wtf happened to blackcomb/vienna? it's NOT windows 7

[spaceelf]

Wasn't Vista close enough to one? I mean I know it wasn't entirely, but you still had a new audio engine, new network engine, new security features, new graphics engine...you get the idea.

I wouldn't mind a new non-compatible OS project as long as I could guarantee the old OS couldn't read the new filesystem and therefore mess with it, but for MS that would be a hard thing to convince people to get unless it was cheap and had some really convincing reasons to snag it.

And likewise really hard to spend the money and time developing, especially when it'd be competing even more directly with alternative OSes, which are getting fairly well fleshed out at the moment. On that note it'd be competing with Windows itself, which would be just as painful for MS.

[Budious]

I'd rather just see NT 5.3 ... you were going in the such the right direction, but than veered hard right into wall.

[spaceelf]

I'd rather just see NT 5.3 ... you were going in the such the right direction, but than veered hard right into wall.

Actually, they were at the wall before they changed direction.

[Budious]

Ever heard of "If it's not broke, than don't **** with it!" ?

[spaceelf]

Ever heard of "If it's not broke, than don't **** with it!" ?

Yeah, I have. From mechanics. Software engineers know it's either broke, or it doesn't do anything to begin with.

[Dev Null Zen]

Windows 7 is really just going to be Vista Second Edition......

QFT

"You've let us know you don't want to face the kinds of incompatibility challenges with the next version of Windows you might have experienced early with Windows Vista. As a result, our approach with Windows 7 is to build off the same core architecture as Windows Vista so the investments you and our partners have made in Windows Vista will continue to pay off with Windows 7. Our goal is to ensure the migration process from Windows Vista to Windows 7 is straightforward," Veghte stated.

Source

[MMaster23]

QFT

Source

That doesn't mean anything!

Just because a new car's engine is kinda similar to the old cars engine .. does that mean the new car is a copy-paste of the old one?

No... because cars arent just engines ... they also have body shells, suspension, brakes, handling, chasis, interior design .. even the leather trim may differ...

Just because the kernel won't be rewritten, that doesn't mean Windows 7 will be Vista SP1. Just because they will be more compatible and use same guidelines .. doesn't mean they will be the same.

Microsoft started with a lot of new guidelines and principles with Windows Vista (on many fronts .. UI, networking, security...). By doing this they broke their own development cycle and released the os "3 years too late". They got a lot of critic on this but now it will pay off as they now have a new foundation to build on with the new principles with Windows Vista.

Also .. we know nearly nothing about Windows 7... Windows 7 information isn't public yet and people who do know what they are talking about can't just yet.

So till PDC you can speculate all you want but talking about 7 before ANY public information is out is just plain stupid and speculation.

Conclusion ... saying Windows 7 is Vista SP2 is just stupid as you (or anyone else in the public) know NOTHING about Windows 7 itself...

[spaceelf]

That isn't really news though. Vista is the first time Windows has had a major overhaul in ages. Of course they're not going to pull the rug out from under everyone again.

However, that doesn't mean there won't be significant changes.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

That was a CPU architecture change -- Not an OS architecture change. OSX is still fundamentally the same, just compiled for a different OS.

What you seem to want is a switch like Apple did from OS9 to OSX....but that's just silly. Apple had to do it. OS9 was a mess compared to more modern operating systems like Linux/Windows NT. It had no protected memory, multitasking, security concepts, etc.

There's no reason for Microsoft to make that kind of switch. Microsoft upgraded or flat out replaced many of the systems with Vista (Networking, security, audio, video, media, and so on) and look at how much people complained about that.

This.

There isn't a reason for MS to re-write Windows from scratch, Vista had a few components overhauled (including proper security elevation for users) and people whined and bitched about it constantly.

Re-writing Windows from scratch would break backwards compatibility, and love it or hate it, it's the reason Windows is so popular.

[spaceelf]

I expect the virtualization stuff getting so popular will offer MS interesting ways to mess around with compatibility problems though.

[y_notm]

I expect the virtualization stuff getting so popular will offer MS interesting ways to mess around with compatibility problems though.

Virtualization isn't anywhere near the point as to be accessible to the casual user.

Try building a softgrid package. It's neither easy nor straightforward.

Try explaining installing why she should or how to install a guest OS in a virual machine. She'll look at you like you're crazy and wonder why she needs another windows to run her programs.

[spaceelf]

It doesn't have to be accessible to the enduser at all if it's part of the OS. Vista already does some virtualization.

You certainly don't have to make a guest OS of Vista within Vista for it to use its virtualization.

So I'm guessing you didn't quite catch my drift.

[Dev Null Zen]

That doesn't mean anything!

Just because a new car's engine is kinda similar to the old cars engine .. does that mean the new car is a copy-paste of the old one?

No... because cars arent just engines ... they also have body shells, suspension, brakes, handling, chasis, interior design .. even the leather trim may differ...

Just because the kernel won't be rewritten, that doesn't mean Windows 7 will be Vista SP1. Just because they will be more compatible and use same guidelines .. doesn't mean they will be the same.

Microsoft started with a lot of new guidelines and principles with Windows Vista (on many fronts .. UI, networking, security...). By doing this they broke their own development cycle and released the os "3 years too late". They got a lot of critic on this but now it will pay off as they now have a new foundation to build on with the new principles with Windows Vista.

Also .. we know nearly nothing about Windows 7... Windows 7 information isn't public yet and people who do know what they are talking about can't just yet.

So till PDC you can speculate all you want but talking about 7 before ANY public information is out is just plain stupid and speculation.

Conclusion ... saying Windows 7 is Vista SP2 is just stupid as you (or anyone else in the public) know NOTHING about Windows 7 itself...

My god you just do not read. Nobody said its going to be SP2. The reference made is that its basically going to be like Win98 was to Win95. No major fundamental differences, because it is built on the same core. Your not going to see a Win98 to XP style jump, is the point that is being made.

[Antaris Veteran]

but hey.... didn't Apple do it? Isn't Mac OS X coded from scratch on FreeBSD as opposed to MacOS 9 or older being just RISC-type stuff? well I guess yea it is trouble; they had it standard to dual-boot between OS X and OS 9 until developers had time to make new Aqua-themed OS X-compatible apps..... imagine that happening on a Windows scale where it's the most used OS on Earth..... yea..... chaos...... meh......... i STILL think Windows from scratch would be a golden opportunity to make things right.... hmm... or maybe escape through the "window" into the "sky" and release a new OS called Microsoft Skies alongside Windows..... ok i'm rambling now so cya later lol but wait then you can't have application windows; you would have fluffy cloudy application skies; ok omg ok bye! lol

Do you actually realise how monolithic the windows platform is? Completely rewrite the OS from scratch? You're kidding me right?

Windows is compatible with thousands of devices, do you realise how long it would take to achieve the same level of compatibility with a rewrite? What about software? One of the reasons Microsoft took so long with Vista is because they need to maintain the greatest percentage of backwards compatibility. Could you really imaging them brining out a complete rewrite, and half the worlds devices just didn't work, and even more software failed too.

And you can't compare Apple's OSX. Apple have been working on basically the same finely tuned hardware platform for years. A handful of specifically chosen devices work with it, so development time for ensuring compatibility is drastically cut down.

[spaceelf]

As far as I can tell three pain areas are partitioning tools (Vista really hates some,) RAID drivers (likewise,) and older development tools (which can be expensive to replace.)

For the first six-nine months I could understand that XP was just all around easier to get along with, while the drivers and app compatibility stabilized. Now, though, I can't imagine ever using XP again.

[y_notm]

It doesn't have to be accessible to the enduser at all if it's part of the OS. Vista already does some virtualization.

You certainly don't have to make a guest OS of Vista within Vista for it to use its virtualization.

So I'm guessing you didn't quite catch my drift.

Oh I caught it, you just have no idea what you're talking about. The only "virtualization" in Vista is a bit of write re-direction so applications don't **** the bed when they suddenly can't write to certain parts of the FS/registry, what you want is a whole different beast entirely

It's pretty obvious you've never really used a virtualization solution. We had several deployed in my last workplace. Virtual PC/Virtual Server is pretty much what you see, but try explaining why your grandma needs to boot up ANOTHER OS to write an email or do some trivial task ala the classic enviornment in OSX. Don't forget to mention that she needs to shell out for another OS license, btw. I'm sure she'll be thrilled aobut that.

SoftGrid... well, heck, softgrid needs a virtual machine itself (or at the very least a spare real machine) to do the capturing, then you have to repackage and deploy the software. Oh whats that? You needed to install something to the context menu or interact with just about any other component on your system? Tough ****, ain't happening.

I don't know anything about Kidaro but I'm sure it's not that much simpler. My point is this is all way too advanced for your average user. They simply won't do it just to write a document or balance their checkbook. Buying a mac or even installing Linux is much less hassle.

It would be a massive undertaking to overcome these problems. It's easy to say they should, its a whole nother thing to actually go and do it. And to what benefit? So you can toss Win32 out of the system? You can already do that; Win32 is just a subsystem that runs on top of the NT kernel, which has been proven by pretty much anyone who knows anything about OS kernels to be fast, reliable, and extremely well designed. And if the whole point of virtualization is to keep compatibility with Win32 apps, well, why the hell don't you just leave the subsystem in there until you don't need it anymore and not take the performance and complexity hit virtualization incurs?

And while you're throwing away compatibility for virtualization, don't forget that you'll need an entirely new set of drivers. Don't worry, its no big deal. It's not like anyone had any problems with drivers when Vista was released.

People are claiming the Vista is bloated and blaming all this "compatiblity code" for taking up all the resources in their systems. Guess what? There's about 4 MB of compat code on your hard disk, and none of it is loaded until its needed. And outside of one check call, it doesn't have anything to do with kernel. What's taking up all the resources in Vista (mainly sucking up your RAM) is the new features in Vista: desktop search, SuperFetch and even the DWM. Turn off those features and you wind up with something like... oh I don't know, Windows Server 2008 which has received pretty much nothing but praise.

Edited July 1, 2008 by y_notm

[redvamp128]

Just give Vista time and then it will be loved as much as XP.

In time drivers will catch up as companies revisit and rewrite them.

I mean anyone else remember when Win2k came out or NT3.5 came out. It took a while for drivers to really be written for them that worked and were stable 100% of the time.

And what happened to blackcomb --- As the vision changed so did the code name-- I mean don't we all wish we had a dime for all the code names that never was... Anyone else remember Neptune?

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/ac_preview.asp

also here is the wiki on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Neptune

[Linkinfamous]

I fail to see what's wrong with just expanding the implementation of the compatibility shims that XP and Vista already use (The Application Compatibility tab).

It seems like a much more elegant and lightweight solution than virtualizing a whole OS.

Edited July 1, 2008 by MioTheGreat

[redvamp128]

Now this is a topic that could help make the push to 8,000,000. Posts .

I do agree Windows 7 is not the vision blackcomb was.

In fact I think isn't it this Ski resort...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistler-Blackcomb

Just a thought what if it was not a Windows version plan but instead a location for the next business meeting to discuss the next Windows. (The Whistler which became XP). And someone only heard what they wanted to hear.

That is just my thought.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

My god you just do not read. Nobody said its going to be SP2. The reference made is that its basically going to be like Win98 was to Win95. No major fundamental differences, because it is built on the same core. Your not going to see a Win98 to XP style jump, is the point that is being made.

Windows 95 (without IE4) to Windows 98 was actually a pretty considerable leap. You might be surprised how much was missing if you go back to 95. No quick launch, no drag-and-drop in the start menu, and the entire Explorer was very basic with far less extensibility.

[redvamp128]

I remember installing the Desktop Update with IE4.0 for Win95 and NT4.0 which gave it some if not all of what Win98 had... It also had preview in the side.

But yes it was a big leap... Though the question is have you ever installed Windows 95 using the old Windows 3.1 desktop. Instead of the Start menu-?

What Windows 98 had that Windows 95 did not have was better support for higher memory and drive sizes as well as Fat32 support.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I remember installing the Desktop Update with IE4.0 for Win95 and NT4.0 which gave it some if not all of what Win98 had... It also had preview in the side.

But yes it was a big leap... Though the question is have you ever installed Windows 95 using the old Windows 3.1 desktop. Instead of the Start menu-?

What Windows 98 had that Windows 95 did not have was better support for higher memory and drive sizes as well as Fat32 support.

Yeah but all the stuff that came with IE4 was basically the Windows 98 shell.

[t4ki0n]

so i just caught up on what was said on this thread i started

Singularity: it's not something like a desktop O/S; it's just a small lil thingy for hardware and software geeks to go "Neee!!!" over lol :blink:

Neptune: yes; it's based on the old age Microsoft Encarta UI and navigation and it was soooooo cool! Just like the Longhorn concept video is cool today, Neptune was just as cool back in those days.... But of course they didn't go through with it; maybe they didn't want the whole OS to look like one big website hehe.

many posts are regarding the question WHY recode it from scratch? i could think of MANY reasons.... like i'm tired of how some developers release software that sticks its stupid driver(s) right at the very native boot opportunity and risk preventing Windows from starting, or just slow down the boot! A re-coded Windows with an appropriate loading time for such drivers would have a boot time of like three seconds!!! When Windows starts, the ONLY drivers that should be loaded are functional (i.e. filesystem, CPU, power management), and user experience (i.e. peripherals, audio, video) -- NOTHING ELSE! Why the f**k does Alcohol 120% want its stupid SPI CD-ROM driver thing to load during the Windows boot logo screen at the very beginning?!? They're just too lazy to make their stuff work by loading it later on when Windows starts that's why, and it's Microsoft that allows developers access to shove drivers there. Have any of you ever noticed that booting up after a clean Vista or XP install is only like 2 or 3 runs of the loading meter? And then after you install let's say the nVidia ForceWare drivers and you reboot, it is eternally gonna take about 6 or 7 runs of the loading meter! How annoying!

that's just ONE reason.

Anyway; I'm saying that re-coding from scratch is an excellent opportunity to do things right with no BS. Knowledge of how to make software work with today's hardware technology is exponentially more advanced, and it's limited by the current platform. For example I don't know about everyone else but the new "low-latency" Vista audio stack is laggy/choppy! I've gone through like 5 motherboards and 3 sound cards and like 6 installations of Vista ever since it was released, and no matter what, the problem persists! It's totally gone if you have a really suped up computer though, but even now with my X-Fi Fatal1ty Pro sound card, 2 gigs DDR2 RAM, etc. etc. and Windows Experience Index of 5.9, in Windows Media Player when I enable the crossfader, it's choppy doing the fading between songs!!!! Like COME ON!!! That's what happens when you remove the functionality of the audio stack from the kernel itself like it always has been. The whole architecture is just totally messed up. They NEED a fresh start!

Some posts express worry about compatibility with hardware devices and stuff. I'm sure that the thousands of beta testers would squish most all of such bugs. There could be a separate dev. team for the coded-from-scratch Windows and have it developed for like eight (8) years while regular Windows is being released on the side.

[redvamp128]

A favorite place that I like to goto is these to see the up and coming new toys....

http://research.microsoft.com/

But the really fun project that I think would make an interesting OS is.

http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/index.htm

[Budious]

Yeah but all the stuff that came with IE4 was basically the Windows 98 shell.

For all the customization forums we have at neowin, you would be surprised by the flexibility of the IE4 shell update. Awergh's NT4 Visual Update packages are good example of it. You can get an XP/Vista'ish desktop out of a 95/NT4 interface.

http://www.msfn.org/board/NT4-Visual-Updat...html&st=100