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."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-09-22
Member since:2006-10-20
I'm not saying unix-alike is bad, but I do feel it will be unfortunate if the only "man" standing at the end of the OS wars is unix-alike. I'd like to see various other OS implementations appear. I don't want to see the next 20 years be all *nix. A nice varied ecosystem is a good thing, as we've all seen the prevalence of windows systems leading to a hellstorm of viruses/malware. I'm interested in seeing what other vendors/groups can come up with that's neither linux/mac/windows. No system is perfect yet. I'd like to see what people come up with given a chance to explore other models.
Edited 2008-04-06 14:40 UTC
Member since:2005-09-20
Member since:2005-07-06
While of course I disagree with your analysis of Unix(-like) operating systems (I have seen them improve, become a lot more user-friendly since the year 2000, getting (more) proprietary software, dramatically increase what you can do with them, with the possible exception of games...), I have no interest in seeing Windows disappear. But can't they conceive something completely different? I mean, for instance, an OS without the Registry and the DLL Hell.
Which takes us back to Unix. Maybe they shouldn't create yet another Unix based OS, but taking a few ideas from Unix wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Member since:2005-07-06
In an ideal world we would be using the superior (technologically) operating system; Plan9 would become the new UNIX, people would clone/duplicate it and make it better. The sad reality is that pragmatism, not technology, decide the direction (along with success) of an operating system.
With that being said, UNIX isn't the greatest thing in the world, but when compared with the mess that is Windows NT, we could be doing alot worse.
Member since:2005-08-26
If pragmatism decided the direction, then management would have to be thinking pragmatically.
That doesn't happen in > 90% of the businesses out there.
I call your bluff.
Most of the time, what happens is you find a manager with a hard-on for company / technology X. They won't accept anything other than company / technology X. Why did they get such a boner for this decision? It could be pragmatism, but that would imply rational, conservative problem-solving being applied to a problem set.
Normally they read it under a headline written by some industry analyst blow-hard, or got a few nice steak dinners on the vendors dime.
Member since:
2006-10-20
with the destruction of microsoft the 2 most heavily used operating systems will both be UNIX based. Is anyone else wondering about the implications of this? I mean sure unix was good in the 70's/80's but surely other system designs should be given a chance? I don't think microsoft is the way forward, but I'm not so sure that linux and mac are the best way either. Do people think that other operating systems will be able to rise up to challenge *nix style systems, or will we be stuck with *nix platforms forever?
Edited 2008-04-06 11:19 UTC