“Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe [Editor’s note: Cringely does not seem to know that DOS is emulated under XP; he thinks that XP is like Win9x which sits on atop of DOS]. Windows XP is not an operating system. It is a windowing system that sits atop an operating system much as KDE or Gnome sit atop Linux. [Editor’s Note: Yeah, right… The guy is confusing the Win9x core with the NT one]. “ Read the (funny?) editorial at I, Cringely.
Why MS Should Build Its Next Version of Windows on Top of Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Did no one a pbs.org realize this fool doesn’t know what he is talking about with XP! lol
This is the kinda editorials you get from PBS. Geez, it insults my intelligence to read something so painfully misleading.
There is absolutely nothing in for MS to port anything to Linux. What he suggests is to port an OS on top of another OS. Because XP *is* an OS, it is not a window manager, like Win3.1 was indeed once. NT/2k/XP do NOT share the same design/core with Win9x/Win3.1 and DOS. NT (which XP is based on) was designed from SCRATCH in early ’90s by the same person who did VAX/VMS. This is why the internal design of NT/2k/XP is so similar to VMS and not as crappy as the Win9x series. Saying publicly that XP is a window manager, it will only create laughs from developers and other people who happen to not just be Linux wheenies.
Especially if you think that writting an OS and bringing it to a good working condition takes about 10 years (I suggest you read some JoelOnSoftware sometimes…). XP is extremely stable and with the Win2k (almost 9 years after the NT conception and design), these two products have brought MS products on par with Linux and a few other workstation Unix solutions. Win9x/ME was utterly CRAP, but Cringely should make his research when it comes to 2k/XP.
err i remember reading eugenia is leaving osnews??!!
Yes. I never said I am leaving completely, I said that I will be around very little. As indeed I am not taking care of OSNews more than 1 hour a day overall (it used to be 15 hours a day). I am getting tired of explaining the same stuff over and over. Get on topic please.
for the sake of argumentation.
windows uses the file explorer.exe for the ui.
windows users use litestep,geoshell etc. etc (reference: http://desktopian.org) to change the look and feel of the windows os’s.
so for this article yes he did do a serious dodoo, but I’ve alaways considered windows to be a Desktop Enviroment and as such skinnable in one way or the other, but it is not a window-manager.
And I think that is whatCringley is saying, note that he compares windows to gnome and kde not to windowmaker or sawfish.
hehe but he has some funny ideas in there though
>windows uses the file explorer.exe for the ui.
Yes. And BeOS uses libTracker.so and MacOSX users Finder.app. What is your point? The fact that ALL the OSes use an executable to load the application that draws the desktop DOES NOT mean that this OS is not an OS but a window manager. BeOS functions the same way in this regard. Is BeOS and OSX “just” a window manager? Let’s port it to Linux (:P). Please, let’s get serious here.
My prediction: Microsoft will build their software ontop of .NET, and .NET will run on Linux, BSD, etc.
Mark my words
eh?
your argument does’nt make sense.
I thought you were saying that because Windows uses Explorer is not an integrated OS (which it is). This is why I wrote as examples BeOS and OSX which work the same way in this regard.
Eugenia: Because XP *is* an OS, it is not a window manager, like Win3.1 was indeed once.
Ummm Eugenia
Win 3.1 is not a window manager. Win 3.1 till WinMe were more like windowing systems (just like Xfree is) all running on top of DOS while Xfree runs on top of Linux.
twm IS a window manager which runs on top of windowing system which is Xfree just like IceWM, kwm etc run on top of Xfree.
Even though I know you knew all this, I am just picking on the wording you used
“so for this article yes he did do a serious dodoo, but I’ve alaways considered windows to be a Desktop Enviroment and as such skinnable in one way or the other, but it is not a window-manager.”
s/Desktop Enviroment/integrated Desktop Enviroment.
but yeah, the win gui is in lé kernel.
>Win 3.1 is not a window manager. Win 3.1 till WinMe were more like windowing systems
Of course I agree. Without a windowing system they would never be able to go to graphics mode and move windows around.
It was indeed a bad word choice.
It will be nice indeed if a windowing system as easy to use as Win9x can run on top of Linux. If someone is smart enough to create a whole new windowing system which will use one type of libs which will be compatible with themeselves but newer versions of themselves. It CAN be done even if the actual windowing system may have nothing to do with the actual Unix system except the way files are accessed, for example, instead of C: they would use / etc.
There is already an effort to create a Win-aline window manager: http://www.xpde.com/
However, the fact that you have this wm looking like XP/2k, does NOT mean that you get the same kind of functionality and integration as you get on a real Windows system. But it is a start I guess…
I am amazed that this guy is able to post a story like that, it must mean that the editor doesn’t know that much either.
Too bad that the email adres wasn’t available of this guy, I would have send him a few links to some information on the net concerning Windows XP and it’s relation to other Windows versions.
Studi more XP before poste this message ! Everybody know how MS-Window is, what the differences are between DOS/95 and NT/2000/XP !!!! And if not, you should read the battle of developpers when MS has include graphical fonctions in kernel space memory !
“The idea of running a windowing system atop an OS or even having competing operating systems under the same OS has been around for a long time.
Yeah, it is called emulation, and GUIs. I run MacOS 8.1 on my computer under Windows 2000 thanks to Basilisik. Also, all graphical OSs’ are reliant on a subsystem. Whether this subsystem is DOS, the NT kernal, Unix, or the Linux kernal depends on the manufacturer, but it must have a way to communicate directly with the hardware. it is what an OS does.
“Back… in the PC world there were versions of DOS from vendors other than Microsoft, and in fact, some of those products are still available…. Up through Windows 3.11 both these products worked as well or better under Windows than MS-DOS, and some people have claimed to have made them work under later Windows versions, too.”
Yes, they did work quite well. But Windows 3.0 had imbedded code in it that would notify you if it was not installed on MS-DOS 6.22 that it may be unstable, and missing some functionality. Fortunatly, Windows 3.1x did not also carry this code. How would you get Windows 95 on DR-DOS when it does not even support FAT32? or long rile names? Both are features that are mainly implimented on MS-DOS 7.00-8.00. Granted, third party plugins do exist that will allow FAT32 and LFN support, but these plugins are beta at best. Windows 95 is already unstable enough, why would you want to make it worse?
As for changing out the NT kernal for the Linux kernal, it would be possible, but very difficult. They would have to re-write windows so it could hook inot the new kernal as it currently does on NT. You would not have (as much) application compatiblity. Most MS products would need to be re-written, as would many third party utilities.
Is it possible? Yes.. Is it propable? no!
Cringley is usually much better, or maybe it only seems that way when he writes about topics of which I have less knowlege? This is an embarasment for him and it’s way too early to blame on April Fool’s Day.
Anyway, everyone knows that the next version of Windows will just be a Flash webpage…
Not quite true. NT is essentially a continuation of OS/2, another DOS-like (under the hood) OS, which has been around for almost two decades. THe VMS guys did some major work on it, but NT’s roots cannot be denied.
Microsoft developed OS/2 for IBM up to and including version 1.3. From there, the two companies began to drift apart, with IBM continuing OS/2 and Microsoft using the same code as a base for NT. NT was not written from scratch.
The article may sound silly at first, but give Cringely some credit. He has been around for a long time (since the 1970s) and is definitely one of the better tech journalists and pundits.
I always like to criticize, but, wow. That was the worst, most poorly researched article I have ever read in my entire life. This Cringley fellow doesn’t seem to understand anything about Windows, Linux, operating design, business principle, the GPL, or Bill Gates’ ego. I haven’t read anything else he’s published and will certainly not go out of my way to do so, now.
Funny? I suppose, if you’re the kind of person who thinks a guy shooting himself in the leg during a robbery is funny.
He has also obviously never used the NT/2000/XP family of products. Anyone who has knows within five minutes that they are not in any way built on the same platform at the 95/98/ME series. Sad.
There is already an effort to create a Win-aline window manager:
Am I the only one that thinks this article sounds like it wasn’t even written by Cringely. Usually he’s a very well educated, well researched, smart guy. I don’t know what the hell happened….
Perhaps this “Mike Class” fellow has taken control of Bob’s machines and is on an evil mission to destroy his credibility
Or…maybe “Mike Class” (who could be used as a scapegoat if the article backfired like it did) is Cringely’s alter ego for expressing his ridiculous opinions and theories
I mean, come on. A Jesuit priest? That’s the oldest trick in the book.
Whatever’s going on, this article doesn’t sound like the usual stuff that comes from Bob Cringley.
p.s. I’m not a crackpot.
‘Now back to Microsoft putting Windows on top of Linux. Linux is better, faster, stronger than whatever is living underneath XP now, right? Performance would improve.’
this guy has clearly never installed XP and any flavour of GNU/Linux on the same hardware, on a low end pII 300mhz to a p4 1.8ghz i just can’t get rh8,manddrake9,suse9 to work as stable and fast as XP
‘As Mike Class points out, by not having to develop its own OS, Microsoft could also save money. They wouldn’t need however many people are presently devoted to maintaining the underlying OS that isn’t supposed to be there’
how can XP not have an underlying OS, yes you can get an emultated MS-DOS like prompt, but that’s all it is, MS isn’t hiding the fact, they put it on the start menu and called it ‘command prompt’ and very handy it is too! NT3.51,NT4,2000 and XP do not have MS-DOS under the bonnet/hood
W|ndows XP is a windows NT with a skin:) and people buy it…
hehe
You can find lots of skins in internet:) for your w|ndows…
I’d just like to note that the C:-prompt in question, while certainly not indication of DOS sitting under XP, it ain’t even emulated DOS (which impression I could get from the Editor’s Note part). AFAIK, cmd.exe in NT systems has nothing to do with DOS at all.
From that prompt it’s possible to run DOS programs, sure, but the command prompt isn’t DOS, emulated or not. It’s a normal Windows program that does the job of interpreting commands. Just like bash or whathaveyoush is on nixes.
The article is most probably a joke. 🙂 Well, at least I laugh most of the way through. On a more serious note, Microsoft spent a billion dollars on the Windows NT core, why should they dump it because their command prompt is similar with DOS? Besides, they are making a new shell…
Well DOS use FAT32. LINUX use EXT3:)
There are anyone expert in filesystems that could tell me the difference between them? Yes, Linux file system is more secure, than FAT32. Why experts choose LINUX intead of W|NNT? Yes, linux is secure, fiable, and a great operating system.
i thought you were saying that because windows uses explorer is not an integrated os (which it is). this is why i wrote as examples beos and osx which work the same way in this regard.
uh… explorer is not the gui. you can kill explorer and the the gui DOES NOT disapear. You can even delete explorer.exe and run windows without it. it isn’t easy, you have to launch apps with the ctrl-alt-del menu but it’s doable. However, if you kill the windowserver in os x, the whole os crashes.
linux however, doesn’t have an integrated gui in the kernel and runs completely happily regardless of what gui parts you kill…
A quick search on Google reviled this little gem:
http://www.cringely.com/
Looks like the right guy, and there is an email addy! Somthing that should have been on his PBS article.
Is BeOS and OSX “just” a window manager?
Actually, the latter is very similar to a window manager. A port is entirely possible technically but completely imposible business-wise.
Yavin: Not quite true. NT is essentially a continuation of OS/2, another DOS-like (under the hood) OS
Wrong. OS/2 3.0 was developed with more similarities with VMS than OS/2 2.0. OS/2 3.0 was later known as Windows NT 3.5.x. That’s why Windows NT and OS/2 4.0 Warp ae worlds apart technically.
the arbiter: Funny? I suppose, if you’re the kind of person who thinks a guy shooting himself in the leg during a robbery is funny.
What’s so *not* funny about that?
Alex (The Original): Take Cosmoe for instance.
Cosmoe is les “ground up” than XPde, basing itself on AtheOS and Linux’s FB.
Kasper: The NT Kernel does the same thing for Windows 2000/XP as the DOS kernel did for Window 9x.
Wrong. Much of the graphical rendering takes place at kernel level, while the GUI in explorer.exe is very different from Win9x’s explorer.exe.
scotsman: i just can’t get rh8,manddrake9,suse9
For SuSE, neither can most people because the version is only available to SuSE employees.
Blade: W|ndows XP is a windows NT with a skin:) and people buy it…
With a better UI, better media tools (WMP 8, WM 1.1/1.2, mostly redundant now), faster boot speed and way way way better Win9x’s Win32 emulation and far more annoying habits (like their autorun thingy).
HELP!!! I deleted explorer.exe in W|ndows what I do now?
Hehe this is a joke :]
Blade: W|ndows XP is a windows NT with a skin:) and people buy it…
Rajar R:
With a better UI, better media tools (WMP 8, WM 1.1/1.2, mostly redundant now), faster boot speed and way way way better Win9x’s Win32 emulation and far more annoying habits (like their autorun thingy).
Yes, but I can run also WMP 8 in w|ndows 98 and other software without problem…
“Faster boot speed?” hehe
try windows 98 in Pentium IV:) and NT in the same processor…
Let’s compare linux with w|ndows and their things:) KDE and GNOME.
Idiocy in the article
“Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe.”
I hope everyone can see the SHEER STUPIDITY of this statement. Obviously having a work-alike shell (which is now a Win32 console application, and couldn’t run under DOS) is not tantamount to the underlying operating systems being the same.
“Windows XP is not an operating system. It is a windowing system that sits atop an operating system much as KDE or Gnome sit atop Linux.”
Windows XP’s window server is integrated into the kernel and runs in ring 0. In Linux, there are two layers of abstraction between the GUI and kernel (through the X window server, which is a userspace process)
“Now back to Microsoft putting Windows on top of Linux. Linux is better, faster, stronger than whatever is living underneath XP now, right?”
The only advantages I see are in a Unix filesystem versus NTFS. With a Unix filesystem, the last hard link to a file may be removed while the file is still open. New hard links can be made and old hard links removed, allowing files to be moved or renamed while open. These are definately annoyances, but not show stoppers.
NT’s VMM has some issues dealing with low memory situations, but Linux has abominable problems with the horrible OOM killer.
Stability of both Linux and XP depend on the underlying drivers.
Performance would improve.
Uhh, how exactly? The Linux kernel is a poorly designed piece of shit that has been taken in radically different directions throughout the years, leaving it a mound of kruft.
And the nature of the General Public License is such that Microsoft would not be required to divulge much, if anything, about either Windows code or its applications, specifically because they would be sitting atop — not built into – Linux.
It would also proclude Microsoft from making any proprietary modifications to the Linux kernel, which would certainly be necessary.
Idiocy in the comments:
My prediction: Microsoft will build their software ontop of .NET, and .NET will run on Linux, BSD, etc.
There is no possibility of Microsoft ever developing any software that sits on top of any GPL software, due to the viral nature of the GPL.
If you want a realistic portrayal of this incredibly unlikely scenario, see: http://www.osnews.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=1260&t=1260
The NT Kernel does the same thing for Windows 2000/XP as the DOS kernel did for Window 9x.
DOS did not run in protected mode, and accessed all hardware through BIOS interrupts or user loaded interrupt drivers, whereas Windows 95+ ran in protected mode and managed hardware directly.
W|ndows XP is a windows NT with a skin:) and people buy it..
YOU don’t know the Truth.
YOU pitiful mindless fools,
YOU are educated stupid.
Windows XP is drastically different from NT 3.5 if for nothing else the introduction of PNP hardware support and the lack of the hardware abstraction layer.
YOU destroyed the family.
XP/2k has directx integrated into the os, allowing you to play your l33t pirated copy of the Sims.
YOU destroyed childhood.
Windows XP has a much greatly expanded Hardware Compatability list, meaning, you can actually use all of your hardware, unlike 3.51/pre-sp6 4.0.
YOU destroyed naturalism.
Also the integretion of Internet Explorer into the GUI interface so you can view your files as if they were your favorite website, kuro5hin.org.
YOU are your own poison.
YOU create your own hell.
YOU must seek Time Cube.
“timecube guy” you are a newbie and a adolecent that say what ever in mind, and only use aspects that all people know it
If you look to linux GUI (KDE and GNOME) appear before W|ndows XP. Well, it is obvious that M|crosoft make some changes at w|ndows, but also create/emulate or put a skin on it to make concurrency with linux GUI (KDE or GNOME).
First look at w|ndows 98 and at KDE/GNOME, w|n98 don’t have any design, then appear w|nXP.
Why m|crosoft choose w|nNT instead of w|n98 to make that changes? Simple, because w|nNT is more secure than w|n98, and less buggy:)
Windows on top of Linux…now I’ve heard everything
There is no possibility of Microsoft ever developing any software that sits on top of any GPL software, due to the viral nature of the GPL.
please try to see past the microsoft FUD. the implementations of .NET for linux will not require you to release your code. for example portable .net will be GPL, but the library code will be “GPL with linking exception” and you may link proprietary apps to the class library.
for mono the compiler is GPL, the runtime libraries are LGPL and the class libraries are MIT, which means you may link proprietary apps to the class library.
as for porting XP to linux… the amount of code that would need to be written… you’d need to change the linux kernel to support XP’s syscalls (many of which are undocumented). you’d need to make XP play fair with the framebuffer, you’d need to make windows drivers work in linux! XP would gain nothing due to the need for backward compatibility.
i know cringely says some stupid things but this is beggaring belief…
Windows XP’s new widget set (how the buttons, menus, titlebars, etc.), Luna, were made to compete with OS X, and nothing else.
Windows XP (NT 5.1) is a direct descendant of Windows 2000 (NT 5.0). Windows NT 4.0 is a terrible operating system for running multimedia applications because it only supports DirectX 3.0 (and if you want to potentially break your system, DirectX 5.0.) Windows 2000 introduced much better driver support, and it also shipped with DirectX 7.0 (and supports all new versions.)
Additionally, Windows 9x doesn’t rely on DOS after booting. Windows 9x uses its own device drivers which interface directly with hardware, not through some old crusty DOS device driver
>>>Windows XP’s window server is integrated into the kernel and runs in ring 0
Hmmm, I thought the kernel sits on top of HAL(hardware abstraction layer) and the window manager and graphic device driver next to it.
In windows the kernel is iolated from the window manager, so in theory the kernel can be replace with other one.
maybe I wrong. Anyone got an answer?
“MacOSX uses Finder.app as UI”
Not true at all, FInder is just a file manager. You can easily quit it and keep working, this is not true if you kill explorer.exe
….they already have some secret project in which they are implementing some OS on top of BSD.
: )
why linux kernel? The FreeBSD kernel makes more sense, since BSD license is more attractive for Microsoft then GPL.
>>> It won’t happen, of course, because Microsoft will want to maintain every advantage and would see this as giving-in. It would also have a negative impact on their language business, though that’s not an absolute certainty. The part I love, though, is the idea of Bill Gates showing up at LinuxWorld to kiss Linus’s ring.
>>>And if it ever happens (the ring-kissing, I mean), don’t forget Mike Class in Milwaukee, who came up with the idea in the first place.
Get this Mike Class to explain this nutty yet interesting concept.
Tis Cringely is not your ordinary daily idiot.
He usually posts very cool things… on a regular basis.
So before you (yes, I mean *you*) starts criticizing him (or anyone with a good history, for that matter), ponder a little first.
The guy is arguing that XP inner mechanics are not as good as Linux´s. You may have a problem with this. I don´t. I agree. Of course, I find KDE and Gnome lightyears better than XP´s candypaper interface — but his idea works neat towards Linux world domination, which is a Good Thing (TM) ;-P
Other than that, Microsoft takes up much more space than it deserves. If we are not going to talk about Linux, then what about other OSes? While I don´t think this site is pro-MS (like I´ve already stated), even a good coverage on alternative Windows interfaces (e.g. litestep) would be better than bringing links about XP… if it has 90% of the desktop market, that doesn´t mean it must be here 90% of the time…
Of course, I´m just a reader and not an editor.
> Your comments, Eugenia Loli-Queru, shows that you don’t know a shit about
> operating systems.
LOL! What a jerk!
> The NT Kernel does the same thing for Windows 2000/XP as the DOS kernel
> did for Window 9x.
Windows 9x had its own kernel that was loaded by DOS and replaced DOS. MS-DOS applications were run using a VM, and Windows 3.1’s cooperative multitasking applications were emulated with a single Windows 95 process.
> The difference is that the NT kernel can multitask, runs 32-bit and has a
> better device driver layer then the DOS kernel
The Windows 95 kernel had preemptive multitasking from the beginning. Not the best, mind you, but it was still preemptive multitasking. Windows 3.1 could multitask, but it only supported cooperative multitasking. Furthermore, Windows 95 kernel was 32-bit, but it contained a lot of 16-bit code from the Windows 3.1 days. The Windows 3.1x line was the last Windows kernel to actually run on top of DOS.
The two biggest differences between the 9x line and the NT line
> , but it is still a Disk Operating System.
No, DOS is a Disk Operating System. Windows, Linux, MacOS X, BeOS, etc. are disk operating systems, not DOS. DOS was a particular operating system architecture, and all varieties of DOS implemented (to some extent) the DOS APIs, kind of like all Unices implement the traditional UNIX APIs. The problem is that the article equates disk operating systems with DOS and blames Microsoft for hiding MS-DOS inside Windows XP because there is still a C: prompt:
But are they really integrated? No. DOS 7.0 was under Windows 95 and DOS 7.1 brought the FAT32 file system to Win95, not the other way around. Even today, you can still get to a C: prompt under Windows XP, which means a disk operating system is hiding there no matter what Microsoft wants us to believe.
LOL!
> W|ndows XP is a windows NT with a skin:) and people buy it… hehe
> You can find lots of skins in internet:) for your w|ndows…
Windows XP is Windows NT with a skin, lots of bug fixes, and lots of new features.
So this was posted here knowing pretty well the article wasn’t factually “correct” for what? For another audience to mock the author or some such? Mean people, mean. No, I’m serious, that’s just not nice.
Did you people notice there are two different shells in XP? In 9x, the shell is “cmd”, which is a DOS shell. In NT, the shell is “command”, which is a different shell. In XP, there are both, you can notice differences, for example in the program prompt, the way they refer to files, etc.
Yea, XP is built on NT technology, but are you SURE that XP’s “cmd” shell has been rewritten to match similarities and compatibilties (i.e., as opposed to including just “command”), and that some sort of hack was not implemented by the OS engineers that way? Which sounds more likely to me, but then again I don’t happen to have proof either. Do you?
I’m just rubbing my forehead and shaking my head. This guy is a moron.
Say what you will about XP, it’s a decent OS IMO, but I still prefer several different Linux distro’s to it. It would be nice for MS to base the next version (after longhorn) of Windows on Linux and simply make the source code of the kernel available under the GPL but it just ain’t gonna happen. The guys in Redmond are just as rabidly faithful about closed source as many linux guys are about open source.
What do you mean by functionality? IMHO — a load of crap. I would argue that Windows (whatever version) is lacking functionality compared to and X Window System based GUI such as KDE or Gnome. Think networked clients, mouse focusing, multiple desktops. Sure you can keep it vanilla but you can also customize the hell out of an X desktop. What about a more robust clipboard functionality (windows uses twice as many key strokes = twice as much work)…the list goes on.
his e-mail address was one click away on that site.
please e-mail him.. tell him how wrong he really is
Bob needs to be schooled..
[email protected]
-darrell miller
Cringley is just not funny. ( I hope he’s trying to be funny)
I can’t believe anyone here takes this seriously. Read the last two paragraphs.
It won’t happen, of course, because Microsoft will want to maintain every advantage and would see this as giving-in. It would also have a negative impact on their language business, though that’s not an absolute certainty. The part I love, though, is the idea of Bill Gates showing up at LinuxWorld to kiss Linus’s ring.
And if it ever happens (the ring-kissing, I mean), don’t forget Mike Class in Milwaukee, who came up with the idea in the first place. I don’t know if Jesuit friars are allowed to accept big checks from corporations, but I’m sure Marquette University could always use the money.
In NT/2000/XP is an emulator of DOS not DOS its self
I can see where Cringely’s coming from with this article, even though it was one of his less well written efforts. In part the fault lies with Microsoft having munged everything up to the point where you can’t see the joins. He had to seperate out the layers somehow. Try to look at what he’s trying to say not how he says it.
If there is something that is really wrong under Micro$oft OSes that cam directly from DOS, it the way the volumes or drives are named. It’s archaïc, just using a letter.
I understand how convenient it was under MS-DOS just to type C: instead of something else. But now, I think it’s one of that old thing a modern OS should forget. C or D or any letter doesn’t mean anything. Lot of troubles may arise because of the very few control the user has about the way to access HD-volumes.
On my PC I have several HDs with one on a rack. When the rack is in, the letters are following :
C: -> Disk 1, Partition 1
D: -> Disk 2 (Rack), Partition 1
E: -> Disk 1, Partition 2
F: -> Disk 2 (Rack), Partition 2
It’s pretty stupid, because it prevents me to remove the rack if applications are installed on E: !!!!! They would not work because Windows will look to E: instead of looking for the name of the volume, witch would remain always the same.
Of course I can solve it by a trick that is a subst…
Windows 2000 and some other disk tools can change the letter assigned to a drive, but it’s sad to notice that you always have to pay to do something interesting.
Nothing can be more simple and sure than accessing drive and volume by their name.
//(windows uses twice as many key strokes = twice as much work)…//
Oh, the pain! The agony! I have to press CTRL+C to copy and CTRL-V to paste! From *ANY* application to *ANY* other application!
Gee Linux is so much better. Let’s see .. hightlight the text … click middle mouse button (if I have one) … find a compatible application into which I can paste … no, Kedit won’t work … hmmm … can’t paste into AbiWord … rats … maybe OOo? There!
Yah. Light-years better.
Moron.
This article shows why Cringely writes for pbs.org.
He has to depend on the tax payers to support him because he cannot write to support himself.
This guy is a total idiot.
I think I’m gonna have an ulcer!
I sware! This guy usually has something purposeful to bring to the table…I love and support Linux and yet I am still confused by this article.
Would you people not make mindless personal attacks just because you cannot understand the arguments she makes? I am getting very tired of seeing Eugenia debunk a perfectly ridiculous argument and having her reply misunderstood by a bunch of people who have nothing better to do with their time than try to insult Eugenia and OSNews.com. If you have nothing more to post here than name-calling and baseless accusation, please leave. You help no one, including yourself.
Eugenia is a person, not a punching bag.
A great book was devoted to understanding the internals of win95. It went through great lengths to answer the question about what part DOS plays in the OS. The book is Unauthorized windows http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568843054/qid=104281…
The short answer is that DOS is still a part of the OS and 16-bit DOS code is still being used for various core OS functions. For all the proof, and pages upon pages of explanations and analysis, go read the book
I did and it’s no light reading.
There are many many examples detailed in the book and IIRC one of simple examples was the ‘new’ boot process as well as the dependency on himem.sys. Try running win9.x without himem.sys. What’s himem.sys? The extended memory manager for DOS. I remember a year ago or so renaming himem.sys and win9.x refused to boot without it. I don’t recall all the details and I don’t have the book in front of me, but try the test and see if win9.x will boot without it. The rationale is, if win9.x doesn’t need DOS, the new protected mode VMM should handle memory management not himem.sys. The concern was that it was being loaded because of a config.sys and/or autoexec.bat being loaded. So after those were removed, it was still being loaded. Read the book for the details though it’s worth it.
I originally thought that the old DOS stuff was still operating in protected mode so it’s no big deal, no need to rewrite a memory manager etc. But you’d be surprised after reading the book to find the number of 32-bit to 16-bit thunks and DOS interrupts that are being hooked in win9.x in order for it to function, and not just for trivial stuff.
Read the book and you’ll see what I mean, there is simply too much info to try to explain it here.
>>In 9x, the shell is “cmd”, which is a DOS shell. In NT, the shell is “command”, which is a different shell.<<
I belive you got it backwards. ‘command” was in 9x series, ‘cmd” is in the NT series
Blade: Yes, but I can run also WMP 8 in w|ndows 98 and other software without problem…
Actually, no. WMP8 was a XP-only release, WMP9 is however available for Windows 98.
Blade: “Faster boot speed?” hehe
try windows 98 in Pentium IV:) and NT in the same processor…
I did. XP/2000 is loads faster than Windows 98 in boot time.
Bascule: Uhh, how exactly? The Linux kernel is a poorly designed piece of shit that has been taken in radically different directions throughout the years, leaving it a mound of kruft.
While some parts I have to admit are poorly designed, in general, Linux’s kernel is very well designed. Besides, you can’t compare the two because we know very very little on the design of Windows 2000/XP (NT 5.x) kernel, but everything about Linux.
Bascule: There is no possibility of Microsoft ever developing any software that sits on top of any GPL software, due to the viral nature of the GPL.
On top of GPLed software? Never. On top of LGPLed software like Mono? Yes, it is entirely possible. But then again, the claim that they may be making software for Linux anytime in the near future is idiocity enough.
Timecube Guy: Windows XP is drastically different from NT 3.5[..]
He never said anything about NT 3.5. Windows NT 4.0 was later released, NT 5’s marketing name was Windows 2000 and NT 5.1’s marketing name was Windows XP.
Oh wait, I’m not suppose to feed the trolls. Opps.
Blade: w|n98 don’t have any design
Actually, when Windows 98 was first released, the most amount of praise only landed on its beauty (however many reviewers questioned the need of the upgrade).
Ruben Monteiro: Windows on top of Linux…now I’ve heard everything
Nope you didn’t. Did you hear that Apple wanted to get rid of Darwin and use Linux, acting on the advice of Linus Torvalds?
nxtw: Windows XP’s new widget set (how the buttons, menus, titlebars, etc.), Luna, were made to compete with OS X, and nothing else.
Actually, Microsoft hired the guys that made Luna before Aqua was ever introduced. (Watercolor, IIRC, was developed by Microsoft engineers, and was axed in favour of Luna).
But even if it was a direct response to Windows XP, I don’t see what’s so wrong about that. But I find it funny that people would use it as a reason. Windows has a monopoly, they *don’t* have to make their products look nicer than a niche player whose business model means that it would never be a threat to you. They made Luna as one of the reasons consumers would upgrade.
If they didn’t change the looks, the average Joe would question; “What’s the difference? I’ll stick with Windows 98”.
Jasenko: Not true at all, FInder is just a file manager. You can easily quit it and keep working, this is not true if you kill explorer.exe
If you kill explorer.exe you can keep working. What explorer would take with its death is the taskbar and the desktop. Heck, even Windows Explorer would operate fine.
And at desperate times, that’s what I do on Windows XP (using alt-tab and alt-ctrl-del).
Lee Nooks: While I don´t think this site is pro-MS (like I´ve already stated), even a good coverage on alternative Windows interfaces (e.g. litestep) would be better than bringing links about XP…
The reason why you see more news about Microsoft is because there are more important news about Microsoft then any other company. Like when MacWorld Expo time, most of the stories are Apple related. The same case for LinuxWorld.
OSNews doesn’t writes the news, only *some* of the editorials.
Harish: So this was posted here knowing pretty well the article wasn’t factually “correct” for what?
Humour.
Wyx: On my PC I have several HDs with one on a rack.
Why did you use D: was the rack partion and E: for disk1 partition 2? doesn’t makes sense to me.
Well, here on Windows 2k, there is C: (primary), E:, F:, G: (CDROM) and H: (CD-RW). What happen to D:? it was first used by Linux, then the whole thing was deleted and a new partition was made in its place that became F:. Notice E: doesn’t take over D:’s name…
Anonymous: You have become quite a bitch. 😛
How can a female Homo sapien become a female Canis sp.?
Besides to those interested, DOS command prompt on Windows 9x is command.com while on NT it is cmd.exe.
Very hard to believe that this is not some kind of practical joke or Cringley doing something to get revenge on his bosses at PBS or whatever.
I just can’t believe that he is as stupid as this based on the other couple of times that I have read him – there was a Cringly article posted on OSNews many moons ago comparing .NET to Java and it was a reasonably astute and smart piece of work.
They emulate DOS a little too well, because when I type in ‘edit filename.txt’ I get this horrible little DOS text editor.
There is no reason to put WindowsXP (a big crufty monolithic kernel) on top of Linux (a big crufty monolithic kernel). The thought of it frankly disgusts me, not from a philosophical point of view (I support free software), just from a techniological one. Both designs are outdated and stupid. Go back and read the Tanenbaum/Torvalds debates, aka. “Linux is obsolete.” NT, prior to version 4.0, was an OS “done right.” Nice little microkernel that did memory management, and NTFS, iirc. But it wasn’t fast enough. So they integrated the GUI. Now it’s just a disaster.
Linux is better in some respects because the actual work of the kernel has been limited and the gui’s still live in userland. But there are a lot of things that still just don’t work well….hotplugable devices, for instance. You can futz around all day with kernel modules, trying to get things right. Power management is another area where the Linux kernel falls woefully short.
Crigley mentions OSX and Mach. Please, please, let’s see Mach die the painful death it so richly deserves. Mach is old. Mach is slow. Mach is disgustingly inefficient on x86 hardware. Newer second generation microkernels outperform even the monolithic kernels. Apple (well, NeXT, really) used mach because of the flexibility it provides. But it doesn’t do anything performance-wise, and it’s just ugly these days.
Take a look at what’s happening with the Hurd L4 development to see how neat some of this new stuff is. What the hurd developers are trying to do is re-implement the functionality they use from mach within the hurd itself, so that they can run on top of the very limited (but amazingly fast) L4.
Actually, NTFS doesn’t need drive letters at all. They’re grafted on top of the file system. In fact, if you use the Computer Management Tool in 2000 and XP to mount a drive into a directory on another drive. So in your example, you could create C:mount
ack1p1 C:mount
ack1p2 and C:mountdrive1p2. The only restriction is that you do have a C: drive.
Put Windows on top of LINUX? And make Windows actually get to a point of being fast and stable (wouldn’t solve the ugly, inefficient UI problem, though). Why bother? They sell a zillion copies of crashware XP already. Why bother trying to do the right thing?
He’s done some interesting stuff with hardware (he was one of the first, at least in the mainstream, to get 802.11b working long distance). That being said, his software knowledge is absolutely abominable: PBS is really stretching him too far. Pledge some money and hope they find someone who knows what they’re talking about; complaining accomplishes nothing.
I think maybe some people missed the point of the article.
I think Bob was talking about porting explorer and windows apps to linux… boot linux, but see the “pretty”(?) Windows Explorer when the system boots up. For all you know, you’re using XP.
And why not? I can run Word and Excel under wine. How hard would it be for microsoft to finish that job?
Bob Cringely’s email: [email protected]
I found it through his website.
[i]Actually, NTFS doesn’t need drive letters at all. They’re grafted on top of the file system. In fact, if you use the Computer Management Tool in 2000 and XP to mount a drive into a directory on another drive. So in your example, you could create C:mountrack1p1 C:mountrack1p2 and C:mountdrive1p2. The only restriction is that you do have a C: drive.[/]
I HATE the drive letter BS. I noticed this feature you mention in XP. I tried to use it per the directions in the OS. Didn’t work. At all. Piece of crap. End of story.
Drive letters may be grafted to NTFS, but every other part of the OS requires the archaic nonsense of drive letters. You might find some of it works out, but there’s always bits and pieces of Microsoft operating systems that are totally unchanged and unprepared to handle a new “feature.” Remember when long file names came out for MS operating systems? We still had 8.3 file dialogs in Windows 98 SE and likely ME.
This drive letter curse will haunt us for ages to come.
Like I MEANT to make the whole post italic.
italics should end where that pathetic [/] is.
As he may be technically wrong about XP, et all, I have always thought that it would be in M$’s best interest (and the community at large) if they were to do just what he is suggesting. What do they have to lose?
I would suggest FreeBSD like what Apple decided to go with. I’d still use FreeBSD though, but my Window’s experience would be a lot more pleasant — hell I would be happy if they had a decent shell.
Brett
I had this idea forever ago. If they do this, it probably will cost over $100. Windows 98 is still somewhere around $89 in the local Wal-Mart. MS will never do this anyway.
Linux is better, faster, stronger than whatever is living underneath XP now, right? Performance would improve.
This is the funniest part to me – is that all the reasoning he got? NT/XP and the average Linux kernel are about equal in performance and stability – hardly anyone would notice a difference.
>This is the funniest part to me – is that all the >reasoning he got? NT/XP and the average Linux kernel are >about equal in performance and stability – hardly anyone
>would notice a difference.
I dunno… Linux doesn’t barf on me nearly as much as my XP box. I have both at work, and both get about equal usage. XP needs at least a daily reboot. Linux has been up 2 weeks.
Sure, I may have had to restart X a few times during those few weeks, but it’s nice to have that option. It’s not so nice when your GUI crashes (explorer) or something happens that upsets the system (plug in a new USB device to XP) and the system goes non-responsive.
“NT/XP and the average Linux kernel are about equal in performance and stability – hardly anyone would notice a difference.”
What are you smoking?
Cosmoe is les “ground up” than XPde, basing itself on AtheOS and Linux’s FB.
I diagree with the less “ground up” statement. I have to say, that particular statement is quite funny in my view. Cosmoe does base itself on AtheOS but it is a new windowing system. Just because it is based on something else, it doesn’t mean it’s not from the ground up. XPde is nothing more then a window manager and a small mini-desktop environment (for now) and even when it matures, you will still get the same in-consistency problems as with KDE and GNOME when programs don’t work together and they all look differently because of the too many different libs used to develop the programs.
“What are you smoking?”
Care to tell me how exchanging the NT kernel for Linux will give me a better experience when using 3ds max, Photoshop or Word?
Almost a year old…get w/the show…
>Not quite true. NT is essentially a continuation of OS/2
This is true… Microsoft took the OS/2 version they were working on and “created” NT with it.
NT will in fact run older 16 bit OS/2 applications, and NT 3.51 still supported the OS/2 HPFS.
It won’t run 32 bit OS/2 apps because IBM developed OS/2’s 32 bit api after Microsoft left the project.
>another DOS-like (under the hood) OS, which has been around >for almost two decades.
This is not true. There isn’t any DOS “under the hood” of OS/2 and NT. OS/2 has always had DOS support, but only in VDM’s “virtual DOS machines”. In fact, OS/2 can even boot a copy of DOS off of a floppy or image file and run it inside a VDM.
>THe VMS guys did some major work on >it, but NT’s roots cannot be denied.
This is true. The VMS guy(s) did work on NT, but NT most definitely has its roots in OS/2.
>Microsoft developed OS/2 for IBM up to and including >version 1.3. From there, the two companies began to drift >apart, with IBM continuing OS/2 and Microsoft using the >same code as a base for NT. NT was not written from >scratch.
Exactly!!
“Care to tell me how exchanging the NT kernel for Linux will give me a better experience when using 3ds max, Photoshop or Word?”
Ok– we have drifted from discussion of the OS to your specific needs. 3ds max, I can’t help you with– never heard of it. Photoshop? Try GIMP. Word? Sucks anyway– try Star Office or any of a zillion other products.
Or better yet– get a Mac with OS X. That will at least give you 1) stability 2) photoshop 3) word 4) a NICE GUI — an area where BOTH LINUX and Windoze are lacking!
Cheers!
Sorry, I could not take the time to read all the comments to learn if my comment had already been covered but the statement by Eugenia “was designed from SCRATCH in early ’90s by the same person who did VAX/VMS” is incorrect. David Cutler and his team hacked what OS/2 code Microsoft stole from IBM into NT. Read “The Road Ahead” by Bill Gates for supporting information.
Microsoft has never written an Operating System “from scratch”.
It’s not so nice when your GUI crashes (explorer) or something happens that upsets the system (plug in a new USB device to XP) and the system goes non-responsive.
When Explorer crashes, you can restart it by pressing Ctril-Alt-Del, click on the New Task button, type “explorer.exe”.
Viola.
If this doesn’t work, most likely the problem is with the drivers. Try upgrading the drivers, specifically those related to the display.
As for USB making the system goes non-responsive, are you using drivers suplied by the manufacturer or those from Microsoft? Cause I have been using a lot of USB devices, from printers to mouses to digicams to webcams to joysticks, never once crashed.
Try GIMP over Photoshop? I am using a stripped down version of Photoshop, yet I am still able to accomplish more with it. Does GIMP have CMYK support? ’nuff said.
As for Word, I wrote a lot of reports, minutes, etc. with it. And having previously used StarOffice 5.2 (and later OpenOffice.org), this beast is seriously much better than its competitors. One of the features I like best is the macros. Another is the smart tags. Besides, it is loads faster than OpenOffice.org.
As for Mac OS X, for Photoshop, the UI is pretty much the same with the Windows version. The difference is in the looks, try Windows Blinds. As for Word, I like the OS X’s UI, but still prefer the Windows version. As for stability, the first time I tried OS X, it had a kernel panic (well, that was 10.0, but it still counts). During my course of using Windows XP, it haven’t crashed not even once. And I keep it on for days.
Besides, 3ds max is a great 3D animation application. In many cases, it is better than Maya. It is used more for game development than anything else, and the second biggest player in its field. And it is Windows NT-only.
Bayerworks, Microsoft didn’t steal OS/2 from IBM. They co-develop it with IBM. IBM was quite pissed off at Windows’ success (mostly at IBM’s fault), and a divorce happen. Both Microsoft and IBM have the right to use the code written during the time when the co-development was still on, but Microsoft would have to pay IBM royalities for using IBM code and vice versa.
Certainly not “stealing”.
OK, you just missed my point.
The author’s claim was that putting Windows on top of the Linux kernel instead of the NT kernel would improve the overall experience of Windows – without giving any backing. Now I was aksing how and why that would improve my overall experience of Windows, which currently consists of 10 hrs of 3ds Max works a day. How would 3ds Max profit from running on the Linux kernel instead of NT? Or Photoshop, or Cubase, or any other more or less typical Windows application. Judging from the equal stability of Photoshop or Cubase on OS X, my claim is that it doesn’t matter a single bit wether average application xyz runs on NT or Unix.
Naming Linux replacement applications or recommending OS X is the wrong answer to my question.
> Actually, NTFS doesn’t need drive letters at all. […]
correction: it’s not “NTFS” but “Windows NT”. I used to have letterless FAT32 partitions, CD-ROMs, and even tried a letterless floppy drive (but it was of dubious usefulness – and “A:” is shorter to type than “D:mntfloppy” 🙂
> The only restriction is that you do have a C: drive.
second correction: you don’t need a C: drive. I don’t have one. My only partition with a letter is the system drive, to which I’ve assigned D:
YIKES
Okay, my thoughts are not organized, so here goes.
NT first supported HPFS, it was probably taken out so people would not realize the roots in OS/2.
NT also supported powerpc and now my mom is talking to me and I cannot get to the next point sorry. I think they also supported Alpha, they probably don’t support this anymore because it came from OS/2. Where have all the cross support go? Long time ago? Where have all the virtual machines gone? when will they ever learn. (Sorry, some PBS special is on in the other room. playing folk music.)
Cringley IS MISTAKEN that dos is in XP. MS is still in XP. They developed it. (Somebody said ms is not in XP, probably mean ms-dos, but I was reading fast and could be mistaken. I also thought “linus’ ring” was “luna’s ring”.)
Cringly could have been joking, but I’m not too familiar with him. Maybe his Jesuit friend was joking, or Cringley is making fun of Catholics. Probably not. I’m Catholic, but I’m not offended. I feel guilty for not being offended. I’ll go to confession. I know I’m not supposed to use “go to’s” in code. sorry. I’ll go to confession for that too.
NOW, if the kernels are switched, if Microsoft uses linux and changes the code, how would we know? How do we know that XP isn’t using linux code? We’d have no way to prove that.
Have I said to much? There isn’t more I can think of to say? I’ve said to much. Losing my Evita.
it’s 75 degrees in here.
Bottom line: DOS is not part of XP. The kernels can still be switched, so Cringley has a valid point. It can be done. BSD would be more likely than linux kernel. However, even BSD is unlikely since they killed Xenix, http://www.wehavethewayout.com was originally hosted on BSD and they switched it. MS does not want to cave into unix.
why wasn’t osx built on Menuetos?
Why don’t people do some research on what DOS is before they try to take part in this discussion???
DOS (Disk Operating System) is NOT a standard for an API that MS-DOS uses. DOS is the name for the part of takes care of all the “behind-the-scene” stuff. Just like the Windows NT kernel does.
This is what DOS is…
“(DOS) The original disk operating system from IBM.
DOS was the low-end OS of choice on the IBM 360, the high-end system was called just “OS”. DOS had a smaller kernel and less functionality than OS and could run on the typical 32K 360/30 and 64K 360/40 class machines.
DOS was a successor to TOS. ”
“(DOS) The name of a number of operating systems which include facilities for storing files on disk. Such a system must handle physical disk I/O, the mapping of file names to disk addresses and protection of files from unauthorised access (in a multi-user system).
A DOS should present a uniform interface to different storage device such as floppy disks, hard disks and magnetic tape drives. It may also provide some kind of locking to prevent unintentional simultaneous access by two processes to the same file (or record). ”
How many of you people believe that Microsoft invented the term DOS??? Most of you people. Please do some research before you post about a topic you don’t know anything about.