Linked by Smith Johnson on Thu 27th Sep 2007 15:22 UTC
Windows According to at least one blogger, Microsoft should abandon Vista before it's too late. It would appear he's not alone in this opinion, as Microsoft has begun allowing users to downgrade back to XP. Amongst the reasons? Poor sales figures and shoddy Vista "Extras".
Thread beginning with comment 274824
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A sidenote...
by devurandom on Thu 27th Sep 2007 16:37 UTC
devurandom
Member since:
2005-07-06

I never understood why Microsoft didn't choose to follow the same route of Apple with MacOS X, that is, taking an open Unix-like kernel, implementing a sensible user interface on it, and obtaining in output the best of both worlds, probably also cutting down on development expenses. Plus a Classic-like environment for old apps.

This could have slowed down the Vista adoption even more at first, but in the end (in the after-Vista) it would have been a smart move.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A sidenote...
by Bending Unit on Thu 27th Sep 2007 16:54 in reply to "A sidenote..."
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

But they already have a very good kernel, many people say that. I haven't had any problem with the kernel that I know of (it's kinda invisible) and that's more than I can say about the Linux kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: A sidenote...
by archiesteel on Thu 27th Sep 2007 18:25 in reply to "RE: A sidenote..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

What does the Linux kernel have to do with this? Please keep your trolling for Linux articles...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: A sidenote...
by snozzberry on Thu 27th Sep 2007 17:00 in reply to "A sidenote..."
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

Backwards compatibility is sacred at MS. There's an entire Shim database inside XP and Vista devoted to recognizing legacy apps which rely on undocumented behaviors and maintaining their performance.

A Unix-based OS with a truly divided security model doesn't play well with that. The graphics kernel in Windows is tightly integrated into the OS kernel, which is verboten in Unix-based systems. This is the bane of Cedega, which has to be continually patched app by app for compatibility.

XP could, as you suggested, have to be run in a sandbox, but they remember what happened to OS/2 when it offered Windows compatibility: no one had an incentive to develop for OS/2. Apple could have implemented XP compatibility when the Intel switch occured (they have legal access to the entire XP API), but they stayed out of that issue entirely.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: A sidenote...
by snozzberry on Thu 27th Sep 2007 17:08 in reply to "RE: A sidenote..."
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

Technically, Microsoft has an out they could take if they wanted to, which is to repeat what they did with NT. Fork the platform between end users and business users, make the substantive changes in the business OS and pressure vendors to port their apps to it...then a few years down the road merge the consumer and business OSes.

NT was a good idea.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: A sidenote...
by TBPrince on Thu 27th Sep 2007 17:40 in reply to "A sidenote..."
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

I never understood why Microsoft didn't choose to follow the same route of Apple with MacOS X, that is, taking an open Unix-like kernel, implementing a sensible user interface on it, and obtaining in output the best of both worlds,
Because Windows system design is ages better than any Unix, except for Solaris, maybe. That would then be a downgrade.

Apple was able to use Unix kernel because that was an evolution to its old system. Understand that Unix design was a 70s concept and didn't evolve much since then. Windows NT design was a mid-80s design, when role of computers was almost very clear.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: A sidenote...
by el3ktro on Thu 27th Sep 2007 18:51 in reply to "RE: A sidenote..."
el3ktro Member since:
2006-01-10

Because Windows system design is ages better than any Unix, except for Solaris, maybe. That would then be a downgrade.

Ha, you really made me laugh? Windows system design being better than the Unix approach? Have you ever actually looked at the Linux approach?

One question: Can you install a new version of Windows over an existing version of Windows while you're working on that machine at the same time? Just one example of things you can do with Linux which you can't do on Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: A sidenote...
by starnix on Thu 27th Sep 2007 19:04 in reply to "RE: A sidenote..."
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

Yeah, thats why Windows is SO much better.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: A sidenote...
by PlatformAgnostic on Thu 27th Sep 2007 18:34 in reply to "A sidenote..."
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

The NT kernel is a pretty good design and has really solid code (as you can learn by reading reports of those who looked at the leaked Win2K source). I don't know how exactly the kernel suspend/hibernate code works, but it seems to be much more solid than the Linux kernel's and not quite as good as Apple's (probably since apple doesn't have many third-party drivers in the mess).

The graphics code is not as tied into the core kernel as you might think. It's in a separate dll in the kernel (win32k.sys) and there are only a few dependencies there. NT is a good kernel... it's not unix, so you don't get processes as cheap, but it's more thread-oriented and there's a different design for handling things asynchronously than on unix. In many ways, NT learned the lesson of Unix and Linux learned the lesson of NT (all the while claiming superiority ;) ). NT is not down and out... it still has some flexibility to improve in some ways.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: A sidenote...
by raver31 on Thu 27th Sep 2007 19:51 in reply to "RE: A sidenote..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah the NT kernel is pretty robust, it does not need to be Unix like.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: A sidenote...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 27th Sep 2007 23:22 in reply to "A sidenote..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"I never understood why Microsoft didn't choose to follow the same route of Apple with MacOS X, that is, taking an open Unix-like kernel, implementing a sensible user interface on it, and obtaining in output the best of both worlds, probably also cutting down on development expenses. Plus a Classic-like environment for old apps. "

MS's bread and butter is compatibility, and if they did that, they would lose a lot of business from err...businesses, who want to make reasonably sure their stuff will run. And I'm not talking about driver compatibility, but application, which is not too bad on Vista, and will get even better

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: A sidenote...
by psychicist on Fri 28th Sep 2007 04:19 in reply to "A sidenote..."
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

Do you really think that Microsoft would do such a thing when they employ one of the main architects of VMS who moved on from Digital to Microsoft to create WNT with his team of developers?

This is a serious case of wanting to be different at all costs, in fact it's just a modern version of UNIX vs VMS. Before Microsoft would ever do this they'd have him and other senior developers create a new operating system instead, WNT the next generation. There is no UNIX in Microsoft's future.

Reply Parent Score: 1