Sunday, June 29, 2008

New York Times gets it wrong

Windows could use rush of fresh air

Beginning as a thin veneer for older software code, it has become an obese monolith built on an ancient frame. Adding features, plugging security holes, fixing bugs, fixing the fixes that never worked properly, all while maintaining compatibility with older software and hardware — is there anything Windows doesn’t try to do?
Disaster! Run for the hills! Microsoft is trying to do the bare minimum you have to do with a commercial operating system!

Painfully visible are the inherent design deficiencies of a foundation that was never intended to support such weight. Windows seems to move an inch for every time that Mac OS X or Linux laps it.
The oldest 'base' for Windows (if you could distill it down that way) is the NT source code. That was designed from day one to be as future proof as you can make an OS. (Trying to future proof software over more than a decade is like trying to predict the weather at 2pm, on the 4th of July 2045. Windows is pretty modern, just like everything else out there. I can't really think of any ancient technology in Windows that is beyond salvage; everything important that needs to be overhauled can be overhauled, and has been. (Hit that Comment button if you disagree. I'm not saying everything in Windows is perfect. It isn't. I just don't think we've painted ourselves into a corner anywhere with the OS design.)

The best solution to the multiple woes of Windows is starting over. Completely. Now.
Ah yes - the wonderful lets-start-over argument. Every developer gets to this idea at some point. Good developers think of ways that they can take what they have, and radically improve it.

Vista is the equivalent, at a minimum, of Windows version 12 — preceded by 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, NT, 95, NT 4.0, 98, 2000, ME, XP. After six years of development, the longest interval between versions in the previous 22-year history of Windows, and long enough to permit Apple to bring out three new versions of Mac OS X, Vista was introduced to consumers in January 2007.

That's correct, I guess.
Although XPSP2 was, as a project, the size of a new OS.
And we shipped Windows Server 2003 in that gap. And a lot of 64 bit versions of Windows.

When I.T. professionals and consumers got a look at Vista, they all had this same question for Microsoft: That’s it?
I know what they were trying to say. They're trying to say: Awww yeah, that's it.

The internal code name for the next version is “Windows 7.” The “7” refers to nothing in particular, a company spokeswoman says.
She doesn't use winver. Just like most consumers.

But sticking with that same core architecture is the problem, not the solution. In April, Michael A. Silver and Neil MacDonald, analysts at Gartner, the research firm, presented a talk titled “Windows Is Collapsing.” Their argument isn’t that Windows will cease to function but that the accumulated complexity, as Microsoft tries to support 20 years of legacies, prevents timely delivery of advances. “The situation is untenable,” their joint presentation says. “Windows must change radically.”
Eh, OK. I think I blogged on that before.

Some software engineers within Microsoft seem to be in full agreement, talking in public of work that began in 2003 to design a new operating system from scratch. They believe that problems like security vulnerabilities and system crashes can be fixed only by abandoning system design orthodoxy, formed in the 1960s and ’70s, that was built into Windows.
Unfortunately, this willingness to begin with an entirely new foundation is not located within the Windows group but in Microsoft’s research arm, where scientists and their heretical thoughts are safely isolated. Last April, Microsoft publicly unveiled the five-year-old research project, called “Singularity.” It is nothing more than a neat academic exercise, not a glimpse of Windows 7.

So...Microsoft Research is looking into brand new unproven ways to build operating systems. And we're not using those unproven methods and technologies *today* when we sell operating systems to millions of paying customers? Yes, we suck indeed.

[Mac OS X is] based on a modern microkernel design, which runs a very small set of essential services that make the system less vulnerable to crashes.
Yes, that is a somewhat true point, but distilled down to nothingness by the NY Times editor. (Are microkernel-based designs more robust? The answer is ...er, kind of, based on your definition of modern, microkernel, essential, services, system, vulnerable and crashes. And is.)

In some crucial ways, however, Microsoft would enjoy advantages in developing its own “Windows OS X,” as we might call it, that Apple did not: the power of today’s quad-core machines and sophisticated virtualization software would allow older software applications and hardware peripherals to be used indefinitely with little or no performance penalty, making a clean start far easier for customers to accept.

Sigh. No. Memory is the big problem here - virtualizing Windows Vista in a little virtual box inside of Windows 7 (or 8 or 9 or 10 or whatever) is going to take too much memory.

Quad-core is not going to help you; the bottleneck here is not the CPU; fitting two operating systems into memory is. A simple point like this should be easy enough to explain in the NY Times.

A MONOLITHIC operating system like Windows perpetuates an obsolete design. We don’t need to load up our machines with bloated layers we won’t use. We need what Mr. Silver and Mr. MacDonald speak of as a “just enough” operating system. Additional functionality, appropriate to a given task, can be loaded as needed.

If only there was a way for a bit of software to load bits and pieces of the operating system, as needed...Some API to load a dynamic link library from the disk, into memory, and then call a well-defined API in said DLL. Maybe we can call it...LoadLibrary()?

28 comments:

Adam said...

Nice post. My only question is on your assertion that memory is the problem with virtualizing Vista (and prior Windows versions) in a future version.

Assuming we're talking 64 bit here, how hard/expensive is it to allocate 1 or 2 GB to the virtual machine? Dollar-wise, it's a fraction of the cost of the OS license (perhaps the "plus" license includes a coupon for a DIMM ... yes, I'm kidding)

I would think 1-2 GB should be plenty: I'm assuming people wouldn't be doing gaming or hi-perf computing in the VM; that it would mainly be for running old but critical line-of-business apps with ugly GUIs in user-time, and for home users running that old CD burning or desktop publishing software that they're too cheap to upgrade.

Am I missing something?

Viking said...

I second the "nice post" sentiment, although i must ask - how defensive can you get?

The content of that NYT article (or what's been copied in your post) is quite inaccurate - absolutely. Good on you for adding some truth back in. However you might want to ponder WHY this article was even written and possibly even address that (much more important) issue.

Hint: it's not those nasty mac-pc ads.

Tom Herry said...

Get outspoken insights and expert advice on Windows, Office, and other Microsoft products from a source who knows these technologies inside and out. If you are facing any problem get Computer Help.Thanks for the information.......

Unknown said...

Nice post. I always like to find opinions on articles, to get to the 'real truth'.

Still, after commenting that NYT article I would have liked to see your own opinion "Could/should Windows use a rush of air?"

As for me, I completely disagree with the 'Windows is collapsing' point of view, but I have to say that it could really use some love on some parts. NT technology is well thought, but some decissions should be revised.

I am no fan of any OS; at home I have Windows, GNU/Linux and OS/X, and all I can say is that each has some good things and some bad things. Turning one of them into the other (as the NYT article seems to suggest), doesn't seem to be a real solution, in my opinion.

Unknown said...

while maintaining compatibility with older software and hardware — is there anything Windows doesn’t try to do?
Disaster! Run for the hills! Microsoft is trying to do the bare minimum you have to do with a commercial operating system!


Sure... That's a good speech for all these costumers who after BUY Vista wants XP due one-year-old hardware and software incompatibilities and hilarious crashes.

7 years for that? ok.. You must understand our "That's it?"..
We're paying for that. That's it.

I've used Windows XP, OSX and Linux for years, and sometimes, I think: Or you (MS) are terribly blind or you (MS) are really kidding us.

This year I have moved definitively to OSX and I'm living a REALLY happy computing experience. Before, with MS, simply I never could imagine that kind of happiness and relaxed use.

Think on that. It's for free.
I dont care MS anymore :)

Respectfully, a (really) tired and old school MS Windows user.

George Murphy said...

I agree, great post. I wish we wouldn't have to wait until mid-09 or early-10 to get a hold of it.

George
Microsoft Support in Maryland

Luke Foust said...

Great Post. Especially for the Flight of the Conchords Reference.

Its Business Time!

Mahoney said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mahoney said...

"
The internal code name for the next version is “Windows 7.” The “7” refers to nothing in particular, a company spokeswoman says.
She doesn't use winver. Just like most consumers.
"

I don't trust anyone's opinion on the necessity of a revision of Windows that doesn't know why it's codenamed "Windows 7".

Justin R. said...

rez,

A change can be refreshing for anyone, especially an "old school MS Windows user" such as yourself. As raúl mentioned above, each OS has its advantages and disadvantages.

I try to stay open-minded when it comes to things like this. It's easy to become a huge hardcore fan of a specific operating system. I like to switch between them every now and then.

tuxplorer said...

First thing, I completely believe your identity's genuine. Secondly, I agree with this post...what does NYT understand about OSes to give a piece of their mind to Microsoft? I sometimes feel some people really don't deserve to use Windows Vista.

lmaxmai said...

'Soma', the NYT got it wrong, what about MJF?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1466

64bitter said...

As to what I think needs redesign in NT:
I always thought the NT driver model was terribly complicated and made it hard to write bugfree drivers. For example, the IFS and linux VFS are conceptually the same, but the linux implementation seems a lot easier to comprehend and write code for.

I shouldn't have to be a genius to write good software.

rainBird said...

Informative and intelligent. I have no doubt about ShippingSeven's authenticity.

That said, I have a request: Please please please make Win7 a better performer than Vista. In the last 6 months, 3 family members have asked me (unsolicited) to remove preinstalled Vista Home Premium from their new HP & Acer laptops and install XP. These are ordinary users, aged 21, 38 & 51. WHY? 1) Vista was just too slow (by far the biggest gripe), 2) Vista's interface was too awkward for them to use, 3) their favorite programs stopped working after several months. MS is in real trouble if this is the reation of its ordinary Vista users (i.e. the ones who don't visit sites like this).

So please Windows 7 team: if you haven't heard the message yet. Make Win7 as good or better than XP in performance, and you'll have a winner on your hands.

Mahoney said...

"These are ordinary users, aged 21, 38 & 51. WHY? 1) Vista was just too slow (by far the biggest gripe), 2) Vista's interface was too awkward for them to use, 3) their favorite programs stopped working after several months."

If by ordinary user, you mean the average joe who needs to be shown how to delete cookies, then yes, he will surely have a slow computer. That's how it is.

Justin R. said...

In response to Rainbird's comment...

The first thing I noticed you mention was that they were new Acer and HP computers. These brands are notorious for installing excessive amounts of trial programs, as well as their own custom software. Did you try just removing those packages first? That may also explain why some of the software stopped working after a few months.

I don't see how people can be confused by Vista's UI, though. There really weren't that many changes that the "average user" would notice.

Unknown said...

Heya, I'm a common visitor to your blog. Having reread this post: http://shippingseven.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=20 , there's something that I would like to ask.

My friend and I noticed that there's a major flaw in the Windows Add and Remove app: it does only one task at a time. That means if you wish to uninstall 2 programs at once, you wouldn't be able to do it; you have to wait for one to finish and only then can you start the other.

I know you shouldn't do that (many things going on during uninstall), but some people are looking at Uninstallers just because Add-Remove progs can't do it. (Like Revo or even CCleaner's uninstall.)

Is there any way that Windows 7 can implement such a feature into it? Is it difficult? I'm sure many people are looking forward to it...

Thanks very much :) !!

Paul Maddox said...

The NYT article is yet another reason not to read too much into mainstream media for TECHNICAL content, not least because it's technical drivel, but also because it's wildly biased.

randomboy said...

Loved the Flight of the Conchords reference!

Amarah said...

I read the article months ago and I thought what stupid S**T Heads. People who crunch numbers are now giving advice on programming. Has everyone forgotten the re-write of Netscape?? What happened with them? By the time they were done with their re-write, they were driven out of business. Had they carried on with incremental developments and occasional re-writes, Netscape would have been still around. They lost all the market because of their retarded argument of re-writing they software. Besides any person who has dealt with a huge codebase knows a general rule of thumb. "NEVER THINK OF REWRITING YOUR SOFTWARE!!" Why?
Simple, good engineers rewrites part of the codebase as and when needed. You have to refactor the code to death. Hence an old code base isn't necessarily bad, it's mature code that has all the kinks and bugs taken care of. And NY Times suggest to re-write the code?? They must have been paid by Apple. Microsoft's answer should be that the day Steve Jobs gives Bill Gates a blow job, they'll start the re-write.

scsi said...

If future-proofing is so hard, then why is Unix still around? Why are hard drives still around? Why are transistors still around?

Steve Kolbe said...

Our experience with Win 7 has been a good one. I'm working on a laptop at the moment that came with Vista, and the folks at the office did a straight upgrade from Vista -> Win 7. Check out this page on our website which discusses our experience in detail.

All the best,
Steve Kolbe, President, ANALYSYS
http://www.analysys.net
Baltimore, MD & Washington, DC IT Consultants

Unknown said...

Nice to be visiting your form again, excess baggage shipping

Pacbell Technical Support said...

Nice Post


Suddenlink email Customer Support Number

Suddenlink email Customer Service Number

Suddenlink email Technical Support Number

Suddenlink email Tech Support Number

Suddenlink email Customer Care Number

Suddenlink email Tech Support phone Number

Suddenlink email Customer Care phone Number

Suddenlink email Customer Service phone Number

Suddenlink email Customer Support phone Number

Suddenlink email Technical Support phone Number

Suddenlink email Customer Service

Suddenlink email Technical Support

IT Support In LA said...

Data is the backbone for any business and it services and support company. Although, data is a valuable resource that becomes the crux of many important decisions, strategies and business action plans, it also comes with a huge responsibility.

Customer Support | Live Chat Service said...

How Do I Install HP Printer Assistant on My PC?

The HP printer assistant is software that allows you to print, scan, and all sorts of printer’s functionality. However, if you don’t possess the software, you can download it from the official website of HP and install it by following a few prompts. You may be asked to agree to the terms and conditions. Once you install the tool, double-click on the software icon from the Desktop tray and start printing.

Also Read:
Blue Screen on HP Printer
How to Connect HP Wireless Printer
HP Printer not Printing Colors Correctly
Canon mx922 Error b200
Canon g2000 Error 5200



Olivia Ava said...

We all are not happy with the Windows options, their updates, and design. Things should be improved now as people are doing their best fob key copying work locally and they are bringing innovations on a daily.

Gummsi said...

Thank you for this insightful and informative blog post! I really enjoyed reading it and learned a lot. Are You looking for Gummies we have best Gummsi Gummies Online Store