Should Microsoft do an Apple?
-
"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 -
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).
Why would Microsoft have written this new graphical code in an inefficient manner? 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 -
"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
doIf more people move toward laptops that are impossible or difficult to upgrade in terms of cpu and graphic cards. It would make dropping legacy support more acceptable. Hardware usually determines the power requirement of software being written. If hardware becomes cheap enough or its upgrade path becomes totally unprofitable, forget about legacy support... Does anyone use Apple as servers?
-
If more people move toward laptops that are impossible or difficult to upgrade in terms of cpu and graphic cards. It would make dropping legacy support more acceptable. Hardware usually determines the power requirement of software being written. If hardware becomes cheap enough or its upgrade path becomes totally unprofitable, forget about legacy support... Does anyone use Apple as servers?
Neuroshock wrote:
Does anyone use Apple as servers?
The U.S. Army does[^] 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 -
Neuroshock wrote:
Does anyone use Apple as servers?
The U.S. Army does[^] 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
doI heard the army writes its own code for most things. For security and other issues...
-
I heard the army writes its own code for most things. For security and other issues...
I have no idea but it has to run on something. 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 -
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
doPaul Watson wrote:
can I copy and paste between them, can they talk to each other etc.?
Yup. The only downside is you have to have both OS9 and X installed. Of course, OS X ships with the 9 CDs for free. Jeremy Falcon
-
"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
doAlong the same line, but a little off...put your hands in the air and step away from the registry lol Pablo
-
"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.
It should be noted that recent Macs can still run applications from 15-20 years ago. If you want support for the previous generation of Mac OS (before Mac OS X), a user can install the older version alongside the latest version. If you have no need for it, you don't need to install it. What don't work anymore are some 3rd party device drivers. Until recently, Macs were able to boot into OS 9. Now they can only run it on top of OS X. Note that 5 years passed between introducing X and no longer being able to boot into OS 9. In my experience, when Apple comes out with a new technology, they continue to support the old technology for several years. The title of this thread is ridiculous. :laugh:
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Effectively what Apple did with Mac OS a few years back.
It should be noted that recent Macs can still run applications from 15-20 years ago. If you want support for the previous generation of Mac OS (before Mac OS X), a user can install the older version alongside the latest version. If you have no need for it, you don't need to install it. What don't work anymore are some 3rd party device drivers. Until recently, Macs were able to boot into OS 9. Now they can only run it on top of OS X. Note that 5 years passed between introducing X and no longer being able to boot into OS 9. In my experience, when Apple comes out with a new technology, they continue to support the old technology for several years. The title of this thread is ridiculous. :laugh:
How good is this bakcwards compat though? Does an app in OS9 really interoperate with another app in OSX? It sounds too good to be true what you and Jeremy are claiming. That it has no negatives apart from the initial boot-up. 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 -
How good is this bakcwards compat though? Does an app in OS9 really interoperate with another app in OSX? It sounds too good to be true what you and Jeremy are claiming. That it has no negatives apart from the initial boot-up. 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
doI would say yes - In fact, my wife's old scanner and bundled software run under OS 9, while she organizes the photos using iPhoto (under OS X). When I mentioned she should get a newer driver for OS X, she said she had no reason to -- the current setup works fine.
-
"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
doWith 64Bit hear why not drop all the legacy in it. Like someone said Microsoft could provide a trimmed down VirtualPC with a preconfigured WinXP for all the legacy stuff. New 64Bit drivers have to be written anyway so that solves that problem. All the applications have to be recompiled or rewritten for 64Bit. It seems logical to me. Now is the perfect time to get rid of all the legacy crap.
-
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!
Backing up the registry is a little tricky - you can really only back up the whole thing, unless you use RegEdit to export a given key. There are lots of warnings everywhere about 'don't edit the registry' but it's mainly because there are a huge number of settings all accessible through the same tool, and people have a tendency to fiddle. Maybe people are scared that the binary format will become corrupted? It's very unlikely that this will happen through a disk error - registry changes are transacted even on FAT32 disks (on NT, 2000, XP, 2003). I'm not sure that in general people are aware that the registry isn't one monolithic file - it's made up of a number of separate 'hive' files, which may or may not be loaded at any given time. They're not necessarily mapped to root keys. Also, not everything viewable through the Registry APIs actually comes from a hive file on disk. The first to be loaded is the SYSTEM hive, which appears at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM. This is loaded very early in the boot process, for it contains all the details and parameters of drivers, including which ones are critical to booting. The other machine hives are the SOFTWARE, SECURITY and SAM hives, which live under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, and the DEFAULT hive, which becomes HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT. This is the default user profile, which is used by the SYSTEM account (and therefore for the logon desktop), as the basis for a new user profile, and for any session where the user's own profile isn't loaded (typically, for services). These files, and their logs, all live in (typically) C:\Windows\System32\Config. In there you'll also see a USERDIFF hive which is used when upgrading a profile, but is otherwise not loaded. In the same directory you'll see DEFAULT.SAV, SOFTWARE.SAV and SYSTEM.SAV. These files are backup copies of the corresponding hives, made by Setup. If one of these hives is too badly corrupted to boot the system, the SAV file is used instead. So what about user profiles? User profiles live in two files, NTUSER.DAT in the root of the profile and Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Windows\UsrClass.dat. The former becomes HKEY_USERS\user's-SID and the latter HKEY_USERS\user's-SID_Classes. These files are only loaded when the user is logged on, typically only when logged on interactively. Someone recently suggested trying to make a registry change for all users by recursing through HKEY_USERS; as you can see, that won't work because most users' registry hives won't be loaded. NTUSER.DAT roams (cha