Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:19 UTC
Windows Four years ago, July 2007, Microsoft released the first few tidbits of information about Windows 7. Vista had just been shipped, and it wasn't received well - both by critics and the marketplace. During these days, I argued that for Windows 7, Microsoft ought to scrap the Vista userland, and build an entirely new interface and userland on top of Windows NT, while maintaining a 'classic' Windows version on the side for business and other reluctant folk who want to see the 'new' Windows mature a little bit first. While they didn't do this with Windows 7, they are doing exactly this with Windows 8. Ladies and gentlemen, Windows 8 is the first 'cut the legacy'-release we've all been waiting for - and Microsoft couldn't have picked a better time.
Thread beginning with comment 475732
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't think so.
by sorpigal on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:34 UTC
Member since:

There's a big difference between changing the default shell and recommended APIs and removing the legacy cruft.

Make no mistake, the "new" so-called legacy free Windows 8 will not break compatibility in any significant way with things that worked in Windows 7 (or Windows 3.1, for that matter). There won't be a big break in the way that Apple likes to do.

Reply Score: 4

v RE: I don't think so.
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:43 in reply to "I don't think so."
RE[2]: I don't think so.
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:20 in reply to "RE: I don't think so."
segedunum Member since:

No he didn't Thom. The problem is that you believe this to be something that it just isn't and to be honest, you come up with this nonsense every single time about new versions of Windows because you buy the soundbites whole. Once upon a time there was an object oriented OS called Cairo or something...........

It's the exact same version of Windows with a new default 'shell' with the real Windows OS still underneath, untouched. That 'shell' they have is just that. It certainly isn't a new operating system or even the beginnings of one and with HTML5 and JavaScript involved it isn't even a new programming platform worthy of desktop development.

Did you think Windows Media Centre was the start of a great new dawn because it ran a new interface on top? I must have missed that article.

It's a hastily retro-fitted mobile interface that Microsoft are running on top because they've realised that they need a separate interface platform that will run and can be programmed on multiple versions of Windows, and crucially, on different platforms. That really is a new thing and why they're doing this. Aside from Microsoft being a marginal player in a market now dominated by iOS and Android where HTML5 seems to be the future and they're having to play catch-up there rather than getting people to use their development platform. Times have certainly changed.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: I don't think so.
by sorpigal on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:24 in reply to "RE: I don't think so."
sorpigal Member since:

You really didn't read, did you? You saw the headline, skimmed the teaser, and commented.

No, I disagree with your casual use of loaded terminology.

What you eventually do say in your writeup is that the legacy stuff will be isolated from the rest which will allow things to move forward cleanly and pleasantly. Fair enough (though my deep seated distrust of Microsoft's engineering abilities makes me take a wait and see attitude on that one) but you didn't say that very clearly and not at all until halfway through.

What you chose to do was talk about how Microsoft is going to 'cut the legacy', which is strongly misleading at best. Is there a citation for the "can be removed if necessary" line? I don't find it probable that Microsoft is going to do that any time soon--not until business customers will be okay with it, which means at least 5 and more like 15 years from now.

Can't we talk about reality in a manner that is free from hyperbole and wishful thinking? At least in articles which purport to be news?

Oh, and thanks for modding me down, guys. Way to abuse moderation to suppress differing opinions. What are we supposed to discuss if I can't say "I think this is untrue and the article's author is wrong" in the comments?

Edited 2011-06-02 20:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: I don't think so.
by mrstep on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:22 in reply to "I don't think so."
mrstep Member since:

As soon as they showed Office running in a window there was no question of them being legacy-less. Very funny to get a headline that another Windows Media Center type of shell = no legacy, though to be fair it seems like they're at least going to try to make this shell something developers can easily extend.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I don't think so.
by poundsmack on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:44 in reply to "I don't think so."
poundsmack Member since:

have you found anything that worked in 3.1 that even works in a 32 bit version of windows 7? 16 bit apps don't work at all on the 64 bit platform (by contrast they work just fine, in most cases, on windows 7 32 bit).

Reply Parent Score: 2