Exploring Modularity With Windows 7
Posted by HalcyonX12 via Ars Technica on 23 March 2008 - 22:34 · 59 comments & 14760 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: HalcyonX12
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: HalcyonX12
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(5 replies)
#1 Posted by EduardValencia on 23 Mar 2008 - 22:43
- Yes,i think microsoft is going the right direction,modularization not only will give users more choice,it will give greater stability to the OS,thinking here the blue screen of death will be gone for good.
The only thing i hope is that the code is based on Windows 6 (a.k.a Windows Vista);just that it has modularization incorporated.it will be a shame that a new OS build from scratch will give us older problems that has been solved.
Overall this will reduce or make it 0,the benefits of linux over Windows because of it's modularized architecture,and will give Windows a broader penetration in expierenced users,and web servers managment.
Good thinking MS Good Thinking
Last edited by EduardValencia on 23 Mar 2008 - 22:51 -
#1.1 Posted by MioTheGreat on 23 Mar 2008 - 22:57
- The BSOD only occurs when some component running in the kernel crashes. It doesn't matter how modular your OS is, if something crashes at that level, it's going to take the system down with it, and normally that thing causing the crashing was not written by Microsoft.
Pushing things into user-mode helps system stability more than modularizing everything does. -
#1.2 Posted by EduardValencia on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:21
- True,but pushing things into user-mode isn't a way of modularization?,of course the BSOD issues affecting Windows,including Vista,is made by faulty drivers made by manufacturers,somehow by that time a strategy has to be made,give the ability for recovering from a malfunction in code,however not at the kernel level.Since Windows Vista has taken huge steps to make the kernel almost untouchable.This is a clar proof that windows Vista isnt a completely modularized OS.and cause for BSOD.
For example if the sound system crashes,it will be nice that only this module could get isolated from everything,and prompt the user to to reboot or something.
Also a system hardware check module is needed,to work synchronized with other modules in the new hypothetical OS,we are talking about,helping usrers to distinguish OS malfunction caused by falulty hardware.
That would be marvelous
Last edited by EduardValencia on 24 Mar 2008 - 00:12 -
#1.3 Posted by Chicane-UK on 25 Mar 2008 - 12:02
- the benefits of linux over Windows because of it's modularized architecture,and will give Windows a broader penetration in expierenced users,and web servers managment.
Except of course that Linux will still offer a similar experience, with that same modularization, but will still be free whereas Windows will cost. It'll always have that against it! -
#1.4 Posted by C_Guy on 25 Mar 2008 - 15:12
- And the old saying remains true.
You get what you pay for. -
#1.5 Posted by EduardValencia on 25 Mar 2008 - 16:32
- (Chicane-UK said @ #1.3)the benefits of linux over Windows because of it's modularized architecture,and will give Windows a broader penetration in expierenced users,and web servers managment.
Except of course that Linux will still offer a similar experience, with that same modularization, but will still be free whereas Windows will cost. It'll always have that against it!
Not quite right,seems that Windows has lowered the price of their products,i mean in the OS they sell worldwide,there will be a time when linux wont distinguish anymore from windows,for many companies the price isn't an important factor to choose what to deploy.
If modularity is implemented at full scale in the next version of windows (A.k.A Windows 7),it will automatically give users more power for customozing their needs in the operating system,also,Microsoft will releazse a single version of Windows capable to adjust to the whole range of posibilities that are the the computing industry.
I can only dream about that day
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by Turbonium on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:19
- Isn't modularization sort of a bad thing? It ends up further diversifying the already diverse software and hardware combinations out there.
And what if we get a very small % of people with a very specific hardware-software setup that get some sort of wonky bug? Then it might be looked at/fixed later than normal, since less of the market is being affected by it. -
#2.1 Posted by
markjensen on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:36
- I like modularization. You remove software that is not needed. It simplifies things; it doesn't make them more complex.
But, as a Linux user, I might be a bit biased toward being able to set up your OS just the way you want.
-
#2.2 Posted by EduardValencia on 25 Mar 2008 - 16:34
- (markjensen said @ #2)I like modularization. You remove software that is not needed. It simplifies things; it doesn't make them more complex.
But, as a Linux user, I might be a bit biased toward being able to set up your OS just the way you want.
Perhaps if Windows 7 implements Modularization,maybe just maybe,you'll start using Windows for home duties instead of Linux
-
(10 replies)
#3 Posted by Milk on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:26
- Just keep it like XP!!!!
-
#3.1 Posted by RealFduch on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:39
- (Milk said @ #3)Just keep it like XP!!!!
Just keep XP and don't cry. -
#3.2 Posted by Doli on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:40
- While other operating systems advance you want them to keep it like XP?
Lets move forward. -
#3.3 Posted by MioTheGreat on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:43
- Just shove everything into the kernel and make it difficult to remove things you don't need? Because that's how XP is set up....
-
#3.4 Posted by n_K on 24 Mar 2008 - 01:16
- (MioTheGreat said @ #3.3)Just shove everything into the kernel and make it difficult to remove things you don't need? Because that's how XP is set up....
You have never used XP embedded then ? 26MB with the default set or drivers
EPIC FAIL -
#3.5 Posted by bsquirle on 24 Mar 2008 - 10:33
- (n_K said @ #3.4)You have never used XP embedded then ? 26MB with the default set or drivers
Have your ever seen a legal Windows Embedded for the home-endusers?(n_K said @ #3.4)EPIC FAIL
Yup especially after trying to use it.
Sorry, windows embedded wasn't build for home usage, if your gave it to an end user they would probably be confused as hell and in the end have to throw in about every single component (yay for dependencies).
And it doesn't change a thing to the architecture of XP it's just all the bits of XP separated. -
#3.6 Posted by Azmodan on 24 Mar 2008 - 20:52
- Vista's failure was because Microsoft tried too hard to make a product similar to Mac OSX (Aero) and Linux (UAC), but worth didn't worked out well. Aero is a memory hog (compared to OSX, KDE4's composing and Compiz Fusion), UAC doesn't remmebers that the Administrator just made the same action 5 seconds ago (unlike a bunch of other OS).
And now looks like Microsoft (apparently) learned and is trying to make a modular OS, but instead fixing it, they're going to make the modules available by subscription. BIG MISTAKE.
Taken from digg:
"You have selected 'Log in'. This feature is available for $3.95 per month. To enter your credit card details, click here." -
#3.7 Posted by RealFduch on 24 Mar 2008 - 22:19
- (Azmodan said @ #3.6)Aero is a memory hog (compared to OSX, KDE4's composing and Compiz Fusion)
Where are your numbers? -
#3.8 Posted by Azmodan on 24 Mar 2008 - 23:05
- (RealFduch said @ #1)(Azmodan said @ #3.6)Aero is a memory hog (compared to OSX, KDE4's composing and Compiz Fusion)
Where are your numbers?
How about a video? -
#3.9 Posted by Chipshop on 24 Mar 2008 - 23:57
- (Azmodan said @ #3.6)Aero is a memory hog (compared to OSX, KDE4's composing and Compiz Fusion)
I'd like to see the numbers on this to please. -
#3.10 Posted by Azmodan on 25 Mar 2008 - 01:05
- (Chipshop said @ #3.9)(Azmodan said @ #3.6)Aero is a memory hog (compared to OSX, KDE4's composing and Compiz Fusion)
I'd like to see the numbers on this to please.
I'd like you to check the video please.
In case you're wondering what's that, it's a EEEPC. (The 4G Model, according to the video author)
* Integrated Intel GMA 900 graphics processor (Shared Memory Architecture), additional VGA port (up to 1600×1280 pixels)
* 900 MHz Intel Celeron-M ULV 353, clocked at 630 MHz (70 MHz x 9)
* 512 MB DDR2-533/667
* 4 GB SSD
What is Aero's min. requirements?
# a 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
# 1 GB of system memory
# a Direct3D 9 compatible graphics processor with a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver, Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware, and a minimum of 128 MB of Video RAM
# 40 GB hard drive with 15 GB free space
There's your numbers.
Last edited by Azmodan on 25 Mar 2008 - 01:14
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by VRam on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:37
- This would be a good thing if it were handled right, but I figure Ballmer and MS marketing are hard at work destroying its advantages as we speak.
-
#4.1 Posted by EduardValencia on 24 Mar 2008 - 01:54
- Nahhh,the modularity itself is a security and stability advantage,seen in any perspective you want.
Don't allucinate
-
#5 Posted by Kushan on 23 Mar 2008 - 23:45
- If this leads to a "standard" windows setup (which is a one-click install like we have no) and a separate "advanced" setup where I get to pick WHAT I want installed, then I'm all for it. I'm sick of having to nlite my installations, it's the kind of thing that the OS itself should offer.
-
#6 Posted by milesfromordinary on 24 Mar 2008 - 00:11
- this would be even better if you could select the modules you want and pay based on what you choose, instead of paying 499$ for Ultimate, 299$ for Home Premium etc. (i know those aren't exact prices but bear with me)
-
(3 replies)
#7 Posted by pjak on 24 Mar 2008 - 00:13
- the problem with modules is their dependency on others. if every module was 100% independant then OK, great. But like Windows before 2000, giving the user a choice to remove stuff is bad, as you may need it without realising...
-
#7.1 Posted by MioTheGreat on 24 Mar 2008 - 00:23
- I believe that's one of the goals of the Minwin project.
-
#7.2 Posted by Kushan on 24 Mar 2008 - 01:13
- (pjak said @ #7)the problem with modules is their dependency on others. if every module was 100% independant then OK, great. But like Windows before 2000, giving the user a choice to remove stuff is bad, as you may need it without realising...
We already have that today. A lot of software out there depends on certain runtimes, the latest version of DirectX, the .Net Framework, etc. yet it's not really a major problem for most people.
It's bad practice for a programmer to assume ANYTHING about the system he's programming for, including the availability of certain files or programs so providing developers don't get too lazy, it shouldn't be a major problem and most programs should install everything they need (and ONLY the missing components while they're at it). -
#7.3 Posted by GP007 on 24 Mar 2008 - 10:49
- I doubt that anything in the "core" system of Windows won't be installed, things that are used by many other programs like you said (DirectX, .NET etc). Those things would be part of the base or core OS module. Another thing with Windows 7 is that they want people to get off of the old Win32 APIs once and for all. This will help things even more in the future but will take time.
Anyways, imo things that will be modular will be individual programs and or systems that are today installed from the start.
Things like Media Center and so on are an example, you could say IE and WMP also, but those two things have grown into something that is now NEEDED and or expected to be installed on a PC from the start. Many here probably don't use those but a vast majority of the average user base does, and they would be lost if those weren't there. On the other hand, not installing those could mess with other apps that use apis etc. It's a tricky situation and one MS has to think about hard.
-
(3 replies)
#8 Posted by OblivionStalker on 24 Mar 2008 - 00:29
- Modularization is a good thing, only if created properly. If they can pass the problems of one section depending on another, then modularization is great. But if there are some problems, it is better to keep everything together for better compatibility and functionality... And space is not a problem these days.
-
#8.1 Posted by WICKO on 24 Mar 2008 - 02:50
- (OblivionStalker said @ #
Modularization is a good thing, only if created properly. If they can pass the problems of one section depending on another, then modularization is great. But if there are some problems, it is better to keep everything together for better compatibility and functionality... And space is not a problem these days.
I don't think space is the issue here. Supposedly this Windows 7 will be much lighter in memory (faster booting, better performance for applications). I'm crossing my fingers for them to allow us to not install their programs if we want 3rd party solutions instead, without having to use nLite or something. Chances of that might be pretty slim though, I mean could you imagine them allowing us to remove IE? -
#8.2 Posted by OblivionStalker on 24 Mar 2008 - 11:15
- And to add: One thing that causes problems even these days are the files that many programs share. Lots of the developers think that we don't have those files, so they put them in their software's setups.
For example: I have an up-to-date PC with all the versions of .Net Framework installed, and when I try to install MicroStation (for my father) it installs .Net Framework 2.0 again, even though I already have that one installed plus all the updates. This can cause problems if developers are not carefully enough.
Another example: I have the latest Flash Player installed, and when I install Adobe CS3, it automatically installs an older version. So I need to delete that one, and again install the newest version. Again, problems could arise. -
#8.3 Posted by Kushan on 24 Mar 2008 - 19:39
- (OblivionStalker said @ #8.2)And to add: One thing that causes problems even these days are the files that many programs share. Lots of the developers think that we don't have those files, so they put them in their software's setups.
For example: I have an up-to-date PC with all the versions of .Net Framework installed, and when I try to install MicroStation (for my father) it installs .Net Framework 2.0 again, even though I already have that one installed plus all the updates. This can cause problems if developers are not carefully enough.
Another example: I have the latest Flash Player installed, and when I install Adobe CS3, it automatically installs an older version. So I need to delete that one, and again install the newest version. Again, problems could arise.
That is very, very poor development indeed. A good program should check for required components and ONLY install them if an older version is detected, or none at all.
-
#9 Posted by Magallanes on 24 Mar 2008 - 00:41
- Without modular paradigm, if a program/service is not active/running then the only disadvantage is the disk space. Today is quite cheap to own a 40gb harddisk then there are little reason to think about modularizing the os, may be removing hearts or minefield for some workstation.
In linux is a must, cause almost any linux distro is filled withcrapa lot of 3rd party software (even outdated technologies), and yet in linux is painful.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by Knight85 on 24 Mar 2008 - 01:00
- I don't want to start a MAC vs. Windows discussion but in my opinion Microsoft should stay extremely quiet about what it is planning to do. Steve Jobs will get ahold of it, copy it and then hail it as the best thing since sliced bread and claim that it was all due to Apple's innovation (yes, I am thinking Windows Vista search that led everybody else to run and create their versions of search and yes, due to Microsoft's slow moving, come into the market before Windows)
Maybe some of Apple's super secretive strategy will help MS... Let's see what they cough up with Windows 7. -
#10.1 Posted by HalcyonX12 on 24 Mar 2008 - 01:45
- (Knight85 said @ #10)I don't want to start a MAC vs. Windows discussion but in my opinion Microsoft should stay extremely quiet about what it is planning to do. Steve Jobs will get ahold of it, copy it and then hail it as the best thing since sliced bread and claim that it was all due to Apple's innovation
Heh. From the article:Foley says that she's heard from sources that Microsoft is working on a Photo + Mail + Video module that would exist apart from the OS, for instance.
Sound like iLife to anyone?
Anyway it's pretty clear that Apple and MS copy from each other a lot. And it seems like all computer software does that. Even web sites. Come to think of it, Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie were also out around the same time. I think Letterman and Jay Leno have pretty similar formats. Also MadTV and SNL. And recently all those superhero movies started coming out. The world is a pretty grimy place, yo. -
#10.2 Posted by QuarterSwede on 25 Mar 2008 - 01:11
- (Knight85 said @ #10)I don't want to start a MAC vs. Windows discussion but in my opinion Microsoft should stay extremely quiet about what it is planning to do. Steve Jobs will get ahold of it, copy it and then hail it as the best thing since sliced bread and claim that it was all due to Apple's innovation (yes, I am thinking Windows Vista search that led everybody else to run and create their versions of search and yes, due to Microsoft's slow moving, come into the market before Windows)
Maybe some of Apple's super secretive strategy will help MS... Let's see what they cough up with Windows 7.
Ironically OS X (and Linux ) is already heavily modularized so it would be a case of Microsoft FINALLY coming around and making an OS that is a lot more customizable (as far as software goes) and could be potentially less bloated. Ie. Even if Microsoft included a ton of crap you could just trash it without leaving a bunch of registry, dll crap behind.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by X'tyfe on 24 Mar 2008 - 02:31
- they speak of making it subscription based?
let me be blunt...
microsoft already charges 500x would it should for its OS
and they have the balls to ask us for more? ROFLCOPTER?!?!
i really do hope they get nuked off the face of the earth
they are scratching there heads wondering why people pirate there software
and they go ahead and give them yet another reason to do so. im laughing my ass off at how much FAIL they generate -
#11.1 Posted by Xerxes on 24 Mar 2008 - 03:01
- Actually people will still pirate it, even if it costs 50c (look at all the people who bitched about how MS charged a tiny fee to download the Office 2007 B2TR and then attempted to get it for free elsewhere a while ago..) even if it was free, people would still probably pirate it for goodness sake and their reason would probably be just to "stick it" to MS.
I'm actually surprised MS would even consider doing a subscription system again, they tried that with Office XP wasn't it? and that failed horribly if I'm not mistaken.
-
(7 replies)
#12 Posted by buzz99 on 24 Mar 2008 - 02:39
- Let's for once have a simple to install OS. Modular or not. I am just sick and tired of anything you install have to reboot for this, reboot for that...I not sure but does anyone can do somthing new, like no need to reboot every time you install or update or change sometihing on your machine ? Come on ... reboot for updating IE (a browser, nothing to do with the OS) I think it's a pain in the neck. Bring on something really new, an OS optimized and working well... We just don't need a "new vista".
-
#12.1 Posted by z0phi3l on 24 Mar 2008 - 05:03
- (buzz99 said @ #12)Let's for once have a simple to install OS. Modular or not. I am just sick and tired of anything you install have to reboot for this, reboot for that...I not sure but does anyone can do somthing new, like no need to reboot every time you install or update or change sometihing on your machine ? Come on ... reboot for updating IE (a browser, nothing to do with the OS) I think it's a pain in the neck. Bring on something really new, an OS optimized and working well... We just don't need a "new vista".
Linux has been doing it for quite some time now -
#12.2 Posted by +M2Ys4U on 24 Mar 2008 - 07:40
- Vista SP1 has hotpatching - no reboots needed for a lot of updates.
-
#12.3 Posted by z0phi3l on 24 Mar 2008 - 11:53
- (M2Ys4U said @ #12.2)Vista SP1 has hotpatching - no reboots needed for a lot of updates.
The only time I kinda need to reboot a Linux pc is when there's a kernel update, evrything else can be updated and ran on the spot -
#12.4 Posted by HalcyonX12 on 24 Mar 2008 - 16:24
- (z0phi3l said @ #12.3)The only time I kinda need to reboot a Linux pc is when there's a kernel update, evrything else can be updated and ran on the spot
It can even be updated while running the software... the next time you close and then open the app you're using it will be the new version. There are also patches in development which let you boot into a new kernel right away from an old one. -
#12.5 Posted by Azmodan on 24 Mar 2008 - 20:45
- (M2Ys4U said @ #12.2)Vista SP1 has hotpatching - no reboots needed for a lot of updates.
Are you sure? Because I SWEAR I just saw the shutdown button with the install updates ****. Oh yes, it installs while shutting it down, which is absolutely not like a reboot. -
#12.6 Posted by Niels. on 25 Mar 2008 - 08:18
- (Azmodan said @ #12.5)(M2Ys4U said @ #12.2)Vista SP1 has hotpatching - no reboots needed for a lot of updates.
Are you sure? Because I SWEAR I just saw the shutdown button with the install updates ****. Oh yes, it installs while shutting it down, which is absolutely not like a reboot.
You moron... that button is just there to make sure that the updates are installed, not to force you to do a reboot. Just go to the updates section in your control panel, update your pc, and there is a very large chance you don't need a reboot.. -
#12.7 Posted by Azmodan on 25 Mar 2008 - 20:29
- (Niels. said @ #12.6)You moron... that button is just there to make sure that the updates are installed, not to force you to do a reboot.
Oh, so the "SHUT DOWN AND INSTALL UPDATES" button just checks that the updates are installed, they're ABSOLUTELY NOT installed while shutting down.
Yeah I'm such a moron, I'm sorry.
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by Arkos Reed on 24 Mar 2008 - 02:57
- Microsoft has offered multiple desktop OSes in the marketplace ever since the days of Windows NT 3.1, with completely different code bases until they were unified in Windows 2000
Err.... I beg to differ :
Desktop OS unification only came with Windows XP, 2000 was never meant to be and never commercialized as a consumer desktop OS
BTW when it comes to codebases, back in NT 3x/4 and even Windows 2000, the only difference between Desktop and Server OSes was merely a registry key defining the role of the installed OS and available optional components and roles (DC, DNS, DHCP, etc), things were pretty unified back then (and still are quite a bit, XP/2k3 and vista/2k8 share a lot of their codebase)
Regarding windows 7, MS is right on track to sell us a per component monthly/yearly subscription based OS, it's well known most of their execs have entertained that idea for years, they get more cash from subscriptions than one time sales (Select 6 contractors with Software Assurance know this all too well) and they're about to bring it to life, maybe not with 7, but the next one for sure. -
#13.1 Posted by toadeater on 24 Mar 2008 - 06:09
- (Arkos Reed said @ #13)Regarding windows 7, MS is right on track to sell us a per component monthly/yearly subscription based OS, it's well known most of their execs have entertained that idea for years, they get more cash from subscriptions than one time sales (Select 6 contractors with Software Assurance know this all too well) and they're about to bring it to life, maybe not with 7, but the next one for sure.
That's fine with me, unless they try extorting users into subscribing, like charging a monthly fee for DirectX 11 or something. There's not a single thing that MS does better than the competition and MS' built-in Windows bloat will not be missed. I don't use ANY of MS's built-in bloat right now, not even Explorer. Windows without all that bloat would be great. -
#13.2 Posted by HalcyonX12 on 24 Mar 2008 - 16:26
- (Arkos Reed said @ #1)Desktop OS unification only came with Windows XP, 2000 was never meant to be and never commercialized as a consumer desktop OS
That's how I used it, and I knew a lot of others that ran Win2k as their desktop as well, even well into when XP came out. They sold it at the stores and a lot of people got Win2k Pro for their desktop just because it ran better and faster, especially pre-XP w/SP2.
-
(3 replies)
#14 Posted by Unholy Moley! on 24 Mar 2008 - 03:03
- I use nLite to remove the components that I don't want. The only thing it complicates is downloading updates, since I have to decide if I need a given update or not based on what I removed. My computers are much faster without all that extra stuff included in Windows XP that I don't need.
-
#14.1 Posted by EduardValencia on 24 Mar 2008 - 03:11
- you know that nlite casues system unstability? unknows errors in general,usually the fault is for MS
hate nlite and vlite
sucks -
#14.2 Posted by X'tyfe on 24 Mar 2008 - 03:46
- (EduardValencia said @ #14.1)you know that nlite casues system unstability? unknows errors in general,usually the fault is for MS
hate nlite and vlite
sucks
i agree, iv been using an nlite install of xp since october
it hasent given me trouble that i know of, but i can see why i would need alot of the things i removed now
so when sp3 comes out (tomorrow) ill be slipstreaming and redoing it again in full this time -
#14.3 Posted by Unholy Moley! on 25 Mar 2008 - 12:31
- Sometimes nuhni screws up a version, and removing certain components can cause compatibility problems with certain programs. It takes a good couple of days and a virtual machine to get an nLited WinXP or vLited Vista disk just right. However, what you get back is improved system performance. People who like to tweak and overclock their hardware to get a speedboost will definitely want to invest some time in these programs.
-
#15 Posted by Rudy on 24 Mar 2008 - 05:18
- making everything optional at install would be best, even having basic network drivers so you can update your install would be great (so you can install the latest version of each application)
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by nX07 on 24 Mar 2008 - 15:38
- Screw subscription based O.S. Modularity is great, but subscriptions? No, sorry. I will be leaving the Microsoft camp in a second.
-
#16.1 Posted by C_Guy on 25 Mar 2008 - 15:17
- I think you mis-understand. The OS isn't subscription based just some services (components) like anti-virus. This is something that has always been subscription-based and in a "modular" system, you could choose to subscribe to Microsoft's services or not install this service and choose a third-party like Kaspersky.
Making Windows a "subscription" software would backfire tremendously.
-
#18 Posted by Mike Frett on 24 Mar 2008 - 23:22
- I've been calling for Microsoft to make installing components optional since they stopped around 2000. Seems no one remembers that you had the option, during install, in Windows 95/98 to install or uninstall components.
I love the Idea. But Subscription based? No thanks.
-
#19 Posted by C_Guy on 25 Mar 2008 - 15:15
- Does anyone read before they comment? The next Windows is not subscription based.
There are "possibilities of adding subscription based software modules as well, such as anti-virus."
This means you can install (add-on) services to your Windows installation that require a subscription like anti-virus. Windows itself would not require a subscription.
Customers want more choice and flexibility well here it is. Stop complaining.
When Windows 7 launches sometime after the start of 2010, the desktop OS will be Microsoft's most "modular" yet. Having never really been comfortable with the idea of a single, monolithic desktop OS offering, Microsoft has offered multiple desktop OSes in the marketplace ever since the days of Windows NT 3.1, with completely different code bases until they were unified in Windows 2000. Unification isn't necessarily a good thing, however; Windows Vista is a sprawling, complex OS.