Windows: Microsoft Beating on a Dead Horse

[Computer Guru]

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

[strekship]

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

[Computer Guru]

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)

[phantasmorph]

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?

[Fourjays Veteran]

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.

[.Neo]

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:

[Computer Guru]

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

[.Neo]

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 June 18, 2006 by Neowave

[TokyoKiller]

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 ?

[strekship]

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.

[Computer Guru]

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 :) :D

[JK1150]

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.

[.Neo]

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:

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.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Neowave

[Computer Guru]

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

[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 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 June 18, 2006 by Evolution

[.Neo]

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.

[hagjohn]

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.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

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.

[factoid]

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.

[Denis W. Veteran]

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.

[Arkaic]

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:

[Linkinfamous]

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 June 19, 2006 by MioTheGreat

[5Horizons]

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...

[k311]

i think what kills vista is that win xp left little room for improvement. sure for us technology gurus, there are always features that we would like to see, but for the average user, there isnt a lot of incentive to leave windows xp.

[aristotle-dude]

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.