Should Microsoft do an Apple?
-
One has to say that beyond the flashiness Windows XP is more stable than Windows 95 and that that is a good reason for your customers to use it. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doabsolutely - but tell that to people who need to use an ISA card to support a legacy DOS application :( (we try to convince them we are better - but replacing a particular app that has grown over 12 years isn't an easy job :rolleyes: )
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
"Microsoft feels it can't get away with breaking compatibility," said Mendel Rosenblum, a Stanford University computer scientist. "All of their applications must continue to run, and from an architectural point of view that's a very painful thing."
Windows Is So Slow, but Why?[^] from the New York Times. It would be a contentious move for sure and I don't think Microsoft are even considering it but what do you think about a future generation of Windows dropping most of its legacy support? Effectively what Apple did with Mac OS a few years back. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
Effectively what Apple did with Mac OS a few years back.
FUD. You can run any app in classic OS emulation. It's no different than WOW in the MS world. Jeremy Falcon
-
I've recently had the experience of having OS/X installed on an OS-9 system. The following conversation ensued: Tech: Do you want to install this as a dual boot configuration? Me: Why would I want to do that? Tech: Because all these old OS-9 apps don't work under OS-X Me: You're kidding. Microsoft never had that problem The conversation didn't proceed very constructively from that point, but I was left with an immense appreciation for what the guys at Microsoft actually have to struggle with. The actual Mac in question takes several minutes to fire up OS-9 compatibility mode. I saw a guy reboot his PowerBook G4 into OS-9. Actually, I never really did see it finish. After 10 minutes, we both walked into the kitchen and made some tea. Whatever the allure to Mac's is, from my experience, simple productivity is more primitive than when Commodore 64's were all the rage. Yes, it's that bad. It's an incredibly unintuitive OS, dialogs are klunky and after 5 or so nestings, it's hard to remember "how did I get here". I remember those problems 20 years ago. But OS-X still has them. Blech. Maybe others have more positive experiences. Maybe I'm biased by using Windows. Maybe I just miss the idea of right-clicking to get the properties of something. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
I am astonished because the OS9 compatibility layer works perfectly and is very fast. The first starting of an OS9 application starts the OS9 compatibility layer in approximately 15 seconds on an average Mac. But perhaps that this Tech guy used a very old version of OSX ?
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Effectively what Apple did with Mac OS a few years back.
FUD. You can run any app in classic OS emulation. It's no different than WOW in the MS world. Jeremy Falcon
It certainly is not ideal though. Slower for one. Just like the Rosetta story with the Intel Macs now. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
It certainly is not ideal though. Slower for one. Just like the Rosetta story with the Intel Macs now. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
It certainly is not ideal though. Slower for one.
Not it's not. Don't let the word emulation throw you off. It actually uses MacOS 9 to run the old apps inside of X, so it's not emulation as you would normally think of it - it's using native code to run native code. Jeremy Falcon
-
It certainly is not ideal though. Slower for one. Just like the Rosetta story with the Intel Macs now. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doCompatibility would probably have been a better word for me to use than emulation btw. Jeremy Falcon
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
rude
Needlesly so I'd say since legacy support is a real issue and we would be better off without it to some degree. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
Why can't they just keep on using Windows 95/2k while the next Windows drops legacy support? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
Yes, the next version of windows should not run anything before .net. Let some 3rd party (or themselves) build something to emulate an older version of windows. how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things --thedailywtf 3/21/06
That's a really good way to piss off 95% of your entire customer and developer base. Got any other excellent ideas?
-
Why not drop the legacy support, But add an internal emulator that could run the legacy stuff. Kind of a Wine for Windows. It could internally run a version of XP so if you Really needed teh old programs you could run them but it wouldn't clunk down the new inovative stuff. Just my 2cents, I've long wished M$ would release a version of Windows that didn't do so much hand holding, for the people in the know who don't need all the extra padding. My parents for example NEED Windows to do Everything for them but I end up disabling a lot of the cushion stuff...
RtroActiv wrote:
I've long wished M$ would release a version of Windows
I'm sorry to inject an off topic comment here, but I find the freakish use of the M-dollar sign so annoying childish I want to hurl. ok, thanks for letting me get that off my chest guys and gals. My Programming Library /* You are not expected to understand this */
-
David Kentley wrote:
Backwards compatibility is waaaaaaaaay down the list.
Couldn't a lighter, more efficient Windows XP have been made that works well in 256MB RAM if it didn't have to support legacy software and hardware? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
Couldn't a lighter, more efficient Windows XP have been made that works well in 256MB RAM if it didn't have to support legacy software and hardware?
There's no doubt that a lighter XP could be run in 256MB of RAM, but I have a hard time believing that its legacy support is causing the slowdown. I think the biggest culprit for the bloat is inefficient graphical eye candy (which is why I fear Vista).
-
"Microsoft feels it can't get away with breaking compatibility," said Mendel Rosenblum, a Stanford University computer scientist. "All of their applications must continue to run, and from an architectural point of view that's a very painful thing."
Windows Is So Slow, but Why?[^] from the New York Times. It would be a contentious move for sure and I don't think Microsoft are even considering it but what do you think about a future generation of Windows dropping most of its legacy support? Effectively what Apple did with Mac OS a few years back. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
That's a really good way to piss off 95% of your entire customer and developer base. Got any other excellent ideas?
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Couldn't a lighter, more efficient Windows XP have been made that works well in 256MB RAM if it didn't have to support legacy software and hardware?
There's no doubt that a lighter XP could be run in 256MB of RAM, but I have a hard time believing that its legacy support is causing the slowdown. I think the biggest culprit for the bloat is inefficient graphical eye candy (which is why I fear Vista).
David Kentley wrote:
I think the biggest culprit for the bloat is inefficient graphical eye candy (which is why I fear Vista).
Time to go back to the old mainframe terminal days:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
-
Why can't they just keep on using Windows 95/2k while the next Windows drops legacy support? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doBecause some applications they use in conjunction with this OS and Office application are developed by 3rd parties that run on latest OSes, but can be run on previous OSes due to legacy code. I am a big fan of out with the old and in with the new. Hell, I can't stand plastic surgery on an older person (i.e., lady) to look younger. :) "If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
and the massive conglomerate that is the registry.
You know, I see people bitch about this *all* the time, and *never* once have I seen anybody actually provide any proof that the registry is the problem other than "I-heard-it-from-someone-else". Do you have any evidence that actually indicates this? What is it that people dislike about the registry (other than it has a lot fo key that are poorly or not documented at all)? ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
What is it that people dislike about the registry (other than it has a lot fo key that are poorly or not documented at all)?
Well, if you ask over at slashdot, it's because you can't edit it with vi. :rolleyes: Apparently, you need "special tools" (ie: regedit) to modify it, so it must be awful (Ignore the fact that regedit comes with the OS - as does vi...) I'm with you though, I don't see anything wrong with the registry. It's quite an elegant solution in my opinion, but I realize I'm virtually alone in that assessment...
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
What is it that people dislike about the registry (other than it has a lot fo key that are poorly or not documented at all)?
Well, if you ask over at slashdot, it's because you can't edit it with vi. :rolleyes: Apparently, you need "special tools" (ie: regedit) to modify it, so it must be awful (Ignore the fact that regedit comes with the OS - as does vi...) I'm with you though, I don't see anything wrong with the registry. It's quite an elegant solution in my opinion, but I realize I'm virtually alone in that assessment...
Ahh slashdot - 10 years of glamorizing 30 year old crappy technology while endlessly bickering over licensing. Yes, they're a regular font of wisdom :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
"Microsoft feels it can't get away with breaking compatibility," said Mendel Rosenblum, a Stanford University computer scientist. "All of their applications must continue to run, and from an architectural point of view that's a very painful thing."
Windows Is So Slow, but Why?[^] from the New York Times. It would be a contentious move for sure and I don't think Microsoft are even considering it but what do you think about a future generation of Windows dropping most of its legacy support? Effectively what Apple did with Mac OS a few years back. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doAbsolutely. They should have done it long ago - or at the least it would have been great to have two versions - one that was backwards compatible, and the other that worked. I just wouldn't want to be the one maintaining the code ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
What is it that people dislike about the registry (other than it has a lot fo key that are poorly or not documented at all)?
Well, if you ask over at slashdot, it's because you can't edit it with vi. :rolleyes: Apparently, you need "special tools" (ie: regedit) to modify it, so it must be awful (Ignore the fact that regedit comes with the OS - as does vi...) I'm with you though, I don't see anything wrong with the registry. It's quite an elegant solution in my opinion, but I realize I'm virtually alone in that assessment...
-
Paul Watson wrote:
It certainly is not ideal though. Slower for one.
Not it's not. Don't let the word emulation throw you off. It actually uses MacOS 9 to run the old apps inside of X, so it's not emulation as you would normally think of it - it's using native code to run native code. Jeremy Falcon
Can the two interact? e.g. if I run an app in the "emulated" OS 9 process and one in OS X can I copy and paste between them, can they talk to each other etc.? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do