Starting Windows 8

[azure.sapphire]

First of all, get spell-checker for your browser; you can't spell for crap.

Secondly, Microsoft always works on the upcoming release for Windows and the next version at the same time. When they are close to completing one, they begin simultaneously on the next version. So, they've already started.

Thirdly, what would be the benefit (see how that's spelled?) of rewriting everything from scratch? Do you have any idea what kind of time that would take, to rewrite an operating system as complex as Windows? Probably like a decade. Plus, if they did that, all the software companies everywhere would have to rewrite all their programs to run on the completely rewritten platform and its APIs. That would be the most retarded thing in the world.

Was that response really necessary? I don't believe his question was illegitimate. It is a given that the next version of Windows will be based heavily off the previous version, but that is not how it would have to be. Modern hardware does give Microsoft other options. They could split Windows into two different architectures again (like the 9x and NT line). The secondary one could use virtualization to provide legacy compatibility (say a stripped down 7 box), and than allow for a legacy free implementation of the OS and API (or multiple APIs). This might be inherently less secure given the code would not be tested in real world scenario, but it would be tighter/lighter and would have better implementation of various protocols by virtue of it being more modern. They have, in a sense experimented with this experimental implementation multiple times already.

[Darth Laidher]

But what about Microsoft's every two-three years. Windows 95 - 98 - 2000 - ME - XP (Might be the other way around) That's 5 OS's in 6 years. And currently it now has been 3 OS's in 10 years. So Windows 8 is due around 2011.

95 sucked 98 sucked to then the second edition came out and it sucked less lol, ME and 2000 came out they sucked. XP came out and was pretty good so microsoft didn't bother messing with something was done decent. Just like Windows 7, Windows 7 is pretty much an opitmized version of Vista and Microsoft knows they have a good thing so, I don't think we'll see 8 out next year.

[azure.sapphire]

No I don't think we'll see it out for a while yet.look at Windows ME and Windows 2000, they didn't last long because they were crap to most people then came XP that lasted what 6 years? Since Microsoft seem's to have Windows 7 decently built I don't see them rushing to get a replacement OS any time soon.

How was Win2k crap?

95 sucked 98 sucked to then the second edition came out and it sucked less lol, ME and 2000 came out they sucked. XP came out and was pretty good so microsoft didn't bother messing with something was done decent. Just like Windows 7, Windows 7 is pretty much an opitmized version of Vista and Microsoft knows they have a good thing so, I don't think we'll see 8 out next year.

If by sucked, you mean it crashed... than yes, all versions of 9x crashed... a lot.

[Lazure]

Whatever they do, I hope they finally get rid of the classic theme. It's 15 years old, and looks worse and worse with every version of Windows, and it clashes with today's modern standards in UI aesthetics. They should just make Basic theme be what runs in safe mode and on servers... and use some backwards compatibility layer that invokes some form of the theme only for old apps that require such a thing.

[TechFreak:)]

Would you mind providing your benchmarking data that shows that 50 or a 100 or even a 1000 keys under HKCU\Software has a performance impact?

Didn't do any benchmarking, but from my experience Windows OS slows down eventually.

I don't see how this accomplishes anything of value.

That's more of a security issue. If more applications would work on limited account, more people would use such accounts -> viruses would only be able to affect user's data and not the whole system.

Whatever they do, I hope they finally get rid of the classic theme. It's 15 years old, and looks worse and worse with every version of Windows, and it clashes with today's modern standards in UI aesthetics. They should just make Basic theme be what runs in safe mode and on servers... and use some backwards compatibility layer that invokes some form of the theme only for old apps that require such a thing.

Some people still prefers it.

[Darth Laidher]

How was Win2k crap?

If by sucked, you mean it crashed... than yes, all versions of 9x crashed... a lot.

Secruity flaws were 2000's main problem. to fix the problems they would of had to redo windows 2000 pretty much.Thats how it sucked :p

[hdood]

Whatever they do, I hope they finally get rid of the classic theme. It's 15 years old, and looks worse and worse with every version of Windows, and it clashes with today's modern standards in UI aesthetics. They should just make Basic theme be what runs in safe mode and on servers... and use some backwards compatibility layer that invokes some form of the theme only for old apps that require such a thing.

Windows Classic isn't a theme though, it's the design hard-coded into Windows. Now they could of course rewrite it to look like Basic (which is a theme, and requires the themeing service), but really, what is the point? I don't see how it would accomplish anything useful. If you want themes on Server, you can enable it at your own risk.

[azure.sapphire]

Didn't do any benchmarking, but from my experience Windows OS slows down eventually.

That's more of a security issue. If more applications would work on limited account, more people would use such accounts -> viruses would only be able to affect user's data and not the whole system.

Some people still prefers it.

How are these people you reference? Can you point me to a statistical study that shows that anyone likes the classic theme? I think a stripped version of the basic theme would be ideal for server work and, or terminal sessions if not using a command line.

[hdood]

Didn't do any benchmarking, but from my experience Windows OS slows down eventually.

Yeah, I knew you couldn't, because it's nonsense. Like I said, unless you actually damage OS data stored in the registry, it's not going to slow down.

That's more of a security issue. If more applications would work on limited account, more people would use such accounts -> viruses would only be able to affect user's data and not the whole system.

That's part of the reason why UAC was introduced. It's pretty much already being accomplished.

Missed your list of obsolete APIs, by the way. The reality is that there aren't many, because Windows isn't designed that way.

Secruity flaws were 2000's main problem. to fix the problems they would of had to redo windows 2000 pretty much.Thats how it sucked :p

Uhm, you could replace "2000" with "XP" in that sentence and it would still be true.

[christb]

[azure.sapphire]

Secruity flaws were 2000's main problem. to fix the problems they would of had to redo windows 2000 pretty much.Thats how it sucked :p

It had to do mainly with how some services were deployed on default installations. As for redoing Win2k, I think you can call that XP, though it didn't really become "more secure" until SP2 arrived in 2004. A little bit more went into Win2k server line when it made the transition to Win2k3.

[Darth Laidher]

Yeah, I knew you couldn't, because it's nonsense. Like I said, unless you actually damage OS data stored in the registry, it's not going to slow down.

That's part of the reason why UAC was introduced. It's pretty much already being accomplished.

Missed your list of obsolete APIs, by the way. The reality is that there aren't many, because Windows isn't designed that way.

Uhm, you could replace "2000" with "XP" in that sentence and it would still be true.

XP's flaws could be patched, Windows 2000's flaws couldn't be patched without rewriting the architecture.

[azure.sapphire]

XP's flaws could be patched, Windows 2000's flaws couldn't be patched without rewriting the architecture.

What?

[thechronic]

i hope they get rid of the registry.

If your registry is so clogged up that its affecting your systems performance then you are not maintaining or even using your Operating System as you should. Use a tool like CCleaner and voila! excess clutter is gone. That said, Windows 7 performs beautifully and so far i've had no issues and i've not lost any performance since i first installed it.

[Darth Laidher]

What?

On September 8, 2009, Microsoft skipped patching two of the five security flaws that were addressed in the monthly security update, saying that patching one of the critical security flaws was "infeasible"

According to the Microsoft Security Bulletin MS09-048, "The architecture to properly support TCP/IP protection does not exist on Microsoft Windows 2000 systems, making it infeasible to build the fix for Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 to eliminate the vulnerability. To do so would require re-architecting a very significant amount of the Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 operating system, [...] there would be no assurance that applications designed to run on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 would continue to operate on the updated system."

That is what :)

[nub]

Problem with windows is that every program wants to install extra non-necessary crap that runs at startup.

On my computer I've got 3 startup programs. Sidebar, MSE, & Sound Card Control Panel. When I go through others computers I am amazed by how much crap is running in the background that is USELESS.

Windows 8 should have a more user friendly way to enable and disable startup programs. (or companies should stops sucking)

Edit: Also tabbed explorer

[hdood]

XP's flaws could be patched, Windows 2000's flaws couldn't be patched without rewriting the architecture.

XP saw some substantial rewrites and architectural changes (that broke thousands of programs) in the name of security. More so than 2000. In fact, the situation had gotten so dire that Microsoft had to take a step back and halt projects to focus on cleaning up the code. XP was a gigantic mess.

[TechFreak:)]

Yeah, I knew you couldn't, because it's nonsense. Like I said, unless you actually damage OS data stored in the registry, it's not going to slow down.

So why does it slows down?

That's part of the reason why UAC was introduced. It's pretty much already being accomplished.

As I said, there are still programs that don't support it. One of this is also Visual Studio which doesn't support installing DLLs without administration rights.

Missed your list of obsolete APIs, by the way. The reality is that there aren't many, because Windows isn't designed that way.

Obviously there are some, otherwise older programs wouldn't run.

[Darth Laidher]

XP saw some substantial rewrites and architectural changes (that broke thousands of programs) in the name of security. More so than 2000. In fact, the situation had gotten so dire that Microsoft had to take a step back and halt projects to focus on cleaning up the code. XP was a gigantic mess.

I don't know about anyone else but I never had any problems running applications when I used XP.The only time I ever had a problems was when I switched from XP to Vista.

[TechFreak:)]

Problem with windows is that every program wants to install extra non-necessary crap that runs at startup.

Soluto is easy to use and helps users to easily remove unnecessary programs from startup: http://www.soluto.com/

[Ilgauskas]

So why does it slows down?

Prove it with scientific benchmarks. Personal experience does not count as it's often based on placebo effect and similar kind of stuff.

[azure.sapphire]

On September 8, 2009, Microsoft skipped patching two of the five security flaws that were addressed in the monthly security update, saying that patching one of the critical security flaws was "infeasible"

According to the Microsoft Security Bulletin MS09-048, "The architecture to properly support TCP/IP protection does not exist on Microsoft Windows 2000 systems, making it infeasible to build the fix for Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 to eliminate the vulnerability. To do so would require re-architecting a very significant amount of the Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 operating system, [...] there would be no assurance that applications designed to run on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 would continue to operate on the updated system."

That is what :)

This is more about economics than support. Microsoft could release patches. The TCP/IP stack could be updated with a service release. The problem is that almost no one uses Win2k. Only about .5 percent of individuals and corporate (according to their count do). As for Win2k legacy, it is alive and kicking in XP. Though you are correct in some minor kernel changes and services added (and restricted).

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

[Malisk]

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.

I don't think the NT kernel is poor enough that they have to start from scratch. To the contrary, since 2000 + XP it's finally mature, and Vista + 7 moved it quite a bit forward. To take these latest developments, throw them away, and spend 5-10 years on rebuilding the kernel alone to similar quality without counting any other software -- no thanks...

The only reason I could see for a new kernel would be for very low budget systems like netbooks, but MinWin (the componentization of e.g. Windows 7) was kind of developed to cover that base.

[nub]

Prove it with scientific benchmarks. Personal experience does not count as it's often based on placebo effect and similar kind of stuff.

I'd be interested in this.

[Lazure]

Some people still prefers it.

So? I'm sure some people preferred the look of system 7 on the early Macintoshes, does this mean that apple should have made it so people can switch MACOSX Snow Leopard to look like System 7? There's a time where certain outdated and ugly things must be laid to rest, to remove unnecessary outdated foundation to allow a more efficient (and better looking) foundation to take its place.

Also, take a look at what classic does to Windows 7. It's eye cancer. The start menu and explorer windows look terribly mishapen and wrong in the classic theme, icons look way out of place, and even programs like calculator just plain look BROKEN. The start button itself is like, HUH? And then you got the 'show desktop' icon taking up massive space where, in basic/aero, is just a thin little tab. What does this mean? Microsoft themselves do not care about the classic theme anymore. It's ONLY there for compatibility and safemode/servers, because the theme service is still required to display themes due to them using an OLD OLD foundation (read: windows 95). If they finally got rid of the classic theme, it means they rewrote the foundation and a much better look, without requiring a service, has taken its place. Imagine that, a nice looking theme that does not require a service to run! It'd already be way more efficient.

Besides, I'm sure some weirdo will make a "Classic" msstyle in some sorta revolt against MS for removing classic theme. However, the number of people doing that will be very few, as in reality... only theme enthusiasts go so far as to patch DLLs in their system to use other themes anyways... and many theme enthusiasts probably do not prefer the classic look over something better customized and more modern.