Since the big Windows news last week was the announcement that the next version of Windows will run on ARM, this one kind of slipped in under the radar. It’s a rumour, but confirmed by different people: there will be a new application model in Windows 8, currently named Jupiter, while thee will also be a tile-based interface for tablets. It seems like the pieces of the puzzle are all falling into place: Windows NT everywhere, Silverlight/.Net everywhere.
The tile-based interface would appear to be similar to what’s currently available on Windows Phone 7, but without any details – let alone screenshots – it’s impossible to tell. According to Paul Thurrot, the interface is codenamed Mosh, and will only be available on devices like tablets. In other words, it’s not a replacement, but an alternative.
All this seems to fit with the idea that Microsoft is trying to consolidate all form factors into one – as in, everything will be running Windows NT, no matter the screen size, no matter the architecture. Not only would this be a serious cost-cutting measure, but it would also allow for faster propagation of new lower-level features throughout all the different form-factors currently supported by Windows NT and Windows CE. In other words, it’s the Linux strategy.
The rumours around Jupiter are possibly more interesting. “Windows 8 will also include a new app model codenamed Jupiter that will target a new Windows Marketplace app store,” Thurrot claims, “The app store will provide access to new, Silverlight-based ‘immersive’ applications that are deployed as AppX packages (.appx).”
“The Windows and Office teams are betting very heavily on this new app type, according to my source, and development has already begun using a beta version of Visual Studio 2012,” he adds, “These apps can be written in C#, Visual Basic, and even C++.”
The Jupiter rumours were confirmed by another Microsoft insider, Mary-Jo Foley. After talking to a few of her sources inside the company, she’s gained a pretty decent insight into what Jupiter actually is.
“Jupiter is going to be a new user interface library for Windows, built alongside Windows 8. It will be a thin XAML/UI layer on top of Windows application programming interfaces and frameworks for subsystems like graphics, text and input,” she details, “The idea is Jupiter will bring support for smoother and more fluid animation, rich typography, and new media capabilities to Windows 8 devices.”
As Tess, Kroc, and I already discussed in the podcast, it seems like to me that Microsoft might be using this as a means to coerce developers away from the current development models of Windows. All they need to do is include the Marketplace application store with every copy of Windows 8, and limit the store to Jupiter applications only. Then, detail that for Windows 9, the various application stores – Windows Phone, Xbox, and Windows (and Surface?) – will be unified, and you’ve got a pretty decent audience for developers to target.
Of course, we won’t know anything for sure until Steven Sinofsky allows for the veil to be lifted, but in all honesty, it looks like as if Microsoft’s Windows strategy is finally culminating into something good. This process started with the slow untangling of the Windows codebase somewhere around 2002 and 2003, and it looks like it will culminate into Windows NT everywhere, Silverlight/.Net everywhere, all served by a single, unified application store.
And thus, backwards compatibility would cease to be a major issue.
Okay… so you persuade all developers to develop for a new, “app market” feature that will work across platforms, and supposedly all of the thousands of regular Windows desktop programs become obsolete? I’m not so sure I see how. It sounds like just the kind of thing Microsoft would want you to think, though; they want everyone to believe that there aren’t already gazillions of Windows programs in existence that have been used since nearly the dawn of Windows. Yeah everyone, forget about all those programs out there; they somehow got sucked into a black hole and no longer exist!
And where do Apple-style pull-software-from-the-app-store tactics fit in here? Use Microsoft’s app store, and you’ll likely only be able to use what THEY want you to use, how THEY want you to use it. Buy a Windows program at a store (or download it from the Internet) and you instantly have the ability to use it as you see fit, as the publishers originally intended. [Heavily copy-protected games and some other software being the main exception.]
Sounds like a greater form of lock-in and control over what can be run on their operating systems than Microsoft has ever done in the past, to me. Chances are, it’ll have DRM too and ridiculous terms of service like just about every other “app store”-style service. How is this good? And one or two versions after Windows 8, Microsoft will disable all traditional Windows software, effectively rendering it all obsolete and forcing everyone to use the new service. Yeah, great move.
One thing that is ironic, however, is that if true–Microsoft will most likely make a shitload of money off it it–yet, as pointed out in the article, this whole “run everywhere” approach has been with Linux and the BSDs since near the beginning. They don’t seem to be getting any praises or acknowledgments from Microsoft, but they sure will capitalize on it.
Edited 2011-01-10 17:27 UTC
I simply don’t see Microsoft doing the sorts of things Apple do – at the end of the day as long as Microsoft is making money I simply don’t see Balmer giving a brass wazoo whether people are installing Flash onto their said computers/tablets/handheld devices – “We don’t care what you do with your devices as long as we make some money some where in the equation”.
Microsoft wants to make money, Apple/Steve Jobs is a control freak thinking that by being a control freak that he can deliver the best products but in the end it just pisses people off. There is a reason I don’t own a iPod Touch/iPad/iPhone because I, not Steve, decide what I want on my device. With the introduction of the App Store for the Mac I hope it remains just an option rather than something that is eventually rammed down ones throat.
I have a feeling though that in the future any development on Mac by virtue of developer support will contingent on them selling through the App Store. Sure you could ‘go it alone’ but it will mean you can’t go to the WWDC conferences, use the mailing lists and expect support from engineers at Apple to fix issues with Mac OS X that you’re facing. I hope Steve realises that I moved to Apple 10 years ago but I’m quite happy to move back to the Windows world if it means avoiding his control freakish ways.
As for DRM, there is a right way to go about it and a wrong way – Steam has demonstrated that if DRM is implemented in a non-intrusive way then you won’t have problems but as soon as you start crossing the line of getting in the way people will get pissed off.
As for Microsoft and their future plans, it will be interesting to see towards the end of this year as more details emerge regarding Windows 8, their vision for WP7, new developer tools that are in the works and so on.
Edited 2011-01-11 11:47 UTC
Does this mean Microsoft will be moving the OS itself to .net and moving the Win32 APIs into a “classic” environment or are they not going to allow new namespaces/frameworks to access Win32/COM using the P/Invoke method? This seems like a great time for Microsoft to get rid of a lot of legacy technologies.
On an unrelated note, my understanding is Windows 7 is going to be the last Windows that will be offered in a 32-bit version. If true, I am sure they will still include WOW64 at least one more time.
This is probably not true, since the ARM chips demoed with Windows 7+1 at CES are all 32bit.
Maybe the ARM version of Windows will replace the current 32 bits version of Windows 7? Leaving x86 devices only with the 64 bits version.
That would be a way both to reduce the number of Windows version and a way to separate the market: Windows ARM for small and light devices, Windows x86 for desktops, laptops and highly-powered small devices.
Well whatever, 32 bits is still enough today for basic tasks. It’s not a shame if they postpone the question until Windows 9.
I doubt it. They have to at least offer Win32 in a VM and it would be risky to do that in the next OS. Win32 is legacy but it isn’t a burden to the system. There are too many applications that depend on Win32 and once you start launching VMs you create a real burden.
Probably for x86 at least.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Last-32-bit-Operating-System-fro…
Server 2008R2 is 64 bit only.
For later releases (as in, way after Windows 7+1), they could even offer the Win32 subsystem as an optional download for those that need it. They did the same thing with the POSIX subsystem, after all.
I don’t think Microsoft will give up backward compatibility for Windows anyday. It is basically the reason why Microsoft conquered the market of desktop OS to the point where they have the monopoly we know now for years.
Seriously, if Windows 8 does not support existing applications, would you buy it? Of course not!
Which don’t mean that they shouldn’t put in place new software models and architecture. That’s very good.
But removing compatibility with existing applications just to force people into an app store would be suicide for Microsoft.
I can’t recall me saying they would dump backwards compatibility for Windows 8 or any other version for that matter.
Read carefully, please.
Sorry, I was responding to the first comments which were suggesting it.
I didn’t understood that from your article.
Again sorry. Continue your great articles, Thom!
Edited 2011-01-10 17:47 UTC
Almost no one buys windows anyway, they just buy a device that comes with windows. 🙁
So? It doesn’t mean these people are not interested in running older applications… I have never bought a Windows separately from a machine but I am still running Oxygenator, which was released in 1991 or 1993 if I’m not mistaken. Granted it’s just a thin bar for seeing the memory usage, something that no other more recent program does with the same leanness.
If MS would ever only try to put something like an appstore where they take any part of the profits or have the last say of if, how and where apps are listed in Windows the EU and others would just sue them into oblivion.
Remember MS is a convicted monopolist. Normal rules don’t apply.
Edited 2011-01-10 17:52 UTC
Microsoft’s history with Windows and Windows developers does NOT indicate an application store-only Windows, where regular installations are not possible.
Sure, but still the EU and a lot of vendors would hate the idea of an MS-controlled app store for Windows and sue. 100%
In the name of security, Microsoft could allow only approved, whitelisted applications to run, and oh look! Big source of apps that have been open to scrutiny and approved, the conveniently controlled app store! In the end, Linux will be the only way to run your Windows programs. It already is for older programs, because the “compatibility mode” setting in Windows is entirely uselss.
Edited 2011-01-10 21:18 UTC
And once again, there is nothing in Microsoft’s history to base this on. Microsoft’s history shows that they don’t give a rat’s ass about HOW you use Windows, or WHAT you use on Windows, as as YOU USE WINDOWS.
They’re not Apple.
Thanks Thom … couldn’t have said it better myself.
So much cluelessness in one sentence. Bravo, this has to be some sort of record.
Only things that didn’t use the Win32 APIs or were old DOS programs etc didn’t work in compatibility mode. The youngest of these programs are now possibly over 11 years old. The support for these OSes has since long expired.
There is still ways to run these (very) old programs on Windows, DOSBox works perfectly well for running many older programs and games. There is always of course the option of running a VM and you always have XP Mode in Windows 7 (and I suspect it will be still there for 8).
Edited 2011-01-10 21:45 UTC
Will never happen since most Windows software is in-house. Enterprise customers would go crazy.
Edited 2011-01-10 22:04 UTC
Except when it works, 90% of the time
Try zero percent. Not once has a program magically started working for me just by changing the compatibility setting. There’s often something else to do, like a patch to apply. Google does more for getting slightly older programs working in new versions of Windows than the compatibility mode does.
I dunno why you’ve had poor luck with it, it’s saved my ass more than once. Perhaps the programs you are trying to get running are particularly poorly written?
Not unlikely. Mostly it’s games. I figure DOS ones that ran in 95 and 98 wouldn’t run, but they aren’t the ones I was concerned about. Changing the Windows version in Wine works 90% of the time though (assuming the program works at all in Wine of course).
Same for me, I’ve never experienced a single success, be it under XP or Vista.
GOod to know I’m not the only one. Used to frustrate the hell out of me when I’d look up how to get a particular game running, and the answer on the internet wouls be “just change compatability mode to Windows 2000”, followed by a page of “thanks, works perfectly” or some variation. Of course when I try it it does nothing.
Assuming Microsoft does something stupid; if they place restrictions on software, such as “must use Jupiter and appx deployment method” – as long as Microsoft make all their software conform to the same standard then Microsoft will have no trouble defending itself if the EU chuck a hissy fit. Microsoft can easily say, if questioned, “there are guidelines and even we have to conform to those guidelines so there are no exemptions – even to our own in house software”.
Microsoft isn’t going to do something stupid, as Thom has pointed out, Microsoft doesn’t give a crap what you use Windows for as long as you’re running Windows. The Microsoft of 2010 is nothing like the Microsoft of the 1990s – I wish some people here would get that through their thick skull.
Microsoft is quickly moving away from Silverlight and now promoting it as for windows mobile development, and for use in some media sectors.
They are focusing away from it’s original mission and moving it to more niche use only.
I would not base any long term strategy on Silverlight if I was a developer. You might want to think long and hard about investing much effort into that idea.
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/10/29/2147238/Microsofts-Si…
Alternative translation: “Hey, Silverlight devs, you were great, really, but we’ve got an early meeting, so go call yourself a cab. We’ll totally drop you a tweet or something though, kthnxbyenow.”
Edited 2011-01-10 18:18 UTC
I think you failed to understand that story. Silverlight will no longer be promoted as an alternative to Flash – but everything, including the Microsoft experts and Microsoft itself, are pointing towards a future of which Silverlight and .Net are a major part.
I think you ought to go back and re-read that story.
I feel like this a good approach. Google’s idea of having one OS in many form factors is kind of confusing now. Instead of Chrome for desktops & laptops, and Android for phones & tablets I’d much rather see one platform that can run on anything. And while developing for iOS and native Mac apps are similar (as in they all use Obj C and similar libraries etc.), there still is a big divide between iOS apps and its capabilities compared to OS X. And of course the funny thing to me is at the heart of all those devices is essentially a *nix kernel.
To be able to have one OS that can run on multiple devices would be pretty cool from both a user and developer’s perspective. The possibility that you could develop one app, but have the user experience the app differently on a desktop vs a tablet vs a phone would be pretty neat if Microsoft (or whoever) could take it that far. This could arguably be better for developers as well as users.
One could argue that the Web already provides a platform and experience for all of this, but I still don’t agree completely. Although what you can do with HTML5 (and co.) is pretty cool, you still have to use something like Flash or Silverlight to provide a desktop-like experience that can access local hardware, disks, etc.
Anyway, I know I took a couple of leaps and assumptions from the article, but it seems like Google, Apple, and Microsoft are all trying to find ways to meld the user experience of OS’s and Apps between all devices. I would have never thought about this 10-15 years ago.
Of course this is the way they will go. We’re already seeing Apple merge iOS and OSX features and functionality, and Apps that can adapt to their device, and Apple’s App Store success (both iOS and now OSX) has shown that this model works exceptionally well for the majority of users and developers – much to the disgust of some here.
To the contrary Google’s marketplace is floundering for the majority of commercial developers while the Android advocates continue to use the same reason (excuse?) they were giving over 12 months ago – “it’s only new compared to Apple’s App Store” – and this despite Android devices out selling iPhone. The difference is Microsoft and Apple act on their knowledge that for average consumers it needs to be a one-stop-shop, not a fragmented mess. Sadly while Google also know this, as recent comments relating to Chrome OS show, they’re so blinded by their own FOSS light and trying to prove a point that they can’t see how it relates to the needs of the majority of their mobile OS users.
Considering people are flocking en masse to Android, with Android selling better, I’d say Google might not be as clueless as you make them out to be
.
As I have said before, and stand by the statement, lets see how many go back for a second bite of the Android cherry once they’ve had to put up with zero updates and a totally fragmented marketplace that makes app and content management a nightmare for average users.
In a similar vein, check out what percentage of people are “flocking to Android” in markets where they can already get Android devices and iPhones on multiple networks. Android is a new toy – the new cool boy in town – but that affect has a very limited lifespan. Once it’s over it all comes down to customer satisfaction – something that Apple, and Microsoft, have been very good at for a very long time…
Ah, that silly myth.
http://www.internetretailing.net/2010/12/smartphones-hit-37-markets…
In some countries the networks have been throwing Android phones at people, offering all sorts of special deals. Then there’s the typical teenage “I’m going to get one of these to be different ’cause my friends have all got iPhones” mentality. And the incentives offered to salespeople to push a particular product. And lets not forget that there is now choice – but a much bigger percentage of that “choice” is in fact ONE choice just with different labels – something the average Joe has no idea about. Having worked and owned businesses in and around the retail IT industry for many years I actually have some first hand experience on how these things work.
While we’re quoting articles here’s one. From this article:
http://mashable.com/2010/08/02/android-outselling-iphone-2/
“That said, Nielsen’s stats also suggest a fair number of Android users – 21% to be exact – still have iPhone envy and would like to make the switch for their next device. The opposite is true for only 6% of iPhone owners.”
If not even cold and hard sales data can debunk the iPhone-exclusivity myth, then I’m out of words.
We’ll talk again once the iPhone on Verizon will prove to not stop Android’s rise in the US in any way. We already have thr iPhone on multiple networks, and Android is growing herr just as fast.
But when the update for Windows Phone 7 is released then expect to see more carriers pick it up – from what I have heard regarding Telecom NZ they’re waiting on devices to start shipping with the updated WP7. There are other carriers which are doing the same which will mean that as more carriers and devices come available then expect Android to be given some stiff competition.
There are also a whole host of other factors at play when people choose devices; don’t always assume that it is based on something rational and reasonable.
Interesting, device spectrum, right? That’s what KDE’s Plasma has been about for the last 4 years (but nobody noticed how innovative that idea was). Now MS recognizes the value of that and – well, of course, instead of adopting they copy 😉
Yes, there’s more to this – I’d say MS builds something similar to the the upcoming Plasma & QML.
Yes Plasma has packages, plasmoids can be written in any language etc etc. A difference is that (for now) plasmoids aren’t meant to be full blown apps like an Office suite but more small one-purpose apps. MeeGo, btw, has the same vision, except that they rewrite everything got each form factor… 😉
Juptier or Jupiter?
Finally.
“The Jupiter rumours were confirmed by another Microsoft insider, Mary-Jo Foley.”
Thom — Mary-Jo Foley? Some people are better left not-quoted:
http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/423-Mary-Jo-Foley-embarrasses-h…
Deleted: commented on the wrong article. Guess that’s what happens when I don’t pay attention.
Edited 2011-01-10 22:17 UTC
“All they need to do is include the Marketplace application store with every copy of Windows 8, and limit the store to Jupiter applications only. Then, detail that for Windows 9, the various application stores – Windows Phone, Xbox, and Windows (and Surface?) – will be unified, and you’ve got a pretty decent audience for developers to target.”
Microsoft is so far behind in the mobile space that they have no time for a leisurely roll out. With no Windows tablet in the next year (and every Windows 7 tablet is going to fail, fail big and fail with out exception) the only game in town for the OEMs to fight the iPad tsunami is Android. With some luck and a lot of concentration Apple could secure an uncatchable lead with tablets like they did with music players.
Remember that Android on handsets was pumped out to customers through the carriers retail and distribution system because without Android iPhone was going to kill them. With tablets there is no similar sense of killer urgency (OEMs have other products for the time being) or similar distribution/marketing system. I think Android tablets will struggle in the market. It’s probably already too late for Microsoft
That’s what people said of the Xbox. However, it has been the best selling console the past six months, and Microsoft obliterated even its own expectations regarding Kinect.
That’s what people said of Windows Vista. And now, we have Windows 7, which has seen almost exclusively positive reviews, is selling like hotcakes, is liked by just about everyone, and has even converted some of the most staunch Linux and Mac supporters I know (I would personally add that Windows 7 is miles and miles ahead of any desktop Linux or Mac OS X release, but alas).
Don’t discount Microsoft – especially not the new Microsoft.
In what ways exactly?
Or should this maybe read “I would add that for how I like to use a computer Windows 7 is miles ahead of any of the desktop Linux or Mac OS X releases”?
Personal preference, or fact?
The “personally” didn’t tip you off?
If it were just that English isn’t your native language I would agree, but as you have previously indicated you are a translator I’d like to point out that using “personally” in that position in the sentence provides a different meaning than you may have been intending.
ie. “I would personally add that Windows 7 is miles and miles ahead of any desktop Linux or Mac OS X release” indicates that you are personally pointing out a supposed fact that “Windows 7 is miles and miles ahead of any desktop Linux or Mac OS X release”.
If you were trying to convey a personal opinion it should have either read as per my previous post, or even “I would add that I personally find Windows 7 is miles and miles ahead of any desktop Linux or Mac OS X release”.
I hope this helps.
The context was already a personal opinion given that he used an idiom (miles and miles ahead) in his description. It was clearly a subjective statement based on his own experience.
Pedantry FTW
I’m an english speaker and I have to disagree. Thom putting personally there was valid, and should have conveyed his meaning to anyone willing to read it.
The educated dutch classes have written English that’s better than 99% of that of most Americans, and speak English better than the majority of Americans. Thom’s written English is generally impeccable.
This is also true of French. We strangers are so often shocked by how badly natives speak and (especially) write their own language.
One could go on about …
* Aero snap is really nice to use. (Both intuitive to use both with keyboard shortcuts and with the mouse)
* Graphics stack is amazing (don’t lose your running apps even if the graphics driver is updated/ or crashes).
* Even Windows Media player (which has been in the past an utter dog) is pretty good.
* Updates happen in the background completely transparently (I rarely know even if the updates have happened).
* The new taskbar makes it really easy to find and switch the window you want to use.
* Applications are really quick to start up thanks to it caching most used Apps in RAM (and removing them if the RAM is needed by something else). Thanks to this SQL Server Manager and Visual Studio 2008 starts up in less than a second (both are very heavy apps).
* Networking is really easy and the network center is really easy to use.
* Look and feel of the OS is polished all over … e.g. I still haven’t found any old Windows NT icons anywhere (like XP had).
It is pretty obvious to me why quite a few consider it “Miles ahead”.
Edited 2011-01-11 01:36 UTC
If someone rarely knows if the updates have happened: rarely knows if his systems are updated, he won’t know what changes the updates will bring, what changes must be done in his systems due to those changes, etc.
I found the network center awkward, most likely because i’m already familiar with how it worked in older versions and found it quite difficult to locate or change network settings.
I didn’t notice this, perhaps it doesn’t consider 2gb to be enough ram?
But isn’t it actually desirable to know when/if updates have been applied? Also, linux distros have been configurable in this way for years.
Also, don’t trust the windows update services, occasionally updates will get registered as installed when infact the install has failed. To verify this, check the versions of individual files which are supposed to be replaced by a given update. Nessus has plugins to do this which are much easier than doing it by hand.
Cant say i tried this, i just installed vlc since its much easier than having to hunt around for individual codecs… I did hate older versions of windows media player because i found the interface too intrusive, if im watching video i want the video fullscreen without gui elements obscuring any part of the video.
Still seems like a really awkward kludge compared to virtual desktops, also only showing the icons takes some getting used to if you’re not familiar with the icons (earlier windows versions used a textual label too).
Once you get used to it perhaps, as someone who is familiar with xp, osx and a number of unix window managers aero just seems different for no apparent reason.
I am a long term linux and mac user, and have tried all different kinds of different environments (used to run an sgi workstation for years), i did try windows 7 for day to day use for a couple of weeks but found the lack of virtual desktops extremely limiting, the thick window borders, titles and taskbar (ie very inefficient use of vertical space) extremely annoying on my widescreen monitors and the crufty method of application installation and updating (ie no package management) also very annoying.
While you could say windows 7 is “miles ahead” in some areas, its also miles behind in others… A lot of the features introduced by newer versions of windows are actually just attempts at playing catch-up with linux and/or mac.
This doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with the network center, this means that you are expecting old workflows to still work when the Interface has been changed.
I have it running on a Laptop with a 1.2ghz processor and a 1GB of ram (pretty much minimum hardware spec for Windows 7) … and applications start up snappy when the disk isn’t swapping (which is to be expected when I have 4 heavy applications running on almost the minimum requirements).
It does tell you that updates are installed and lets you know when they are finished. However it is unobtrusive.
It’s set up out of the box to update Windows with as little interaction and disturbance to the user as possible.
I don’t see how this can be considered a bad thing to have as the default behaviour of a desktop operating system, if it were a server OS I would agree.
Of course the amount of detail and control can be changed quite easily in the Update center.
Anyway the point was compared to XP, my machine doesn’t grind to a halt. I am left to get one with doing whatever I am doing and I am not disturbed by the OS.
I have personally never had problems with Windows Update since XP. Also Windows does not update files when they are being used unlike Linux i.e. I am updating Fedora and suddenly firefox starts acting very odd … I look at the update manager and it is replacing the files when the app is in use!! So basically while this was happening I potentially had programs running against the wrong library versions!!
Windows Doesn’t do this, it holds them and copies them over when it is safe i.e. during shutdown or startup … when these components aren’t being accessed, by programs .. so I can still use my computer reliably while it updates these files.
This is quite obviously superior.
They have changed the UI for the better (especially when playing video), However I still prefer Winamp for Music and Media Player Classic for video. I still don’t like bits of it … but it is hell of a lot better.
You have to pin the icons yourself … why would you not recognise them??
Also I don’t understand why everyone goes on about Virtual desktops as being some holy grail. I have never found a compelling use for them. They are good at grouping Windows … but I am rarely that organised when working, I don’t want to have to spend time keeping track of which virtual desktop my window sits .. I just want to find the correct window.
There is a good post arguing against Virtual Desktops … http://piestar.net/2010/06/29/the-argument-against-multiple-desktop…
It mirrors (most) of my sentiments on it.
People complain that Windows copies other OSes and when they actually do something different and add features then suddenly they are doing it for “no apparently reason”. Microsoft didn’t just add the feature on a whim … it is a feature that I wanted and didn’t even know I wanted … Microsoft must have done thorough usability testing and implemented the most common use-cases and then tailored aero snap to accomodate these use-cases.
I spend most of my day in Windows XP (my work OS) highlighting programs in the task bar while holding ctrl to tile two windows vertically so I can compare the contents of say an Excel file to My SQL Server query results… This is cumbersome compared to aero snap where I just “slam” each Window against the side of the screen and it is tiled.
Windows 7 is meant to work better on widescreens and use horizontal space better (This iw why aero snap only does vertical tiling). Horizontal tiling I don’t even think is doable (not that I have ever regularly use it).
Anyway the difference in Vertical space is about 5 pixels more than XP (hardly a lot when most new monitors come with resolutions of 1920×1080) and is about the same size as Gnomes/KDE and XFCEs window titles.
How is an installer package “crufty”? Please explain.
It copies all the files into the correct directories, then puts a link in “programs” so you can modify or uninstall. I never once had this fail, unless there was something seriously wrong with my machine (hardware problems), the Windows Install, or the version of Windows I was attempting to install it on wasn’t supported.
Package Management I particularly don’t like. Each package has potentially quite a few of dependencies that are sitting all over the system.
With an installer package it is self contained and does not effect other parts of the OS unlike package managers which end up sticking various files in various places all over the filesystem. Lets not forget that pretty much every Linux distro has different conventions as to where to place these files.
With an installer I can tell it where I want it. And all the files are copied into that folder.
What are these features then?
I haven’t seen anything that stands out from the linux ecosystem or MacOSX since 2006.
Also Remember that there was a 5-6 year gap between Vista and XP. So yeah they were playing catch up with Vista, but 7 IMO they are not behind on anything.
Edited 2011-01-13 00:50 UTC
That’s not what it’s stated in http://www.vgchartz.com/, but I don’t trust every web page. Do you have any trusted site to support this?
(This is not an evil question, I’m just asking anyone for a better site to know this information).
Windows 7 sells like hell because it comes pre-installed on all the PCs in the PC stores
The “New” Microsoft is the same old Microsoft just some new paint
Edited 2011-01-12 14:30 UTC
But not entirely feasible. Supposing that you could do this as implemented, And you end up with this ideal machine. (And I like it because it sounds like some of Mac OS X) How would the Windows Community manage this? I am not a purist or a designer -I just wonder if Windows can pull off a ‘Unified’ look and feel.
If you release an ugly app for the Mac then this community will taunt you mercilessly And while it is more than possible to write Malware in Cocoa again this community will roach you for it. Is the windows community ready to step up to something that is better than – just good enough
Not only does M$ copy Awesome Linux but evil businessmen in M$ are trying to force us use .NET. But it doesn’t matter how much M$ is copying Linux; AppStore, ability to run on ARM, Awesome UI tricks, they can never copy best part of Linux which is Power of Open Source. Linux is truly showing how much ahead it is nowdays compared Windows.
In open/free software, changes of hardware is no big issue, it’s almost just recompile the software repository, which anyone with the technical chops can do (with the time). In the close software world, changing hardware is near impossible. Each company must decide which software they will port/recompile, and that depends if they think it will make money for them, and that’s if the company still even exists, etc etc. Ending in a chicken and egg situation.
Byte code will change all that. Byte code as an alternative to open source. That way you don’t need to recompile it as it will run on the different hardware as is. Opening much more diverse hardware to the Windows market. It also gives MS a chance to finally reboot there system API from Win32.
But this may not work out for them.
A) Most of the free/open software world will continue to be native. Windows already has a speed/bloat issue against free/open software, and Windows going byte code isn’t going to help. If anything it will make that issue worse. Ok, performance parts won’t be byte coded, but then you are back where you where with closed platform locked software.
B) Win32 just won’t die. So they will be still heavily wedded to x86 (non-x86 Win32 is only useful for native porting).
I think at best this will partly work, but MS will find it very hard to free themselves from Win32+x86 completely. There is almost certainly more to all this. MS have always been about controlling the API (and ensuring they are the only real version of the API). With .NET, they have the whole language too. Improving their development environment will help keep hearts and minds, as will new “hip” stuff running on other hardware, like ARM. So good side, MS stuff runs on more hardware, bad side, it’s slower and MS have more control over development on their platform (and distribution as of Win8).
Interesting times.
They don’t need to kill off win32 entirely but just the crap parts which can easily be done. To provide ARM and x86, a lot of code will have to be re-written anyway so why not use the new API’s whilst you’re at it? Jupiter seems to be a wrapper around some low level API’s and some of the win32 calls that have been deprecated might not get provided on ARM meaning the holy grail of ‘fresh start’ won’t be reached but it’ll be a damn sight cleaner OS than it was.
I suspect Jupiter is a new NT subsystem. (So the NT kernel API is the low level API being wrapped).
When people port their Win32/x86 app to Win32/ARM they aren’t going to move it to Jupiter at the same time as that becomes a rewrite. Porting will be much simpler. Path of least resistance.
New apps may well be targeted at Jupiter, but that wouldn’t be the existing big important packages. They aren’t going to move to Jupiter from Win32 until there is good reason. Path of least resistance.
But all of that is native. From a native point of view, the OS API doesn’t matter, still has to be recompiled for x86 or ARM, and as I tried to say before, native won’t spear head a move to ARM because of the catch 22 of closed native app platforms. A way of running x86 on ARM is required some how, and that would suck (because unlike other dynamic transcoding of machine code, in this case, the target processor is less powerful then the original).
A move to ARM would have to be led by .NET apps with some Win32/x86 apps ported to Win32/ARM, maybe more and more if the platform is successful. Maybe Jupiter is a replacement for Win32, but it won’t change the x86/ARM thing, least not in the native world. Maybe Jupiter is a new byte code environment to replace Win32 and .NET, with MS trying to move away from native altogether.
It will be interesting to watch what happens. But personally, I’m quite happy with Debian/Ubuntu on either ARM or x86 already. 😉
I guess it depends on whether that is entirely necessary given that what is and isn’t win32 is becoming clearer with each release that Microsoft starts demarcating off sections of the OS, refactoring them and giving them a new name.
You’re assuming that moving code from x86 to ARM is as easily as a recompile – even Apple with all its hype about ‘a few clicks, a couple of changes in the code and voila universal binary’ but the reality was a little more complex than that.
Jupiter isn’t a whole new API, people still will write in classical C++/C/etc but they’ll use the Jupiter front end instead of the spaghetti API’s that make up the UI layer of Windows as it stands such as common controls, common dialogues etc. What will be interesting is whether Microsoft sets the standard and makes the giant leap – if Microsoft provides leadership through them putting their vision into action throughout Microsoft’s software development then third parties will come on board. If Microsoft simply create and API only to ignore it as they have done with Direct2D/DirectWrite then why should third parties consider using it?
It has always been policy that directly using NT calls is discouraged and not supported. Also, as much of the big old software comes from pre-NT days, NT calls would have to have been added later, and I doubt many have.
But this is neither here or there. Doesn’t affect any other subsystem how well isolated another is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Windows_NT
If you are very lucky, it really can be just a recompile. Both ARM and x86 are the same endianness, and that helps. Though I don’t think as ARM is as forgiving with memory address alignment as x86, but if you want you x86 code fast, you generally align to something sensible anyway. Sorting out the memory alignment to be ARM friendly isn’t going to be anything like as much work as moving the OS API an application uses. Apple had it harder going from Power to x86 as the endianness was different.
How is that not a new (cleaner) API?
Yes, if it’s not excepted, it will only make things worse. As it’s a closed platform, once an API is out there, they can’t take it back or they loose backward compatibility. Which is how we got where we are now. See if the software was open…..the old API can be removed from everywhere and killed… Kind of related to the old:
http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.37/Documentation/stable_api_nonsens…
Who said anything about direct calls to Windows NT? I never said anything like that.
If you are very lucky, it really can be just a recompile. Both ARM and x86 are the same endianness, and that helps. Though I don’t think as ARM is as forgiving with memory address alignment as x86, but if you want you x86 code fast, you generally align to something sensible anyway. Sorting out the memory alignment to be ARM friendly isn’t going to be anything like as much work as moving the OS API an application uses. Apple had it harder going from Power to x86 as the endianness was different.
Because the way you put it – it sounds as though win32 were some sort of top to bottom API when in reality it is difficult to actually say what is win32. Is COM/COM+ win32 or an API in its own right? same can be said for other API’s they provide, are they part of win32 or an API in their own right.
The refactoring of Windows NT is the redefining what constitutes Windows NT and where the line lies between the different API’s that make up Windows. Prior to the win-min project it became one big giant ball of mush but now Microsoft is attempting to slice up to know where one API finishes another starts, where each API sits in the stack so that specific versions can be peeled off and built rather than it being one big giant monolithic mess.
Then I misunderstood you. Ok, up from Win32, not down.
Win32 is meant to be equivalent of system calls. So it should be at the bottom. There is a Win32 NT subsystem, a OS/2 subsystem and a POSIX subsystem. But we don’t know how things are implemented and it’s a fair guess that yes, GDI and COM talk directly to the real NT system. So the lines of what is above and below Win32 does become blurred. However, I think we are meant to think of Win32 as the bottom.
They can’t really change any APIs without breaking things. So they can add new ones, and hope in the long long run, they can remove the older bad ones. Though it does seam new APIs get added quicker then they are removed. What Windows needs more then anything is a pruning.
Anyway, all this is pie in the sky, especially since it sounds like Jupiter is a GUI API, not a Win32 replacement.
I guess you didn’t mean to quote the ARM/x86 compile stuff from the previous post verbatim. I’m guessing a posting error, so I skipped talking about it any further!
Then I misunderstood you. Ok, up from Win32, not down.
Yeah, you’re correct – So win32 would be like BSD is to Mac OS X where the BSD layer sits ontop of the Mach kernel and developers are discouraged from making Mach calls in favour of making BSD calls which then translate down into Mach calls?
Correct me if I am wrong but the lower sections of the win32 aren’t as horrid as some make out and parts have been gradually getting replaced. GDI has been replaced with Direct2D/DirectWrite, Media Foundation replaces something like 1/2 dozen media API’s etc. so I wouldn’t be surprised if Jupiter is a wrapper over all the new low level public API’s – that the UI elements will be drawn using Direct2D and the text rendered using DirectWrite.
For me I don’t mind that there is old code sitting around for the sake of compatibility but developers need to realise it is there for compatibility, a crutch, not something that one should be relying on for the rest of ones life. If they do have an application store I hope they do make one of the conditions being that it uses Jupiter API so that the over all quality of Windows applications rise.
The reason I want things to improve? for selfish reasons of course, I’m a Mac user and I’m seeing Apple each year treat Mac OS X like a bastard red headed step child which they seem to be hell bent on ignoring – would it kill them to hire another 5,000 engineers/programmers so that you don’t see the sorts of stupid decisions like move coders to iOS development at the expense of Mac OS X? I know I’m going way off topic but Windows 7 marked a major change in direction for Microsoft and Windows 8 appears that the movement forward will continue. Oh, and a side note: it would be nice to be able to use a computer where I’m not constantly stuck between Apple battling some third party – that Apple refuses to make life easier for a third party and as a result I end up getting a shittastic browser plugin as a result.
The whole quoting system is a giant mess – if they allowed embedded quoting life would be made a lot easier but I’ve been asking and banging my head against the wall almost a year just to get a simple piece of functionality made available.
So what your really saying, is that bytecode is being used as a kludge to mitigate the harm caused by supplying software without source code…
Kind of yes. But it only mitigates harm in the respect of hardware locking.
Simply put, Microsoft has many ManY MANY options in its arsenal.
Evolution drafted here is the wisest thing to do and I think that unifying platforms (thanks to mobile CPUs becoming faster and faster and thus being able to work with more complex systems) was already the goal of MS since long time.
Now the transition would be :
* force all Windows/XBox/Phone/Web developers to use .NET only;
* make Silverlight/.NET available for all their platforms (already done!);
* make Silverlight/.NET available for other platforms like MacOS, Linux and so on (partially done). Courts proved that excluding such frameworks from other systems would be unlawful and possibly subject to anti-trust regulations (see Flash on iPhone) so this is perfectly viable;
* unify programming model for all developers and sell Windows as the BEST Silverlight/.NET implementation.
Microsoft would gain tons of developers and tons of applications and would make using Silverlight/.NET the best framework to target the widest number of devices. And they don’t even need to open-source Windows… 😉
“Partially done” is the key as far as MS are concerned.
.NET on anything other then Windows is a repeat of Win32 and WISE (A Unix Win32 layer).
“the WIN32 layer to be fairly mediocre in performance and feature coverage. We want it to be just good/cheap/timely enough to get a lot of people to use it,”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/18/analysis_how_ms_used/
MS are smart, and know that controlling the API is key. Controlling the language as well is even better. Maybe fine for their platform, but it is always their platform and never cross platform.
Perhaps one day we will have regulations about companies that make OS and software for that OS, you know, such as one side has to be open for fair competition, or a single company can’t do both.
Defending their platforms is top priority but the problem is that cannot last forever and it only works as long as your platform is market leader.
Which is the case for PCs but not the case for mobile and consoles, while on the server side they’re growing but not yet a monopoly like on PCs.
The problem is PCs market is basically a 1billion items market (more or less) while mobile market is about 5 billions items market. You’d want to be a monopoly on mobile rather than on PCs in 2-3 years plus they once had Windows as a gaming machine while now they also have Xbox.
There’s a turning point where defending your platform by making it available everywhere is more effective than having a single way to channel it. I think MS is close to that turning point.
The goal would always be to defend their platform but it would happen by letting developers code for it anyway and let users choose what’s the best machine to run it.
I’m sure the same thing was said during the WISE era. Their implimentation of their platform will always be >the< implimentaiton of their platform. All others will always be playing catch up, not knowing what is coming next and in the dark about fine details (no spec/doc is perfect, so you need source or lots of time to ape the actural behaviour). They own the board, the ball, the gaming hall, the chairs and they write the rules. The house always win. (In the worse case, they own the magnets hidden beneath the table). They aren’t interested in a fair game or a service, they are interested in money. They are a company, not a community. At best they try to appear as a community as much as required to make more money. What makes money and what provides a good service don’t always line up (example: anti-features).
There is a rumour that there is going to be a move away from PowerPC for the XBox, I’m not too sure how reliable the rumour is but I wouldn’t be surprised if it means that they can place a super strip down embedded version of Windows NT sitting at the core with DirectX 11 and a minimal set of API’s for games developers. Having an operating system that scales from super computers down to games machines not only makes sense for third party developers but for Microsoft it will lower costs, simplify maintenance and less duplication of numerous operating systems developing and re-inventing the wheel at the same time.
cp/m vs dos and Apple vs MS.
Yes the starts of MS Rain. Problem here is history repeats. With players in different locations.
Another repeat was Unix vs Linux in the super computer market.
Its the good enough factor. In the netbooks that a lot of people say hey MS won. Is the start of this. MS was forced to heavily discount Windows even release Windows Starter. Without these items the netbook battle would have been lost back then. But having to discount was not a win either. More of a draw.
The reason for the battle in the first place is cost cutting on the device makers side. MS cut prices so got across the line. Time has moved on. New competitor entered the game. Android. Its now having the hardware makers press MS again.
True death by 1000 cuts. Linux guys are even prepping there next wave.
At some point the good enough factor will be crossed and at that point MS will become like “cp/m”/Apple/Unix of history. Forced into the high-end market and slowly having its advantages chipped away.
Device Makers are clearly telling MS in there mind Android is good enough. So unless MS can produce a reason for them to part with Money MS is in trouble.
Now you might say MS does app store and give OS away for nothing. There is a problem here. Google gives device makers a cut out there app store.
The device makers are taking the lead. They will set the prices from now on. They have stopped being price acceptors.
Well, Thom you got it partially right. However, Silverlight won’t likely be part of it simply b/c MS has already closed the doors on Silverlight. They’ve also closed the doors on Windows Presentation Framework (WPF).
Where you got it right is that they are betting the company on .Net; but not for a Windows-only world, rather for a world where Microsoft has to compete with other operating systems, e.g. Linux, Mac. Why?
Microsoft’s largest vulnerability right now is MS Office. (1) It only runs on Windows for The Real Thing, even though there is a Mac port – it’s just not the same product. (2) It’s the primary feed for MS’s profits and primarily supports the company. As one analysis showed – MS Windows and MS Office both have about 50% of MS’s revenues and profits; yet MS Office does it on far less volume of sales than MS Windows. (So any loss of MS Office sales is harder on the company than a loss of MS Windows sales in that respect.)
So MS created .Net, primarily to combat Java. But now what if Windows goes away? What if MS is no longer able to sell Windows or as many Windows systems? It’s only a matter of time until another OS overturns the MS Windows monopoly. Nobody is king forever. From that point of view, .Net is MS’s strategy for when Windows goes away – to allow them to keep on selling MS Office and other products to non-Windows platforms.
So today we are starting to see the split of OS’s – a larger growth for both Mac and Windows. Microsoft has a big problem in such a world as they are very closely tied with Windows. .Net alleviates that issue by reducing the dependency on Windows – abstracting it to the .Net layer instead – and enabling them some portability, reducing the loss of revenue from Windows+Office to just Windows.
[Edit: Added the following – forgot to mention it before hitting post.]
Also, the Windows NT kernel is by-design configured for multiple processor architectures. ARM has long been supported, just not distributed. PPC support was in disarray too until MS decided to use PPC for XBox. Also supported is MIPS and others. And they all interface to the kernel via the HAL subsystem. The big news about Windows on ARM is not that Windows is _on_ ARM (WinCE supported ARM for a long time), but that Microsoft is no longer relying solely on x86/Intel and actually releasing Windows on ARM.
Edited 2011-01-11 22:00 UTC
WinCE is windows only by name, the kernel is different, the userland is different… It’s absolutely not the same platform and never has been.
The APIS and everything are the same though. Just read through the MS headers on Windows even – you’ll find references to ARM and WinCE too.
They also share a lot of the same architecture & design, though probably implemented differently for the different environments.
Yes, userland from the user’s perspective is different. But from the software’s perspective it’s the same.
This part really jumped out at me – Microsoft hasn’t ‘closed’ the doors on Silverlight given that when it was released Microsoft never had a strong focus on which direct they wanted to take it in relative to other technologies and HTML5. Microsoft has now, with the launch of Internet Explorer 9 RC’s and Beta’s, repositioned Silverlight and there is now clarity where there was once a lack of direction.
Windows Presentation Framework hasn’t been closed either; it is no more closed than Direct2D/DirectWrite being closed or Media Foundation being closed – Silverlight represents a further level of abstraction to simplify development for those developers who don’t want the sorts of low level power that WPF provides. I don’t see it as a contradiction that Microsoft offers Silverlight and WPF any more than Microsoft offering developers a low level API like Direct2D/DirectWrite or using the common controls/dialogues/etc if they want the operating system to handle more of the technical details.
Apparently you missed the news bulletins.
For reference, see the following:
http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_-_Dead_Divisions_or_… (check out the 2010 section)
WPF:
http://techrights.org/2010/09/09/wpf-declared-dead/
Silverlight:
http://techrights.org/2010/10/30/silverlight-almost-kaput/
Then check out the sources behind the articles.
Yes, Microsoft may still be spouting out of one side that these products are still alive – and for legacy purposes they now are. But they won’t see any more developmental work, improvements, etc either – effectively they are dead and going nowhere.
Those links prove nothing; a few quotations taken out of context, a couple of idiots having a circle jerk over the future, with ‘The Register’ (the online version of the ‘Daily Fail’ aka ‘Daily Mail’) and ZDNet of all places being the major points of reference.
Silverlight was never aimed at being focused on multi-platform support as so far as other operating systems – is there mono/moonlight? please, don’t humour me with such acts of tokenism. Silverlight was always pushed as a LOB product to compete with Adobe AIR and as such it has become the framework of choice for WP7 development. It is the media and people like you pushing this crap that some how Silverlight is going to be the ‘alternative’ to Flash. The ‘alternative’ to Flash is HTML5, and the alternative to Adobe Air is Silverlight – Microsoft has never marketed it as anything but a Windows only thing. The only difference now is Microsoft actually has a coherent strategy compared to when Silverlight was launched it was hanging out there with no real push as to where it would fit when compared to the up and coming web technologies.
Oh, and the fact that you quote a wiki – good lord; please, too much fail has been compressed in your post I wonder whether it is going to collapse in on itself and form a black hole only to suck the rest of humanity into it.
FYI – Adobe AIR IS multi-platform. So it Adobe Flash. For Silverlight to be an alternative to it then it would have to be multi-platform, not just WinCE->Windows Desktop->Windows Server, but Windows, Mac, AND Linux & BSD.
As such it is not. It is Windows-centric – multi-platform to MS means WinCE->Windows->Desktop->Windows Server only. (Can’t blame them as that is their nature.) So there it fails against what is it suppose to be replacing.
Mono/Moonlight while they do implement parts of .Net/Silverlight they don’t implement the whole thing, nor can they for licensing reasons. So that still doesn’t provide the multi-platform support required. Mono/Moonlight will always be a second or third class citizen to Microsoft.
They pushed it heavily not as an alternative to Adobe AIR but as an alternative to Adobe Flash, even going so far as paying NBC to convert to Silverlight for the Olympics for things that Adobe Flash does (not Adobe AIR). Again, they lost there. It never took hold and the installs that did take have since reverted. No one uses Silverlight where Flash is normally used any longer.
Microsoft may have tried to save face by repurposing it for WP7, but again – that’s yet another failed platform. WP7 based phones simply are not selling.
So again, it is essentially dead for all intents and purposes.