Recommended Posts

There will be a re-write at some point. MS is working with other vendors within the TC group. It's still a research group, but promises radical changes.

What does the trusted computing platform have to do with a brand new OS, especially considering that it's not just a "research group" and that the technology they promote (TPM) has been shipping for years and is supported by Windows? Am I missing something?

While building an Operating System from scratch has its benefits, it takea a long time to start over, even if your basing it off some code from the original. Having experience, it isn't as easy as it looks. Microsoft has come a long way, and to change that would not only be a difficult process, but a long process as well.

If I am thinking the way you all are saying it should happen, it would take at minimum 1 and a half years to get the basics, and additional time to get all the features and frameworks done.

I believe that windows should really reconsider its hardware interactivity i.e. Its KERNEL and all that stuff ....

and i am of the opinion that microsoft has enough funds to start a very new project starting with nothing and coming up with a fully stable, user friendly....or to be precise "user customizable".... new OS on a new platform...windows people need to understand what an end user desires and how the interface should be....

these people should grasp all the good things wich users like about all the operating systems..like MAC,etc...and make a new one with all newbies......

wat say ???

...

GDI+ is a software library that offers certain software-based features that sit on top of GDI and a few other APIs. This is entirely different from D2D which is Direct3D.

I don't see what that has to do with how much use it's going to get.

Direct2D can run in software or in hardware (and even in software mode is faster than GDI+), you can create a native Direct2D context for a control or interoperate it with GDI (create a Direct2D surface based off the GDI surface or create a GDI surface off of a Direct2D surface)

Rewriting all their GUI code to use Direct2D underneath and then expose the same GDI based API it currently does (otherwise you risk breaking every single app that uses those API's) won't achieve anything, but it would take a lot of time.

I believe that windows should really reconsider its hardware interactivity i.e. Its KERNEL and all that stuff ....

The kernel's fine. The userland ain't.

Also, nothing stops Microsoft from building a new userland and run it side by side, until it can consider dropping the old Win32 ****. After all, that's one of the uses of this whole subsystem **** the system comes with.

Rewriting all their GUI code to use Direct2D underneath and then expose the same GDI based API it currently does (otherwise you risk breaking every single app that uses those API's) won't achieve anything, but it would take a lot of time.

You misunderstand. The idea is not to "rewrite it" to use Direct2D. Rewriting any part of Windows is a dumb idea. The idea is to create a new modern GUI framework that is all D2D. No expensive interop.

The kernel's fine. The userland ain't.

Also, nothing stops Microsoft from building a new userland and run it side by side, until it can consider dropping the old Win32 ****. After all, that's one of the uses of this whole subsystem **** the system comes with.

NT can't actually run without the Windows subsystem though. Technically most of Win32 doesn't even run as a subsystem anymore. Having said that, I completely agree. People have this obsession with "the kernel" when most of Windows' problems have nothing to do with it.

One problem with a complete re-write... We start from scratch, you'd get a massive percentage more errors and bugs than you would with a new release of the same OS.

Precisely. A complete re-write is completely unfeasible. Joel Spolsky said it best...

The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they've been fixed. There's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't acquire bugs just by sitting around on your hard drive. Au contraire, baby! Is software supposed to be like an old Dodge Dart, that rusts just sitting in the garage? Is software like a teddy bear that's kind of gross if it's not made out of all new material?

...

When you throw away code and start from scratch, you are throwing away all that knowledge. All those collected bug fixes. Years of programming work.

You are throwing away your market leadership. You are giving a gift of two or three years to your competitors, and believe me, that is a long time in software years.

The article I quote is a fantastic article about why restarting from scratch is completely moronic from both a financial and strategic perspective, you can read the whole thing HERE.

  • 1 month later...

$ tar -zxpf /mnt/cdrom/OSX10.7 Windows8.tar.gz; cp Windows8.tar.gz /mnt/shares/Windows/users/Steve Ballmer

From [email protected]

To [email protected]

Attachment: Windows8.tar.gz

Here is a fresh start for Windows 8.

Steve

_________

I'm purely kidding here, but it will be interesting to see if there is some feature creep from 10.7 into Windows 8.

I do like how Apple has the drag and drop containers for Applications in the App folder. It makes some of the system management easier and cleaner even for 'advanced users'. It would be nice to see this and some backing away from the registry.

I've tried 7 and its very nice. The GUI takes some getting used to. So if there is anything that I'd want back in Windows, it would be different GUI options for simple to more advanced use, an easier scripting option (e.g. Automator in OS X) and more default command line apps for backups, CVS type repository. In other words a bit more Unix-y options in Windows 8.

IMO there will never be a rewrite of the Windows OS, the current code will continue evolving as it has always done, it will be cleaned modulized and improved but ultimately will be based off of previous code.

Secondly, I'm not from Britain, I'm from America, where we aren't scared to death of the letter Z.

Yeah, i'm British and i haven't slept for weeks because of those damn Z's :rolleyes:

I hope Microsoft sort out a couple things by Windows 8. Firstly, there isn't a need for a total rewrite, I would assume that the code is probably very good.

It would be pretty sweet if Microsoft removes the registry and implements an application install system similar to OS X. Although I guess this would break compatibility, may be add a new middle layer for older programs - like a virtual registry.

Also, I hope Microsoft carries on the trend set with Vista and 7 of making Windows a more modular system. Just read: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009...lims-down.ars/2

It is about time Microsoft made the switch to NT for Windows CE.

To be honest though, I just hope Microsoft makes Windows 8 even faster, more usable and more secure. These are the things that matter, Microsoft's aim is to make a easy to use operating system not design an architecturally perfect OS that a small number of users will appreciate.

It would be pretty sweet if Microsoft removes the registry

Why? What would you replace it with? Tens of thousands of text files? How would that be "pretty sweet?" It sounds more like a reliability nightmare and performance killer.

The only thing the registry can be replaced with is another database, and then you've just gone and recreated the registry. What I think you really want is for third-party applications to store their private configuration data in the application folder instead of the registry. That's fine, but that has nothing to do with the registry itself (which is primarily used to store operating system data, and is just a neutral database).

Maybe your complaint is also that the OS data stored in the registry is confusing (because it's not designed to be edited by hand), but this wouldn't change if you switched to another storage medium, since the OS would still have to store the exact same data.

It is about time Microsoft made the switch to NT for Windows CE.

A little re-factoring doesn't make NT appropriate for the kind of hardware CE is designed for.

Microsoft do not need to rewrite..

Since XP the Windows OS has been reliable. I have not moved on from XP as I have no real incentive and for MS that must be an issue. I'm a long term and experienced computer user. Vista offered me minor improvement at the cost usability, 7 corrected this but offered no more incentive.

Microsoft has done a lot for the casual PC user, but what about the experienced user who wants more from their PC? I love the detail, I love the settings and the code extensions that add that extra feature that goes over the head of the day to day user but makes my system do what I need. With each new release of Windows I see small features that appealed to me disappear and nothing to replace them. My hope is that Windows 8 offers more control over Windows Explorer and all the files I have. Over the last 15 years Ive built up a large database of files and preferences as to how i use my PC, it is my hope that in the future Microsoft recognise this in the operating system they offer to the average user who has had been happily using their operating system now for about 15 years.

I hope they get rid of Aero Glass in Windows 8.... unlikely... but I wish.

Why? I've heard some people complain before, but I don't get it. Aero Glass is pretty simple and clean. It's not minimalistic, no, but it's certainly not cluttered. However, minimalistic visual styles wouldn't be best for the casual user, so it's best to let the advanced users download and apply it themselves. Additionally, you have a fair amount of control over widths, sizes, colors, transparency, etc. If it's the 'glass' thing that bothers you, you can just turn off the transparency. What aspect(s) do you wish they would change?

urely kidding here, but it will be interesting to see if there is some feature creep from 10.7 into Windows 8.

I do like how Apple has the drag and drop containers for Applications in the App folder. It makes some of the system management easier and cleaner even for 'advanced users'. It would be nice to see this and some backing away from the registry.

Windows DOES support that, World of warcraft for example works that way. It's just that not many write their programs to work that way.

Why? I've heard some people complain before, but I don't get it. Aero Glass is pretty simple and clean. It's not minimalistic, no, but it's certainly not cluttered. However, minimalistic visual styles wouldn't be best for the casual user, so it's best to let the advanced users download and apply it themselves. Additionally, you have a fair amount of control over widths, sizes, colors, transparency, etc. If it's the 'glass' thing that bothers you, you can just turn off the transparency. What aspect(s) do you wish they would change?

1. Too much glass.

2. Basic, are you kidding me? it's ugly, even with Aero still enabled and Transparency off.

3. Windows Classic? horrible. Looked better in XP, it's now officially destroyed.

I love Windows 7, it's great.. I like the Superbar but they need some Graphic Changes.

This doesn't look nice by any means.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google is opening the world's first AI museum in Los Angeles by Ivan Jenic Image via: Google Ever since AI image generators went mainstream, the debate over whether AI-generated art is real art hasn't let up. Those who don’t consider AI to be art say that if a machine does the creating and anyone can prompt it, there’s no skill involved, and therefore no art is produced. The counter-argument is equally persistent, as defenders of AI-generated artworks often claim that AI is just a tool, and that every major technological breakthrough, like the camera or the computer, was met with the same skepticism before eventually being accepted as a legitimate creative medium. Google’s position in this debate is clear. Which is no surprise, as the company is investing billions in AI infrastructure. And now, in efforts to encourage people to use its AI even more, Google is opening Dataland on June 20, which it's calling the world's first AI arts museum. Located inside The Grand LA, a Frank Gehry-designed building in Los Angeles, the museum spans 25,000 square feet. The museum is built around a collaboration with media artist Refik Anadol, who has worked with Google since 2016. The inaugural exhibition is called Machine Dreams: Rainforest, and is powered by an AI model trained on “an extensive dataset of the natural world.” It generates 1.2 billion pixels of visuals in real time and reacts to visitors dynamically. The space also generates soundscapes, real-time emotion sensing, and algorithmically produced scents. Image via: Refik Anadol Studio / Google Google says that the museum is powered by its Gemini models, which run on Google Cloud. So, everything is generated inside one of Google’s AI data centers and is streamed to the museum. Alongside the museum opening, Google Arts & Culture is funding an AI Artist Residency, giving four artists $25,000 grants each, along with mentorship from Refik Anadol Studio and access to Google's machine learning tools. Their work will be shown at Dataland and on the Google Arts & Culture website later this year. Google’s AI museum will undoubtedly initiate a fired-up debate on social media, and we can’t wait to see the first reactions. Via: Smithsonian Magazine
    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!