Starting Windows 8

[Xilo]

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.

Not to mention, software is often developed around bugged APIs (often times unknowingly). Which is why sometimes, things never get fixed or will never see a rewrite.

[+Warwagon MVC]

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 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.

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."

I'd replace Linux with Unix BSD

[Aldur82]

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

Actually it's totally true. It was written once, but they have never completely abandoned an existing architecture and made a new one from scratch. They have built on what was already there. Making it better and cleaner, but still essentially the same architecture.

The NT architecture was developed alongside the Windows 9x architecture. The only reason XP wasn't based on the 9x architecture is that the NT one was better, and Microsoft could make it even better by stopping development of 9x versions and using the programmers and creative thinkers on the NT line instead.

[Dick Montage]

I thought NT3.5 came out quite some time before the release of 95...

[hdood]

Not to mention, software is often developed around bugged APIs (often times unknowingly). Which is why sometimes, things never get fixed or will never see a rewrite.

Exactly. I think this "rewrite" focus is all wrong though. Old APIs should be complemented or replaced with brand new APIs that are designed for the modern age. I wouldn't really call this "rewrite", because you end up with something new rather than just something modified.

If Microsoft were to make a new OS from scratch, they wouldn't be "rewriting Windows", they would be creating a new OS.

[hdood]

I thought NT3.5 came out quite some time before the release of 95...

About a year earlier. 3.5 wasn't the first version of NT though.

NT and 95 are very much related, as Microsoft took the 16-bit Windows APIs and ported them to 32-bit for NT. They then ported this new 32-bit version of the API back to Windows 3 and 95+.

[Martog]

I thought NT3.5 came out quite some time before the release of 95...

NT 3.5 was out before 95 yes, but still had the GUI from NT 3.1 and Windows 3.11. And it came out only less than a year before 95 did.

Depending on what you are thinking, NT 3.1 was the first Windows to be shipped with the 32bit API already included, which was an addon for Windows 3.1, and came with 95.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

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.

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.

[notuptome2004]

Responding to Aldur82

Windows vista is not based on windows XP . before windows XP was even finished Microsoft started to work on brand new windows foundation APIs new graphics sub system new audio stack new networking new everything and so ya know the windows vista Kernel is a heavily beefed up windows 2003 kernel.

so all in all windows vista is the first new version of windows running on new technologies under the hood the last one was windows 95 witch introduced us to new APIs for Developers and future programs and now the same is with vista and what runs it under the hood and windows 7 just enhances that by cleaning up alot of mess and finishing alot of unfinished work the vista team did not finish under the hood.

[hdood]

Windows vista is not based on windows XP . before windows XP was even finished Microsoft started to work on brand new windows foundation APIs new graphics sub system new audio stack new networking new everything and so ya know the windows vista Kernel is a heavily beefed up windows 2003 kernel.

...and 2003 is based on XP. Most of Vista is by no means new. It's true that the graphics system now sits on top of DirectX, but it's still the same old API from the 1980s being redirected. It's just a polished turd.

[ilev]

Windows 8 (or 9) should start from scratch with no backwards compatibly support, and be free OS.

[hdood]

Windows 8 (or 9) should start from scratch with no backwards compatibly support, and be free OS.

Yeah, and all the Microsoft employees can sell T-shirts and *******s in their spare time to pay their bills and put food on their families.

[notuptome2004]

...and 2003 is based on XP. Most of Vista is by no means new. It's true that the graphics system now sits on top of DirectX, but it's still the same old API from the 1980s being redirected. It's just a polished turd.

umm no i dont think so these are new APIs built from h the ground up cause if windows vistas under the hood new stuff was still the same then vista would have been out in 2003 like microsoft wanted but let see NO it was not.

[hdood]

umm no i dont think so these are new APIs built from h the ground up cause if windows vistas under the hood new stuff was still the same then vista would have been out in 2003 like microsoft wanted but let see NO it was not.

You are wrong. GDI is the primary (and only, really, unless you go managed) graphics API in Windows, and has been since the 80s. The implementation has changed, the aging API has not. What you "think" isn't very important.

[DrunkenBeard]

Well, you can consider Singularity as a rewrite (it is) but it is still far from entering the Windows realm. In the long term, I think that Windows will be replaced with whatever comes from the combination of Barrelfish, Helios and Midori but until then you've gotta be patient. So yeah, Windows is being rewritten right now but you'll have to wait at least Windows 10 to actually see this released to the public.

[hdood]

Singularity isn't a rewrite of anything... It is (like you say) a brand new research OS that has nothing to do with Windows. I wish people would stop assigning new meaning to words. You don't get to do that unless your name is Oxford.

[lee31]

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.

Don't criticise someone else's spelling or grammar if you can't get it right yourself.

You missed the apostrophe in API's.

[.Markus]

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.

No need to make it personal, devHead. We're not here on this forum for a spelling competition..

It's quite interesting to see how Microsoft will undergo the development of forthcoming operating systems.

At the moment, we have this old reliable structure which undergoes renovations and reparations every few years.

It's a giant leap to tear down this building in order to design and construct a new one.

[ilev]

Yeah, and all the Microsoft employees can sell T-shirts and *******s in their spare time to pay their bills and put food on their families.

Why should I care about Microsoft employees ? Do they care about me ? Do they care about the cost of new hardware each time there is a new version of OS ? Do they care about the huge money loss and damages to data each time a virus gets into into their bloated Windows OS ?

Microsoft should make money from support, applications and gadgets, not from OS.

[hdood]

There's no apostrophe in APIs, unless the very next word describes something that belongs to said API.

Microsoft should make money from support, applications and gadgets, not from OS.

In other words you want them to make money from something other than making the actual OS. This is the same thing as selling T-shirts on the side.

[Aldur82]

Windows vista is not based on windows XP

XP is NT5.1, Vista is NT6.0.

Software version number convention 101: Major changes are denoted by a change in the first number in the version number.

If Vista was not based on XP, they would not be able to call it NT6.0

And the 'new everything' you are talking about was Longhorn, which got so buggy and badly coded they had to strip it out and incorporate the working bits onto an existing kernel (XP).

Server 2003 is based on the same kernel as XP, as it's NT5.2. Which means same basic kernel as XP, but developed along a server platform design. The thing that has happened is that Microsoft have found out that people want the same stability in their home computers as corporations want from their servers, which is why XP and Server 2003 are just 1 minor version number different. They are essentially the same engine, but with different components tacked onto the outside to accomodate the different environment it is used in.

What microsoft have done with regards to Vista and Server 2008 (similar to XP and Server 2003, but not to the same degree) is they have the same foundation, but the part where they start to change into home computers and server computers is the only difference. This is a very good thing, as it means all of the developers are focussing on improving the same thing.

So yes, Vista was based on the 2003 kernel...but the 2003 kernel is the same as the XP kernel.

I haven't had a chance to play around with server 2008 properly, but I would guess that server 2008 R2 has been changed around to be the Windows 7 kernel to provide improved performance.

[JonathanMarston]

No re-write is needed. The kernel, the graphics, network, audio I/O stacks, etc are all very good. What is needed is a new UI and windowing API for native apps. Win32/GDI is so outdated and ugly...

I've seen rumours that Windows 8 will feature a new UI framework, and I believe Direct2D, DirectWrite, and the animation library (all released in Windows 7) will be the foundations of this API, and then WPF will be modified to be simply another layer on top of the new native UI framework - finally bringing the Windows UI infrastructure into the 21st century...

[lee31]

There's no apostrophe in APIs, unless the very next word describes something that belongs to said API.

In other words you want them to make money from something other than making the actual OS. This is the same thing as selling T-shirts on the side.

That's where his last comment comes in.

[BetaAddict]

Why should I care about Microsoft employees ? Do they care about me ? Do they care about the cost of new hardware each time there is a new version of OS ? Do they care about the huge money loss and damages to data each time a virus gets into into their bloated Windows OS ?

Microsoft should make money from support, applications and gadgets, not from OS.

Well, they have a vested interest in preventing all of the above when they charge for a product. Plus, who says you need to buy a new rig every time a new version is released? Just take a look at the way Win7 is designed to run on just about any hardware designed in the past 10 years.

If you want some free (aka open source) product, then head over to linux and tell me how that works for you. Windows is the way it is for a reason.

[Joel]

You missed the apostrophe in API's.

Nope. There should be none.