Why Windows Could Use A Rush Of Fresh Air (Article)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/t...gin&adxnnlx=1214761575-yteA4wxyUgYNGNQR+awL2w

By the NYTimes but does bring up some very interesting and valid points. Such as why has Windows not gone to Microkernal arch. yet? Whoever here runs XP or Vista. Just type in MSCONFIG on Run and check out what your system starts up with Especially on default

 

Insightful.

 

finally.. someone agrees with me. ha

that is exactly what needs to happen.

i personally just started using linux 2 weeks ago for the first time.. i'm already thinking i should have been from the start instead of dealing with microsofts nonsense

 

The problem is that Microsoft just doesn't have the luxury of orphaning its users and existing apps the way Apple does. The Windows user base DEMANDS 100% compatibility with everything that has come before. Look at all the incessant whining every time some 7 year old scanner didn't work right with Vista.

Windows is the OS of corporate America, where OSX is the app of niche markets and fanboys who want to look cool at Starbucks. Microsoft just can't do the things that Apple can.

 

I dont really agree with the article. I mean if Microsoft were to rewrite eveything from scratch, the will be bashed by the for making something that is not compatible with previous OSs. Besides, i think people ask too much and never realize the why "that" company did that. Im fine with Vista and i love the way it is.

IMO

 

What a stupid article.

Linux doesn't use a micro kernel and Apple has a large base of BSD so it isn't a true micro kernel, it is a hybrid.

Second, this isn't Windows 12. Windows 95, 98(SE), and ME are based on Windows 3.0. NT which is based on OS/2 is what you see today since Vista is NT 6.0. NT is a hybrid of micro and monolithic kernels.

Third, there was a reset in 2004. The original Longhorn codebase was ditched and Server 2003 was the new codebase.

Fourth, Windows just can't decide one day to sit down and rewrite the OS like Apple did with OS X. Mostly because the market share is far to large just to kill compatibility with all the previous versions. What should be done is make the current OS compatible only with itself and virtualize the old stuff. Computers are powerful enough to do this nowadays, Microsoft should take advantage of it.

 

That, people complain because no big change but they complain even more about big change.

 

To the OP, Windows IS a microkernel.

First, OS X doesn't have a lot of BSD source code, its there, but its not a huge amount.

Second, Windows NT is based on nothing, it is a full OS from scratch.

Third, True That's why Windows needs a rewrite.

Fourth, true it could be virtualized, or it could implement new APIs while keeping the old, ensuring the compatibility with loads of old apps(they did this with Windows NT).

 

NT is not based on nothing. It started as a joint venture between IBM and Microsoft in 1989 as OS/2 3.0. But after disputes IBM continued the OS/2 fork while Microsoft named it NT.

 

Actually, it does have parts inherited from OS/2, but it's not close enough to be OS/2 based.
OS/2 clone ok?

 

LOL...Well said fountain..funny but well said...I too agree...Microsoft is wayyy ahead of the game than Apple is...meaning; they are soley Dominating the World in the Computer Industry. So the smaller fishes like Apple can do w/e with their OS because they really have nothing to lose. Yes Windows has it's issues but it's really not that bad IMO. As for Vista it just takes a bit of getting used to. As someone in the IT field, for the little time i've used it I find it hard/frustrating to use at times because of my former experience with XP. It's like driving an automatic vehicle for 10 yrs. and then suddenly having to learn to drive a standard. But back to the subject at hand...Windows can only get better...it can't get any worst than Vista (Not that Vista is bad..I happen to like it)..I don't believe that the Intelligent folks at Microsoft are deliberately creating bugged rigged OSs or Oss to drive their consumers crazy!

 

and to think i was hoping that vista64 would get rid of all that OLD code, dll hooking and programmers modifing the the OS.... but i guess that too was another pipe dream sold to us by MS....

too bad that MS has such a large intalled user base..... it basicially prevents any new OS from gaining much of a foothold in the OS market due to everyone's reluctance to change.....

rant over

 

I beg to differ, they did it with NT/9x.

 

im with fountainhead.

windows is just too big and awesome that it caters to everyone and anyone everything and anything.

mac is just for niche markets that can afford expensive hardware that looks all the same. and just wanabe cool people. seriously mac is foolproof since any fool can use it but not mac.

linux on the other hand is quite complicated and just doesnt work with everything. while the eyecandy is nice, wine wont work on everything.

seriously Windows is THE platform that puts everything in perspective. respect for trying to do everything and anything with it.

its obvious people like RANDALL STROSS who wrote the article is well just full of hot air and has no idea what he is talking about.

im curious does anyone know how many servers to run the internet and stuff use windows?mac? or linux?

code smode, if it works dont fix it.

 

Actually, most use linux/unix.

 

This news article is typical crap from the media. It seems like if an article's about Microsoft or Windows, it's either a load of criticism, or a load of propoganda.

 

Seriously, what is with people. Seems as though vilifying MS and Vista is the latest hip thing. I'm least of a fanboy but all this compatibility hue and cry from people, doesn't this happen with every new version of Windows that is launched?

The only aberrant thing that Vista did was raise the bar of minimum requirements which in my opinion is absolutely fine and one of the only ways to ever move forward.

The whole OS market is comparable to an African jungle. While the big elephant moves on small critters like hyenas(Linux), jackals(OS X) continue to hoot behind it but dare not touch it.

 

Uh... well they did get rid of a bunch of it. 64-bit Vista doesn't support the old 16-bit API. It still supports the 32-bit API though.

btw, here's a nice rebuttal to the NY Times article:
http://shippingseven.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-york-times-gets-it-wrong.html

 

Huh? Most what? Most pocket protector wearing geeks? Most "command line rules" folks? Most "I must twiddle every knob" gear heads?

Gary

 

I always thought it was like 70-80% of servers online in the world today use some kind of linux. I mean, look when you go to buy any hosting solution, generally your hosting is automatically on a linux box, but you could ask for a Windows one lol.

IMO, I was listening to an elderly couple talking about the technology column in the NYT and how it was bashing on Microsoft (yet again)...I mean all they do is just crucify them and raise Apple on such a high platform. No wonder our society loves Apple, fancy clothes, fancy cars, etc. It's all the media

 

Not sure if the numbers are that high or not, but for the sake of argument let's assume so. What would that have to do with the subject of the article or this thread? I am not sure if that is what the person who posted the "most use" message was referring to. But I think you may be right in your suggestion that it was.

Gary

 

Most servers do use a linux distro. Mostly because it is free and has a high market share so most of the server software is native to linux. I have run linux servers for 16 months nonstop without any problem. That being said Windows Server OS is fairly competent itself and IIS 7.0 is very good.

 

This couldn't be more true, Apple is a company that makes more money on iThings and songs then computer sales. They have the luxury of changing things drastically in thier OS. Granted its a nice step in the right direction, but like communism would only work on paper. Alienating billions of customers/PCs would be a huge hit to take.

 

It's like how when I'm reading this new Javascript book...the IE4 DOM is still covered just because some businesses refuse to upgrade their intranets.