# Windows Could Use a Rush of Fresh Air



## aryayush (Jul 3, 2008)

*Windows Could Use a Rush of Fresh Air*

By RANDALL STROSS
Published: June 29, 2008

MICROSOFT Windows has put on a lot of weight over the years.

*graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/29/business/29digi.1901.jpg
Illustration by The New York Times

Beginning as a thin veneer for older software code, it has become an obese monolith built on an ancient frame. Adding features, plugging security holes, fixing bugs, fixing the fixes that never worked properly, all while maintaining compatibility with older software and hardware — is there anything Windows doesn’t try to do?

Painfully visible are the inherent design deficiencies of a foundation that was never intended to support such weight. Windows seems to move an inch for every time that Mac OS X or Linux laps it.

The best solution to the multiple woes of Windows is starting over. Completely. Now. *Read more…*

[Via The New York Times]


----------



## goobimama (Jul 3, 2008)

I hear that's what Windows 7 is all about... Let's hope they can keep to their promises this time round...


----------



## aryayush (Jul 3, 2008)

No, it isn’t. Read the article—Windows 7 is going to be to Windows Vista what Vista is to XP.


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 3, 2008)

I seriously doubt Microsoft wanting to restart at this moment. Not to mention how Vista has been received by consumers. I'm pretty sure they are going to come out with a Load of features which should make the wait worth it. 



> “is to build off the same core architecture as Windows Vista so the investments you and our partners have made in Windows Vista will continue to pay off with Windows 7.”



Isn't this exactly what Mac OS X is doing also by releasing that new OS? An excerpt from the passage in this thread .



> “We have delivered more than a thousand new features to OS X in just seven years and Snow Leopard lays the foundation for thousands more,” said Bertrand Serlet, Apple’s senior vice president of Software Engineering. “In our continued effort to deliver the best user experience, we hit the pause button on new features to focus on perfecting the world’s most advanced operating system.”



So in this case isn't the author being a bit harsh on Microsoft. But nonetheless Vista didn't come with quite alot of the features that would justify the wait I guess. Although I definitely see it emerging as its best product in the Long run.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 3, 2008)

Windows doesn't need to start over at all. Compared to the BSD kernel & Unix kernel, the NT kernel which is the foundation of Windows Vista & Windows 7 although with major architecture changes is still fairly new & yet it's potential isn't completely achieved.

Windows is known for it's superior software backward compatibility compared to Mac OS X or Linux. I m yet to see a screenshot by Gautam showing openoffice .1 beta running on Ubuntu 8.04. On the other hand, Apple has already said that they won't support PowerPC architecture due to which within few years Mac developers will stop making universal binaries for Applications & will concentrate on X86 Mac only leaving all the PowerPC mac users in dark.....Microsoft isn't doing that.

Microsoft doesn't need to remove half the code or backward compatibility. Hyper-V is in Windows Server 2008 now & it will be there in Windows 7 by default in a sandbox enviroment. What they should do which will be easy for them anyway is that they should remove all the pre-vista code from Windows 7 & remove Win32 support all together.

Now if a developer has to make an application they should use a more sophisticated API such as .Net 2008 or QT or GTK & those old apps will run in a virtual machine esqe Sandbox enviroment. Since CPUs these days has VT Virtualisation inbuilt as well as DirectX 10's support for GPU Virtualisation (playing quake 3 in a VM which looks like it is running natively as well as running Aero at the same time or Quake 4 in Vista) so there will hardly be any performance panelty.

They don't need to develop something new or start over, there is no need. They just need to use what they already have in a better & optimised way. Don't be shocked if Windows 7 turns out to be a highly optimised version of Vista on the same hardware leaving all the legecy code behind & Hyper-V for old application which included Motocross Madness 1


----------



## aryayush (Jul 3, 2008)

And don’t be shocked if it’s just as well received as Vista has been.


----------



## iMav (Jul 3, 2008)

aryayush said:


> Windows 7 is going to be to Windows Vista what Vista is to XP.


Windows 7 is going to be to Windows Vista what XP was to ME. But, I think that it is time, MS gave a radically changed OS, from top to bottom.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jul 3, 2008)

Nice article....

Yes true it has became fat...but if a os want to serve something for everyone...g think there offer to be loads of codes...i dont fault on windows... 
But the things is they could atleast run through a installation wizard...where you are asked questions regarding how you use the system and ar for their need , only those featuress can be turned on...simple example being printer, network,etc... That would put a serious diet on windows..,
What say guys?

Offer = needs 
FUC THE T9


----------



## aryayush (Jul 3, 2008)

_[off-topic]_​What does “ADSF” stand for?
_[/off-topic]_​


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jul 3, 2008)

Asdf keyboard keys dude... ASDF...


----------



## bikdel (Jul 3, 2008)

There was an article in June issue of PC Quest about a Microsoft OS, a name that starts from 'S' alphabet I guess. A very early build was included in the free DVD. I did not understand what it was about and all those alien codes provided but it was certainly something I never saw...

EDIT: Sorry, Didnt read the article. Yes, its the Singularity OS or whatever...


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2008)

naveen_reloaded said:


> Asdf keyboard keys dude... ASDF...


he is not into gaming


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 3, 2008)

this is absolutely right. I don't need an article to tell me that windows sucks internally.

Apple did the same thing with macintosh when they put performance over pride and based their operating system on FreeBSD. Now I hear apple apparently has rather satisfied customers.


----------



## ring_wraith (Jul 3, 2008)

Gotta agree to that article. Its like adding the same decorations to a christmas tree year after year.. Get a new tree! 

But does anyone realize the fact that a completely new kernel viz. a fresh start would result in so many incompatibilities that it might be the one last swipe that finally kills Microsoft? Morons, trying to prevent their company from falling apart and what not.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 3, 2008)

No one is looking at what MS is doing with Vista & Windows 7. MS has already given developers WPF & native vista apps must be made in .net 3.0 or later. this means managed code in 95% apps by the time Windows 8 comes, they will all be GPGPU accelerated with WPF, WCF etc. Singularity is a project right now in which the 98% OS is made from scratch in .net managed code, so by 2012 we will have a new architecture made from scratch

singularity can very well be foundation for windows 8. Since by 2012 almost all apps will be in either in .net or similar API like Adobe flex, MS won't need to care about backward compatibility & they can remove old code from windows. 
ring wraith is right, if MS removes backward compatibility then people will scold even more, gautam, weren't U cursing MS for not supporting motocross madness yourself. MS can't start over just like, it takes time


----------



## Krazy_About_Technology (Jul 3, 2008)

^^Singularity is some new architecture or what? I dont quiet got you on that buddy 

But ya, i agree with you GX.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 3, 2008)

singularity is a compleately new architecture with new kernel, networking stack based on WCF instead of old TCP/IP, UI based on Aero etc with everything written in easy to use .net API. Even the drivers r said to be written in .net means it will be automaticaly compiled during installation with something like ngen.exe.
Windows 7 is to Vista what XP was to Win 2000, enhancement & optimisation to already established stable OS.


----------



## Krazy_About_Technology (Jul 3, 2008)

^WHOA! That would be great whenever it comes mainstream


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 3, 2008)

Singularity is to Windows 7 what Win 95 was to Win 3.1, something mind blowing.

It makes sence for singularity to be 64bit only. by 2012, it will be 9 years that 64 bit CPU r out & it doesn't make sence for it to be 32bit anymore.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 3, 2008)

Whatever microsoft does, I seriously doubt that they would be able to match upto the performance of the Linux Kernel in so short a span of time.


----------



## iMav (Jul 3, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> Whatever microsoft does, I seriously doubt that they would be able to match upto the performance of the Linux Kernel in so short a span of time.


What span of time are you talking about? Do you have any inside info about since when MS research has been working any new Kernel?


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 3, 2008)

iMav said:


> What span of time are you talking about? Do you have any inside info about since when MS research has been working any new Kernel?


I was comparing this 2012 time you guys were talking about. Do you honestly think this can match 21 years of hard work (by that time) by a million developers ?


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2008)

^^lolz


----------



## iMav (Jul 3, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> I was comparing this 2012 time you guys were talking about. Do you honestly think this can match 21 years of hard work (by that time) by a million developers ?


Yes, why not. What you don't understand is that we are talking about a new kernel which will be made from lessons learnt from the past 3 decades. And, hard work, MS has it easy? Does Santa come and drop technology to MS?


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 3, 2008)

iMav said:


> Yes, why not. What you don't understand is that we are talking about a new kernel which will be made from lessons learnt from the past 3 decades. And, hard work, MS has it easy? Does Santa come and drop technology to MS?


+1. When you talk about FOSS, everything is free and open. MS Engineers are not so dumb that they don't even understand the open code they see! Computing - whether hardware or software - moves at lightening speed.

Secondly, since the kernel is not open I think its not correct to comment on it since we don't know anything about it.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 3, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> +1. When you talk about FOSS, everything is free and open. MS Engineers are not so dumb that they don't even understand the open code they see! Computing - whether hardware or software - moves at lightening speed.
> 
> Secondly, since the kernel is not open I think its not correct to comment on it since we don't know anything about it.


whatever it is, the future is not exactly clear. its dull and foggy and anything may happen.

So I wish all the best to MS, and hope for their sake that everything turns out well.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2008)

^^future should be open or else we all succumb to the competition.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 3, 2008)

T159 said:


> ^^future is should be open or else we all succumb to the competition.


I know. But that doesn't give me any right to stop M$ from developing $$$ app$.

As a FOSS user, I shall do my part whenever I can to ensure that the world does not ask what OS you use, rather, they start asking what Distro® you use.


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 3, 2008)

^^^ -1. I don't agree with that. There must be a fair share of both proprietary as well as open software.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2008)

I remember this video
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTM5cDIESrY
and the monopoly in "V"


----------



## Pat (Jul 3, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> MS Engineers are not so dumb that they don't even understand the open code they see!



Do you mean that Linux will set standards and MS will just copy it ?


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 3, 2008)

^^^ 95% of the OS' out there use open source kernels. I didn't point specifically to Linux kernel. I'm also not talking about copying the "whole" kernel as such. Currently it uses tcp/ip stacks from BSD. So it makes perfect sense to take what is good and incorporate it into one's own products.


----------



## RCuber (Jul 3, 2008)

Baaa .. you guys started it again .. talk "technical" stuff guys..


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 3, 2008)

Charan said:


> Baaa .. you guys started it again .. talk "technical" stuff guys..


ok... "technical stuff" haha... lol


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 3, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> ^^^ 95% of the OS' out there use open source kernels. I didn't point specifically to Linux kernel. I'm also not talking about copying the "whole" kernel as such. Currently it uses tcp/ip stacks from BSD. So it makes perfect sense to take what is good and incorporate it into one's own products.


BSD is released under take what you want but you are not obliged to care about us license.

Linux is different. Its sealed within the community and M$ can have lawsuits against them by the OpenSource community.


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 4, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> BSD is released under take what you want but you are not obliged to care about us license.
> 
> Linux is different. Its sealed within the community and M$ can have lawsuits against them by the OpenSource community.


Didn't get the last time.. if you are confused.. then what I meant was that.. MS doesn't need to take a part of Linux kernel as a whole.. they can look into the code and implement it in their own way...for better or for worse. How then, can you prove that there is Linux code in the kernel?

I'm not saying its copying or whatever.. this post of mine was in reply to your post about MS not catching up with the Linux kernel developed by "millions" over the years.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 4, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> Didn't get the last time.. if you are confused.. then what I meant was that.. MS doesn't need to take a part of Linux kernel as a whole.. they can look into the code and implement it in their own way...for better or for worse. How then, can you prove that there is Linux code in the kernel?
> 
> I'm not saying its copying or whatever.. this post of mine was in reply to your post about MS not catching up with the Linux kernel developed by "millions" over the years.


Good point. But I think the reverse is also possible. You can study MS kernel using reverse engineering and decompiling and try to implement it in your own way too. MS can't prove anything against you.

And it was Million not Million*s*


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 4, 2008)

[Offtopic]



MetalheadGautham said:


> Good point. But I think the reverse is also possible. You can study MS kernel using reverse engineering and decompiling and try to implement it in your own way too. MS can't prove anything against you.


Dude.. you think reverse engineering or decompiling Windows kernel is easy??!!! 



MetalheadGautham said:


> And it was Million not Million*s*


lol.. whatever..

[/Offtopic]


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 4, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> Dude.. you think reverse engineering or decompiling Windows kernel is easy??!!!


ask some of those guys engaged in the ReactOS project.


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 4, 2008)

psst.. why do I smell an OS War on the other side..??!!


----------



## Indyan (Jul 4, 2008)

Guys get back to the topic. This thread isnt about FOSS and its principles.


			
				aryayush said:
			
		

> Windows 7 is going to be to Windows Vista what Vista is to XP.


Actually its more accurate to say Windows 7 is going to be what Windows Xp was to Windows 2000.
Windows 7 core is an evolved version of Server 2008 core which itself evolved from Vista.


----------



## aryayush (Jul 4, 2008)

gx_saurav said:


> No one is looking at what MS is doing with Vista & Windows 7. MS has already given developers WPF & native vista apps must be made in .net 3.0 or later. this means managed code in 95% apps by the time Windows 8 comes, they will all be GPGPU accelerated with WPF, WCF etc. Singularity is a project right now in which the 98% OS is made from scratch in .net managed code, so by 2012 we will have a new architecture made from scratch
> 
> singularity can very well be foundation for windows 8. Since by 2012 almost all apps will be in either in .net or similar API like Adobe flex, MS won't need to care about backward compatibility & they can remove old code from windows.
> ring wraith is right, if MS removes backward compatibility then people will scold even more, gautam, weren't U cursing MS for not supporting motocross madness yourself. MS can't start over just like, it takes time


When it comes to Microsoft, that's pretty much all the company has to offer -- exaggerated, rosy visions of the future.

There's a lovely quote that sums up the difference between Apple and Microsoft, "Why is it that Microsoft's future products always sounds better than Apple's present ones?" Or something like that. I'll look it up.

--------------

Yeah, this is the actual quote:

"It's amazing how future Microsoft products beat current Apple products time and time again, isn't it? You'd think Apple would've just given up by now." -The Macalope


----------



## Pathik (Jul 4, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> You can study MS kernel using reverse engineering and decompiling and try to implement it in your own way too. MS can't prove anything against you.



Dont you think it would be much much easier the other way round??


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 4, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *MetalheadGautham*
> You can study MS kernel using reverse engineering and decompiling and try to implement it in your own way too. MS can't prove anything against you.



Mind asking ReactOS people why they ran a code audit? They do not use reverse engineering unless it is clean room. Which means the devs have to use dcumentations from other sources. Devs can not see MS code


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 4, 2008)

lolz, seems like arya has nothing to say on the topic due to his lack of knowledge. 

Apple is simply removing Power PC code from universal binary which we can also do to reduce the size of OS, only Quicktime X seems worthwhile. I hope it brings GPU acceleration.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2008)

thou seekth the siggy of cuddcrazy shalt possess the wisdom


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 4, 2008)

Well the fact is all that Windows Has at the moment is a bunch of Mays, Mights and Hopefully which explains the quote Aryayush gave.



> "It's amazing how future Microsoft products beat current Apple products time and time again, isn't it? You'd think Apple would've just given up by now." -The Macalope


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 4, 2008)

You guys said Windows should start over. Well, Windows is starting over with Singularity but Microsoft cannot just release a completely new OS all of a sudden. They released a fairly new OS in form of Vista with technologies never seen before & look how bad they were scolded for breaking compatibility with "some" old applications.

Microsoft is changing the Windows architecture & kernel etc but they also have 100000000 of third party apps so they require that all the developers should move to newer Vista compatible API like .net 3.0 or 3.5 so that by 2012 (approx) when Windows 8 arrives with Singularity as the foundation, there will be no backward compatibility issues. Windows is not just an OS, it is a platform for 3rd party developers to develop things.

.Net 4.0 is on it's way soon & GPGPU is going to be a part of it. Developers won't have to code in different APIs like OpenCL or CUDA for 2 different set of GPUs. It will have a standard for Windows like DirectX or DirectShow due to which a developer can code in .net 4.0 & the app will be automatically GPGPU accelerated, they won't have to code in different APIs for different GPUs.


----------



## Indyan (Jul 4, 2008)

I dont think that Windows needs to start over.
From what I have read "most of the knowledgable people" seems to agree that the problem is not with the windows kernel. Its with the top layer. That's where Vista screwed up.
Mac needed to dump OS due to various reasons, Windows isnt in a similar position. MS shouldnt waste time creating an entirel new kernel - which would be undoubtedly buggier than the current one which has evolved over a long time. Not only that at one go all games and software would become incompatible. Yes, they could use virtualization, but then that would cause a performance issue which would have an impact - esp on games.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 4, 2008)

That is what Windows is doing with MinWin, optimising an already existing kernel.

Apple chose to go the BSD kernel way cos they don't need to develop it themselves. Let the community develop it, Apple will simply take it & modify for there own use.



Indyan said:


> Yes, they could use virtualization, but then that would cause a performance issue which would have an impact - esp on games.



Not anymore. If you have a CPU with Intel VT or AMD Virtualisation technology & you are using VMWare Fusion of Microsoft Hyper-V along with a DirectX 10 GPU, then the performance loss will be only 5%. This is acceptable cos then old games will run on new hardware


----------



## aryayush (Jul 4, 2008)

gx_saurav said:


> You guys said Windows should start over. Well, Windows is starting over with Singularity but Microsoft cannot just release a completely new OS all of a sudden. They released a fairly new OS in form of Vista with technologies never seen before & look how bad they were scolded for breaking compatibility with "some" old applications.


Yeah, that’s what you get when you break compatibility without fixing anything.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 4, 2008)

Well, Apple is doing the same by giving new technologies in form of Snow Leopard which is breaking compatibility with PowerPC. They are breaking compatibility & still giving features (as per U). MS did the same thing but still they retained 95% of the compatibilityty with old apps, so why this double standard of blaming MS only.


----------



## shantanu (Jul 4, 2008)

dada said:
			
		

> Not anymore. If you have a CPU with Intel VT or AMD Virtualisation technology & you are using VMWare Fusion of Microsoft Hyper-V along with a DirectX 10 GPU, then the performance loss will be only 5%. This is acceptable cos then old games will run on new hardware



dude !


----------



## CadCrazy (Jul 4, 2008)

shantanu said:


> dude !



Lol. I have found one spamming Mod 
Ban him as i hate spamming


----------



## k6153r (Jul 4, 2008)

If Windows 7 is also like Vista, then I'm going to ditch Microsoft as a whole.

(Infact, many would do that.)


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 4, 2008)

gx_saurav said:


> Apple chose to go the BSD kernel way cos they don't need to develop it themselves. Let the community develop it, Apple will simply take it & modify for there own use.


what makes you think MS won't do the same ?


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 5, 2008)

If MS wanted to, they could have adopted it already instead of developing MinWin


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 5, 2008)

gx_saurav said:


> They released a fairly new OS in form of *Vista with technologies never seen before* & look how bad they were scolded for breaking compatibility with "some" old applications.


Haha... joke of the century! 



gx_saurav said:


> .Net 4.0 is on it's way soon & GPGPU is going to be a part of it. Developers won't have to code in different APIs like OpenCL or CUDA for 2 different set of GPUs. It will have a standard for Windows like DirectX or DirectShow due to which a developer can code in .net 4.0 & the app will be automatically GPGPU accelerated, they won't have to code in different APIs for different GPUs.


Not much knowledge about .Net 4.0 so won't comment on that. But if this is true, then it'd lessen the developers' work by a large margin. Thats a welcome addition 



gx_saurav said:


> Not anymore. If you have a CPU with Intel VT or AMD Virtualisation technology & you are using VMWare Fusion of Microsoft Hyper-V along with a DirectX 10 GPU, then the performance loss will be only 5%. This is acceptable cos then old games will run on new hardware


Did you even understand what you typed???!  Buddy, there are a handful of people here who understand what you post or at least the reason behind it 



shantanu said:


> dude !


Haha... I get it! 

IMHO, starting from scratch is foolishness. The NT kernel is quite mature. They shouldn't ditch it at all. Jus reduce the "monolith'ism" from the kernel and make it more modular.. MinWin is the way to go


----------



## aryayush (Jul 5, 2008)

… if it works, that is.


----------



## chandru.in (Jul 5, 2008)

gx_saurav said:


> .Net 4.0 is on it's way soon & GPGPU is going to be a part of it. Developers won't have to code in different APIs like OpenCL or CUDA for 2 different set of GPUs. It will have a standard for Windows like DirectX or DirectShow due to which a developer can code in .net 4.0 & the app will be automatically GPGPU accelerated, they won't have to code in different APIs for different GPUs.



Well being a pretty comfortable Java programmer, I have to ask what is new here if it not just another MS effort to create a Windows specific re-implementation of Java?

In fact Java has been offering hardware accelerated GUI even as early as Java 5.0.  That too in a pretty much platform independent way (that includes mobiles and devices).

Now if you are gonna bring up the Java desktop performance argument, all I have to say is you have not tried Java beyond 1.4.  Yes Java till 1.4 was slow and that made Java lose desktop space.  But 1.5 and 1.6 are far more faster and the upcoming Java 6 Update 10 has excellent features to improve desktop performance.

Inertia is the only reason why the world shouldn't consider desktop java (and applets) after Java 6 update 10 is released.  Otherwise, Java is a perfectly capable desktop platform (truly platform independent and open too).


----------

