Ballmer: next release of Windows will be Microsoft's 'riskiest product bet'

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Denial, Oct 23, 2010.

  1. buddyfriendo

    buddyfriendo Guest

    Messages:
    3,404
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    Pretty sure they're going to try that Cloud bull****, better not be on Windows 8.
     
  2. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    14,206
    Likes Received:
    4,118
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    They've had that since Vista.
     
  3. mandex

    mandex Guest

    Messages:
    795
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    XFX 5770
    Did you ever try using it?
    One day i started using it because i had no keyboard. Total mess when typing, he wouldn't recognize me well (i thought it was my accent, but even native speakers have problem). The text SR created made me laugh, buut.
    If i start laughing SR thinks i'm talking! Oh man, i laughed more and more.

    In the end i couldn't use it to send messages, is not faster since it miss half the words.
     
  4. nexu

    nexu Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HD4870 512MB (@795/1085)
    About a year ago, I actually have spend a day trying to learn howto use the voice recognition system in Windows 7 for IRC chatting and other tasks.
    I can speak with a moderately clean (accent-less) English, even tho it was working fine. I noticed i still could type my IRC conversations far quicker than using a voice recognition system (in gaming term: i'm over 350APM).
    So for text input the voice recognition system isn't a replacement for the keyboard at all if you're a capable typist. But starting/close applications is a good use of it tho.
     

  5. hallryu

    hallryu Don Altobello

    Messages:
    11,381
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2x HD7970
    I've bought risky windows before and it's not for the faint hearted, but seriously WTF. Oh and to Windows developer team I don't want my files in a ****ing cloud!
     
  6. ScoobyDooby

    ScoobyDooby Guest

    Messages:
    7,112
    Likes Received:
    88
    GPU:
    1080Ti & Acer X34
    yes, and those big leaps that gave us vista lead to Windows 7..

    Why is it that so many people feel the need to throw Vista under the bus? It was the foundation which Windows 7 was built upon! (not just talkin about you Year)

    And in the end it really wasn't as bad as everyone made it out to be. I had Vista x64 ultimate on my machine until just recently for over 2 years and it was rock solid (w/ sp2, I should clarify). Only real difference that I see now that I have W7HP installed is that its more "responsive and quicker". Basically the same as Vista though..

    And I can't really say I'd want Windows turning into a Mac-like OS. If I wanted a Mac-like OS I would get a Mac! Been there done that.. I think there are plenty of ways Windows could still evolve and improve. I have faith MS will get there.. eventually..
     
  7. deltatux

    deltatux Guest

    Messages:
    19,040
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    Ye, Vista's poor performance was blown out of proportion. The OS did do its job properly after SP1 when they fixed the kernel and some annoying UAC behaviours. Without Vista, we'd still be stuck where we left off with Windows XP and Microsoft would start falling behind their competition. Not that Microsoft would care anyways since I'm sure they could have kept on selling Windows XP and still kept the market.

    deltatux
     
  8. sava700

    sava700 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,862
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080GTX FWT
    I'm happy with Win7, so unless Win8 has something I MUST HAVE then I won't be getting it. I don't see the point in every 3 years for a OS, 6 years if plenty so it can give app designers and game developers time to adjust to whats already new like Win7.
     
  9. Exodite

    Exodite Guest

    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    276
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega 56
    I probably should mention I like UNIX systems even less than I do Windows. Config files may be human-readable but the systems aren't really human-usable.

    I'll restate what has already been said, AmigaOS was king and everything else I've used is but a pale shadow.

    I'll try to do better to explain my points.

    Minimalism is good. Less things to go wrong, less resources used.

    A micro-kernel will inherently be more secure as well faster. We discussed modularity and you don't really get any better than that.

    WoW64 is a mess. While it works it effectively doubles install sizes and its very existence makes it impossible to move forward with large parts of the codebase.

    It's way overdue to drop 32-bit like the lead anchor that it is. No, companies aren't an argument since they will only update when they're ready anyway.

    A 'more useful shell' for me means having an excellent history, tab completion and trim but powerful set of external commands.

    Minimalism is still key, scripting shouldn't be inherent to the shell nor should any commands. The commands themselves as well as their switches should be human-readable as well. If you want TLA's for speed that's what the alias command is for.

    As for interdependencies I mean things like the old 'IE is needed for the graphical shell to work'-issues. Dependencies on code or services that have no connection what-so-ever to each other.

    Cut it up to the smallest possible blocks and resolve dependencies to those if need be.

    Shared libraries are good but the term is somewhat misleading. AmigaOS had shared libraries, every other OS I've used have runtime-linked libraries. Not the same thing.

    Oh, and one more thing to the wishlist - user level settings. I'm deathly tired of having to set up the OS from it's default settings to something remotely usable. And I want to be asked where things go and what to install damn it. Just because I'm buying a 'Pro' edition I don't want every conceivable useless service and bonus pack installed and cleverly hidden away.

    Don't get me wrong, 95% of this stuff is unlikely to ever happen.

    I'm merely expressing my frustration with what MS would deem 'risky' as I'll inevitably get the 'too little, too late' feeling once more.
     
  10. deltatux

    deltatux Guest

    Messages:
    19,040
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    How are the config files less human usable? I can't seem to understand that.

    I agree minimalism is good, you can compile a Linux kernel to have very basic set of functions and then tack everything else on as a loadable module ... there's modularity right there. Hence, microkernels aren't the only solution to minimalism. As for security, modularity is not as secure as if you build everything directly into the kernel as attackers can write malware that can load itself as a module and wreak havoc on the system even on microkernels. If security is the absolute concern then compiling everything directly to kernel is your safer bet.

    32-bit is still required in this day and age. Yes, companies and other corporations are large consideration factors especially for Microsoft because there are going to be companies who are always looking forward to upgrading their operating system in order to take advantage of the new features and security introduced by the new operating system but they are not ready for a full 64-bit transition. Even in the consumer space, more than 80% of all applications out there come in only 32-bit flavours so 32-bit is still very relevant. This isn't open source software, progress will be slow. Transition will also be slow because software companies don't see the need to push forward until forced. Look at how slow Adobe is in creating a 64-bit flash plugin. Until they do, most browsers on most platforms will be stuck at 32-bit. Only Linux/FreeBSD has 64-bit browsers natively (it uses a wrapper called nspluginwrapper that can load 32-bit plugins into 64-bit browsers).

    I do have to say that I'd be happier if Microsoft just gave people installation options during the Windows installation so you can choose and pick if you want to install 32-bit support or not. I know you can do this with Linux. By default 32-bit support isn't even installed in some Linux distribution like OpenSUSE.

    So basically what you said about a more powerful shell would be basically what GNU Bash has been offering for years. Hence, I still say Microsoft should use Bash and stop reinventing the wheel.

    Microsoft has already removed Internet Explorer as a key requirement of the operation of Windows since Vista. That problem was solved.

    Can you explain what you mean by they are not the same. How does AmigaOS do this different than modern operating systems?

    agreed, it's annoying for Microsoft to shove things down your throat. I like how OpenSUSE Linux allows you to choose what to install. I think Ubuntu should do so too. Microsoft will most likely not implement this but hopefully they do.

    deltatux
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2010

  11. Corrupt^

    Corrupt^ Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,270
    Likes Received:
    600
    GPU:
    Geforce RTX 3090 FE
    I'm actually starting to wonder if they try and make fail versions in between by purpose, like vista and Millenium. Release a version that's bad and then because it's bad, the next version sells like mad.
     
  12. buddyfriendo

    buddyfriendo Guest

    Messages:
    3,404
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    Are you serious? :3eyes:
    What about Windows 2000, was a great OS, then followed XP shortly after. Vista wasn't bad. It wasn't amazing but it sure as hell wasn't bad. After SP1 it was a damn good OS.


    I absolutely hate when people compare Vista to ME. It just goes to show how ignorant some people are.
     
  13. dchalf10

    dchalf10 Banned

    Messages:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX670 1293/6800
    Yep, i've had vista since day 1, 32 bit business, and 64 bit ultimate later, vista has been rock solid from about 6 months in and considering it runs games the same as win7, despite their claims, and also DX11, I saw no reason to upgrade. Vista is more solid than XP ever was. People are just pissed because they didn't pay heed to the spec requirements when they upgraded eg. 512mb for XP, they slap vista on and cry....I wonder who's fault that is :S
     
  14. Chillin

    Chillin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,814
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    -
    I personally use Dragon Natural Speaking 10 for voice recognition services, but Windows native program works quite well also.
     
  15. deltatux

    deltatux Guest

    Messages:
    19,040
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    I still have Windows Vista on 2 of my home's desktop machines. They are rock solid and I will run Vista rather than XP any day.

    deltatux
     

  16. Exodite

    Exodite Guest

    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    276
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega 56
    I meant the OS in general, not config files in particular.

    There's no consistent naming, placement or usage when it comes to config files under UNIX. Other than them being in plain-text.
    That kills the point of having a kernel mode in the first place though, as it assumes your code is free of bugs and security holes.

    The only thing that should be run in kernel-mode is the kernel, there's no reason that anything else should be trusted. Or forced to run at that.
    As long as we cling to that there's no point in a 64-bit OS. They either make a clean break or they might as well not bother.

    We've had 64-bit Windows for some time now but there's no 64-bit application software because there's no point in developing it. The next version of Windows needs to drop native support of anything not 64-bit if it's to be relevant, thus relegating 32-bit support to a VM.

    We're talking about an OS that's not going to be available for at least two years and something you, if you're a business, won't have to upgrade to in more like ~5 years. Plenty of time.

    When Microsoft is talking about the next version of Windows being a risky proposition, or at least the most risky one on the table for them, I would bet they're talking about 64-bit. They are quite aware of the fact that adoption have been non-existent.
    No.

    Bash is a bloated mess. While the history and tab-completion is good it's too all-inclusive.
    Yes.

    Now they need to do that with the 150 other services currently enjoying a tangled web of ludicrous interdependencies.
    Shared libraries under AmigaOS doesn't link directly into the executables memory space, rather it's loaded into a shared memory space.

    In short, it's only loaded once and used by all applications that need it rather than loaded and linked for each application. It's truly shared, which is I feel the idea of equating shared libraries with run-time linking is flawed.
     
  17. Kow

    Kow Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HIS Radeon HD 5850
    Microsoft needs to redesign their hw driver interface from scratch. Hypothetically I shut down my computer and plug the USB keyboard into a different slot:

    1) Windows - Upon reboot needs to spend a few minutes installing drivers.
    2) Linux - User notices no difference.

    Same goes for pretty much any driver. I've swapped between ati/nvidia so many times on 1 linux install with no problems it seems too good to be true. In Windows I'd have to run driver cleaner every fricken time.

    Also, the Windows Registry is one giant clusterf***. There has to be a better, more organized option.

    I think Windows 7 can hold it's own long enough for Microsoft to seriously consider developing an entirely new OS from scratch.
     
  18. "Born"_*Leader*

    "Born"_*Leader* Banned

    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTS450 OC in SLI
  19. deltatux

    deltatux Guest

    Messages:
    19,040
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    Linux is quite usable, whatever I learn on Linux, I can apply that to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MacOS X, Solaris and hell, even Windows. Windows has many shared design philosophies as UNIX. So it's pretty consistent if you can apply it across the board. There might be slight differences but the concept and theories are the same. Heck, even on the binary format level, all the UNIX OS except for MacOS X uses the ELF binary format. Mac uses Mach-O because in the kernel space, it's a Mach kernel and not a traditional UNIX kernel. Windows uses the PE format since that's what the NT Kernel can read.

    While that may be true, at least there's consistency per each group of configuration file for each program. Last time, I check, most people can't figure out how to change software settings in Windows Registry because it's just that messy.

    Yes, only things that should run in kernel space are the kernel. However, Linux chunks a lot of stuff out of the main kernel to keep it modular like filesystems, and base drivers. These are generally compiled as kernel modules and are only loaded when needed. Many of the other drivers and software run in user land.

    Intel tried Itanium, which basically tried exactly what you said and look at what a giant flop it was for Intel. Hardware is just petrified software. 32-bit will be relevant for the next 5 years due to corporations. There are the times when running 32-bit in virtualized environments or emulators just has too much overhead. The current 64-bit implementation of Windows is a bridge between the 32-bit to 64-bit world. Maybe by 2015, whatever Windows is out by then would be 64-bit but I highly doubt Windows 8 is ready for an all out 64-bit environment. Linux can afford that because it's customizable. People can choose to install the 32-bit libraries or not to provide 32-bit support.

    There's talks that it can happen as early as next year. Hell, even Windows XP downgrades are available until around 2015. Companies and other large corporations upgrade very slowly. While to the consumer space, it's easy to upgrade to the latest version of Windows, many corporations aren't willing to do so due to cost, the fact it costs money for their IT department to do testing for security and compatibility issues for their organization and the fact that Windows XP just works in many corporate environments. While I advocate faster upgrade turnarounds, it just doesn't work like that. Consumer space and corporate space are very very different distinct markets with very different upgrade cycles.

    Explain how Bash is a bloated mess? It loads quickly, quits quickly and executes command super fast. There's many options and modules you can load on the fly, very extensible and highly configurable.

    Like what other interdependencies are you talking about. While I do agree on a default Windows installation there are many useless services enabled, I think with Windows 7 and onwards there's less and less service interdependencies. I do however, have Microsoft let the user choose to start what to run, at least give us the option to.

    From my understanding of how DLLs, .dylib and .so works is that they are only loaded when needed which is, imo more efficient and more secure than have them all loaded once and have applications access them. Applications should only run the shared libraries when they need them and not preloaded into the memory.

    deltatux
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2010
  20. Year

    Year Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,592
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 690
    i did specify that i do not hate Vista and that the OS actually worked for many ;) however if it wasn't for the people who suffered from Vista we wouldn't've had W7 so quickly, at the same time we know W7 is based on Vista but just because it is doesn't mean it's the same.

    i tried Vista with SP2 and it's nothing like W7 ultimate, when i say faster and quicker i mean really quicker, less resource hungry, boot faster, way more stable and less problematic, let's not forget even pc's with identical hardware and software often behave quite differently.

    i wouldn't've left XP just to play DX11 games or because i like the new ui and features, i adored XP, but Vista with Sp1 or Sp2 was a massive disaster on both my computers and my problem was sluggishness and instability even with a very capable pc, W7 has been flawless since day one and even quicker than XP which was surprising, Vista was a zombie compared to both.

    again i'm talking my own experience, i'm not demonizing microsoft or Vista, all i'm saying is that something is very different with W7 compared to Vista and it isn't just performance and that's why W7 is a success and Vista in a way failed. :)
     

Share This Page