OSNews

NT is a good kernel. That is NOT the problem with Windows. It's mostly in the old cruft in the Win32 API and Windows Explorer (which I've never really been a fan of). An even bigger problem is/has been the culture among both users and developers in the Windows world. The fact that people think anti-virus is a solution is, to me, a sign of the deep set problems Microsoft has fostered with the lackadaisical culture they've promoted.

I wonder why MS didn't just update File Manager for Windows 95. It was a lot more useful than Explorer.

I agree with abolutely nothing you said.

Why? NT is a great kernel. God didn't hand down the perfect kernel to Dennis Ritchie. There are alot of idea's outside of the UNIX way, and there have been alot of things learned since UNIX.



You must not have been around pre XP SP2.



Are you talking about GDI or DirectX? How/why is it bad compared to mac/linux?

[/q]why to deviate from openGL [/q]

because directx is cleaner, faster, and more stable



because out of the three major operating systems linux has the most bloated and least stable of the bunch?



by core I take it you mean kernel, because windows has a full unix userland http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/interopmigration/bb380242.aspx



I very, very rarely get file manager crashes in any of the three big operating systems, certainly not enough to measure.



While I agree that apple sets the bar in polish and usability, the windows team has far too MUCH of this kind of crap to deal with. MS needs to reduce burocracy and streamline process, not bloat it.



What MS needs to do is continue what they are doing. Polish UIs and don't listen to the old users who complain where something isn't where they expect it to be, rewrite crufty APIs and don't listen when companies complain that their ancient apps don't work.

The culture and process is where the shift needs to happen. Get an agile-ish process going with a new point release every month or two, and major releases every year. Get tight feedback cycles with the users. Make the development process more transparent, so that people can give feedback before things get too far. Make requirements flexible and within a smaller scope.

Just because they are a big company with a massive market does not mean they cant go agile (or scrum or whatever), it just means it is hard due to the defined culture and inertia internally.

Linux isn't an operating system though, it's a kernel.

because directx is cleaner, faster, and more stable

Are you serious? Opengl is used far more than directx in real mission critical applications that range from medical previz to computer animation packages. It far more stable far cleaner than directx. You've been drinkng way too much of the MS Koolaid. Don't let game developers tell you otherwise. MS has built a great platform for game development on the xbox, but that doesn't make directx cleaner and more stable. The other console makers use opengl as the basis for their toolkits and while their toolset may not be as complete as MS's offering, opengl is as clean and as stable as they come, and platform agnostic to boot. Spewing crap like this makes me think you're an MS shill.

Edited 2008-07-04 23:04 UTC

No it isn't. NT was a decent kernel back in the late 90s, but it is now quite dated.



No, but Dennis Ritchie had the sense to make an OS that was more focused, better documented, more stable, and more secure that anything Microsoft has ever put out. (by the way, it is "a lot" not "alot").



I don't know what the original poster intended. I, however, think DirectX is OK, but GDI sucks hard. Running OS X, Linux, BSD, and Windows on the same hardware makes it readily apparent that Windows is at the bottom of the GUI performance pile.



I would agree that DirectX is easier to write for, but I don't agree that it is any faster or more stable.



While this article may be nice, there is a disparity between the marketing-speak and the reality, and I doubt you have actually used these userland tools, or you wouldn't have brought it up.



I don't think the poster was suggesting Microsoft bloat anything. I think he/she was suggesting Microsoft streamline its already bloated OS.



This is one comment I partially agree with. Microsoft needs to make a break from backward compatibility.

I don't agree that Microsoft should continue what they are doing, and I don't think that what they have been doing is polishing their UI. Adding transparancy and gradients to an old UI run by an old graphics engine is not "polish". Polishing a turd maybe, but definitely not "polish".



I used to work at Microsoft, and from what I've seen, this won't be too easy for them. Microsoft's interview process is designed to identify prima donna types and get them hired.

Agile and Scrum are both designed to get a team working at its peak efficiency, and teamwork is an integral part of both philosophies. Neither work when you have a prima donna on the team. Scrum even acknowledges that prima donnas are bad for the team. Microsoft teams are almost exclusively formed of prima donnas, and I think it shows in their products.

Edited 2008-07-05 16:25 UTC

Regarding backward software compatibility, I think Apple chose to develop an emulator for older apps. That would have helped Microsoft keeping Vista light. They could have focused on speed and efficiency and develop one emulator for each previous Windows version, which would have to be purchased independently.