Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Jul 2008 22:55 UTC, submitted by Chavez
While Microsoft has only just begun fighting the perception problems surrounding Windows Vista, the company is already thinking and planning way beyond its latest operating system. We all know that Windows 7 will build on top of the foundations laid by Vista, and that it will include a fancy multitouch framework (and a mysterious new taskbar). According to Microsoft, Windows 7 is still on track for January 2010, and in a memo to his employees, CEO Steve Ballmer outlined some interesting new approaches the company might try with Windows 7 - including being just a little more like Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 324640
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-04
ACPI is an example of a terrible specification. It's 600 pages long and contains all sorts of features it probably doesn't need.
Last time I heard, the Microsoft DSDT compiler was also very good at generating DSDTs that could only be interpreted properly by Microsoft operating systems (unlike the Intel one).
Also, if I remember correctly, the DSDTs can specify that certain things should only work on certain operating systems. Since many manufacturers seem to have the idea that Windows is the only OS that supports modern computers, they mark all the ACPI features as requring the OS name to be Windows.
Really, the ACPI spec should be simple and OS independent.
Member since:2005-07-06
ACPI is an example of a terrible specification. It's 600 pages long and contains all sorts of features it probably doesn't need.
Last time I heard, the Microsoft DSDT compiler was also very good at generating DSDTs that could only be interpreted properly by Microsoft operating systems (unlike the Intel one).
Also, if I remember correctly, the DSDTs can specify that certain things should only work on certain operating systems. Since many manufacturers seem to have the idea that Windows is the only OS that supports modern computers, they mark all the ACPI features as requring the OS name to be Windows.
Really, the ACPI spec should be simple and OS independent.
Last time I heard, the Microsoft DSDT compiler was also very good at generating DSDTs that could only be interpreted properly by Microsoft operating systems (unlike the Intel one).
Also, if I remember correctly, the DSDTs can specify that certain things should only work on certain operating systems. Since many manufacturers seem to have the idea that Windows is the only OS that supports modern computers, they mark all the ACPI features as requring the OS name to be Windows.
Really, the ACPI spec should be simple and OS independent.
True, which is the great thing with Apple - they do their own firmware, and they seem to get the stuff working correctly without too many problems - which the benefit of controlling the whole widget.
Quite frankly, I'd sooner see each distribution owned by an OEM, and seeing the OEM customising their hardware and distribution so that they work together seamlessly. A single focus on their hardware alone so that no compromises are made for the 'greater compatibility' outside their own hardware line.
Member since:2007-01-13
Member since:2005-07-06
Apple don't design hardware except the case. Their computers are built in the same Chinese factories as any other cheap mainstream PC. All Apple does is support a tiny subset of PC hardware.
Incorrect, They design the board lay out, they decide what chips they'll use - for example, they choose to use Broadcom wireless instead of the 'status quo' for Intel chipsets being Intel's own wireless chipset. Apple also has their own firmware - I am unsure, however, who are the provider of these firmware tools given that there are quite a number who provide EFI development tools.
It isn't just a matter of throwing a board into a nice case - end of story. There is a heck of a lot more design and work involved with designing a PC besides throwing it into a beige case and giving it a cool sounding name involving an X somewhere in it - to sopme how garner money from the 'eXtreme' crowd.
In the case of a laptop, the design of the board layout is critical to how heat is moved around when one takes into account the design of the case itself. You can't just pick up a generic laptop board - because all laptops are designed differently and have different ways of dispersing heat based on what the engineers at the given companies consider the best course of action.
Edited 2008-07-26 09:51 UTC
Member since:2008-07-07
Member since:
2005-07-06
Which is kind of ironic, since MS is trying to force closed standards like DirectX and Office down our throat using their defacto monopoly on OS'es and office productivity. But this time MS is on the other side of the fence a they do not seem to like it. Surprise!
With open standards and protocols the IT/IS sector as a whole would thrive well, because a hard to overcome barrier will be taken away, while innovation will still be possible by both F/OSS and proprietary implementations of that open standard.
Doubtful to say the least. There are many open standards already in the IT world; ACPI for example, which has been a constant bane for Linux to support - why? because we have vendors out there who do buggy ACPI implementations.
In the case of Apple, they design the hardware, they design the software, the two sides work together and can test and modify the operating system to address any possible issues that might arise during testing. In the case of Windows, if there is an issue - the OEM is stuck in a situation where by he can't do anything to the operating system.
Microsoft need to tighten the requirements for the 'Windows Vista Logo' - it won't stop vendors from producing crap hardware and support, but if they push the 'Windows Vista Logo' programme, customers will refuse to do business with those vendors who don't have the logo.