Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's CEO Says He Wants to Unify Windows

Posted by samzenpus on from the by-your-powers-combined dept.

Deathspawner writes A lot of people have never been able to understand the logic behind Microsoft's Windows RT, with many urging the company to kill it off so that it can focus on more important products, like the mainline Windows. Well, this is probably not going to come as a huge surprise, especially in light of mass layoffs announced last week, but Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has said that his company will be working to combine all Windows versions into a unified release by next year.

32 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Best Wishes ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hope that he has a better luck in unifying Windows than those who wanted to unify Unixes

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Best Wishes ! by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unices? Who knows.

      Anyway, it'll be a little easier since they have full control of all Windows production. Nobody has to convince another distribution.

      I'd love to see a single UI that works across 4" phones and 7" tablets with gorilla glass, and 13" laptops and 10" convertibles with membrane keyboards, and 24" desktops with 101-keyboards, and 60" XBox Ones with controllers but I'm not holding my breath.

    2. Re:Best Wishes ! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      History isn't encouraging, though. They've been pursuing the dream of one windows to rule them all since the days when that involved smearing a crude layer of flayed win95 across winCE and pretending it was a good fit for PDAs.

      Now that hardware has advanced they have a much better shot at architectural unification (if memory serves, NT has basically edged out everything else except for whatever CE support they provide for legacy customers); but UI? That won't go well.

    3. Re:Best Wishes ! by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meet the new boss. Same as the boss before the old boss.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. Re:Best Wishes ! by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd love to see a single UI that works across...

      You might, but I, at least, wouldn't because what you'd end up with was a UI that worked equally badly on all types of screens and wasn't really right for any of them. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, preferring to use Linux, but I will say that they're right in not trying to shoehorn a One True UI onto everything.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:Best Wishes ! by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a practical matter, Linux is the unified Unix. Or as unified as its a-gonna get.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:Best Wishes ! by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Funny

      From what I've heard, the current UI for Windows was designed for a tablet, then forced onto desktops, but that's just hearsay because, as I wrote above, I only use Linux.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Best Wishes ! by Bugler412 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chicago was what became Windows 95, DOS was present as something vaguely like a "kernel" although that definition doesn't fit well. The 32 bit mode stuff was layered on top of DOS. NT4 was the first shipping version that used the NT kernel with the Win95 interface, that was codenamed "Cairo" and was really mostly a shell update using the NT 3.51 underpinnings.

    8. Re:Best Wishes ! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd love to see a single UI that works across...

      Microsoft have already done that. In Windows 8 they unified the Windows interface around the design for the vast number of Windows cellphones out there, leaving the totally insignificant Windows desktop/laptop market to wither. The overwhelming market response has justified this decision, in as little as twenty years Windows 8 could even overtake XP.

    9. Re:Best Wishes ! by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes... and no. In theory, if you did a virgin installation of Windows 95 onto a pristine new computer whose peripherals ALL had genuine Win32 drivers capable of running in 386Enh protected mode, and you ONLY ran "true" Winapps that bent over backwards to have no dependencies on realmode, DOS was basically a Grub-like stage 2 bootloader invoked by the BIOS that loaded Windows, kicked the PC into 386enh Protected mode, and handed it over to Windows. And you probably had a pet unicorn living in the back yard ;-)

      From what I remember, the compelling feature of Windows 3.11 that distinguished it from Windows 3.1 was native Win32 code for reading & writing (V)FAT filesystems on IDE hard drives (which gave it a HUGE performance boost compared to 3.1).

      I believe that one of Win95's launch-time features was that Microsoft re-implemented the VESA BIOS extensions (and original VGA BIOS) as proper win32 drivers, so that manufacturers like Tseng and S3 only had to provide them with "miniport" drivers that did the grunt work that would have otherwise required them to fall back to realmode. I'm pretty sure the 386enh hooks for video BIOS emulation existed in 3.11, but the actual Microsoft-written code was given to vendors to distribute on their own disks & wasn't directly used by any video cards the day Win3.11 went to manufacturing. In a sense, Windows 3.11 existed to give videocard manufacturers a prototype platform so they could develop and test their protected-mode drivers on a released operating system.

    10. Re:Best Wishes ! by daver!west!fmc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've got a pretty good memory. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 in 386enh mode runs its own filesystem code in a virtual device driver instead of calling down to the 16-bit real-mode DOS. It isn't Win32, but it is 32-bit protected-mode code.

    11. Re:Best Wishes ! by v1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They've been pursuing the dream of one windows to rule them all since the days when

      No, not really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      When you decide it's time to "unify" a single product, clearly you've made a serious, long-running mistake.

      Having a dozen different versions of a single product is just a short-term way to milk a few more dimes out of your customers, and has a pretty severe long-term cost. It's most lucritive in software though, because it doesn't cost a penny more to manufacture the $300 version than the $100 version once you're finished with development. If it were a car for example, that leather interior is going to cost more to produce. But those "better bits" are free to produce. So it's creme, pure profit.

      And eventually the customers get pissed. Which is OK if your'e not in it for the long haul. Which unfortunately is what Windows is. Bad match.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  2. Death bell tolling for thee.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People HATE windows 8 because they are trying to force a touch interface on it, most people do not buy touch montiors so it is less than intuitive.. now they want to make it even more touch oriented? unless they are going to send me FREE 27" and 40" 4K touchscreen monitors it's not going to be worth a damn.

    STOP TRYING TO UNIFY THE PC AND TABLET/PHONE WORLDS! I am so sick of companies trying to do this, it's a failure an utter failure.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Death bell tolling for thee.... by lord_mike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's a real life car analogy... GM in the 80's "unified" all their drivetrains. The same engines/transmissions were available in the Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Chevrolet, etc. The only differences were in the style, body, and nameplate. It didn't particularly go over well with auto enthusiasts or consumers in general. The GM brands became rather superfluous, and consumers were quite lukewarm to the generic "all-in-one" options for GM cars. GM cars from the 80's are considered to be the worst built and least desirable of the company's history. You don't see any of those models still driving around with classic plates on them. Few consumers wanted them then, even fewer want to preserve them now.

    2. Re:Death bell tolling for thee.... by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think/hope you misunderstand. Where Ballmer really wanted to have one Windows to rule them all, with one crappy UI on all of them, I'm hopeful Nadella is talking more of a unified base with UI adjustments/differences as needed for each device type. You can have a unified release of the base OS with one style interface for tablets, another for desktops, and possibly another for servers. Windows Server has been doing this for a while, with some versions coming with full UI and others with just the CLI. They're a unified release - they come out at the same time and use the same base, but there are different UIs available, similar to one release of Slackware coming with multiple window managers and it being the user's choice which one to use (if any).

      So, to give people their "bad car analogy" it's like selling an International DT466 engine in a school bus, a semi tractor, a very large pickup truck, a combine, and a tractor. It's the same engine ("unified release"), but the user picks the chassis/body appropriate for their need. If Microsoft can successfully pull that off, it will be a big win for both the company and consumers.

    3. Re:Death bell tolling for thee.... by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it was a good idea Apple would have done it long ago ;)

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    4. Re:Death bell tolling for thee.... by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I think I understand why they want to do this: Only one code base, less overhead and more profit.

      Not if nobody buys it.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:Death bell tolling for thee.... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People HATE windows 8 because they are trying to force a touch interface on it, most people do not buy touch montiors so it is less than intuitive.. now they want to make it even more touch oriented? unless they are going to send me FREE 27" and 40" 4K touchscreen monitors it's not going to be worth a damn.

      STOP TRYING TO UNIFY THE PC AND TABLET/PHONE WORLDS! I am so sick of companies trying to do this, it's a failure an utter failure.

      They certainly can unify the PC and Tablet. They just have to give up on the insane idea that the UI will be identical between devices. The mouse didn't work on a small screen so they put the touchscreen on my 52" TV?!?! Seriously, who thought that was a good idea?

      This is a very easy thing to fix... XP/Win7 style desk for PCs, Android style for anything smaller than 10", Remote/MediaPC controlls for TVs. And... wait for it... Alt-windows key toggles between UIs for those that like different ones at different times. Eeegads! Am I the next Wozniak with my insanely brilliant ideas or what? Oh wait... no, it's just that obvious.

  3. Yay.. This is easy to imagine by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Funny

    In typical Microsoft "All heads in our asses" fashion, they release Windows 8 with two completely separate UI's.. One doesn't work at all for desktop.. and the other barely works for desktop. Hell.. opening a PDF in Windows 8 is still a goddamn nightmare.

    Now that they're unifying Windows, we know exactly what the customer wants:
    1. UI separate from kernel (vector graphic UI for desktops, 2d UI for battery-powered devices)
    2. Ability to customize installation (ie.. Windows embedded version, Windows business edition, Windows uber Gamer edition, Windows "I install Weatherbug and other stupid applications" edition, Windows "Gimme the shitty Widnows 8 UI" edition)
    3. Ability to control data usage (ie.. Windows "I'm being charged for the amount of data because AT&T and Verizon are shitty companies edition")

    What will we get:
    1. METRO 80's colors EDITION
    2. Cannot multitask edition
    3. Super fucking bloated edition
    4. We changed shit because we wanted to change shit and good fucking luck finding it edition
    5. We give you errors if you're not connected to the Internet edition
    6. We update your computer when you're trying to turn it off and take it with you edition

    Bleh.. this was a minimal effort bitch session.. Microsoft already knows they suck and we only buy Windows because it's pretty much forced on us

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think you must have heard this when reading the writings of Isildur, after the battle of Dagorlad.

          Windows Three for the Elven-kings under the sky,
            Windows Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
            Windows Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
            One Windows for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
            In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

            One Windows to rule them all, One Windows to find them,
            One Windows to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

            In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

  5. Better Information Here by dmbrun · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.zdnet.com/what-one-...

  6. bulllllshit by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    BULLSHIT! What he wants is to make ongoing costs just like Xbox Live, skydrive, Office 365, and all the other crap they've tried to push. No thanks, I don't want to pay $1200 a seat over a decade to use Office, thanks. EVERYONE is copying Call of Duty and the DLC era. The new CEO of MS was in charge of cloud services! I am NOT paying a subscription to use ANYTHING from Microsoft. The end. He needs to get over that or get the fuck out.

  7. Server 2012 already looks like Windows 8. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had to use Windows Server 2012 for the first time a few days ago. Jesus Fucking Christ, I had no idea they had brought the Windows 8 Metro Hipster UI over to their server line of OSes. I couldn't belive it. It was damn near impossible to use.

    Those are the only two Windows OSes that people actually use. It looked to me like they have already been fully unified. Both Windows Server 2012 and Windows 8 are equally impossible to use effectively.

    1. Re:Server 2012 already looks like Windows 8. by Chas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait until you have to REMOTELY administer the beast.
      The active areas in the corners of the screen function on the "Maybe" principle (Maybe it'll work, Maybe it won't.) So if you don't clutter up your desktop like thousands of idiots do, and stick umpty-bajillion shortcuts on your taskbar, there are times when, if the RDP+Metro session just "ain't feelin' it" and becomes a useless mess as you try to click around to get it to work.

      So yourself a favor NOW and install a Start Menu replacement. You'll thank yourself later.

      I've been steering clients clear of Windows 8 and Server 2012 for nearly 2 years now.

      If Nadella fucks the next-gen stuff up and continues with "Tablet Interface 4 Every1", I'm going to be converting a bunch of clients off Windows and onto VMWare and Linux with some form of locked down VM solution. Because that'll be easier and cheaper than the Metro interface retraining costs for my clients.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re:Server 2012 already looks like Windows 8. by Zenin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm sorry, PowerShell is a trainwreck of a language. Extremely unintuitive, inconsistent, cryptic.

      Using a function? Call it as function($arg1, $arg2). Oh, did you write the function? Sorry, you'll have to call it as function $arg1 $arg2.

      Want to pass a path to something? It's easy: -Path $path. Oh wait, $path is actually a real path and not a glob? You'll have to use -literalPath...if it's supported. Yep, we kept the same failed idea of CMD and decided argument expansion should be done by each command/function/program/cmdlet independently so that we can make damn sure nothing at all is ever consistent. There's a reason why every Unix shell, bash much included, handles argument expansion in the shell.

      Sane variable scoping? Not from PS.

      Want to use something from .Net? It's built in, a major selling point! Oh...sorry if the syntax is so incredibly buggered that it makes real world PowerShell/.Net code look like a bid for the Obfuscated Perl Contest. And once you get it "right", PowerShell can't grok anything beyond trivial. God help me, I had to craft and populate an IEnumerable of Tuple of String, String in PowerShell to pass to a .Net method (from DacServices). Finally crafted (looked like a spell incantation), it couldn't get through PowerShell to the method call in one piece. Flat out broken. Finally had to give up and just code a real C# console app to handle the 10 lines of code.

      Want output/trace to display in the order you actually write it? When it actually happens? Better | Out-Default all of it or strange things happen.

      Most sane languages, especially so-called "OOP" languages, actually stop when an exception is thrown by default. Typically with a default global catch that offers you a nice stack trace, or something. PowerShell? By default it keeps on trucking, not even a peep (bad old habits of CMD are hard to break I guess).

      Misspell a variable somewhere? Or a method name? Not even a warning until runtime when it fails (but then keeps on trucking right along, happy to double down on the fail). Even Perl isn't that bad (at least with "use strict;").

      PowerShell is better than CMD/Batch. But then, so is a swift kick to the head. It's a horrid language and a bad shell. Bash via Cygwin is a hell of a saner and more powerful way to use a shell on Windows. And if you ever need .Net something, do yourself a huge favor and do it from C# as a console app and call that...1,000,000,000 times better than trying to use the fugly hack of a .Net interface that PowerShell provides.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
  8. I know I'm not expected to RTFA... by MtHuurne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The third link is not actually a link, since the <a> tag is missing the href attribute. I wanted to check what the CEO actually said, since "unify" could mean a lot of things.

    Are they going for x86-64 only, killing the ARM-based WIndows RT, as Hot Hardware is reporting? They'd still have to keep ARM support for Windows Mobile. Perhaps they should have put Windows Mobile plus some tablet extensions on the low-budget tablets, that would have fit people's expectations a lot better.

    Are they going for a single code base? In that case there would be multiple products created from that code base, so that doesn't tell us anything about the fate of Windows RT or any other specific products.

    Are they going for a single product named Windows? While I think it would be good to drop the artificial home/pro/ultimate differentiation, having a different Windows for client and server use is still useful. Although that could be handled by having a different default configuration rather than an entirely different product.

  9. Linux Mint 17 by RudyHartmann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about natively booting Linux Mint 17 and putting 7 in Virtualbox if you must have this POS.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
  10. Very old saying by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jack of all trades master of none.

  11. No to a unified interface yes to unified software by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I could have a Win 7 style interface on my desktop / laptop. I really good touch interface for my tablet / phone and a really good lounge room interface for my xbox that could run the same software across all 3. Now that would be cool! RT wasn't crap because it was a different interface it was crap because it felt like it should run the same stuff as normal windows but didn't

  12. Windows Godzilla ! by gelfling · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only 1.5 TB and it will run on ANYTHING (with 8x8 core processors and 32GB of RAM). Of course it still comes in 24 different variations that all licensed differently.

  13. Microsoft's strategy summed up in one link by gweilo8888 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.google.com/trends/e...

  14. Unify the OS, but not the UIs by Stolpskott · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So many negative comments here... as if people think that a unified OS must also mean a unified UI.
    A single core codebase for the OS will have a few problems with performance on different hardware, but that is a separate discussion... and who expects Microsoft stuff to run quickly anyway?
    However, incorporating a different UI for each target device means that you should not need to see the craptastic Metro UI on a desktop system or workstation, while touchscreen and small screen systems are not compromised by a need to develop elements for discrete keyboard and mouse input.