's fix it !

    Yeah, grub2 appears in Debian Squeeze too. Not Impressed.

    The biggest benefit of grub over LILO was "you don't need to rerun lilo when you change the config file" - that's gone now. Oh yes, and instead of one fairly small, self-contained, relatively easy to understand config file you now have several and the config files aren't config files at all, they're scripts which are run in order to create config files. You're explicitly NOT meant to hand-edit the config file. What is this, sendmail? It's a bootloader, FFS, it only needs to kick off an operating system.

  41. Re:Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases by jimicus · · Score: 1

    Bit of a shame I've already commented, or I'd be modding you insightful. On more than one occasion I've seen management buy Windows smartphones and I'm quite sure they chose them based on exactly the logic you described. Without exception, those phones were replaced with something else (usually Android or Blackberry) as soon as possible.

    It amazes me that a company like Microsoft should spend years turning Windows into a well-known brand then completely screw up their entry into the handheld sector by taking that brand and applying it to a totally different product. You don't see Sprite being marketed as "Coca-Cola (Lemon & Lime Flavour)" and there's a damn good reason for that.

  42. Ya, sure they are by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has a long history of saying they are doing this and that and then never delivering.

    Not holding my breath, and would of course, wait for service pack 1 on any new OS before using.

    And we ain't playing no Xbox 360 games on Windows 8. Ain't happening.

    And how many times has MS said they were going to go all gungho with gaming on windows? what, 5, 6 times now? Every OS they release?

    I'm a big stoner, and yet my memory seems way better then most of you.

    MS ain't doing shit, but talking. That's pretty much all they have been good at, that and being bullies.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  43. Re:Or it'll become bad like recent Ubuntu releases by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Oh they modded me down for daring to point out reality, can't ever please a fanboy you know. But that won't change black into white nor will it change the fact that when people see the word "Windows" the will expect their win32 programs to run and when they don't? They'll be shitcanned as fast as those WinCE ARM netbooks all over Craigslist.

    I actually ran into one of those at a store. it had a VERY WinXP desktop GUI and had WINDOWS in big letters and "Compact Edition" in small letters beside it. Now how many people do you think knew that "Compact edition" wasn't just a different flavor of XP? i'll tell you ZERO which is why those that made the netbook did it!

    Mark my words, just as you saw at your job with the Windows phones so to will this completely blow up in MSFT's faces if they try this shit. geeks here have got to realize the common man doesn't know ARM from a 72 Pinto. All they know is "Windows means my stuff runs" where stuff equals their games, or QuickBooks, or their EasyShare camera software, or any of the millions of other little Win32 programs people use every single day. if they buy a "New Windows 8" device and bring it home only to find it doesn't actually run "Real" Windows? I have a feeling geeks will have a field day because the returns are gonna be so high retailers won't be able to give the damned things away, and rightly so.

    This is yet another fuckup by Ballmer whose tenure has been a long list of fuckups, Zune,Kin, killing PlaysForSure for the ZunePass flop, I still say the only good thing that might come out of this is Steve Ballmer will "leave to pursue other interests" and they can bring in real leadership (Maybe Ozzie?) for Windows 9.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  44. Re:Using other people's code! Never! by darthdavid · · Score: 1

    Oblig. XKCD reference: http://xkcd.com/378/

  45. Xbox already runs Windows 2000 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The Xbox OS is like the 640k for everyone remark, it's been variously admitted and denied that it's impossible to find a solid citation any more. But the Xbox already runs an OS derived from Windows 2000, and the 360 already runs an OS derived from the Xbox OS; further; it likely borrows code back from the Windows code base anyway, because the same code runs on both Xbox and Windows with nary but a recompile (though it may not work satisfactorily for one or the other if it's not designed to run there, e.g. GTA4 on a PC with only 3 cores... the same number as the 360. You need another core to handle the OS.)

    Will it surprise anyone when the next Xbox also runs a Windows variant?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  46. And in typical Microsoft fashion... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    All your apps will become legacy and have to be recoded or entirely rewritten in their new Windows Tiered Foundation (WTF) framework to run on the new system, because God forbid that Microsoft should provide a decent upgrade path from .net.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  47. In other words . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . the UNIX model.

  48. Please..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a reason MS dominated the desktop. They made the desktop work

    And they did so with ultra-restrictive license agreements with their OEMs. It had nothing to do with the quality of either desktop.

  49. I Welcome this Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (signed)
    Malware Author

  50. Re:"Modular". A word loved by know-nothings. by BoberFett · · Score: 1

    You laugh, but I've worked at a company that operated that way.

  51. Speak for yourself: Win7 broke that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak for yourself. Most of my legacy software won't even install on Win7. What little does install won't run.

    Sad but true: I have better backwards compatibility with WINE and DOSBox under Linux than I do with Win7.

  52. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 7 is not new, nor was XP, nor was 98. 95, 2000 and Vista we noew OS's

    Windows 95, 2000 and Vista were not new OSes.

    Windows 95, or Windows 4.0, was simply the next version of the DOS/Windows OS, following Windows for Workgroups 3.11, which was descended from Windows 3.1, 3.0, 2.x, 1.x and MS-DOS.

    There was only ever one 'new' Windows OS, and that was Windows NT 3.1. Later versions of NT, including 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), 6.0 (Vista) and 6.1 (7) are all direct descendants of the original NT. None is a new OS in any technical sense.

    The version numbering in Windows is somewhat arbitrary as well. Windows 7 is apparently NT 6.1 instead of NT 7.0, for example, because of concerns about compatibility with software that checks for version 6.

  53. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same OS doesn't imply the same attack surface. Android mobiles and LAMP servers both run Linux, for example, but the vulnerabilities used by malware authors to compromise Android mobiles don't affect Linux web servers and the LAMP vulnerabilities used to turn Linux web servers into malware factories don't affect Android mobiles.

  54. It's no cost is why, cheap is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ONLY reason Linux has a foothold on routers is it keeps the per-unit cost of them down, because it's freely given away!

    (I mean, do you *think* only Linux can be "dual homed" to create a NAT routing system for Pete's sake? That's mostly ALL A NAT ROUTER REALLY IS ANYHOW!)

    "if it weren't for the presence of Linux everywhere from Google to your home router." - by grcumb (781340) on Friday July 15, @09:42PM (#36782286) Homepage

    It's probably also the same for GOOGLE - they use it because it keeps costs down & face it: Businesses EXIST to make money, & PROFITS... anything that keeps the "bottom-line" going up + higher makes sense... dollars & CENTS!

    Funiest part of all is?

    Linux = FREE should have won, long ago - but, hasn't!

    Imo @ least, having been around computers since 1982, we should, in fact, ALL be running some form of *NIX, but apparently, we're not because of "in-fighting" between *NIX variants @ the start (AT&T Bell labs, vs. BSD variants etc.)!

    Additionally, also the fact that, yes, they're just NOT as good overall as Windows is, period, & on a LOT of levels - not on PC's &/or Servers!

    Facts - Linux has more outstanding unpatched security vulnerabilities, & is without as many good drivers, games, & software quality (in supporting or peripheral applications).

    The difference being simple: People need to work for their money, & the taskmaster demands perfection on DEADLINES to make monies. This is where paid for software excels the most. Linux has no such incentive, & yes, things DO get done for it, & it's gotten better... but, it's still not as good as say, Windows Server 2008 is. Not by a LONG shot.

    The ONLY thing Linux has going for it is "Free" & it has to find alternate markets, such as mobile phones (which again, it keeps the per-cost per-unit down, so it makes sense to use it on that platform too, because the mobile phone makers are out to make, again, MONEY!)

    APK

    P.S.=> In other words - Linux gives itself away, for free, & still doesn't "run the show" out there, & is by a HUGE margin in the market behind Windows (by what - 94% to Windows, 5% to MacOS X, & 1% to Linux)? That tell ANYONE anything?? Does me...

    Next, in reply to this from myself, you'll hear things like:

    ---

    1.) Microsoft cheats & does unfair things to keep Windows on top!

    2.) Everyone else is stupid, we Linux users are only smart!

    ---

    etc./et (spinmaster elitist attitudes b.s. in general, that's all an unrealistic crock of crap, period... vs. reality!)

    ... apk

  55. One OS to insecure them all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three platforms for the crackers in the cloud, 7 versions released for the desktop lords to be infected, 25 years of windows for the users doomed to viruses, one OS for the crackers from the land of Microsoft where the malware lays. One OS to exploit them all, one OS to be vulnerable by design, one OS for the crackers and governments to find them, one OS to bring them all and in the proprietary code backdoor them, in the land of Microsoft where the malware lays.