Starting Windows 8

[ccoltmanm]

How should they start building Windows 8?

Should they build off of previous OS releases and their code, or should they start from ABSOLUTE scratch and build everything from the registery to the calculator from nothing?

I can see benifiets on both sides, where you can cut time and resoucres starting on top of other OS's, or start fresh and build the bare nessities. I can only imagine they have improved their code writing and how they organize stuff.

[HawkMan]

Win8 is already in development, They don't wait a few months or half a year after the previus OS before starting the next.

They start the next before the last one is done. And you won't see a full rewrite for a very long time, there's no need either. And major parts of the OS was already rewritten with Vista. And it took 1-2 years for the drivers vendors to catch up. which caused the media and anti people to go on a crusade about how vista sucks, yet somehow 7 which is for all intents and purposes, as far as stability, performance and compatibility go(the point the complained about Vista) identical is awesome (and yes 7 is awesome, but so was vista anyway)

[Ci7]

it is like

Windows 2000 > Windows XP > Windows 2003 > Windows Vista/WS 2008 > Windows 7/WS 2008R2 > Windows 8/Windows server 2012(future release)

so nope , they aren't starting from scratch anytime soon . it will cost them billions and not mentioning the huge risk of failure for such a big project and in the end they render the whole previous platform software wont work in the new one

[ccoltmanm]

it is like

Windows 2000 > Windows XP > Windows 2003 > Windows Vista/WS 2008 > Windows 7/WS 2008R2 > Windows 8/Windows server 2012(future release)

so nope , they aren't starting from scratch anytime soon . it will cost them billions and not mentioning the huge risk of failure for such a big project and in the end they render the whole previous platform software wont work in the new one

I think the risk is minimal. Microsoft has experience so they wouldn't be really starting from scratch with ideas of how to go about doing things. I'm sure a new experience would allow more Plug and Play approach to hardware. Like Apple for instance. I'm just shooting out ideas and wondering why. I don't have any background.

I just think it would be go to "trim the fat." Vista and 7's footprint on hard drive space is huge. I think they are taking that for granted.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Windows is too big to be re-written now, MS will just base it off the previous release as they have been doing for a long time.

[Lant]

They will never rebuild the OS from scratch, just rewrite portions as they did in Vista.

Perhaps in the future they may base their OS off one of their research projects (Singularity / Midori), as in the way they moved from 9x to NT.

[Calum Veteran]

Thread moved to: Windows Support ? Windows Beta Discussion>

I agree with The_Decryptor. I really doubt they will ever do a full rewrite, but instead, they will just continue to re-write different parts with each release. I mean, in Windows 7, the Calculator application was re-written and came with some very useful improvements; it'd be silly for them to re-write that again for Windows 8:pp

[Mega Goatlord]

I think the risk is minimal. Microsoft has experience so they wouldn't be really starting from scratch with ideas of how to go about doing things. I'm sure a new experience would allow more Plug and Play approach to hardware. Like Apple for instance. I'm just shooting out ideas and wondering why. I don't have any background.

I just think it would be go to "trim the fat." Vista and 7's footprint on hard drive space is huge. I think they are taking that for granted.

Apple can do what they did with OS X because at the time they had a negligible marketshare, so the upset wouldn't be that great. Not to mention they shipped OS X with (essentially) an entire other OS, for backwards compatibility reasons. Microsoft, having the greatest marketshare, is not afforded such luxuries, nor the ability to bully their users into something so drastic as what Apple did.

[azure.sapphire]

Really? In the day and age of the 1tb hard disk. You can argue that the software itself is bloated. The foot print really doesn't matter. Not even if you a newer generation Netbook. As for plug and play, it has been there since Windows 95 (and has worked well since Windows 2000). I think a reboot is unnecessary because the core fundamentals that were laid with Vista work well since.

Windows 7 is not bad. Neither is the server line. I am not really seeing a problem. It is far from perfect, but than again, so is Apple. Neither is exactly "well" designed on a theoretical level. Nor is Linux. There are certain concessions that vendors make when releasing a product for the mass market. This, however, doesn't mean that Microsoft is not working on a number of different research projects to extend Windows well into the next two decades. Windows 8, however, will be "probably" very much based on a Vista/7 model.

[lee31]

People say they doubt they'll start from scratch but there is a channel 9 video from a few months ago of their developers discussing the possibility of doing just that.

[ccoltmanm]

Really? In the day and age of the 1tb hard disk. You can argue that the software itself is bloated. The foot print really doesn't matter. Not even if you a newer generation Netbook. As for plug and play, it has been there since Windows 95 (and has worked well since Windows 2000). I think a reboot is unnecessary because the core fundamentals that were laid with Vista work well since.

Windows 7 is not bad. Neither is the server line. I am not really seeing a problem. It is far from perfect, but than again, so is Apple. Neither is exactly "well" designed on a theoretical level. Nor is Linux. There are certain concessions that vendors make when releasing a product for the mass market. This, however, doesn't mean that Microsoft is not working on a number of different research projects to extend Windows well into the next two decades. Windows 8, however, will be "probably" very much based on a Vista/7 model.

I don't want you to mis understand me. I don't think Windows 7 is bad. I feel it it the best OS since Vista. My point is, since they have a good OS out, they can afford to wait a little bit and build an OS from scratch. Obvioulsy nothing is perfect, but now is the time to build a secure OS with the things they have learned. It is time to put all the Linux boys and Unix boys to shame with a far superior product that is based on none of the above. I'm just dreaming i guess.

And yes, the footprint does matter. A streamlined OS will allow for better component talk and quicker/more stable fluency.

People say they doubt they'll start from scratch but there is a channel 9 video from a few months ago of their developers discussing the possibility of doing just that.

Do you have a link to that video, that sounds interesting.

[lee31]

Do you have a link to that video, that sounds interesting.

I'm looking for it as we speak.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Vista and Win 7 are already very secure, re-writing it would just make it less secure (chance of re-creating bugs you've already fixed)

Never mind that Windows has a huge library of programs built around their API's, a single change could break a lot of them (look how many apps stuffed up when UAC was brought in)

[Ran Sagy]

With the change in the way Microsoft develops Windows introduced in the recent OS' (Main code tree only contains complete features, modular branches for features and components) and the increased independence of core components and components at all (MinWin and the various changes Vista and 7 introduced), I'm not sure they even need a rewrite anymore.

You're pretty much at the place where you can just pick out problematic/outdated components and rewrite them alone.

What IS likely is simply throwing out old components that are not needed - 16bit went that way, And perhaps 32bit support systems (and the entire WOW64 system, hopefully) will get removed by the next OS' revision.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I think the risk is minimal.

You are wrong!

[Aldur82]

I would just like to point out that Windows has never been 're-written' as such.

7 was based on Vista, with more of a clean up than major changes.

Vista was based on XP, with major changes but no complete re-write.

XP was based on 2000, with big but not major changes and again no complete re-write.

2000 was based on NT4 with major changes, but no re-write.

NT4 was based on NT3.5 with major changes, but no re-write.

You can see where this is going. Even the 95/98/ME architecture was never re-written, it just got cleaned up and had major changes.

If Microsoft ever did want to re-write Windows from scratch it would probably take at least 10 years from original conception to a finished product. At which point, all of their 'original ideas' would have been tacked on to a competitors product because they had the idea on their own. Even Apple didn't do a re-write with OSX, even though they would like people to believe it. They lifted the core of Linux BSD, and built around it.

Absolutely NO-ONE rewrites anything anymore because it just takes too long. If they've got a product line already, they'll just improve and clean up the code and then add a few new features.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I don't think they will re write the OS anytime soon. But it will be done at some point. When the time comes I can see Microsoft including backwards compatibility in the form on a sandbox or VM. The Sandbox and VM will emulate the registry and let all the old apps function like they should. Not to mention the work Microsoft is doing with XP mode.

[ToneKnee]

This is where the whole 'MinWin' came into play. Microsoft go back and make changes to the previous operating system i.e. clean up code etc and then features are added on top of that for the next release of Windows.

[Pharos]

Never say never. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows is re-written, while adding compatibility for older software by means of virtualization.

It amazes me how well you can run certain Windows applications in a non-Windows environment like Crossover for Mac or Wine. I don't know how they do it but it's an incredible feat IMO. So, it may very well be possible to implement something similar in a new version of Windows.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I would just like to point out that Windows has never been 're-written' as such.

And NT3.5 was based on?

[Rudy]

And NT3.5 was based on?

It was the first version of Windows NT

The GUI was based on the model set by Windows 3 though

[hdood]

With the change in the way Microsoft develops Windows introduced in the recent OS' (Main code tree only contains complete features, modular branches for features and components) and the increased independence of core components and components at all (MinWin and the various changes Vista and 7 introduced), I'm not sure they even need a rewrite anymore.

Well, "rewrite" doesn't make sense because it implies that you're still following the original specifications. What Windows needs is new features, not changes or rewrites of old ones. Half of the Windows APIs have gotten so complex over the years and have so many "gotchas" that it's borderline impossible for a developer to get things right. Other parts are just dated. The graphics, windowing, and user interface APIs are an example. These are not salvageable at this point. They have to be replaced with something brand new. Something modern and simple. All of these "core" components were designed in the 1980s when the requirements were very different.

You're pretty much at the place where you can just pick out problematic/outdated components and rewrite them alone.

What IS likely is simply throwing out old components that are not needed - 16bit went that way, And perhaps 32bit support systems (and the entire WOW64 system, hopefully) will get removed by the next OS' revision.

You can't really. The APIs are set in stone and can't really be changed, and in many cases you have to be extremely careful about changing the implementation as well, as someone will inevitably have a dependency on it.

Even Apple didn't do a re-write with OSX, even though they would like people to believe it. They lifted the core of Linux BSD, and built around it.

Linux? What is OS X today predates Linux. I don't think people realize just how old it is. What you call "the core of Linux BSD" is actually the Mach kernel (which dates back to the mid-80s) and various components from FreeBSD. This hybrid kernel is called "XNU" and was created back in the 80s by the company Steve Jobs founded after leaving Apple. They also created an OS to sit on top of it, known as NEXTSTEP. When Jobs eventually rejoined Apple in the late 90s, he brought this OS with him, and it was heavily modified to become "OS X."

[Aldur82]

And NT3.5 was based on?

The NT architecture was written by Microsoft for the business market as computers took off more in the work place. It was designed to be more stable and robust than anything else they had and to also provide a server platform. Yes, the NT architecture was new, but that was back in the day when a full install only took a few hundred megabytes at the absolute most, and it was feasible to create something from scratch.

My point I was making before is no-one re-writes their software in todays market because it would take too much time. I believe when Vista was first planned out as Longhorn, that was a planned re-write and it took them years before they eventually abandoned most of the ground breaking ideas they had because it was simply taking too long to implement. I do think we will see all of the ideas they had planned for Longhorn but bringing it all out in one release was too much, and Microsoft should have realised it before they even started writing the first line of code.

So basically we won't see a re-write of Windows until we advance beyond our current hardware platform. And that will only be out of necessity.

[hdood]

It was the first version of Windows NT

The GUI was based on the model set by Windows 3 though

3.5 was based on 3.1, which was the first version of NT. NT itself took some inspiration from VMS, but was a new OS. It was just the core though, not a complete OS. They then ported the various Windows APIs from the 16-bit version of Windows, so in reality much of what people think of as "Windows" wasn't actually new in NT -- and it shows.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

The GUI was based on the model set by Windows 3 though

So the claim it's never been re-written is no really true.

But, if MS ever did decide to re-write I think the only way they could do it is under another brand (not "Windows"), and offer a choice during a transitional phase.