Windows: Microsoft Beating on a Dead Horse


Recommended Posts

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 maiMicrosoft 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.

ead.

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)

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

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?

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.

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?

the way applications are installed and uninstalled in Windows sucks

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.

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

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:

picture15si.png

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?

Is it a management thing?

MS needs to transition. Make Windows and another OS. Slowly --> the other OS and let Windows die out.

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.

That's exactly what the article says :) :D

That's exactly what the article says :) :D

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.

Edited by Neowave

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.

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 ?

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.

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 ?

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:

picture20hc.png

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

picture53jd.png

Boot/Loading screen:

picture47zn.png

Mac OS 9 application running on Mac OS X desktop:

picture33dt.png

Mac OS 9 application in the background:

picture42oq.png

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.

Edited by Neowave

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?

Edited by Evolution

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 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?

I think the drive for Microsoft to fundamentally change things isn't big enough. In order for that to happen more users and developers need to loose faith in their OS.

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 :) :D

I agree... MS needs to cut ties, emulation seems the best bet, IMO. Windows needs to leap forward in technology.

i hope Vista is a HUGE success, and people just eat it up with a spoon. So we can turn back, and spit in all these haters faces.

im so sick of these articles, if you don't like Vista, Microsoft isn't forcing it down your throat.

i hope Vista is a HUGE success, and people just eat it up with a spoon. So we can turn back, and spit in all these haters faces.

im so sick of these articles, if you don't like Vista, Microsoft isn't forcing it down your throat.

ditto, just not that harshly.

people are consumers, and they have a choice. If you dont like it, then go off and get/do your own thing.

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:

Emulating a 'classic' Windows XP and before environment in an upcoming Windows OS may sound like a good idea - but as much as an advantage it may be, there's the problem of a speed hit in the emulated OS. At least for now, the compatibility settings in XP/Vista are nothing more than changing a few settings instead of emulating an older core.

for some reason i just cant see microsoft windows suddenly dying. perhaps slipping in market share (which wouldnt be a bad thing) but not dying. they do have an exceptional product and yes improving it.

do i see others coming up. yes. i think thats good to. i think mac should have more market share and it would be nice to see linux jump leaps and bounds as well so it could be decently used more commonplace.

mac is good in that respect, but not common place. also windows should improve more on security.

none is perfect. most of all the death of ANY competitor is bad for the consumer. :yes:

Compatibility modes—also referred to as " layers"—are essentially collections of compatibility fixes that serve to emulate a specific operating system environment for an application. For example, the Windows 95 Compatibility Mode contains approximately 50 of the most common fixes applied to older Windows 95 applications so they can function properly on Windows XP. Some of the fixes include: returning Windows 95 version credentials; precise emulation of the Windows 95/Windows 98/Windows Me heap manager; file path fixes to redirect Windows 95/Windows 98/Windows Me desktop and start menu folders to their Windows XP equivalents in the Documents and Settings folder; and registry virtualization to emulate Windows 95/Windows 98/Windows Me registry data.

How well do XP's Application Compatibility modes work, anyway?

I think this is a better way to do it anyway...

You'd rather use WINE in 'nix than VMWare if you could, right? Hopefully, it'll just get better with Vista....

Edited by MioTheGreat

Uhh, is there any sort of proof anywhere that Windows' backwards compatibility causes problems? Because I sure haven't read any articles to that effect. Seriously though, if someone can link up some technical documents for me to read that'd be great.

I've noticed that throughout the years Microsoft has been doing exactly what this article wants, albeit at a slow, controlled pace. They transitioned to the NT kernel, and as they add support for newer things the older stuff tends to drop off. A lot of old hardware is covered by Windows generic drivers now, it's not like Windows has a billion different old drivers included.

Personally, I would guess that backwards compatibility is not a very big deal for Microsoft. It's not like there's 10 different versions of the Win32 API or something like that. I also think it's ironic how people want things like this and then whine when DirectX 10 won't be backported to XP...

i hope Vista is a HUGE success, and people just eat it up with a spoon. So we can turn back, and spit in all these haters faces.

im so sick of these articles, if you don't like Vista, Microsoft isn't forcing it down your throat.

And I'm so sick of people who don't have a bloody clue about software development in general let alone issues involving backward compatibility making such fanboy comments.

Vista has major issues with resource usage. Just ask Brad Wardell or any other IT professional actually testing out Vista trying to see how it will handle "real work". If you cannot see the problems, then I'm afraid that you are blinded by being an overly optimistic fanboy.

What are you going to say when it comes out and it is a total letdown? Are you going to ignore the problems and say it is better than XP? Because right now, Vista is a lot worse than XP.

The problems with Vista have nothing to do with backwards compatibility. That is just an excuse apologists use to defend MSFT. The problems with the Vista project go much deeper than minor issues with preserving backwards compatibility. I would say that maintaining backwards compatibility only contributes to more potential security flaws and bugs than anything else.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Are you going to do performance benchmarks comparing all states? I'd be interested in seeing that in the next "part".
    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      78
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!