Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 15:26 UTC
Windows Microsoft is planning to ship its next major version of Windows - known internally as version '7' - within roughly three years, CNET News.com has learned. The company discussed Windows 7 on Thursday at a conference for its field sales force in Orlando, Fla., according to sources close to the company. While the company provided few details, Windows 7, the next client version of the operating system, will be among the steps taken by Microsoft to establish a more predictable release schedule, according to sources. The company plans a more 'iterative' process of information disclosure to business customers and partners, sources said.
Order by: Score:
Heh...
by Almafeta on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 15:33 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

They're planning to release it in 3 years to be sure that it's ready for its actual release date in 5 years.

Also, a quote from the article: Like Vista, Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Will there even be 32-bit chips for general sale then?

Edited 2007-07-22 15:35 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Heh...
by Square on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 15:46 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
Square Member since:
2005-10-01

Possibly, many of the lowpower chips such as the VIA C7 are 32Bit only and may still be that way in 3-5 years

Reply Score: 3

RE: Heh...
by prymitive on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 15:47 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
prymitive Member since:
2006-11-20


Also, a quote from the article: Like Vista, Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Will there even be 32-bit chips for general sale then?


What stops You from running 32 bit OS on 64 bit chip? I'm doing it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Heh...
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Heh..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What stops You from running 32 bit OS on 64 bit chip? I'm doing it.


A 32-bit OS has a constraint of being able to address only 4GB of memory.

In 3-5 years, entry-level machines will have more memory than that.

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201...
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Heh...
by KenJackson on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Heh..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

The 4GB limit applies to each process. Even the original i386 processor could directly address 64TB of RAM.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Heh...
by japh on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh..."
japh Member since:
2005-11-11

The 4GB limit applies to each process.

Not in vista, 32-bit. XP could use PAE, but 32-bit Vista won't, which seems to be an artificial limitation.

Unfortunately I can't find a good link, but search the net and you'll find lots of people who have been trying to get 4GB to work in Vista.

edit: found a link.
http://help.lockergnome.com/vista/Vista-32bit-recognize-memory-ftop...

Edited 2007-07-23 09:57

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Heh...
by christian on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh..."
christian Member since:
2005-07-06

The original i386 could only address 4GB RAM. It had only 32 address bus lines.

The first x86 to break this barrier was the Pentium Pro, which had 36 address bits, hence 64GB RAM.

I don't know of any processors that can address 64TB of RAM.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Heh...
by japh on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Heh..."
japh Member since:
2005-11-11

32 bit address bus translates to 2^32 addresses, that much is true.
But, it doesn't mean that an OS running on a CPU with 32 bits address bus can only do 4 GB.

Here's how it can be done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

Solaris, Linux and Windows XP all support more than 4 GB of physical memory while being 32 bit for example.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Heh...
by viton on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh..."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

i386 processor could directly address 64TB of RAM.
OMFG!!!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Heh...
by KenJackson on Tue 24th Jul 2007 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Heh..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

That was from memory, but it turns out that the 64TB limit is virtual memory. So sorry.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Heh...
by Doc Pain on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 15:49 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Will there even be 32-bit chips for general sale then?"

For sale in general? As a new product? Surely not. But will there be 32-bit chips still around that are capable to run this new "Windows"? :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Heh...
by Kroc on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Heh..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Theoretically yes; practically, no.
It's like saying you can run Vista on 800 MHz. You can do it; in the same way you can run XP on 8 Mhz http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

By the time '7' is out, 32-bit machines may be considered unbearably slow, who knows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Heh...
by CPUGuy on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Heh..."
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

64bit isn't any 'faster' unless you are doing stuff that needs more than 4GB or RAM, and again it's only faster because you can but more than 4GB in a 64bit system, where as 32bit is limited to 4.

The actual 64bitness of the processor does not make it any faster.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Heh...
by Kroc on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

That's not what I meant. 32-bit systems won't be shipping at all soon. So by the time '7' comes out, computers with 32-bit chips will be old and possibly considered slow (by GHz / cores) compared to whatever things we have in the future.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Heh...
by Almafeta on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Not in and of itself, but most 64-bit processors, since they are by definition freed from the need to directly handle 32-bit architecture, they can organize themselves more efficiently and offer more advanced functions compared to their 32-bit predicessors.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Heh...
by Valhalla on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh..."
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

CPUGuy wrote:
-"64bit isn't any 'faster' unless you are doing stuff that needs more than 4GB or RAM, and again it's only faster because you can but more than 4GB in a 64bit system, where as 32bit is limited to 4. "

well, in terms of possible optimizations 64bit has the upper hand, which may very well translate to faster code.

the 32bit x86 cpu has 8 32-bit registers available to the programmer, and out of those, only 6 can really be considered general purpose, since the base and stack pointers impose restrictions when used. this forces the programmer/compiler to push and pop values to/from stack when they run out of registers which can be very detrimental to speed in time critical code. the 64 bit cpu's has 16 64-bit registers, of which 14 are general purpose and thus offers better possibilites for code optimization.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Heh...
by bnolsen on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh..."
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

That's proveably crap, I've got lots of written software that has 2 different code paths, one for 64 and one for 32 which the 64bit machine is substantially faster with.

Granted, the software needs to take advantage of the extra address space to do it, but 64bit is currently an enabler for faster technology.

And as the number of cores increase the ability to run within the arbitrary stack + heap limitations with 32bit will squeeze software developers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Heh...
by japh on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Heh..."
japh Member since:
2005-11-11

That's proveably crap, I've got lots of written software that has 2 different code paths, one for 64 and one for 32 which the 64bit machine is substantially faster with.

From what I've seen, it differs.
Runing 32-bit applications on SPARC is faster than the same application compiled for 64-bit. There's maybe a 5% difference.
Doing the same thing on some AMD CPUs will show that the 64-bit code runs faster.

I would say that the SPARC results make more sense. 64-bit addresses will fill up the CPU caches faster and will result in fewer cache hits.

If you have a CPU that's optimized for one over the other, that is of course going to change the results.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Heh...
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Heh..."
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

But will there be 32-bit chips still around that are capable to run this new "Windows"? :-)

There aren't a ton of those chips that can comfortably run Vista, to say nothing of Windows 7. They might exist, but will likely be completely unsuitable if the jump in requirements between Vista and 7 is anything like the jump from XP to Vista.

In the embedded space things could be different, but there's hardly a reason for a desktop OS scheduled for release 3 years from now to be 32 bit. Why would they delay this increasingly necessary transition even more?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Heh...
by MikeGA on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:06 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

I don't understand why they're planning to continue shipping separate 32 and 64 bit versions? Apple has already proved that universal binaries that run on both platforms are quite possible, and it won't be long till we have the full operating system on 32 and 64 bit in a single package.

Splitting it up like this just seems like an unnecessary hassle for Microsoft's customers. Why should they worry about which edition to purchase? It should just work.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Heh...
by jayson.knight on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Heh..."
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"I don't understand why they're planning to continue shipping separate 32 and 64 bit versions?"

I'm pretty sure a decision like this was actively made by Microsoft, and more than likely it's cost effective for them to ship separate media according to 'bitness'.

Also, don't forget that all SKU's of Vista come on either a Retail/OEM 32-bit, or Retail/OEM 64-bit DVD; the edition which is installed from the DVD is determined by the license key entered, so it's not like there are 12 different DVD combinations they have to press. From a manufacturing standpoint, I'd say it seems pretty efficient.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Heh...
by kaiwai on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Heh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm pretty sure a decision like this was actively made by Microsoft, and more than likely it's cost effective for them to ship separate media according to 'bitness'.

Also, don't forget that all SKU's of Vista come on either a Retail/OEM 32-bit, or Retail/OEM 64-bit DVD; the edition which is installed from the DVD is determined by the license key entered, so it's not like there are 12 different DVD combinations they have to press. From a manufacturing standpoint, I'd say it seems pretty efficient.


How is it efficient? Sun for over a decade shipped cd's with 64bit and 32bit binaries on the same media - Microsoft chooses NOT to do that or even offer BOTH at the same time because it means it forces the customer to purchase a new licence when they want to move from 32bit to 64bit.

It has nothing to do with 'efficiency' and everything to do with money extraction. If they wanted to make it easy, the choice would be automatically made for the end user when the OS is installed - like it is with Solaris x86.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Heh...
by PlatformAgnostic on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Heh..."
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Apple is running a 32-bit OS, so they have different constraints. It's a bit strange, but Apple has been supporting a set of 64-bit userspace programs on a 32-bit kernel, so it's not even necessary for them to have two packages for the OS. It's not so easy with 64-bit Windows, which is a clean implementation.

I hope they finally replace the kernel with something good in OS 11.

As for maintaining two versions on the Windows side, I agree with you that having only one will simplify hardware choices. But the embedded market will suffer a bit if they discontinue 32-bit Windows. I believe Microsoft announced that 2008 is the last 32-bit version of Windows Server.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Heh...
by exigentsky on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Heh..."
exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

What's wrong with the current hybrid microkernel kernel?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Heh...
by PlatformAgnostic on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh..."
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

It has slow system call speeds and much lower concurrency than the other two mainstream OSes. The design is not that clean because there are two ways of doing many things in the system layer (the Mach way and the BSD way).

OS X is good enough for displaying pretty graphics and running compute-intensive SMP programs, but when you have anything that needs to call into the kernel often, it's not that fast.

OTOH, you should take this with a grain of salt... I haven't actually dived into the Darwin sources anytime recently, and I haven't owned a mac. I'm basing what I'm saying on benchmarks I have read and general overviews articles of how the Mac kernel works and some interesting postings on Apple's developer lists.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Heh...
by exigentsky on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Heh..."
exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

I've also heard of the idea that OS X's kernel is slow by design, but I'm not so sure. Have you read this?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Heh...
by JonathanBThompson on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:23 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Unless 64 bit chips can run on a lower power diet than 32 bit ones can (that seems unlikely) embedded products that use Windows aren't likely to go to 64 bit chips for that reason, even if the prices of 64 bit chips aren't higher (another reason why not) and it's logical that Microsoft will transition their embedded versions over to the most recent client codebase for the base code.

In addition, as odd as it may seem to the tech geek that insists on replacing their systems every couple of years, there will still be quite a few people in the world that are using 32 bit desktop machines from this time period, because they still work perfectly fine for their usage, and they don't want/need anything higher-end to work with, and in a lot of places, it comes down to budget: not everyone has nearly as much disposable income for electronics as many of the higher-income industrialized countries. Granted, from reading on anandtech about some of the latest video games having issues with the 2 GB userspace limit, the people still running 32 bit processors at that time aren't likely to be the hard-core gamers that run these applications, but then again, those gamers aren't likely to be using systems that old, either, if they can avoid it.

Also, in the business arena, again, there will be many machines out there that are 32 bit processors, because they don't feel a great need/desire to upgrade to the latest machines, because most business users (people using word processors, spreadsheets, other more typical clerical stuff) frankly don't need even as much as current typical 32 bit machines offer, and why spend money on a new machine if the old ones are working well?

The real question as to how quickly the Windows world will transition over to new stuff that's only 64-bit rests largely in the hands of the developers, combined with customers currently using 32-bit versions of Windows and transitioning over: if there's not much market for 64-bit only software, developers are often not very willing to make that jump, and the overhead for developing and supporting both 32 and 64-bit software isn't zero. For an example, look at how long it took to get many applications to target only 32-bit Windows: Windows 95 was 2 years after Windows NT 3.1, which had very few 32-bit applications available for the longest time, and even for quite a bit of time after Windows 95, people were still developing games that didn't use it for various reasons, using EMM, etc. so yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still a meaningful market for 32-bit Windows 3 years from now.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Heh...
by renox on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Heh..."
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

64b CPU won't of course use less power than 32b one, but I doubt that they will use much more power though.

>there will still be quite a few people in the world that are using 32 bit desktop machines from this time period,

Sure, but those people won't upgrade their OS too,
so for a new OS what matter the most is the new PCs..

Reply Score: 2

RE: Heh...
by butters on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:02 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Microsoft probably learned some lessons from the Vista development cycle. Maybe they'll apply them this time around. The biggest mistake they made was promising these bold new pillars, at least one of which was dropped. The remaining pillars were not nearly as exciting as Microsoft thought they would be, and it's not clear that third-party developers are chomping at the bit to use these new proprietary APIs.

But they did effectively sell really scary doomsday scenarios that made the released version of Vista seem comparatively cute and cuddly. Remember Hailstorm, the plan to turn Windows into a subscription-based remote application platform? Microsoft should announce a bold plan to make Windows 7 completely unpalatable to just about anyone.

For example, announce Microsoft Media Protector, a mandatory system service that Protects all media on your computer with special DRM required for playback on Windows 7. Then back away from this plan about a year before the release, citing licensing issues with copyright holders that don't want to Protect their users. Suddenly, Windows 7 won't seem so awful. It'll seem downright acceptable.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Heh...
by kaiwai on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Heh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft probably learned some lessons from the Vista development cycle. Maybe they'll apply them this time around. The biggest mistake they made was promising these bold new pillars, at least one of which was dropped. The remaining pillars were not nearly as exciting as Microsoft thought they would be, and it's not clear that third-party developers are chomping at the bit to use these new proprietary APIs.


It has also been a giant lemon as well - if they had 'server' and 'desktop' edition; and if 'desktop edition' was what 'Ultimate' is, then it would be a pretty good bargain. The problem is that what they've sold is a castrated version of Windows which provides no benefits when you transfer from Windows XP Home to the equivalent version in Windows Vista.

As for third parties - personally they get what they deserve - they choose to neglect alternative operating systems, let Microsoft crush and bankrupt each company one by one and suffer the most painful humiliating defeats. The day they refused to create alternative operating system versions of their applications is they day I stopped caring - I can't wait till I see adobe go bankrupt given the products Microsoft is releasing, not only will it be better but cheaper.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Heh...
by hobgoblin on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:57 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

the AMD chip i have in my computer right now can in theory run any X86 code, from 8-bit to 64-bit...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Heh...
by tonestone57 on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 18:39 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

"Will there even be 32-bit chips for general sale then?"

NO, I'd be surprised to see any x86 32 bit processors being sold. AMD ( & INTEL? ) presently only sell 64 bit versions. VIA has 64 bit too but I'm not sure if they still sell their 32 bit cpus.

Why make 32 bit version of the OS?

Well, because lots of people will still be running 32 bit computers ( not everyone will upgrade systems ). Microsoft would lose those customers to Linux or running *older* Windows ( = less revenue ).

If your 32bit processor runs everything you want it to then why even upgrade to 64bit processor? ( Just because it is the latest & greatest doesn't mean everybody has to go buy into it ).

Edited 2007-07-22 18:43

Reply Score: 1

RE: Heh...
by kaiwai on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:13 UTC in reply to "Heh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

They're planning to release it in 3 years to be sure that it's ready for its actual release date in 5 years.


Its interesting about the three years, there have been mixed messages - first it was three years, then 2011 was thrown around, then another Microsoft person said it will be three years but might be longer if it isn't 'up to scratch'.

To me, if I was a Microsoft customer, I would be deeply concerned that they're worrying about the next release before getting their Windows Vista and Server 2008 sorted out properly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Heh...
by biteydog on Tue 24th Jul 2007 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Heh..."
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

As an antique dealer friend said to me - "...concentrate on this deal. Forget the next deal 'til you've tied this one up."

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Heh...
by kaiwai on Tue 24th Jul 2007 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Heh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

As an antique dealer friend said to me - "...concentrate on this deal. Forget the next deal 'til you've tied this one up."


Very true, very true. I do the same thing at work. People crap on about 'multitasking' when in reality they're doing more than one thing, but doing each of them very crappily - kinda like those multifunction mobile phones.

I get one thing done, finished, the move onto the next thing. Concentrate your full and undivided efforts on one thing at a time then you don't lose focus on not only the big issues but the small things that can cause the biggest problems for customers.

The problem with Microsoft, also, is their focus on the profit rather than than the product. The best CEO I remember hearing was, "focus on the product and the profits will follow' - the problem with Microsoft, its all about profit and cutting costs rather than developing a product then allowing the profit to naturally flow from the fact that people will want the product.

Reply Score: 2

32 bit os on 64 bit cpu
by dabooty on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:01 UTC
dabooty
Member since:
2007-06-15

loads of people run a 32 bit os on a 64 bit cpu, just because some app they really need is 32 bit only.

In the company I work i have to reimage every laptop with a 32 bit os.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu
by Phloptical on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 00:01 UTC in reply to "32 bit os on 64 bit cpu"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Personally, I set up a small network full of 32 bit Windows, server and XP clients because 64bit just isn't there yet, contrary to what AMD and Intel would have you believe.

Stability and compatibility isn't a problem at home, but when your network depends on reducing downtime, you need to go with what works, and that equates to staying 32 bit and forgeting you ever heard the word Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu
by elsewhere on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 05:06 UTC in reply to "32 bit os on 64 bit cpu"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

loads of people run a 32 bit os on a 64 bit cpu, just because some app they really need is 32 bit only.

In the company I work i have to reimage every laptop with a 32 bit os.


I agree with your point about app compatibility, I think a lot of people are overlooking that, but I'm curious to know which laptops are you currently buying that come with a 64-bit OS?

Reply Score: 2

32 bit on 64
by markoweb on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:31 UTC
markoweb
Member since:
2006-11-30

I can safely say that 75% of regular 32-bit apps work without a glitch on a 64-bit Windows OS. "WoW64" works very well. And most apps and drivers are already 64-bit, so a 32-bit OS is totaly unnecessary.

What is the difference between a 32-bit app and a 64-bit app??
1) The only real difference is in pointers. The biggest reason why some apps don't work on a 64-bit OS, is because some programmers think it is "very cool" to do "illegal and unsafe" operations with them.
2) Most apps can simply be recompiled for 64-bit and they work, others may need a quick tinkering here and there... Stuff that deals with the kernel on the other hand (firewall, antivirus, drivers) might need more work.

//What Microsoft should really do, is create a full blown NO BACKWARDS COMPATIBILTY BULLSHIT driven 64-bit Windows, which has a Virtual Machine (XP PRO + Vista Business preinstalled) app builtin in which you can run older software and devices (usb cameras, scanners, printers etc).
//And if your app or device don't work with the new windows, then stick with the old. You don't always HAVE TO BUY a new Windows every time it's released...

Reply Score: 5

RE: 32 bit on 64
by jayson.knight on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:41 UTC in reply to "32 bit on 64"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"I can safely say that 75% of regular 32-bit apps work without a glitch on a 64-bit Windows OS. "WoW64" works very well. And most apps and drivers are already 64-bit, so a 32-bit OS is totaly unnecessary."

I can back that up as well. I have 3 x64 XP machines at home, all provisioned for different purposes and thus running different software (>100 3rd party apps total). I actually have yet to see any issues with application compatibility, and have only had issues with 3 drivers (an older printer, a scanner, and a sound card) out of around 60 total. For the drivers that don't work, it's not a big deal to purchase newer hardware since the benefits of x64 outweigh the cost of buying said new hardware.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 32 bit on 64
by Phloptical on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE: 32 bit on 64"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Wow.....3 whole machines, huh? Sounds like your little home network really mimics that of a large corporate IT

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: 32 bit on 64
by jayson.knight on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 32 bit on 64"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Sounds like your little home network really mimics that of a large corporate IT"

Corporate IT is a controlled environment...the vast majority of the machines are A) going to be very similar to one another and B) tested thoroughly before deploying any kind of software. Thus if they were to deploy an x64 solution, I'd expect it to have been tested enough that it would work on 95%+ of the machines in the organization.

I'd say my 'little home network' is very typical of the hodgepodge of older hardware and varied software that a lot of other home users who would need x64, i.e. power users who are software developers, or media producers, etc, and thus is actually a very good reference for the types of issues I'd expect to see out in the uncontrolled space of home consumers where machines vary widely.

So what was your point again?

Reply Score: 4

RE: 32 bit on 64
by ValiantSoul on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 02:11 UTC in reply to "32 bit on 64"
ValiantSoul Member since:
2005-07-20

The no backwards compatibility approach is what I've been really waiting for Microsoft to do, like Apple did when they transitioned from OS 9 to OS X. Apple proved that you can successfully make a move like that, as long as its handled properly.

Reply Score: 1

Too soon?
by archiesteel on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:57 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Isn't three years a bit soon to release the next version? That could lead many people to hang in with WinXP and leapfrog over Vista. To me, five years is a better timeframe for major Windows upgrades (just like game consoles).

Then again, as Almafeta suggested above, they may be saying three years while meaning five years...but why don't they just say five years, then? It's not as if people are eager to switch to a new Windows version while the last one just debuted...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Too soon?
by jayson.knight on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:34 UTC in reply to "Too soon?"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Isn't three years a bit soon to release the next version?"

For businesses with software assurance, it doesn't really matter, and seeing as how they were the most vocal (along with developers) about how long it took to get Vista out the door, this should appease them quite well. This is an example of MS reacting to market pressure, and I personally feel it's a good move on their part. A lot of folks were extremely unhappy about the amount of time between XP SP2 and Vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Too soon?
by archiesteel on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Too soon?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

A lot of folks were extremely unhappy about the amount of time between XP SP2 and Vista.


Really? My impression was rather that a lot of people were unhappy that, after taking all that time to develop the new OS, many of its most interesting features were dropped for the final release...

Meanwhile, most Windows users around me are not that excited to move to Vista...I have a hard time believing that a sizeable portion of the Windows userbase was indeed impatient about getting the new version. Geeks and power users, sure, but Joe User? That seems unlikely.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Too soon?
by jayson.knight on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too soon?"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Geeks and power users, sure, but Joe User? That seems unlikely."

I was speaking about businesses, specifically businesses with software assurance licenses since they are paying a ton of money per year so that they are guaranteed the most current releases of MS software. MS makes a lot of their revenues from these types of customers, and the majority of them were irate that here they were paying all that money only to have to wait for a new OS to get released.

Businesses (like in all other industries) comprise the bulk of sales, so that's the demographic they need to keep the most happy. A 3 year iteration (if they can stick to it) is a win win situation for everyone.

Edited 2007-07-22 22:38

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Too soon?
by archiesteel on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too soon?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I was speaking about businesses, specifically businesses with software assurance licenses since they are paying a ton of money per year so that they are guaranteed the most current releases of MS software. MS makes a lot of their revenues from these types of customers, and the majority of them were irate that here they were paying all that money only to have to wait for a new OS to get released.


Good point. I had forgotten about those.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Too soon?
by elsewhere on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 05:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too soon?"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

"Businesses (like in all other industries) comprise the bulk of sales, so that's the demographic they need to keep the most happy. A 3 year iteration (if they can stick to it) is a win win situation for everyone.


I'd question that. Enterprises don't want to see major infrastructure turning over every 3 years. They can take a year or more just to evaluate/test/rfq/purchase/deploy applications. Remember how long companies held on to NT? Some of the banks are still running it. Many companies are still using 2K on the desktop. I know our company is imaging XP overtop of Vista on new systems, just as they imaged NT and 2K over top of XP previously. And I'd question Microsoft's ability to properly provide 10-year enterprise support cycles when flipping the product that much more frequently.

The issue in the past wasn't so much that companies were demanding a 3 year release cycle, it's that MS wasn't delivering on their commitment with Software Assurance. It's a similar but not identical issue.

Frankly, I think the 5 year release cycle is fairly sane as far as companies are concerned, but I think it's a strain for consumers, or more correctly, the hardware manufacturers that depend on Windows driving upgrade sales. But then again, that was the choice MS made when they decided to merge the consumer and commercial brands of Windows. That, I think, was a mistake.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Too soon?
by Almafeta on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 18:06 UTC in reply to "Too soon?"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Here's one possible way

1 year since Vista's release where Windows 7 spent time out of the spotlight in planning 1 year.

The Windows 7 announcement, and 3 years intense development: 4 years total.

1 year extra-long beta for catching bugs, since that program seems to have been proven successful thanks to Vista and Windows Home Server: 5 years total.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Too soon?
by tonestone57 on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 18:56 UTC in reply to "Too soon?"
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

"Isn't three years a bit soon to release the next version?

NO.

Ok, looking at Microsoft's past actions.

They create Windows 98. Then the next *new* OS afterwards is Windows 98SE.

They develop Windows 2000 followed by Windows XP.

Simply said, Windows 98 & 98SE are very similar. Windows 2000 & XP are very similar. ( 98SE and XP are just improved/updated versions ).

Why did Vista take so long to come out?

Because they were throwing lots & lots of *new* stuff into Vista ( big changes ) and it was getting very complex ( with lots of code to work with ).

Windows 7 is very likely going to be a *polished* ( improved & updated ) version of Vista maybe with a couple of new features, add-ons, fixes and improvements. If they don't go crazy adding stuff to it then they'll be able to come out with next Windows version in 3 years time.

Edited 2007-07-22 19:00

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Too soon?
by stestagg on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Too soon?"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I'm not quite so sure. If http://www.levenez.com/windows/history.html#01 is correct then:

They had 2 stable source branches running side-by-side for a long time, the 3.1/9x product, and the OS/2 NT (New Technology) tree.

When the 9x tech finally had too much instability/cruft/old-code to maintain properly, then migrated the NT source over to be more consumer-friendly, and created the XP branch.

I believe that the NT codebase is coming to a similar place as the 9x line at the time of ME. There's just too much old engineering in the works to be efficient.
Vista has lots of shiny, decent features, but there is just too much instability (on some hardware) and odd performance wierdness around for many people to trust the platform. It is reminiscent of the dreaded Word 6.0 days when you had to hit save every 5 minutes.

Unfortunately, they cannot just switch to another branch, as they did with NT (unless they fall-back to modifying Windows Mobile or XBox for desktop use), Singularity seems just too far off at the moment. So they are forced to battle with the NT code until they come up with something better.

This last bit is just my opinion BTW.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Too soon?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too soon?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So they are forced to battle with the NT code until they come up with something better.

There's nothing wrong at all with the NT codebase. The problem with Windows is the userland on top, a whole bag of spaghetti code that is not easily changed due to Microsoft wanting to maintain backwards compatibility at whatever cost.

As I said in an earlier comment in this thread, and in an old editorial of mine [1], the only way for Microsoft to effectively go forward is to wipe the slate clean, and start writing the userland from scratch on top of the already-proven and well constructed NT kernel - without backwards compatibility in mind. They should move backwards compatibility into a VM, similar to how os/2 handles win3.x/dos applications, and how OS X for PPC handles OS7-9 applications.

[1] http://www.osnews.com/story.php/14412/Why-I-Am-Indifferent-About-Vi...

Edited 2007-07-22 22:24

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Too soon?
by stestagg on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too soon?"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

You're right. I was (sloppily) talking about Windows as the kernel and userland package that is sold, not just the kernel, (however a lot of the backward compatibility issues are in the kernel anyway.)

I don't see that MS would be able to restart the userland stack in the near future even if they wanted to . To announce such a dramatic shift in Business model would be seen as an admission of Vista's failure by many people which would effectively waste most of MSs investment in the product.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Too soon?
by PlatformAgnostic on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too soon?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Take a look at this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/08/23/455193.aspx

And also consider this:
http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=39

It's entirely possible to make major changes to the Windows userspace without killing appcompat entirely. It's just a question of what's worth doing and when.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Too soon?
by flywheel on Tue 24th Jul 2007 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Too soon?"
flywheel Member since:
2005-12-28

Because they were throwing lots & lots of *new* stuff into Vista ( big changes ) and it was getting very complex ( with lots of code to work with ).


Yes they where throwing a lot of new stuff into Longhorn, making some very big changes. Then time and Apple brought them under pressure and Longhorn was skipped.
The Vista we know is a 2003 Server base system including a few shiny hacks.
For example the WinFS (Longhorn version) was at first 100% database based, but they never got it to work and it was skipped. Plan B was to make a metadata database driven add-on to the existing NTFS - sort of like what Apple had done. But now the klock was ticking (Or they couldn't get it to work properly) and finally that also was skipped.

Vista and most likely 7 (Vienna) is a transitional release. The strategic main purpose is to migrate people from the Win32 platform and onto the .NET platform, making the underlying operating system somewhat irrelevant. The backward compatibility of Vista is maintained using the technology bought from Connectix, also known as Virtual PC. Running Win32 apps within an VM also boxes them in, seperating them from the rest of the system - removing the security weaknesses of the Win32 framework as number one on the todo list.

After Vienna/7 I believe that MS could skip the NT branch, making an applemove and moving the .NET platform onto something BSD-driven.

Comment : And yes NT used to run on severel other architechtures, for instance the Alpha (You are missed), that for some time was development platform.

Edited 2007-07-24 05:43

Reply Score: 2

RE: Too soon?
by unoengborg on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 20:29 UTC in reply to "Too soon?"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem for Microsoft is that competitors like Linux and MacOS comes in frequent small incremtal upgrades. If Microsoft waits too long new users will be tempted to go with some other platforms than windows.

Other than that, you are probably right most existing windows users are probably quite satisfied with XP or Vista, so Microsoft may have an hard time getting people to upgrade before they have got some return of current investments. It have been that way since the release of win2k. The fact that the quality have gotten a lot better since then doesn't help Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Too soon?
by jayson.knight on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Too soon?"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"The problem for Microsoft is that competitors like Linux and MacOS comes in frequent small incremtal upgrades"

It's not a problem for MS when those small incremental upgrades also come with small incremental breaking changes that cause problems with existing software, which is usually the case (especially with Linux). Normal users don't care about upgrading once a year, especially if that brings the risk of breaking backwards compatibility. Also in the case of OSX, the fact that each of those incremental upgrades costs a hundred bucks or more certainly doesn't work against Microsoft as all of their point releases are free.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Too soon?
by unoengborg on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Too soon?"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not a problem for MS when those small incremental upgrades also come with small incremental breaking changes that cause problems with existing software, which is usually the case (especially with Linux).

That doesn't help Microsoft.

New users haven't upgraded yet. They will look at the current version of Microsoft windows and compare that to the current versions of its competitors. If the competitors are better at the moment of comparison, people may try them instead and that is something Microsoft want to avoid. Once you have started on one platform you are likely to stick with it.

As for incremental upgrades breaking things, I would say Linux isn't any worse than any other platform in this respect. E.g. Oracle designed to work on FC4 or RHEL4 runs just fine on Fedora 7 or RHEL5, Applixware designed to work on Red Hat 6.0 runs fine on FC5 (I haven't tested on any later versions as OOo is so much better). My old HP ScanJet IIc scanner still works on current RHEL5. On windows it stopped working at win2k.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Too soon?
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too soon?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

My old HP ScanJet IIc scanner still works on current RHEL5. On windows it stopped working at win2k.


Exactly. Binary-executable-file style backward compatibility is much harder to achieve than is source-code-recompile style backward compatibility.

To achieve the former you have to jump through all sorts of hoops, and put all sorts of kludges in the OS.

To achieve the latter, all that you need is control of the source code.

Reply Score: 2

Confusion: good?
by CoPilot on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:26 UTC
CoPilot
Member since:
2007-01-14

Confusing end user, say with multiple flavors of OS and Office, all of which are MS cash cow, could be a good thing for MS's bottom line. I think to some effect end user confusion generates additional income for them, and PC manufacturers.

How many times have you seen someone plunk down a chunk for XP home, just to upgrade to XP Pro?

All about making money, people. I am sure with all the resources MS has and all the smart people working there, MS has the ways and means to make things simpler. But they don't. This is their choosing.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Confusion: good?
by Googlesaurus on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 20:21 UTC in reply to "Confusion: good?"
Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"How many times have you seen someone plunk down a chunk for XP home, just to upgrade to XP Pro?"

Damn close to never.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Confusion: good?
by Kroc on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Confusion: good?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Twice, possibly three times here.

Reply Score: 2

Some thoughts ...
by islander on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:43 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

So I take it this Windows 7 will be based on that singularity project.I hope so,Microsoft needs to move on and get something from the ground up and stop issuing these half a** patched up Os releases.

"Like Vista, Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions."

Only viability I see for 32 bit is the "emerging markets" they made the Starter Version of XP for.Plus I hope they scale down on the versions with this upcoming release.I think its utterly ridiculous not to mention confusing to have so many versions of Vista.

Sheesh! and people complain about the sheer amount of Linux distros available.At least those are discrete products from different projects.Windows Vista A , B, C are not.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Some thoughts ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:53 UTC in reply to "Some thoughts ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So I take it this Windows 7 will be based on that singularity project.

It most likely will not. Singularity is a research project.

I hope so, Microsoft needs to move on and get something from the ground up and stop issuing these half a** patched up Os releases.

There is absolutely no need whatsoever to discard of winnt as the base for Windows. It's well-tested, and fairly portable. What Microsoft needs to do is rethink its userland.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Some thoughts ...
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Some thoughts ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There is absolutely no need whatsoever to discard of winnt as the base for Windows. It's well-tested, and fairly portable.


I question this assumption. Very much.

Windows isn't at all portable, it is essentially stuck on one architecture (for legacy compatibility reasons), and has been for over 10 years. This is a direct consequence of the Microsoft "ship only executable binaries" business model.

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201...

The really interesting thing is that Microsoft don't actually write, and hence don't own the code for, most of the drivers than run in Windows. Most manufacturers only ship new drivers for product actually in production, and "in production" these days amounts to only a few years. Hence 64-bit Windows will not have, and will never gain, drivers for most hardware in actual use during the transition period.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Some thoughts ...
by Bit_Rapist on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some thoughts ..."
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Windows isn't at all portable, it is essentially stuck on one architecture (for legacy compatibility reasons), and has been for over 10 years.

There used to be builds of windows NT 4 and Windows 2000 available for few different architectures, PowerPC, Alpha and MIPS being the ones off the top of my head.

Now granted thats not the entire driver base and all the applications available for windows but the OS itself is portable. That was one of the design goals of NT in the beginning.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Some thoughts ...
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some thoughts ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There used to be builds of windows NT 4 and Windows 2000 available for few different architectures, PowerPC, Alpha and MIPS being the ones off the top of my head.

Now granted thats not the entire driver base and all the applications available for windows but the OS itself is portable. That was one of the design goals of NT in the beginning.


In my very best "Crocadile Dundee" voice: That isn't portability!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_portability_and_supported...

Now THAT is portability.

Reply Score: 2

MS is locked
by hraq on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:50 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

MS is locked and cannot produce anymore a decent OS due to compatibility hell.
MS is mandated to stay compatible through generation; so expect it to remain windows with alot of bugs and security vulnerability and extremely demanding resources , and expensive.
It wont turn Unix, and it won't turn anything close to Linux; it would simply be windows with ancient code that some of MS employee don't understand it and are afraid to remove it or rewrite it. Till now I get the same error messages on vista like the ones I got since NT4 and the same networking issues still bugs me and thus I stopped using MS windows unless absolutely necessary.
For any average user I recommend starting to prepare for a complete platform change to MacOSX with cheap imac or to Dell with ubuntu and for enterprise continue to use old MS windows untill it's no more supported because newer windows means newer waste of money for hardware and slower windows.

Reply Score: 5

RE: MS is locked
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:57 UTC in reply to "MS is locked"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

MS is locked and cannot produce anymore a decent OS due to compatibility hell.

I wouldn't be surprised to see if Windows 7 will indeed discard of 'built-in' backwards compatibility, and move it to a VM instead (much like Apple did with OS9). It's the only logical way to give present-day developers some free space to develop new things (without breaking old stuff).

It wont turn Unix

It doesn't need to. Winnt is more advanced than UNIX and Linux, so it would make little sense to move more closely towards either of those two. What MS will do, however, is make better use of winnt's features, like they already are doing for Vista.

Edited 2007-07-22 17:58

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: MS is locked
by archiesteel on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is locked"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I wouldn't be surprised to see if Windows 7 will indeed discard of 'built-in' backwards compatibility, and move it to a VM instead (much like Apple did with OS9).


I don't think they have a choice, really. The Windows codebase has become a huge tangled mess due to the requirements of backward compatibility...it paid off for OS X, I don't see why it wouldn't do the same for Windows.

Winnt is more advanced than UNIX and Linux


Hmm...that is a matter of opinion! ;-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: MS is locked
by Rehdon on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MS is locked"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmm...that is a matter of opinion! ;-)

Come on, you should know by now that Microsoft's products are so innovative they rightly deserve their market domination! Don't let yourself be fooled by those pinkos' theories about predatory tactics, abuse of dominant position, vendor's lock-in, abusive EULAs, etc. etc.!!!

Really, you don't want the chairs to start flying in your direction ;) ))

Rehdon

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: MS is locked
by hraq on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MS is locked"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

"Don't let yourself be fooled by those pinkos' theories about predatory tactics, abuse of dominant position, vendor's lock-in, abusive EULAs, etc. etc.!!!"

Last 2 systems I fixed were Sony and Gateway laptops; both of them had HDD with corruption including the norton ghost/softthink images on FAT32 disk partition; and the customer has to buy a new HDD and a NEW copy of XP because both Sony and Gateway made it impossible for them to get the recovery disks, and on the phone they confirmed that to me and told me that MS is forcing this policy to counter piracy.
I didn't believe what I heard and I googled to check if this is common or sporadic, and guess what? It was common and the case for every one unfortunate with HDD corruption and they made it to look like a customer's mistake because they didn't create a recovery disks before the problem happened with their even semi funtional backup disk creation tool!
So, yes don't get fooled!

Edited 2007-07-23 05:03

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: MS is locked
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is locked"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Winnt is more advanced than UNIX and Linux


You have GOT to be joking.

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/osfam

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: MS is locked
by helf on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 05:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MS is locked"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

How the f--k does that have anything to do with his assertion that winnt is more advanced than Unix?

I'd like to see technical proof from various sorces to bakc up either claim.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: MS is locked
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 06:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MS is locked"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How the f--k does that have anything to do with his assertion that winnt is more advanced than Unix?

I'd like to see technical proof from various sorces to bakc up either claim.


Fair enough ... about what you would like. Rest assured that you won't see any real technical proof (one way or another) ... Winnt is closed proprietary technology, and the vendor of Winnt has a strong interest in non-disclosure of technical details and "cooking the books" as far as any performace metrics go ... and in addition that vendor has a large slush fund for financing *cough* "studies".

Let's just observe that virtually all of the viruses, rootkits, botnets, spyware, adware, trojans, etc, etc out there in the wild are targetted for Winnt systems.

Let's just observe also that the large machines staffed by people who (1) know what they are doing, and who (2) are interested in performance, and (3) who actually achieve performance that ranks amongst the world's best ... most of them run Linux. Over 75% of them. For a lot of these people, money is not the issue ... performance is.

Lets also observe that in the latest version of Windows performance went backwards by a considerable step, mostly due to the vendor's obsession with spying on users and making sure that they cannot do things with their own machines.

Edited 2007-07-23 06:51

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: MS is locked
by google_ninja on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 11:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MS is locked"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

He is saying that because UNIX is downright ancient, and WinNT is based off of the relatively modern VMS.

UNIX isn't bad, it is just very old, and we have learned a lot about designing operating systems since it was made.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: MS is locked
by Soulbender on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MS is locked"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"WinNT is based off of the relatively modern VMS."

Only if by "modern" you mean "designed in the 70's". (Only ~5 years younger than Unix).

"UNIX isn't bad, it is just very old, and we have learned a lot about designing operating systems since it was made."

And we all know it hasn't changed at all in the years since...
Does the word "evolution" mean anything to you?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: MS is locked
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MS is locked"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

He is saying that because UNIX is downright ancient, and WinNT is based off of the relatively modern VMS.

UNIX isn't bad, it is just very old, and we have learned a lot about designing operating systems since it was made.


UNIX started in the 1970s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#History

VMS started in the 1970s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS#History

Windows NT, based on VMS, started in 1988, and the first version appeared in 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows#Windows_3...

The GNU project started in 1983

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#Free_Unix-like_operating_systems

Linux kernel first appeared in 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

Arguably, Windows NT is the older and staler technology, not GNU/Linux.

GNU/Linux performs better and scales better (witness supercomputers), it is more secure, more stable (longer uptime), more adaptable & configurable to different roles, it is more visible as to what it does, it is more portable and more ported (more multi-platform), it better respects users rights & freedoms and it is infinitely cheaper.

In what possible measure is Winnt "better" ... apart from "better for Microsoft".

Edited 2007-07-23 12:40

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: MS is locked
by Tom K on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: MS is locked"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux != UNIX

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: MS is locked
by rcsteiner on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MS is locked"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Keep in mind that UNIX, while old compared to most PC desktop offerings, is a relative newcomer to high-end computing.

Many of the original enterprise server operating systems (those produced for the mainframes that were built in the 1960's by IBM, Sperry, and Burroughs amongst others) were more sophisticated in many ways 30 or even 40 years ago than modern UNIX variants are now.

One could argue that much about basic operating systems design (including multithreaded/multiactivity processes, , multiprocessor machine support, sophisticated security models using permissions bitmasks, etc.) was learned multiple decades ago, but in many cases the only decent implementations of those ideas were the implementations that existed on Big Iron.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: MS is locked
by helf on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: MS is locked"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

That's very true. I find it fun to read up on old mainframe OSes and hardware and the weird/cool functions they had way back when.

For some reason being able to yank a CPU out of a running machine and it not go down is very appealing ;) I want a home computer that can handle that...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: MS is locked
by Soulbender on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is locked"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Winnt is more advanced than UNIX and Linux"

That's an awesome, nondescript blanket statement that really doesn't mean a thing. Care to elaborate?

Reply Score: 3

RE: MS is locked
by TBPrince on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:42 UTC in reply to "MS is locked"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

MS is locked and cannot produce anymore a decent OS due to compatibility hell.
Yes, backward compatibility is what made Windows fall to... what?... 85% of available systems?

And lack of backward compatibility is what made Linux boom to... what? ... 1%? That's an hell... I agree.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS is locked
by bastafidli on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 20:30 UTC in reply to "MS is locked"
bastafidli Member since:
2006-09-05

I politely disagree. This is comment I wrote in another thread.

Why to struggle with maintaining backward compatibility when Microsoft already owns the perfectly backward compatible software, the older OSes? Microsoft already owns virtualization software.

HW which will run the new OS is powerful enough to deal with VMs.

Why non include MS DOS 6.x, Win 95, Win 98, Win 2k ... as integral part of the OS running in VM? Rather then maintaining backward compatibility focus on developing best VM that runs your old software and integrate with your new OS. Then when application is installed automatically associate it with an VM and then automatically run it in given VM.

What you will end up with is the best OS possible since you do not have to deal with old baggage, best virtualization experience out of the box and best backward compatiblity since the application will run in OS for which they were developed.

Reply Score: 1

Next release of M$ Windows.
by mind!dagger on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 18:25 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

`Microsoft is planning to ship its next major version of Windows`

Cha-Ching Baby! Bill needs a brand new pair of shoes.

`Known internally as version '7'

What? No name like 2010 or `Monolyth`?

`within roughly three years`

Yeah. Okay. Past experiences predict future expectations.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Next release of M$ Windows.
by jayson.knight on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 18:32 UTC in reply to "Next release of M$ Windows."
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Cha-Ching Baby! Bill needs a brand new pair of shoes."

Aside from the fact that you're obviously trolling, Bill will have long been retired from Microsoft by the time Windows v7 ships.

Reply Score: 1

interesseting
by SK8T on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:29 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

i found the discussion about 32bit and 64bit windows (and its apps) very interessting especially when we look at Windows "Seven".

On the WWDC Keynote Steve Jobs said: "We have 32bit and 64bit applications running SIDE BY SIDE in just ONE version".

Why was microsoft - the biggest software company in the world - after 6 Years of development, not able to do so with vista?

Reply Score: 2

RE: interesseting
by jayson.knight on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:35 UTC in reply to "interesseting"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Why was microsoft - the biggest software company in the world - after 6 Years of development, not able to do so with vista?"

What are you talking about? Have you not heard of WoW64?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOW64

64 bit versions of Windows have been able to run 32 bit and 64 bit apps side by side for years now, and Vista is no exception.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: interesseting
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: interesseting"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's astonishing to see how uninformed people are about Windows. Microsoft really needs to be beaten with the marketing stick Steve Jobs and Apple have been beaten to death with over and over.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: interesseting
by powderblue on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesseting"
powderblue Member since:
2007-07-22

Actually Thom your comment only shows how uninformed you are about Mac OS X. There is only one version of OS X and and only one set of drivers. That's the point he was trying to make. Now how does that compare with Windows where you need different drivers for the 32 bit and 64 bit versions. Of course you resort to your typical Apple bashing even when your wrong.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: interesseting
by TBPrince on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: interesseting"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

The guy was trying to assert that having a single executable including both 32 and 64 bit code as something innovative (like universal binaries, for example), implying Windows cannot run 32 and 64bit code cannot run by Windows "side-by-side".

People who replied just established the reality of truth which is Windows can run 32bit and 64bit code side-by-side. While having both 32bit and 64bit code in same executable should be considered a superior way to do things, is beyond me.

Anyway, Thom is right when he says that Linux and OS X newbies usually don't know Windows as they pretend. For example, a Windows executable CAN include both 32bit and 64bit code when you develop against .NET framework. Visual Studio 2005+ can infacts output both in same EXE.

Linux and Mac people are usually highly misinformed about Windows, mostly as if they were all reading the same old forum dating back to 2002.

I remember a customer asking for a Linux dedicated server. I asked why not Windows and he said because he needed PHP and PHP doesn't run on Windows but only on Linux. Go figure...

Edited 2007-07-22 23:34

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: interesseting
by jayson.knight on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: interesseting"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"For example, a Windows executable CAN include both 32bit and 64bit code when you develop against .NET framework. Visual Studio 2005+ can infacts output both in same EXE."

Excellent point (modded up for that). Just to further expand on what TBPrince is saying here: VS 2005 has a 'Mixed Platforms' setting which basically compiles a binary that will figure out at runtime what platform it is running on, and JIT the appropriate bitness (or optimized instruction set, etc) for the code it needs to execute. You can basically just 'compile and forget about it.'

"I remember a customer asking for a Linux dedicated server. I asked why not Windows and he said because he needed PHP and PHP doesn't run on Windows but only on Linux."

It's amazing how many so called 'professional' technical folks have blinders on when it comes to other platforms. Let's face it, in this business if you decide to ignore Windows (or don't take the time to at least learn enough about it to appear educated), you're sure to go out of business real quick.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: interesseting
by SK8T on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: interesseting"
SK8T Member since:
2006-06-01

yes but the point is,
you can buy a 64-bit edition of windows, and a 32-bit edition of windows. And the 32-bit edition cannot run 64-bit applications.
And with Leopard, there is just one version which is doing both.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: interesseting
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: interesseting"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

you can buy a 64-bit edition of windows, and a 32-bit edition of windows. And the 32-bit edition cannot run 64-bit applications.


Further, the 64-bit edition cannot run 32-bit hardware drivers except in a reduced-capacity "compatibility" mode, and the vast majority of hardware drivers for Windows are 32-bit, they are distributed as binary-only execuatble files, and they are not produced by Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: interesseting
by MollyC on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: interesseting"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"yes but the point is,
you can buy a 64-bit edition of windows, and a 32-bit edition of windows. And the 32-bit edition cannot run 64-bit applications.
And with Leopard, there is just one version which is doing both."


I think the problem was the preceived tone of your original post. Your original post was
"i found the discussion about 32bit and 64bit windows (and its apps) very interessting especially when we look at Windows "Seven".
On the WWDC Keynote Steve Jobs said: "We have 32bit and 64bit applications running SIDE BY SIDE in just ONE version".
Why was microsoft - the biggest software company in the world - after 6 Years of development, not able to do so with vista?"


The post, especially with the "the biggest software company in the world after 6 years of development" remark, suggests that you were implying that Microsoft is just too incompetent to "have 32bit and 64bit applications running SIDE BY SIDE in just ONE version"; that they are just too incompetent to pull off something that the great Apple did (due to Microsoft's programmers being just too stupid or whatever). :p

People responded to you by showing that 64-bit Windows can run 64-bit and 32-bit apps side by side, so they addressed your perceived charge that Microsoft is technically incapable/incompetent to provide for such.

If your real question wasn't, "Why is 'the biggest software company in the world', technically incapable of Apple's greatness", but was instead, "Why doesn't Microsoft ship only 64-bit Windows, which is capable of running both 32 and 64-bit apps", I guess lemur's point regarding drivers is the answer. Apple's OS runs on a tightly controlled hardware platform so it's easier for them to ship just one OS.

Edited 2007-07-23 06:19

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: interesseting
by TBPrince on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: interesseting"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

? What's the point of having a 32bit operating system running 64bit applications?

Plus, if you develop for a single platform in a tightly controlled environment you could do what you want. Apple has no constraints while Microsoft must support 32bit only platforms, unless you mean there's a way to run 64bit apps on 32bit machines...

Is it bad? Maybe. But I bet Apple would love to have to care about 85% of world PCs instead of dealing with their 2.something% user base.

The thing is: Windows exists in 64bit fashion. Most Microsoft critical applications/servers exists in 64bit fashion, plus 64bit Windows can run 32bit applications for legacy compatibility. Plus, they don't need to ship FAT binaries including 2 single programs in a single exectuable, they just need to ship appropriate software OR .NET framework executable which will figure out which system it runs onto and optimize .NET code for that.

Windows is a full 64bit citizen. Cannot understand your point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: interesseting
by TBPrince on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: interesseting"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Excellent point (modded up for that). Just to further expand on what TBPrince is saying here: VS 2005 has a 'Mixed Platforms' setting which basically compiles a binary that will figure out at runtime what platform it is running on, and JIT the appropriate bitness (or optimized instruction set, etc) for the code it needs to execute. You can basically just 'compile and forget about it.'
Definitely. This is expecially great for websites. Compile for both technology and publish everywhere. No hassle, no questions, nothing and you have a full-fledged 64bit web app running.

Let's face it, in this business if you decide to ignore Windows (or don't take the time to at least learn enough about it to appear educated), you're sure to go out of business real quick.
Agreed. Windows is relevant in software, that's all. And given the huge growth they're getting in server market (where competition was HIGH, unlike desktop market), they can provide very high-quality solution.

I'm not saying you should choose Windows, of course. Just that you need to be able to decide by having a good knowledge of it, it PROs, it CONs and stuff. That's part of ANY good business strategy.

Unfortunately, many people base their choice not on facts but on myths, like I said, posts dating back to 2002 which are reposted on and on and have no real feeling of what Windows platform today is. That's what makes me angry sometimes.

If you're a geek using your PC for personal reasons, you can decide to think the way you want. But if you're going for business, you MUST know all available options and decide on the basis of solid facts. Linux is fine, Solaris is fine, Windows is fine, AIX is fine and even Mac OS X is fine if you do your math well. If you decide on forum jokes, soon you might be wondering where all of your money went and why you need to shut off your doors...

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: interesseting
by viton on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: interesseting"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Let's face it, in this business if you decide to ignore Windows, you're sure to go out of business real quick.

Like one of these companies: ?

digg Apache httpd Linux
blip.tv Apache httpd Linux
Truemors Apache httpd 1.3.33 Linux
Reddit Lighttpd 1.4.13 Linux
Popsugar Lighttpd 1.4.13 Linux
Twitter - Linux
MobiTV Apache httpd 2.0.52 ((Red Hat)) Linux
Technorati Apache httpd Linux
del.icio.us - Linux
Flickr Apache httpd 2.0.52 Linux
Techcrunch Lighttpd 1.4.15 Linux
Youtube Apache httpd Linux
Revver Apache httpd 2.0.55 ((Ubuntu) DAV/2 PHP/5.1.2) Linux
Scribd Mongrel 201.0.1 Linux
Photobucket Apache httpd Linux
Wikipedia Squid webproxy 2.6.STABLE12 Linux, Solaris
Google ;)

And a lot of highly succesfull technology companies beyond web2.0 ...

Perhaps they just don't listen to windows trolls.

Edited 2007-07-23 15:14

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: interesseting
by sappyvcv on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: interesseting"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Most of them probably don't ignore Windows -- they make sure they support IE.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: interesseting
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: interesseting"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

People who replied just established the reality of truth which is Windows can run 32bit and 64bit code side-by-side.

...

For example, a Windows executable CAN include both 32bit and 64bit code when you develop against .NET framework. Visual Studio 2005+ can infacts output both in same EXE.


It is the drivers that is the issue. The hardware drivers for a 64-bit OS must be 64-bit drivers (the driver can still talk to 32-bit or lower hardware, but the driver code itself must be able to address all of the machines memory, and so the driver must be 64-bit). You can still run 32-bit application code in a sort of "virtualized" wrapper, but there will very likely be issues when your 32-bit code tries to get down and dirty with the hardware.

This issue is not constrained to Windows ... for any OS there is a "32-bit vs 64-bit divide".

The unique problem for Windows is only that it is the only major OS today where the OS vendor does not own the code for the majority of the hardware drivers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: interesseting
by TBPrince on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 10:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: interesseting"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

The unique problem for Windows is only that it is the only major OS today where the OS vendor does not own the code for the majority of the hardware drivers.
That's the how the market for PC goes. You might say it's better for companies to have a controlled platform like C64, X-Box, Playstation or Mac OS and I might agree. But the PC world decided long ago that having thousands of hardware providers was better for consumers than having a single platform. It might be odd but remember that while X-Boxes, Playstations and Mac OS Xes sell in the millions range, PCs sell in the hundreds of millions range.

People already made their choice: they prefer having thousands of HW providers to keep prices as low as possible. They accept the fact that Microsoft cannot (and won't) ship drivers for their HW and they need to blame their HW providers for that. They learned to blame them by not buying HW which provides no drivers or unstable ones. And PC world is going on.

Complaining that Microsoft is not shipping drivers for ALL hardware produced EVERYWHERE in the world is not fair. That's by design.

Of course, if you don't like it, you could buy IBM, Sun or Apple workstations / servers. But given their numbers, I believe people prefer to have good hardware, low prices and (sometimes) some more headaches...

Reply Score: 2

lol
by graigsmith on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:51 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

they should have planned on releasing it in 1 year, so they could hit their 3 year target LOL

Reply Score: 2

Windows Vista SE?
by Sabz on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 02:25 UTC
Sabz
Member since:
2005-07-07

i smell this maybe a Second Edition to Vista, why else would they say there gonna release it in 32bit an 64bit

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: interesseting
by n4cer on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 02:25 UTC
n4cer
Member since:
2005-07-06

yes but the point is,
you can buy a 64-bit edition of windows, and a 32-bit edition of windows. And the 32-bit edition cannot run 64-bit applications.
And with Leopard, there is just one version which is doing both.


Only on 64-bit CPUs which is no different than Windows as far as applications. You can't use Leapord to run a 64-bit app on a 32-bit CPU, and I'm betting Apple will eventually move to full 64-bit drivers like everyone else sometime after they clear their 32-bit-only system inventory (though they may be hamstrung in the nearterm by their mobile devices). There will be deminishing returns to maintaining the hybrid approach .

64-bit driver availability for Windows is not as big an issue as some try to make it. There's parity for most hardware, and IHVs must provide 64-bit drivers to meet logo requirements. There are a few cases where vendors are slow to provide a driver or would rather sell you a new piece of gear than provide a driver, but they're the usual suspects that pop up anytime there's a change in the driver model.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC; 240x320)

Reply Score: 4

3 years? Doubt it.
by peiffman1 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 03:52 UTC
peiffman1
Member since:
2007-04-29

Unless some major changes in upper level and mid-management take place within MS, I highly doubt three years is a realistic release time frame. Unless this windows 7 is just vista+1. Sort of the same improvement as Mac OS Tiger was over Panther.

I'm calling it right now. We won't see Windows 7 until at least May 2012. And I believe that is a conservative estimate.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Next release of M$ Windows.
by mind!dagger on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 04:00 UTC
M$ needs a new OS to compete with Windows
by looncraz on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 04:36 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

If anyone at Microsoft with influence has a brain, they would realize their best bet would be to release a superior OS that competes with Windows freely in the market-place.

The new, superior OS, would have no binary compatibility and would have to grow in popularity on its own. The lack of 3rd-party software would be offset by simply providing the basics, and supporting Windows drivers when possible, but not fretting too much over non-essential hardware ( i.e., ignore esoteric hardware, and support the mainstream products only, focusing on cheaper hardware first ).

Eventually something good could come of it, but it requires time, and time costs $$ ( though they have it ), and $$ is all they care about, so they will lose to the alternatives, and be ultimately left the need to make a sudden change to the system which forces them to lose much compatibility, but not getting them much net gain on the technology or quality front.

--The loon

Reply Score: 1

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Matthew 12:25-26

And knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Any kingdom that is divided against itself is being brought to desolation and laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will last or continue to stand.

And if Satan drives out Satan, he has become divided against himself and disunified; how then will his kingdom last or continue to stand?

[edit]

No I am not quoting the Bible for the sake of religion, but to point out a very simple principle.

Edited 2007-07-23 04:50

Reply Score: 2

MS becoming irrelevant......
by obsidian on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 07:17 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

Slowly but surely, businesses are starting to wake up to the fact that they don't have to pay the "MS tax" in order to get decent software. ( In fact, they're much more likely to get good software if they *don't*... ).

Operating systems - Linux, the BSDs, (Haiku should be pretty useful in three years too).
Office software - OO.org, Gnumeric, Abiword etc.
Browser - Firefox, Konqueror.
Prog. languages - Python, Ruby, Haskell, Perl
... and so on.

If I were negotiating with MS, I'd get a BSD or Linux CD in my hand, and I'd eyeball the MS guy and say -
"Ok, sunshine - you have one minute. Where's the value-add??? Show me the value-add!"

There isn't any.

Heck, MS can't even seem to learn from Apple (who have based their OS on a FreeBSD kernel).

Ok sure, MS will still be making a **container-ship load** of money in three years (heck, in *10* years!).
But they're still on the long downhill slope towards being more and more irrelevant.

Edited 2007-07-23 07:28

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS becoming irrelevant......
by unoengborg on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 09:54 UTC in reply to "MS becoming irrelevant......"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

If I were negotiating with MS, I'd get a BSD or Linux CD in my hand, and I'd eyeball the MS guy and say -
"Ok, sunshine - you have one minute. Where's the value-add??? Show me the value-add!"

There isn't any.


That may be true, if you are starting a new busines and have no previous ties.

If you already run windows in some form, he would show you training costs, costs for porting in house software, costs for converting old documents to new document formats. He would show you higher costs for hardware, as some dirt cheap hardware have no Linux/FreeBSD drivers. He would show you some select Linux apps that are not as good as the corresponding app for windows. (Yes, you can probably find examples of the opposite, but the normal windows user will not know this). He would point out that its harder to get certified administrators and that they probably would want higher salary.

Once you are hooked on windows, it actually can be quite expensive to get unhooked, and I'm sure that the Microsoft sales person will be very well trained in how to make this very clear to potential defectors.

If/When Linux get a desktop user base of around 10% or so, it will be very hard for Microsoft to stop it in the long run, as we by then can expect that lots of companies will port their desktop software to Linux and that hardware vendors will make sure that their hardware have proper Linux drivers. Dell starting to sell boxes with Linux preinstalled could be the starting point for this if they succeed and more hardware vendors follow.

However, this will likely not happen in the time frame for the next version of windows. So I think Microsoft shareholders can sleep well at night for a long time to come.

Reply Score: 2

Se7en
by andreyvo on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 08:48 UTC
andreyvo
Member since:
2007-07-23

"Se7en": Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light.

Reply Score: 1

Kernals and such
by Chaos on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 09:50 UTC
Chaos
Member since:
2007-07-06

www.osnews.com/files/17537/kernel_designs_explained.pdf

Edited 2007-07-23 09:52

Reply Score: 1

Would you subscribe to hell?
by Mr. Yesman on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 10:40 UTC
Mr. Yesman
Member since:
2006-01-26

Subscription model? It could mark the end of Windows dominance as we see it. Luckily I am already working mainly on other platform. The real deal is this: if I have to calculate again every year, if MS Windows Operating System is worth it, it well be an easy decision. It will be "good luck, and good night".

Edited 2007-07-23 10:47

Reply Score: 1

RE: Would you subscribe to hell?
by TBPrince on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 11:05 UTC in reply to "Would you subscribe to hell?"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Subscription model? It could mark the end of Windows dominance as we see it.
Every single installation of Windows on a server is already being paied on a subscription model (i.e. monthly). Yet they're selling like no-one else in industry. Are you sure about end of Windows dominance?

Reply Score: 1

Mr. Yesman Member since:
2006-01-26

On the server side it may be different, since the money don't usually go from one's own pocket. The server side people will back the solution still, since things will most likely work well and there is no need to learn completely new things.

So I may be wrong in generalisation of course, but I know how I would choose as a small business customer. If I would need windows, I would stay with the old one, but of course my needs are spesialized and related to software.

The gratest benefits of "a subscription model" for the seller come from binding customers and securifying the cash flow.

What "extra" would you get in return as a (regular) customer? Annual upgrades and repairs? Should they be for free, included in the price, like the are in common consumer trade with pre-determined guarantee periods.

In corporative environments regular guarantee periods may not apply. The annual subscription would make sense, if one gets real added benefit with reliable and continuous support.

Edited 2007-07-23 11:58

Reply Score: 1

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

I understand your point but there's a big difference between systems on desktop segment too.

When it comes down to subscriptions, *nix providers usually have highest prices there. You could say "I can install Linux on my machines and never ask any support from Red Hat, Mandriva etc. so I won't pay anything", which is true but consider that companies doing like that won't ask anything from Microsoft as well. So a Windows machine will cost like 80-100 euros more than a Linux machine (if any). And that machine will stay in service for at least 2-3 years so that would mean 20-30 euros per year. Is that much? I don't think so. If that's much, then you have no business.

Then you enter the paid support segment, where *nix is usually more expensive than Windows support, even when provided by Microsoft itself. Unless you ask your geek friend which is, by definition, a risk.

Don't get me wrong: I think Microsoft will need to reinvent some Windows to adapt to new networked model but the bet that network would have become more important than local machines didn't work out in the past and I suspect it won't materialize any soon.

That was the bet Sun and Google tried and they both had to switch to a more realistic model where local machines has a key place.

Why? Because we realized that network cannot evolve as quick as local machines can. Networks move at a megabits or hundreds of megabits per second rate, while local machines can process tens of gigabytes per second. Until networks get any close to that, local machines will keep their key role.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS becoming irrelevant......
by mind!dagger on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:33 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

"Microsoft becoming irrelevant ..."

Yes it is. It will be a long, slow and rather nasty demise.

"Slowly but surely, businesses are starting to wake up to the fact that they don't have to pay the "MS tax" in order to get decent software. ( In fact, they're much more likely to get good software if they *don't*... )."

There is an absolute wealth of not just decent - but excellent - software for the non Windows user.

"Operating systems - Linux, the BSDs, (Haiku should be pretty useful in three years too)."

Totally agree. It puts a joy back into being a systems administrator.

"If I were negotiating with MS, I'd get a BSD or Linux CD in my hand, and I'd eyeball the MS guy and say - "Ok, sunshine - you have one minute. Where's the value-add??? Show me the value-add!"

When the Microsoft rep, a rather rotund individual and sloppy individual, came to our campus to canvas our system, he was rather surprised at our ability to say we have a mixed anvironment of Linux, BSD, OS X and Windows in our data center and campus user base. We've never seen a Microsoft rep since.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: MS is locked
by mind!dagger on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:37 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

So is the design of an automobile.

Reply Score: 1

Trolling
by edwardyawn on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 23:07 UTC
edwardyawn
Member since:
2006-11-08

Definition of a "troll": someone who says or does something you do not like or agree with. Discussions on the internet always end with someone calling someone else a troll, nazi or anti-semite.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Trolling
by archiesteel on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:22 UTC in reply to "Trolling"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Definition of a troll: someone who posts inflammatory and/or insulting messages on internet forums in order to elicit an emotional response.

Enjoy your account before it's suspended...

Reply Score: 2

Hmm....
by peiffman1 on Tue 24th Jul 2007 21:29 UTC
peiffman1
Member since:
2007-04-29

Apple Store is down, wonder if Microsoft managed to beat their 3 year time frame.

Reply Score: 1