Microsoft Vista to take over?
- Thread starter bigbadbrody
- Start date
Windows 95 started the mistake, it continues today ...
We already had a far more powerful OS in Windows NT at that time, but because of Gates in 1994 (he was unofficially support it in 1992), Microsoft put 90% of its resources into "Chicago" (Windows 95).
It had "pure" Win32 (which doesn't exist), with basic security and privilege levels (far better than legacy UNIX), but because of Windows 95, Microsoft never adopted them in any of their software, not even the Visual Studio tools that create software (if you want to use them, they are very indirect in even newer releases).
Windows NT has been "infected" ever since Windows NT 3.51 "Daytona," especially once many things went into Windows NT 4.0 "Cairo," none of it originally planned -- e.g., Internet Explorer components at the core of the kernel.
IBM always made the repeat point that Microsoft should just bundle MS-DOS 6 with Windows NT, since it was better at legacy DOS apps than the MS-DOS 7 in Windows 95 anyway, including showing off many tests of the reboot/dual-boot time.
Indeed, Windows NT was designed specifically for dual-booting with DOS from day 1, and even IBM supported it in many roles and it would have not been too difficult for them to support the end consumer (it would cost them far less in the end).
But Gates wouldn't listen, and virtually every core Microsoft architect was railroaded by Gates in 1994.
Hell, it took Microsoft almost 5 years of hacking DirectX (which started as WinG, largely a failure, Direct DOS Memory Map, DirectMM, then Direct2D, etc...) to even get "tolerable" 3D on Windows 95, all while OpenGL games performed far better on Windows NT than Windows 95.
When Gates started to do it again in 2002 on .NET and Longhorn, the mass exodus finally began.
Most of us who supported Windows NT well before "Chicago" was publicly known have predicted all the vaporware marketing of "Longhorn" since 2002, especially when Visual Studio .NET wasn't .NET, and the early NT 6.0 alphas showed no .NET foundation.
Most of us in the UNIX/Linux/Java world (not the bigots, but open minded people) actually like .NET's security model, and the reality is that Microsoft didn't use it at all.
The most intelligent people in the world will take getting fucked once, but not twice, and Google was hiring.
Gates was removed from his role as chief architect in Microsoft shortly after some of the last, key defections to Google.
Didn't surprise me one bit, he's an idiot when it comes to software design, and won't listen to his most intelligent architects.
Sadly enough Windows 95 wasn't that either.
We already had a far more powerful OS in Windows NT at that time, but because of Gates in 1994 (he was unofficially support it in 1992), Microsoft put 90% of its resources into "Chicago" (Windows 95).
It had "pure" Win32 (which doesn't exist), with basic security and privilege levels (far better than legacy UNIX), but because of Windows 95, Microsoft never adopted them in any of their software, not even the Visual Studio tools that create software (if you want to use them, they are very indirect in even newer releases).
Windows NT has been "infected" ever since Windows NT 3.51 "Daytona," especially once many things went into Windows NT 4.0 "Cairo," none of it originally planned -- e.g., Internet Explorer components at the core of the kernel.
IBM always made the repeat point that Microsoft should just bundle MS-DOS 6 with Windows NT, since it was better at legacy DOS apps than the MS-DOS 7 in Windows 95 anyway, including showing off many tests of the reboot/dual-boot time.
Indeed, Windows NT was designed specifically for dual-booting with DOS from day 1, and even IBM supported it in many roles and it would have not been too difficult for them to support the end consumer (it would cost them far less in the end).
But Gates wouldn't listen, and virtually every core Microsoft architect was railroaded by Gates in 1994.
Hell, it took Microsoft almost 5 years of hacking DirectX (which started as WinG, largely a failure, Direct DOS Memory Map, DirectMM, then Direct2D, etc...) to even get "tolerable" 3D on Windows 95, all while OpenGL games performed far better on Windows NT than Windows 95.
When Gates started to do it again in 2002 on .NET and Longhorn, the mass exodus finally began.
Most of us who supported Windows NT well before "Chicago" was publicly known have predicted all the vaporware marketing of "Longhorn" since 2002, especially when Visual Studio .NET wasn't .NET, and the early NT 6.0 alphas showed no .NET foundation.
Most of us in the UNIX/Linux/Java world (not the bigots, but open minded people) actually like .NET's security model, and the reality is that Microsoft didn't use it at all.
The most intelligent people in the world will take getting fucked once, but not twice, and Google was hiring.
Gates was removed from his role as chief architect in Microsoft shortly after some of the last, key defections to Google.
Didn't surprise me one bit, he's an idiot when it comes to software design, and won't listen to his most intelligent architects.
Microsoft codenames = a legacy of vaporware ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_codenames
Over ten years ago everything promised for NT 3.x got "pushed back" into NT 4.0 "Cairo," then became "Cario technologies" and then silently died, now promised for "Blackcomb." Very little went into NT 5.0 (2000) and 5.1 "Whisler" (XP), and it was largely a "Windows 95 compatibility fix" that took 5 years and a lot of wasted resources.
Now everything promised for NT 5.x was "pushed back" into NT 6.0 "Longhorn," then became "Longhorn (WinFX) technologies" and are now silently dying, now promised again for "Blackcomb." Very little will go into NT 7.0 "Vienna," which will be largely a continued "legacy/polluted Win32 compatibility fix" and take another 5 years and a lot of wasted resources.
"Blackcomb" is a running list of planned vaporware at Microsoft. They keep saying they will put it in Cairo, Whisler, Longhorn and, now, Vienna, but it never leaves Blackcomb. E.g., CairoFS, LonghornFS, now just "WinFS" is very much needed, because the NTFS filesystem has come core flaws that cause corruptions, which Microsoft has known since 1993 when NT 3.1 was first released. I know, I've been one of the consistent Microsoft professionals who has gone into Fortune 100 companies and explained the corruptions, how to avoid them, etc...
One of the better Wikipedia pages on Microsoft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_codenames
Over ten years ago everything promised for NT 3.x got "pushed back" into NT 4.0 "Cairo," then became "Cario technologies" and then silently died, now promised for "Blackcomb." Very little went into NT 5.0 (2000) and 5.1 "Whisler" (XP), and it was largely a "Windows 95 compatibility fix" that took 5 years and a lot of wasted resources.
Now everything promised for NT 5.x was "pushed back" into NT 6.0 "Longhorn," then became "Longhorn (WinFX) technologies" and are now silently dying, now promised again for "Blackcomb." Very little will go into NT 7.0 "Vienna," which will be largely a continued "legacy/polluted Win32 compatibility fix" and take another 5 years and a lot of wasted resources.
"Blackcomb" is a running list of planned vaporware at Microsoft. They keep saying they will put it in Cairo, Whisler, Longhorn and, now, Vienna, but it never leaves Blackcomb. E.g., CairoFS, LonghornFS, now just "WinFS" is very much needed, because the NTFS filesystem has come core flaws that cause corruptions, which Microsoft has known since 1993 when NT 3.1 was first released. I know, I've been one of the consistent Microsoft professionals who has gone into Fortune 100 companies and explained the corruptions, how to avoid them, etc...
My time lines are all skewed. I thought NT came out after Windows 95.
rebeccalover707
Banned
Give it 2-3 years. It's nothing that everyone must have right now, but it will in the future.
All I hear is that if your PC is more then 6 months old, you might as well buy a new PC with it already installed.
rebeccalover707
Banned
Billy Gates had it built to keep the Record Producers & Movie Producers Happy because of "DRM", Digital Rights Management. When MS cuts off help for X-P I'll still be able to run it for another 6-8 months most likely. Then I'm going with Apple. I'm tired of buying a product from MS, then they cut off your support and force you into there "NEW" so-called product. From the Beta Version I used it's X-P, but you can't copy nothing because of DRM. In other words, NO MUSIC, NO VIDEOS, SOME PICTURES, SOME DOCUMENTS, to me, if I can't use it, well I sure as hell don't need it!!! Well, there's another kid in town, and thats APPLE, they still offer support for there old stuff, why not MS???? Billy Gates your getting toooo Greedy for me!!!! Hey Billy Gates :thefinger
And I'm still running Windows ME in my Personnel Lap-Top, and 98SE in my Back-Up HP Pavillion9900, there's still help & patches for Windows 95, ya just have to look, and it takes time!!!
And I'm still running Windows ME in my Personnel Lap-Top, and 98SE in my Back-Up HP Pavillion9900, there's still help & patches for Windows 95, ya just have to look, and it takes time!!!
It's not just Microsoft that drops support. Buy a new computer, or a new appliance, or a new home electronic device. Most have a 1 year service and warrant plan. And they all last exactly 1 day after said plan before they start crapping out. At least with Windows you can just reinstall it every time it shits the bed. With a fridge you're SOL.
Software is in its own world, virtually 0 reproduction cost, very high margins to off-set initial development, as long as you have volume.The General Motors of software.... :dunno:
MacOS X developed Darwin as its kernel and system-level base.
Darwin is based on 4.4BSDLite, which virtually all BSD UNIX based platforms are (largely for legal reasons -- i.e., 4.4BSDLite was agreed to be free of any AT&T UNIX System Labs copyright/IP).
Apple maintains a good developer relationship with the FreeBSD project.
Apple then has many components atop of Darwin, including the Cocoa API, Aqua desktop/windowing framework and the Quartz engine, including QuartzExtreme for off-load.
Microsoft Vista uses the aging, polluted Win32 codebase known as the NT kernel, nothing new.
It calls this release NT 6.0, but NT has remained little changed since NT 3.51, and Win32 is nothing like the original, "pure" API.
A new network stack has been integrated, but it's considered a joke by most security experts, making it far worse than XP or earlier (which was never designed for the Internet).
Microsoft then has lots and lots of legacy applications atop of that OS base, including a great number of legacy support libraries from the Windows 95/NT 3.51 era (despite other claims),
although many were "fished out" during NT 5.0/5.1 (2000/XP) development, especially NT 5.1 "Server" (2003).
The new WGF-based presentation system offers a new desktop/windowing framework in Aero, but even Microsoft's new applications aren't natively WGF-based.
The forthcoming Window Server version with "Indigo" (.NET Internet services) will be about the only place where any ".NET" will be used.
In a nutshell, .NET has been and always will be Microsoft's version of Java, using Java code they have rights to (but they can't legally call it Java, long story).
.NET 1.x class libraries are directly based on Java 1.0/1.1 (the last, licensed version from Sun before the re-license), .NET 2.x based on 1.4/1.5 (from the re-license in 2003).
The entire .NET framework from an application containment and security standpoint is not used at all in Vista's design.
NT pre-dates 95 (and there was NEVER supposed to be 95) ...
Gates gave the resources to the "Chicago" team in 1994, and that's when NT became DOS' bitch.
Windows NT 4.0 came out in 1997 with the Windows 95 Explorer shell.
Windows NT 3.51 came out just before Windows 95, and was the first "polluted Win32" that was (somewhat) Windows 95 compatible, but still largely not.
Windows NT 3.5[0] was the last, "pure" Win32 release, and after that, the Windows 95 team's "DOS attitude" fucked NT royally.
Windows NT 3.1 came out in 1993 (I actually started working with it pre-beta in early 1992, along with OS/2 Warp).
I've had the professional luxury of never having to had to support/use Windows 95/98/Me in my entire, professional career.
I had a few positions where they tried to force it on me, and in each and every case I got them to go NT 3.51, 4.0 and 5.0 (2000) instead of 95/98/Me (prior to XP, of course).
I ran it at home, largely unplugged from any network (or heavily limited in network access), for gaming only, and that was it.
That's what most people believe because they don't know the full history of the "Chicago" project, which was originally a bastard which Gates adopted.
Gates gave the resources to the "Chicago" team in 1994, and that's when NT became DOS' bitch.
Windows NT 4.0 came out in 1997 with the Windows 95 Explorer shell.
Windows NT 3.51 came out just before Windows 95, and was the first "polluted Win32" that was (somewhat) Windows 95 compatible, but still largely not.
Windows NT 3.5[0] was the last, "pure" Win32 release, and after that, the Windows 95 team's "DOS attitude" fucked NT royally.
Windows NT 3.1 came out in 1993 (I actually started working with it pre-beta in early 1992, along with OS/2 Warp).
I've had the professional luxury of never having to had to support/use Windows 95/98/Me in my entire, professional career.
I had a few positions where they tried to force it on me, and in each and every case I got them to go NT 3.51, 4.0 and 5.0 (2000) instead of 95/98/Me (prior to XP, of course).
I ran it at home, largely unplugged from any network (or heavily limited in network access), for gaming only, and that was it.
Same here.
I might need a new machine next year, mine is getting old, so I'm looking forward to getting Vista...
As are 90% of consumers ...
They'd rather get something that only lasts 2-3 years at half the price than something that works for 10+.
Unfortunately, the same is not true when it comes to many engineering and other systems.
Longevity, reliability and, most importantly, liability are our greatest concerns.
As are 90% of consumers.
They'd rather get something that only lasts 2-3 years at half the price than something that works for 10+.
Unfortunately, the same is not true when it comes to many engineering and other systems.
Longevity, reliability and, most importantly, liability are our greatest concerns.
BNF
Ex-SuperMod
From Apple Insider:
The software giant (Microsoft) may even have inadvertently discouraged the technically savvy from buying into its plans by seemingly punishing those who buy upgrade copies of Vista. A thorough look at the End-User License Agreement for the Microsoft package has revealed that the license key for an existing version of Windows becomes invalid the moment a Vista upgrade is installed. This would all but make it illegal in the company's eyes to use the earlier software, even on the same system as part of a multi-boot solution.
Microsoft hadn't said in the EULA that it would deliberately block activations of new Windows XP installs, but has already taken heat from the Internet community for allegedly driving honest upgrade buyers towards full-sized (and thus more expensive) copies of Vista. When combined with the newly-added hassle of installing the old OS instead of simply validating the old disc as in the past, many are asking just who, if anyone, Redmond hopes to entice with its much-delayed refresh.
The software giant (Microsoft) may even have inadvertently discouraged the technically savvy from buying into its plans by seemingly punishing those who buy upgrade copies of Vista. A thorough look at the End-User License Agreement for the Microsoft package has revealed that the license key for an existing version of Windows becomes invalid the moment a Vista upgrade is installed. This would all but make it illegal in the company's eyes to use the earlier software, even on the same system as part of a multi-boot solution.
Microsoft hadn't said in the EULA that it would deliberately block activations of new Windows XP installs, but has already taken heat from the Internet community for allegedly driving honest upgrade buyers towards full-sized (and thus more expensive) copies of Vista. When combined with the newly-added hassle of installing the old OS instead of simply validating the old disc as in the past, many are asking just who, if anyone, Redmond hopes to entice with its much-delayed refresh.
Does anyone know more about all this DRM stuff they seem to have bundled into the media player software and such. By the sound of it MS has really pandered to the RIAA/MPAA by making it really difficult to copy/create media with Vista. I don't know the details which is why I'm asking but it sounded like they put all kinds of "safeguards" in that would make "piracy" difficult or impossible, but that this same "protection" can also have a high probability of making false positives...
