mogchr

Windows - still based on code from the original NT framework, which includes compatibility layers for the DOS based systems. The NT framework, as you may not already know, was supposed to be IBM OS/2 3.0, but Microsoft decided to dump IBM, for many good reasons, and steal their OS code for OS/2. Today, Windows Vista (NT 6.whatever) is just a continuation of this operating system with more annoyances added on for security, support for new drivers, and updates to the api and other such parts of the OS. Windows is no longer a strong OS, and, in fact, it never really was. Besides hobbyist operating systems, most of the major OSes have followed in the path of adopting a UNIX structure (i.e. Mac OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), giving them security, reliability, and much better performance right off the bat. With the many slip-ups that Microsoft has already performed, such as the 5 year hiatus between XP and Vista, too high a focus on anti-piracy, and the still horrible security, there needs to be some major changes. Not just changes, but complete a complete overhaul.

If Microsoft has not already noticed, nobody really cares if they can use old Windows ME applications due to the fact that they are outdated and surpassed by current software and technology. People do not really need a fancy GUI system as Vista has, and it does no advantage but attract people who fall for that and sacrifice system resources in place of that. The big giant makes us out to be stupid, so a system built to accommodate people who are too incompetent to even operate a computer will attract those people, naturally. Computer users should not become accustomed to constant error messages and spyware destroying their system, and outdated systems should be updated. Compatibility layers upon compatibility layers do not do much of an advantage if you have compatibility since 1995 for a 2007 operating system. It is time to change...

Modern operating systems are currently working off of the Linux and BSD based systems, so why is Microsoft opposed to this. Wait one minute, they have a deal with Novell for their SuSE Linux. Do you really believe that this deal was just to share a few things in common with a competitor No, this was another power grab. Microsoft is just looking to ward off its competition by keeping its enemies close to itself. Soon they will just take advantage of Novell and drain out their resources. If Microsoft wants to keep making operating systems that could be surpassed (minus the GUI) by NeXTSTEP, then they should continue on with their "2009" plan for Vienna. In reality, they will continue with their same path of lies and deceiving people, and god knows if Vienna will even be released.

Did you know that Windows Vista was not even supposed to come out It was supposed to be Windows Vienna that came out in 2003/2004, but Longhorn (Vista) was released as an intermediate stage before Vienna, to spread out the technologies. Guess what, Vista came out in 2007. Do you really think that Microsoft will improve 1994/1995: Microsoft was supposed to release Windows Cairo, a futuristic operating system for the time. Well guess what, they lied to us again. Cairo was never released, and all the technologies promised from its release have not been implemented yet. Do you think that Microsoft will really improve from this No, they will not.

I propose something to the big giant, whether they listen or not: stop focusing on Windows and kill it off, and go the BSD way. Take a *BSD based operating system, write new drivers for it, develop a GUI system off of X11, and do NOT keep compatibility with your former operating systems. Make a VMWare image of Vista and provide that with the operating system, thereafter, do not. Also, do you think people can afford an operating system for $300 to have all of the good features No, they cannot. If you do not want to make an operating system like this to go on the right track to keeping users with your OS, I will. I will even sell it to you if you want. But if you do not do this, I warn you that history will repeat itself and Windows will fall to Linux/BSD variants. If you want to stay alive, lower prices, improve your product, and start providing a bit of open source with your product. If you don't, I do not know what will come of the Windows dynasty...


Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

AndrewVos

"People do not really need a fancy GUI system as Vista has, and it does no advantage but attract people who fall for that and sacrifice system resources in place of that."

Come on now, your argument is completely redundant. Computers are getting faster, Operating Systems are using more system resources. It's all relative.

If you do not want to make an operating system like this to go on the right track to keeping users with your OS, I will. I will even sell it to you if you want.

Cool, can I get a copy when you're done






Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

Sabrecat

I warn you that history will repeat itself and Windows will fall to Linux/BSD variants. If you want to stay alive, lower prices, improve your product, and start providing a bit of open source with your product.

Thats downright hilarious. The sheer volume of applications that are developed for a Windows platform vs the number of applications that are developed for a Linux/BSD platform insures that any sort of move away from a Windows based OS will fail.

Lets also not forget that the Gaming world is a Windows world. PC Games is a multi BILLION dollar a year industry.

No... the consumer market wont let windows die, or for that matter, let MS innovate out of a Windows OS.





Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

mogchr

Yes, they will. First off, Vista and the other Windows operating systems have been unnecessarily resource hungry, unlike a modern BSD/Linux operating system that can run with 256-512mb of ram at better performance than Vista at 1-2GB of ram. Secondly, all Windows have been unstable, a proven fact. Now, the consumers will eventually become tired of waiting and waiting for a solid version of Windows to come out. It is behind the times as it is, and sometime, there will be other operating systems that prove that Windows is useless. I do agree that Windows is the gaming platform for operating systems, but that is only because it is the major operating system at this time and it has DirectX for it, which is being ported in a sense via WINE, although not perfect. Also, I am developing an operating system at this time based on FreeBSD with NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux ported drivers, with the capability of running all modern graphics cards, most network drivers, and compatibility for the Linux platform, expanding the number of applications/ports for the operating system well past 25,000. I am willing to sell it, when completed, and I have acquired a small team of developers working on completing a beta of the operating system by the summer. I assure you that it will be superior to the current version of Windows.




Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

Sabrecat

I wish you luck but you are doomed to failure. You cavalierly dismiss the millions of users using Windows based applications on systems as old as NT4. A product I might add that Microsoft Still supports. You cannot dismiss the current installed base of Windows users and the reluctance of an average user to change OS as proven by the generaly slow sales of Vista, excluding new systems. You could have the best OS in the world and unless you have a really solid base of applications that will run on that OS it will not sell except to the hobbyist / niche market. There is not enough mainstream software for Linux ( regardless of variant ) to pose any threat to Windows. Heck, there is barely enogh software for the Mac ( another system based on a Linux variant ) for Apple to garner barely a 10% market share. Linux is doomed to stay a hobbyist / Server OS variant, as major software houses are unwilling to do any new development or port thier products over to Linux due to a very, very poor market penetration.

Also, your "proven fact" that all Windows OS are unstable is neither. For the average user XP Pro SP2 IS stable. I have 4 systems at home that I maintain and I can count on the fingers of no hands the number of times that I have had the dreaded blue screen of death appear in XP Pro. It simply doesnt happen when you use the vast majority of the commercial software that is out there for Windows.





Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

magicalclick

Well, letĄŻs check my experience.

My UCI instructor love his Mac book and claim it is so good that it can recover from the most damaging program by simply hold the note book close and open again. Guess what, it froze during the class and nope, what he claims is not true. Eventually he has to power off the Mac book. And then he claim it is MS fault for crappy Power Point. But hey, first he said Power Point on Mac is more stable because the team porting it is doing a better job. All seems to be wrong. I have never had a problem on my so-call less stable Power Point on my so-called unstable Windows95, 98, XP. They never failed on me all these year. And what are the odds a Power Point froze on Mac book in class, the truth is, it is really high. Yeah, sure, call Windows sux when application is unstable, and call the application sux when whatever your OS is unstable.

My experience with Red Hat Unix Server on my network lab.

First, I have to mount a floppy to copy files. And sadly they even lie to me that they copied the file when it is not. I hate system that lies. Give me the damn pop-up window if it failed. Don't lie to me saying the file is copied. And sure, I crashed the system un-intentionally too, and sadly it doesn't have the resource to show me a blue screen of death, it simply totally forze. Now, a blue screen of death is bless because at least I know I still have minimum control to the computer, not just totally died.

I don't care those theoretical stability on Linux. Yes there are times I have to terminate programs on XP. There are occasional reboot froze on XP. But it isn't that much. And Windows offers the best collection of applications, good or bad application, at least I have the chance to use any one of them.

Also Vista Ultimate OEM is only 200 US Dollars. With 50bucks of Complete system backup utility build into Business and Ultimate Version. A very cool looking user friendly Media Center GUI. A very important Parental control. Bit Locker encryption. Integrated spyware, fire wall, and other security feature. Well you can get it from MS for free, but it is integrated, so it feels cool. XP's remote assistance, remote desktop to terminal servers, remote desktop to other computer. A windows easy to use hardware manager. I consider Vista is well equipped with lots of good features under the hood.

Hey, maybe it is true that NT is not so perfect or stable. But a good OS should have good apllication collection, gloablization, good additional service like perforamnace manager, easy to use GUI, include good startup software like image processor, media editor, a large customer support, and so on. Windows it not perfect, but I think it cover each area fairly well. And throwing away the legacy software support will make me stay on the old Windows instead of adapting one, which I am glad Vista has enough backward competibility. And I think MS has pretty fun developer network, kudos to them.





Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

mogchr

You have your facts all wrong, but there is no reason complaining to the Microsoft people, they are in their own world. Oh, and Vista Ultimate is not 200 dollars where I come from, and where I come from Windows crashes a lot more than Macs or Linux or BSD. Linux is not a desktopOS, so it is not as easy to use. Macs, well, thats another story entirely. BSD is the most stable of them all, but not desktop material yet.




Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

Andreas Johansson

mogchr wrote:
You have your facts all wrong, but there is no reason complaining to the Microsoft people, they are in their own world. Oh, and Vista Ultimate is not 200 dollars where I come from, and where I come from Windows crashes a lot more than Macs or Linux or BSD. Linux is not a desktopOS, so it is not as easy to use. Macs, well, thats another story entirely. BSD is the most stable of them all, but not desktop material yet.

You are just another troll. Anyone that say Windows crash all the time is just another troll wanting attention. Windows has crashed for me but I also know who to actually blame for it. Many times it is a bad driver that is the actual problem and not windows itself.

Newer version of windows is trying to protect itself from this by signing and other measures.

I was fed up with XP and installed FreeBSD and it was actually working very well, though I am a software developer focused on Windows so I had to reinstall.

I am using Windows Vista Ultimate and it works well for me.

The problem with using other OS is that nobody supports it.






Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

mogchr

It is a proven fact that Windows is unstable, and that is not arguable. The system was not built as a multiuser and networking system, it was built for single user, single computer, business machines back in the day. Since Windows has not been upgraded significantly to properly use these features (such as the *nix systems do, even though Windows does use some FreeBSD code for its networking), it is more vulnerable to viruses and other such things. The fact is that Windows should be changed to a less demanding system by cutting out old code and revising the system to something that has better performance and stability.




Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

Tanmay.S

So inshort do you want to say that make Windows Open Source




Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

Andreas Johansson

mogchr wrote:
It is a proven fact that Windows is unstable, and that is not arguable. The system was not built as a multiuser and networking system, it was built for single user, single computer, business machines back in the day. Since Windows has not been upgraded significantly to properly use these features (such as the *nix systems do, even though Windows does use some FreeBSD code for its networking), it is more vulnerable to viruses and other such things. The fact is that Windows should be changed to a less demanding system by cutting out old code and revising the system to something that has better performance and stability.

Where is the instability of windows proven How can I take part of that fact Which version of windows are you referring to I have used many different OS as desktop and all of them has crashed and it has usually been because I did something or a third party driver/application did something it shouldn't. I will not blame the OS for that.

Windows did use some BSD code for networking but what I understand is that it has been redesigned.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0905.mspx

I agree that I would rather see windows cut old and/or flawed code but it will not happen as windows sells because most old applications will run on a newer version.

We all know that virus and malware is more common on windows as it has such a huge userbase that it makes it profitable/interesting to target windows users. If apple or linux would gain popularity and become larger than windows you would most likely see more attacks on those systems instead.

I still think you are a troll and will think so until you back up your statements with facts that can be checked and verified.






Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

magicalclick

mogchr wrote:
You have your facts all wrong, but there is no reason complaining to the Microsoft people, they are in their own world. Oh, and Vista Ultimate is not 200 dollars where I come from, and where I come from Windows crashes a lot more than Macs or Linux or BSD. Linux is not a desktopOS, so it is not as easy to use. Macs, well, thats another story entirely. BSD is the most stable of them all, but not desktop material yet.

Huh, it is my experience. Why do you to have to discredit it It happpened, that's all I can tell you. Yeah sure, your Windows crashes a lot, but why can't you respect my experiencet Something is wrong here.

And when I said Vista Ultimate OEM 200 US dollors, can you address price of your OEM version I don't know what version Vista you are trying to compare. Please be exact, Retail OEM Business Package School Package Which one are you trying to compare to my OEM version

About Linux is not a desktopOS is not an excuse being lying and freez without minimun resource to show something simular to blue screen of death.

Again, blame Windows for bad application and blame application for crashing your golden OS.

Maybe you are right, windows is outdated. But sorry man, I have a lot of out dated games I don't want to give up. I hope MS keeps certain amount of backward compatibility has always. Your idea is just too radical for my need.





Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

Mark The Archer Evans

Lets take a cold hard look at this argument....

Windows has 90% share in the market. For the vast majority of users it runs fine with no problems and when it does fall over, 90% of the time a simple reboot will fix the problem (hence the ol' internal it joke that all they tell you to do is to reboot.).

Most home users are happy with windows because they know how to use it and once someone knows something that well, they will be resistant to change. Most business users are also happy with windows and although we all curse it sometimes (either through lack of understanding of what the pc is doing, or because you just lost your work because an application crashed), given the choice between putting up with those little annoyances vs learning an entirely new OS and a new set of software, I would argue 99% of people would stick with what they know.

Now I'm not saying that MS are perfect but you should be realistic about your chances of rivaling MS, no matter how good your OS is. Converting users from what they know to something new must be the most challenging aspect of software development.





Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

Brian Kramer

My bullet thoughts, some a bit redundant, but interesting to me nonetheless:

Until some Linux distribution can fund development of $1B magnitude, it will not be able to compete with the Windows OS.  Open source development with all of its managerial and commitment problems, and the lack of a paying consumer base, makes it difficult to secure this kind of revenue.  It's not a fair playing field, but lets at least point out this obvious fact.  .

Passion for some particular technology makes one happy. Keep it at that. Is it necessary to justify a personal choice, particularly one that is in a minority, by trying to discredit the majority   Suppose I loved the Finnish language and loved how poetic it sounds; is it really going to make me happier by going around trying to convince everyone that the English language sucks   As long as Linux makes a set of people happy, it will never go away.

A problem with the original poster and many other *nix and open-source advocates have is that they assume that all users would be more productive if they all adopt their own views of the computing world.    

The OP claims that users don't need a "fancy GUI."  Try telling that to today's MacOS users. It's ironic that the statement "users don't need a fancy GUI" was also said by the pre-Windows, MS-DOS, users as they looked upon the increasing popularity of the original Macintosh platform.

I don't know what "modern" means in this thread.  I have a hard time putting "Linux" and "modern" in the same sentence, as the user experience of the *nix platform hasn't changed much over the last 30 years.

"It is a proven fact that Windows is unstable."  Okay, if one point of instability is all that is needed for this proof, then it's also a proven fact that Linux is unstable.  It's also a proven fact that a typical Windows installation has the added burden of extra hardware and software compatiblity.  i.e. Windows simply does more.  Once Linux takes on the level of functionality that Windows currently have, then we can have an more meaningful (apples-to-apples) discussion about relative stability.

Brian





Re: Hot Technology Windows - A realistic look at the future of this outdated operating system

SJWhiteley

Nice post, Brian.

I occasionally play with linux 'distros' to see what's new (nothing), and have a really hard time justifying the effort. In any case, this isn't a 'Windows is better than anything else' attitude: I've found that I can work just as well with a Mac as I can withn a PC, It's different (sic), but ....the same. I can't remember the last time I had a windows crash...(hardware failure, yes. OS failure, no).

Bottom line, the modern OSs for Mac/PC have to put up with a lot of abuse from users (hardware, nuts behind the keyboard, etc.) that it's actually a miracle they continue to run :)

Fancy GUI Sure, some of it is just 'fluff', but a lot of it really does echo real-world metaphors (hit a button on a thing and it slides away somewhere - I know how to get it back, because I saw where it went..), or usability (the icons get big when I go close to them, so i can pick what I want real easy, like...but they stay out of the way when I don't need them; but they are there, out the corner of my eye, but not enough to distract me from getting 'real work' done).