Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Apr 2008 09:38 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
Windows Ars analyses the concept of a modular Windows, and concludes: "Modularization - and the discriminatory pricing it permits - might appeal to accountants and economists. But it is bad for consumers, bad for Windows, and ultimately, bad for Microsoft. A modularized Windows, or worse still, a modularized subscription-based Windows, undermines the purpose and value of the Windows OS. If it comes to pass it will surely sound the death knell of the entire Windows platform."
Permalink for comment 308395
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What's modular?
by pysiak on Sun 6th Apr 2008 12:58 UTC
Member since:

Nobody really can say now what win7 be like. And I always thought that modularity in win7 would be all about a programming concept not marketing. ie. having the OS more extensible, more resilient. Like, with w2k3, MSFT couldn't upgrade a thing in IIS6 without shipping a new kernel (ie. with a SP or R2). Now, with w2k8, IIS7 can be upgraded, without in-depth core changes. That's the modularization I'm talking about.

Although MSFT really made a bad choice with the plethora of Vista Versions, it doesn't mean they will stick to it (or even push it further) with win7.

I hope that as subscription-based office and vista versions are things that will never come back when win7 is up.

BTW. The article says that vista and w2k8 are making first steps with modularization with roles. But w2k3 had roles too, so it's been there some time now.

Reply Score: 1