Microsoft Windows Officially Broken

Interesting article, but not surprizing by any stretch. However, wouldn't it be more logical to take the present OS, WinXP, and develop it to a point where the CONSUMER can have faith in it before going off on a tangient and creating an entirely new set of problems, namely Vista? I'm sure that the
need to stay ahead of the other software developers is a paramount issue, but in the long run it's the consumers that pay the price. Maybe I'm not being fair to MS, but I'm not going to trade one set of problems for another new set. Work with what you have and make it as close to 'perfect' as possible, with a satisfied consumer base, THEN develop something else. Don't get me wrong, I DO believe in progress, but not at the consumers expense.

 

Windows XP is a good OS, and is very mature, and stable. Not sure what ya mean there. It is reliable, but requires constant security patching. Vista is built upon Windows 2003 code; like every MS OS, it is not a complete rewrite, but instead builds upon tried and true. Windows 2003 was built upon Windows XP code. Windows XP was built upon Windows 2000 code. Windows 2000 was built upon Windows NT code, and so on.

The problem here is that MS is/was trying to incorporate too many features into the OS at once, and it all fell apart. Mac OS X will have another version out by the time Vista hits the street, and it already has most, if not more features than Vista will have as a the final verion, NOW.

Now, in Microsoft's defense, Apple has help on the development department, because a large amount of the OS isn't even written by them, its Darwin BSD, which is updated reguarly by the open source community.

IMO, MS was trying to jump the gun on Apple and release something superior to them, so they could stop playing catch up. It didn't happen, and isn't going to happen either. Windows is too complex of a monster to radically change it and expect it to work smoothly. They need to scrap the Windows source code and build upon Unix, if they want stability and security. Then they can conentrate on their toys, and have OS updates in a timely manner. Instead, they are constantly fighting with the swiss cheese security of a product that is exploited as fast as they can patch it, and it keeps them preoccupied.

Some confusion:

The article mentions they followed the linux approach. Not sure what they mean by that, other than they started from the ground up with the updated kernel? The kernel isn't anything fantastically new, its the Windows 20003 SP1 kernel.

My two cents.

 

Okay Adrynalyne, let me try to explain myself. First of all, I have no experience with WinXP, I'm using Win2000Pro, and I only based my statements on what I have read of people and the problems they have with XP. Granted, some of them are user caused problems. But you gotta admit, that it could be improved and that was the point I was trying to make. I guess I'm old-fashioned in some of my beliefs....get something working as near perfect as possible before moving on.

 

Let experience be your guide. I've been with XP since Beta 2, and even supported it for almost 4 years. Windows 2000 was more broken out of the box for me. It wouldn't even show a desktop because of a broken in box VIA agp driver. I had to use a beta one until VIA came out with something that worked. Of course, it was supposed to work out of box. IMO, you can't judge anything without knowing firsthand. I supported Windows 2000 for some time as well. Its no more perfect than WinXP.

I hear people complain all the time about XP. I heard the same arguments for 2K, 98, and so on. The only time I saw a total piece of crap was Windows Me.

Remember, this is the internet. People complain. People want to be heard when they complain, and lets face it--complainers are more interesting. For every story of failure, how many are there of success? You don't hear them, because nobody cares. Can you make an educated opinion of XP because you've read 50 accounts of problems on the web? Windows XP is on approximately how many computers? 50 stories doesn't even account for 1/100,000 of a percent.

In regards to perfecting something before moving on, can you name one OS that has? Don't say Mac, because prior to OS X, they couldn't multitask worth a squirt of piss. I call that fundamentally broken. Did they fix it? No, they moved on to an entirely new OS, from the ground up. Not all was well, either. OS X was in a bad way when it was released. Many argued it was released in beta form.

Here we are, 5 years later, with a much, much better OS, but still is not perfect. It crashes, it locks up, and it has vulnerabilities. Sounds familiar? Yup, sounds like Windows. However, I have oodles more features, and IMO, a better layout of the OS. It appeals to grandma and the poweruser alike.

 

The other problem holding back MS is backwards compatibility. That adds extra code, extra vulnerabilities, and extra work. They need to LET GO. Do you think Apple made OS X backwards compatible when they switched? Nope. Many new applications will not run on anything earlier than the last version, in this case, Panther. Panther was only released a couple years ago. When OS X first shipped, it wasn't compatible, and still isn't, with Mac OS 9. Instead, it ships with an emulator that only runs when you use those applications. Programs for OS 9 are confined to a separate system and application folder so as to not conflict, at all.

Why couldn't MS have done something like that?

Give them an emulator on CD, which if they need, they can install and use it. Instead, we have compatibility spanning back the course of 6-7 years, that doesn't work right half the time anyway.

Backwards compatbility is nice, but needs major limits.

If the consumer wants the latest and greatest software, they need to keep the OS up to date. Period. Your old programs still work under your old OS, its not like a new OS version makes them stop working.

 

I understand your point, and it's well taken. I guess I should have thought about those points you brought up, simply because they DO make sense, but I didn't and that's only because I didn't think about them. So, in a nutshell, this is just another time when I 'opened mouth and inserted foot!!' Trust me, this isn't the first time and I honestly don't think it will be the last!!! Anyhow, thanks for pointing out the things I didn't even think of, and should have before I put my keyboard in motion!! Like you said, "let experience be your guide." Have a GREAT day!!!!!!!!

 

Vista's modularity will be a huge benefit to developers both inside and outside of MS. The integration of the .NET framework will allow for faster development of OS/GUI features as well as give YOU the ability to program features into a layer above the OS (namely .net) if you know how. Once Vista's out and tweaked, I think we can expect faster development of some parts of the GUI that will allow MS to catch up to Mac and then some.

 

I do the same thing all the time! Its all good, and the fun of message boards. We ALL learn something new

 

WinFX is not .NET. it is an API that you can use .NET 2.0 to program for.

 

This tickled me I wonder if they actually had a section cornered off where the guys in jail were moved to,to go over the code that the "Free" guys were creating prolly not,would have made an interesting work enviroment