Windows 7 [merged thread]

[Guest]

[LeoniAquila]

Two posts moved to the XP SP3 thread:

https://forums.comodo.com/general_discussion_off_topic_anything_and_everything/windows_xp_sp3_experiences-t22270.0.html

LA

[Júštiñ™]

I read somewhere that Windows Vista has roughly 1 million lines of code!!! That is huge, and at that point of course it is going to be unstable because it would simply take too long to look over every line and make sure one line doesn't conflict with another.

Which is why there were many problems at Vista's launch, and why so many patches need to be released, to fix the conflicting code.

Microsoft never should have allowed the code base to become that large, 1 million lines is just too big, especially since Vista offers no amazing new features! Only reason I use Vista is to keep up with new software so I can help with supporting it, but I keep XP on my notebook. They need to completely remake Windows 7 from the ground up and not worry about compatibility, they just need to make sure developers have what they need so there are stable drivers and programs that will actually run.

[eXPerience]

They need to completely remake Windows 7 from the ground up

+1

Xan

[weaker]

MS is always developing its kernel further.
XP RTM --> XP SP2 --> Server2003/XP64 --> Vista RTM --> Server 2008/Vista SP1
They are slowly migrating to that MinWin concept but that will still take time. There was an interview with MS's Mark Russinovich (once Sysinternals) about the Server2008 kernel. They are putting lots of focus on virtualisation and security.

Basically the kernels are very powerful and versatile and exactly that is what makes them eat up all the hardware development. You trade comfort with speed. It's the same with linux but with linux you always have the option to lean on either side. With MS you are basically on a fixed position and that is more on the comfort and not on the speed side.

I don't think they need to redesign Windows 7 from the ground up but I think they need to do the transition to the MinWin kernel much quicker. And they should not forget about the users. UAC was a desaster which they mainly corrected in SP1. It's like CFP on "Custom Policy Mode" - no good for novice users.

Just my 2c

[Júštiñ™]

I don't think they need to redesign Windows 7 from the ground up

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this. If you are a programmer, you know how difficult it can be to develop software for Windows. Windows Vista has over 1 million lines of code, let me put that in number format:

X>1,000,000

This is the cause of the constant BSODs users experience, the problems with running software, and the overall instability of the operating system. In my opinion (and many may not agree with me), Microsoft needs to drop backwards compatibility all together, and develop from the ground up, that's the only thing that can be done at this point, because if they keep adding on to the code like they have been doing, soon that 1,000,000 will turn into 2,000,000 and so on. And this does not just effect the overall user experience, if you look deeper, all of that code will cause major security issues, and Microsoft will only get blamed for not building a secure OS (again).

The best thing Microsoft can do for the next version of Windows, is scrap the current code they have for Vista, and create new code. They need to take there time and make Windows 7 good, or they will suffer drastically.

[weaker]

If MS breaks backwards compatibility there is no incentive to stay with Windows at all! If there is a break anyway, people will switch to Linux. Backwards compatibility and familiarity are the keys to stay in the game.
Of course from a software developing point of view, MS could indeed improve things by completely rebuilding stuff. However that would also take lots of time and MS would eventually lose against Linux.

[MorphOS REBOL]

In some distant future MS will have to re-learn from scratch the invention of of anything software / OS related.

Will take them some years, if not decades, though. (In case, mankind is still alive)

www.rebol.com

 

[smitty54017]

I just read an article on Yahoo Tech news that states MS will not be creating a new kernel for Win 7.  So, probably nothing exciting and new.  MS pushed out Me, which was a dud.  I think Vista is the new version of Me.  Win 7 will be the fix for the mistake of Vista as XP was to Me.

I still use XP on 2 PC's and Win 2000 on another.  I haven't found any reason to upgrade to Vista.   On 2 or my PC's, I have a P4 with 512mb of RAM, the Win 2000 is a P3 with 256mb ram.  The only problem I've run into is IE7 will not run on 2000...easy fix...I use Firefox.  Everything else runs fine (I'm not a gamer). 

I thought about beefing up my RAM on one desktop and upgrading to Vista, but it's RDRam, so it'll cost more than buying a new PC.  I've also thought of building a new PC, but the price of Windows makes me think buying one already assembled is just as wise.

I just haven't seen drastic changes in each version of Windows, except Win 200 over Win 95 that is a big deal.  XP's GUI is prettier than previous versions, but not really anything I couldn't live without.

There just isn't anything in Vista and no doubt Win 7 that is an absolute must for the average user.  In the end, MS dropping support for XP and 2000 is the only thing that will force me (and many others) to upgrade.

MS would have to start from the ground up, which would cause issues with older hardware and software, and I don't think MS is willing to do that.  For the home user, it's not a big deal, but for the corporate user which may have hundreds or thousands of PC's, suddenly rendering all of their software obsolete would never fly.

[MorphOS REBOL]

If it's true what they've been announcing, MS will support (incl. security updates for) XP until the year of 2014.

So, yes friend, there surely ain't no reasonable reason for a change yet.

And I sincerely doubt there will be one (if not lacking too hard in software compatibility) in the nearer future.

The REBOL

[3xist]

I think they will release Windows 7 next year, I just have a very strong instinct for some reason...

Josh

[WaterWall]

They should, but it will be widely available only in 2010 I guess 

[3xist]

They should, but it will be widely available only in 2010 I guess 

True.

Josh

[Júštiñ™]

If MS breaks backwards compatibility there is no incentive to stay with Windows at all! If there is a break anyway, people will switch to Linux. Backwards compatibility and familiarity are the keys to stay in the game.
Of course from a software developing point of view, MS could indeed improve things by completely rebuilding stuff. However that would also take lots of time and MS would eventually lose against Linux.

Not necessarily, it simply depends on developers, if Microsoft supplies them with what they need, then there will be no issues with software compatibility because the software would have been built to work on Windows 7.

Of course, this isn't to say that they could not add virtualization like Apple did with the earlier version of OS X (I believe it was called Classic). This would lighten the code base of the system itself and giving compatibility in a separate virtual environment to legacy software only when needed.

[weaker]

Well, what ist WOW64 then if not some kind of virtualisation?

[DaRtH VaDeR.]

I think they're on the right track with the concept of the MinWin micro kernel, but whether they do it right is another thing.

Ewen :-)

Let me explain to you the micro win kernel is not real! The thought of a modulare based kernel were just rumours. The windows 7 operating system will be an evolution of the windows server 2008 kernel and yes it will be better and more compatibel with win vista because there will not be build from scratch!  I dont think microsoft is going to kill herself with this choice on the contrary it is verry whise! I see many posibilities we will see how great it will become

okey, have a nice day!

 (R)

[Tags:]