Jump to content

My ideas about operating systems...


Roostron

Recommended Posts

Not really. Win95 to Win98 is more of an update than a new product, for example.

Now if that was true, then you would not see all of these third party update packages (that violate the Microsoft EULA for hotfixes) all over the Internet and on forums. Right now, Windows XP and Vista are the most up to date and secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You are fooling yourself if you think their success is all due to "market manipulation and coercement".

Do you honestly think, for one second, that if POSIX, rather than Win32, ended up being the most common API for games and other software, then Microsoft's OSs would still be used on over 90% of the world's computers?

Do you think it would still happen if MS Windows was not bundled on every pre-built computer, pre-installed?

In fact, the latter is probably more vital than the prior. People use whatever comes. An OS isn't something for which average Joe browses.

If a certain Linux kernel was pre-installed by enough hardware vendors, it would probably be the end for Microsoft.

It's the software developers who force us to because it's easier to manage one version than two or three. And they do that when they forbid the installation on w9x eventhought you have all the updates and KegeX installed.

First, Microsoft as among these software developers. They have their own programs, and are also game publishers.

Besides, do you honestly think any developer would even dare drop support for any Windows version had Microsoft not publicly announced the end-of-service-term (Making it sound as if the system was no longer usable)?

They may have just as well planted a "time-bomb" program in the kernel, at least as far as most developers are concerned.

@BenoitRen: Nice link. Interesting read. Most of it I already knew, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if that was true, then you would not see all of these third party update packages (that violate the Microsoft EULA for hotfixes) all over the Internet and on forums.

I fail to see how that matters at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Updates or upgrades are better for the user than the precedent situation in the measure that they are made in the interest of the user, but never when the interest of the software supplier or any other not known "partners" are the main reason for it. Even when there's a free market, this is only in theory. Most users are in the hands of the same software/hardware_driver providers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly think, for one second, that if POSIX, rather than Win32, ended up being the most common API for games and other software, then Microsoft's OSs would still be used on over 90% of the world's computers?
Microsoft is in the business of making money, not pushing an API or a product (although currently that's what sells). Microsoft, if you remember, did make the most popular *nix way back in the 80s (Xenix), before it was sure that OS/2 or DOS/Win would be the way the market would go.

From the wikipedia article, with a link at the bottom of the page for this quote's origin:

In the late 1980s, Xenix was, according to The Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD UNIX Operating System, "probably the most widespread version of the UNIX operating system, according to the number of machines on which it runs".
Had some other platform been the dominant, Microsoft would have likely made headway there too, legal or otherwise. Don't fool yourself into thinking that "Windows" or "DOS" won, Microsoft did by making wise decisions (and of course strongarm sales tactics). If it was something else back then, it'd probably still be Microsoft - don't kid yourself, if it wasn't Microsoft Windows that won, it probably would have been Microsoft Unix, like it or not.
If a certain Linux kernel was pre-installed by enough hardware vendors, it would probably be the end for Microsoft.
Until 95% of the software you can buy off-the-shelf runs on it, it's just a dream.
Besides, do you honestly think any developer would even dare drop support for any Windows version had Microsoft not publicly announced the end-of-service-term (Making it sound as if the system was no longer usable)?
It's still perfectly usable - but it's not FEASIBLE for a for-profit company to dump money into a product that is now 3 versions behind, and written over 10 years ago. Microsoft's business model does not include paying to support an old OS, hence why Microsoft has mainstream, extended, and out of support dates. They answer to shareholders and the market, not Win9x users. Sorry, but true. The market and shareholders demand they make money, and supporting an old OS doesn't cut it. I know people like Win9x, but more people use WinNT OSes like XP and Vista, and the profitability is there, not in Win9x.
They may have just as well planted a "time-bomb" program in the kernel, at least as far as most developers are concerned.
They do, in every product they create that is initially supported - and it's 10 years for commercial products. Companies, users, and developers can still target the old out of support products if they so choose, but most will stay with mainstream (and some extended) support products, to target the largest market share for their product. Again, market rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, do you honestly think any developer would even dare drop support for any Windows version had Microsoft not publicly announced the end-of-service-term (Making it sound as if the system was no longer usable)?

They may have just as well planted a "time-bomb" program in the kernel, at least as far as most developers are concerned.

Most of them wouldn't care. Windows 98 could still be supported for 150 more years, and they still wouldn't care/make apps for it anymore.

The market share isn't there, and most ppl still running win98 are either:

1) people in 3rd world countries, still using P1's and such (no money to make selling them software basically) -- which is likely the most part of them

or

2) the kind of people that won't run your app, because it either takes more than 5MB of disk space or uses more than 5MB of ram, no matter what it does, what features it has, or how well it works (a tiny and nearly impossible to please crowd).

People that use a 10 year old OS (and often on 10yo hardware too) -- not spending anything (and usually stuck in their old ways) aren't the people likely to buy your apps. Nevermind there's basically no money no make from such a minuscule user base...

They'd rather add new features, work on the next version, refactor old code, fix bugs, work in the GUI, enhance the documentation/website and such to improve their product, in hopes of making more $.

If a certain Linux kernel was pre-installed by enough hardware vendors, it would probably be the end for Microsoft.

Most users wouldn't have a use for a linux kernel in the first place. Perhaps a distro, but even then, first thing they'd do, is try to install their (or their kids') games, quicken, photoshop, income tax app, their GPS software, etc -- and find out none of it works, then throw a copy of XP on the computer, or just return it to the store. And most companies just have too much legacy apps, in-house apps, and need too many windows-only apps (financial software and what not)...

And if you think all the developers would all of a sudden move from VB, VB.NET, C#, Delphi and what have you universally to GCC, ditch MFC/ATL/WinForms/WPF and such for GTK/QT and the like, and also ditch DirectX support for OpenGL and all that... In most cases, it would be just too much work (basically have to rewrite all from scratch). Not counting employee training & new hires, new software licenses that might be required (not everything is free, even on Linux), etc. And that's assuming there's even a market for your app on Linux in the first place. Making apps for linux often would mean having to change your business model altogether too (dual license, or sell support or such). That's just not about to happen anytime soon. Windows isn't going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like saying Server 2003 is more of an update than a new product.

Code-wise, it pretty much is. It's XP with more network and server features. Version-wise, it's called by everyone, including Microsoft, WinNT 5.2. Don't fool yourself in thinking these are completely new products.

There are two codebases. There's classic Windows:

Windows 1.0, 1.0.1

Windows 2.0

Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11

Windows 95 (Windows 4.0)

Windows 98 (Windows 4.1)

Windows ME (Windows 4.9)

Then there's the Windows born from the OS/2 project:

Windows NT 3.51

Windows NT 4.0

Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0)

Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1)

Windows Server 2003 (Windows NT 5.2)

Windows Vista (Windows NT 6.0)

Windows Server 2008 (Windows NT 6.1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like saying Server 2003 is more of an update than a new product.

Code-wise, it pretty much is. It's XP with more network and server features. Version-wise, it's called by everyone, including Microsoft, WinNT 5.2. Don't fool yourself in thinking these are completely new products.

NT also used part of VMS's design (itself being based on RSX-11), and OS/2 (which more than likely shared some of DOS' old code), disregarding parts like the TCP/IP stack that came from BSD (with other ancient roots too).

And the other lineup of windows, wasn't even an OS at first, it wasn't much more than a GUI for DOS, which itself was more or less a copy of CP/M (which likely reused parts of other earlier designs)

So by what you're saying, Win ME is just an update to CP/M, and Vista is merely an upgrade to... RSX-11 perhaps.

Similarly, you could say this year's models of whatever cars are an upgrade to the last years' and so on, which are all basically upgrades to a fairly generic car model with combustion engine, which comes from earlier steam machines, which comes from carriages and so on.

Hardly anything nowadays is genuinely 100% new (never been done before, not inspired from anything). Doesn't mean they're not new products in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote (slugfiller) "People use whatever comes. An OS isn't something for which average Joe browses."

If you run a middle range business, bigger than the ones where the owner buys everything on a personal VISA and smaller than the ones with an IT department, you have a wide range of combinations of hardware, operating systems, apps and employee skill sets. You see good and bad. Some apps have transaction royalties, or at least an annual maintenance agreement. They support old stuff because there is a revenue stream. When they adopt a new operating system you know there is a benefit, and the bugs have been worked out. Earl, your top salesman, gets any new toy he wants, for he generates revenue and has other places to go if he gets unhappy. When he sticks in his thumb and pulls out a plum, he shows it off, generating secondary demand among other employees and third level demand when Nell in Marketing likes her new system at work so much she buys one for Mom at Christmas. When Earl gets bit, he tells everybody he knows, including everyone at the professional society meetings and trade shows he attends, everybody that comes to his big annual Bar-B-Que, and every single sales prospect he meets for the next two years. Ruth in accounting will change, given enough notice and two weeks of training at the vendor home office, but only on January 1, and she will still be running the old stuff in parallel until the books are closed, the taxes are filed and the auditor's issues are resolved. Some apps you love enough to buy incremental releases, so that when they finally drop support for 98 you have already bought versions that support XP or Vista, and switching over is no pain. Once in a while there is a good year, and many new things are bought from those you perceive have dealt fairly over the lean years. Fairness is not an absolute value, but rather a recognition of difference, that the goals were mostly good ones, the mistakes mostly honest ones, and the vendor is a survivor that will be there in the future in case you have to live with their product a long time. You change when a choice is offered at an opportune moment by a trusted source, you have the money, and you see a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well long awaited topic :)

i have to cool it down little bit, but i really understand most of it :) since 1995 there was no major software move on field of operating systems. just ask yourself what really changed in system? we moved from 9x base to NT (some people :) ) but thats really all.

What should OS do?

throught it user can acces files, read them, modify them, use them and run programs. Also it should unify acessibility to hardware. Win95 was not revolutionary, but CP/M was in age of 8bit machines. First real OS able to read and run all apps based for Z80 cpu computers. Win95 was nice 32bit environment which made creating of 32bit apps easier.

Double threading versus Single threading

This is only reason why i should in future change my machine and system. My current computer is based on Pentium III-S "tualatin". Single core and single threaded processor. This computer really dont need better operating system as Win98SE

But also i started to build Dual Core system. XP is most suitable for it, but when it comes to multithreading... Only two apps were using more than one core - The benchmark test (useless) and X264 codec. Everything else was running on one core... (but i really think that it is excellent processor). Before i can use XP and the CPU fully many things have to change in writing of applications. Shall it come? i hope it shall, but right now... WinXP is almost 8 years old and only diehard users (as we :) ) will be able to wait for that move on software market and in future they have to struggle with annoying message like "Installer expects newer version of windows" :)

i really dont believe that there is a sort of conspiracy that will produce more expensive and more inefficient OSes. users and ms maybe believes that they are using up more potential of hardware, but Bill Gates leaves the field in MS. he nows that the time is short :)

to Tarun:

XP is not secure. i dont believe it. Vista... 70 percent of vista home computers are infected by some sort of malware.. why?

If an OS pops more windows and asking twice same question, you will not take care about what is in the question.. People just click "Yes". When somebody makes a joke that roof is on fire, and he is doing it for 99 times, nobody will believe him when the roof really start to burn. thats a psychological problem that was created directly by Microsoft.

and win98--- if a virus tries to run on my system it will just crash or acess missing export :)

I work for home users, not servers. There is less data theft and problems with it, but also that is the point where people want to be also secure. 95 percent of all systems are windows, mostly XP. really big target group when you are going to create virus.

Edited by Offler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! Crahak, nice to see you here! ;)

Vista is not an upgrade, it's a cosmetic patch.

Well, what? :wacko: Hoo-Hah!? :blink: Huh?!

You take your mouse, click on a little square representing a folder (a virtual one, but on Vista it can be a virtual virtual folder), then double-click on a little squares representing some image, video or text datas and it opens in the ad-hoc application.

Fantastic! Incredibly easy!

This principle is still in use on Vista and nothing has changed in respect to this habit.

For the expert, there might be a world of differences between w95 and Vista, but for 99% of users, it's only the color and themes displayed on the desktop that changed. The mouse and the keyboard haven't: You still use them the same way as 15 years ago.

The rest, increased input and output devices are only hardware, nothing to do with Windows version.

Take two computers with the same hardware, install a "ten years old Windows" on one (admitting you have proper drivers and softwares) and Vista on the other, you will use both computers in exactely the same way. 10 years and it's still the same. Isn't it amazing? :whistle:

So, the only thing that make new OSes attractive is not "a new experience" but purely technical improvement: More stability and better network integration (if you need it). I'll stop here.

Now back to the topic:

My idea about OS is this:

Modular Windows

I'm surprised there was no more comment... If M$ does that (be it in 2014) I'll be buying...

(And if M$ doesn't charge MORE to allow you to have LESS as they do nw with the "right to downgrade".)

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vista is not an upgrade, it's a cosmetic patch.

Nice troll!

You know the impossible to please crowd? That's exactly you!

The type that says they should improve the kernel and such, and add new features -- because that's why we should buy/upgrade OS'es for (and screw the eye candy). And then, you proceed to completely ignore all the hundreds of such improvements of every new version and act like they're not there (need examples?) And then you just pretend it's basically a new skin for windows 95 (or NT 3.1 perhaps) or such. You don't want eye candy, and you ignore all the new features. They deliver on the whole line -- kernel upgrades and various new improvements (the parts you chose to ignore) and eye candy as well (the only part you seem to notice, and then proceed to complain about). That sounds strangely like the crowd that likes to complain about everything to me. It's funny how those people only notice eye candy, and say they don't want it, and want whatever new features instead (that actually are there). They just can't win.

You take your mouse, click on a little square representing a folder (a virtual one, but on Vista it can be a virtual virtual folder), then double-click on a little squares representing some image, video or text datas and it opens in the ad-hoc application.

Feel free to upgrade to windows 3.1 then, because it had a GUI too (that's all windows seems to be according to you). Actually, there were some others too that you could use, on top of plain old DOS. Or an Apple II even. Mouse support, icons and all! You will be thrilled I'm sure.

So, the only thing that make new OSes attractive is not "a new experience" but purely technical improvement: More stability and better network integration (if you need it). I'll stop here.

100% disagree there. There is so much more to it, it's not even funny. You picked 2 totally irrelevant things - irrelevant nowadays anyhow. Network has been a non-issue for years. So is stability these days (if you're getting BSODs, you have broken hardware or broken drivers. And no, nobody needs five 9's of uptime on a desktop). Newer OS'es have SO many new and useful features, and I sure wouldn't go back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never complained about eye-candy. I like it in fact. And many of us like it so much that they even did an "Vistaish sidebar" and other "revolution packs" for w98.

You can tell me about all the improvements in Vista with your incomprehensible jargon and acronymes, if the popular opinion is, at the end of the day, that Vista is not better (or even sucks), it doesn't count.

Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...