neowin.net

NeoSmart Technologies has released an objective research article delving into the reasons why Microsoft 's Windows Operating system isn't coming along as well as it should in the market and isn't accomplishing what it set out to do. For a change however, the research is objective and reinforces the criticism with suggestions and solutions - instead of just flame.

But Vista is the end of line. I’m not saying Microsoft won’t make another Windows, they probably will, but it’ll be a mistake. Even Vista was a mistake. Technology just doesn’t work that way, and it can be a treacherous beast to tame and fatal to maim.

Microsoft has two things going against it; two things that make Windows dead; and two things that could mean the end of line for everything Microsoft: Microsoft’s insistence on backwards compatibility, and ultimately, their failure to recognize change and move on ahead.

Source: NeoSmart Technologies
Story: Microsoft Beating on a Dead Horse

People would go nuts if MS cut backwards compatability with Windows.

The article doesn't suggest no backwards compatibilty - just a different way of doing it (no compatibility in the kernel, but via native emulation - just like OS X)

Care to explain why? They already own VirtualPC...why couldn't they use that as a basis and create an emulation layer for backwards compatibility (like Rosetta, but for the same architecture) until apps are updated or brought up to speed. I mean, hell, they already have a half-assed "compatibilty mode", why not go full-blown and do it right? If it would legitimately make Windows better, who wouldn't be all for it?

I find that with a lot of things, not just Windows, but it is so very true. Problem is that people WILL moan if they just cut-off backwards compatibility. I would like to see a COMPLETE re-work of Windows and (as somewhat mentioned in the article), for them to include a "lite" Windows version that you can boot to for running old things that won't run in the new Windows.

Maybe we will see this kind of change from Ray Ozzie?



No idea what Mac is like, but I tried Linux a few days ago, and it was good and bad. If you selected something that was in the list of available programs it was easy - it automatically downloaded the files and installed it. But if you wanted something that wasn't... It wasn't as easy.

Then create a Classic environment - like Mac OS X has for Mac OS 9 and below support - to make the transition less harsh and give people and companies time to adapt:

Is it a management thing?
MS needs to transition. Make Windows and another OS. Slowly --> the other OS and let Windows die out.




That's exactly what the article says

I think it's an absolutely ingenious solution Apple came up with to ensure that they could start over and leave the old Mac OS behind, yet to ensure that most Mac OS 9.2.2 users could continue to use their applications.

But I guess Microsoft doesn't really feel the need to fundamentally improve things.

This post has been edited by Neowave: Jun 18 2006, 22:52

Neowave, could enlighten me on this? I don't understand how Apple did it or how it works for Mac OSX, but I am looking at getting a MacBook so explain with a bit more detail ?

In OSX, if you try to start an OS9 app, it will load up OS9 from inside of OSX, and run that app.

Not exactly. It'll emulate the OS9 backend + kernel in a little sandbox of it's own, but it's very different from loading an entire OS - that's why it's so fast and lite

The MacBook does not support OS 9 emulation, nor does any Intel-based Mac.
Also, it does load up a full OS 9 OS in an emulation layer, you can watch the whole boot up if you want.

Classic is basically running two OSs - in this case Mac OS X and Mac OS 9.2.2 - at the same time without the need to actually dual boot. It's a transparent layer that enables you to run Classic applications right from the desktop, so not inside a window like Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation.

Here are some shots:

Preference pane:


Mac OS X and 9.2.2 (Classic) system folders on the same partition:


Boot/Loading screen:


Mac OS 9 application running on Mac OS X desktop:



Mac OS 9 application in the background:


As you can see both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X applications retain their own native interface without compromising one another in any way.
So for Mac OS 9 applications that means: No Aqua interface or any other Mac OS X technologies/enhancements.
For Mac OS X it means: No legacy icons outside the Classic system folder, no Aqua interface being cluttered with old graphics, no bloat from legacy support (files, drivers etc.) inside the system's core (so basically everything we don't see in Windows XP/Vista today).

However, after 5 years of service Classic mode will become extinct mostly due to the Intel transition as Mac OS 9 is unable to run on x86 based CPUs.

This post has been edited by Neowave: Jun 18 2006, 23:50

@Neowave: it's like you said earlier, the only word for it is ingenious.

Yes the way Microsoft has choosen to handle backwards compatibility is a problem with the 32-bit OS family. But I can't believe that they wouldn't have thought about it with all the programmers within MS, there must have been another reason.... Or does this mean that it's time to replace a few managers/designers?

This post has been edited by Evolution: Jun 18 2006, 23:54