Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [NYT] Why Windows Needs to Start Over
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[NYT] Why Windows Needs to Start Over - Page 8

post #71 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
It has nothing to do with my opinion.
Well it certainly isn't fact. As an engineer, you must know that there are always many ways of doing things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Engineering never starts from scratch. You ALWAYS start with something that already existed. Recreating the wheel just doesn't make sense. How round can it get?
Also as an engineer, you must know that sometimes you have to dump what you've had for a while and start fresh.

And of course YOU think windows is the roundest of all wheels... I guess that settles it. There can't possibly be anything better than vista. m$ should just pack up and close shop. The wheel can't get any rounder, my friends; there is no room for improvement

Come on, seriously? Are you sure there's nothing better than the windows system?
post #72 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipp View Post
I would venture to argue that an operating system is quite a bit more complex than a wheel. We're fond of car analogies - say you had a 1960's Bel Air. It was what you knew how to drive, it did its job well, and was a good car; but it is now old and not practical as a daily driver (big engine so not great gas mileage, does not have the latest safety features, etc). You go car shopping, but because you've driven a manual all these years and the new car you want has fuel injection and not a carburetor you don't buy it, because you like to be able to fiddle with the carb when you feel like it. A opinion that others should respect? Sure. But, given that you're looking for a most efficient daily driver it may not be the most logical one.

So, the question here is if a person is going to buy Windows 7, do they really need to be able to execute a 16 bit application natively? Heck, lets take it one step farther and say 32 bit, as it is being billed as a "next gen" operating system. The answer is virtualization, not retaining a very similar kernel and much of the same code they have used for a plethora of generation of Windows. Current software technology has made it so that even if the kernel does not naitively support an older application a user can still execute it effectively (and often transparently) to accomplish what they need to accomplish without being constrained by the old code for when they want to use that "cutting edge" operating system.

If it works, why fix it? Because there is always a better way. Rather than try to make it "more round", why not invent a replacement for it that does not have its chief downfalls?
The car analogy doesn't really work too well in this case (although I agree we are quite fond of them around here). Rebuilding Windows from scratch would be like throwing away 50 years of manual transmission designs and starting from scratch when you build a automatic transmission. You have learned a lot of valuable lessons from manuals, why would you ignore them and start over?

Do you honestly think MS needs to recode notepad? Paint? Solitaire? I really don't think that is necessary. It would take a decade to develope the OS and it would take another decade to weed out the bugs. Guess what, after two decades of development we would be right back where we started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyranite View Post
...You do NOT rag on engineering. Dont talk about something you know nothing about.
Umm? What are you talking about?
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hundred Gunner View Post
Well it certainly isn't fact. As an engineer, you must know that there are always many ways of doing things.



Also as an engineer, you must know that sometimes you have to dump what you've had for a while and start fresh.

And of course YOU think windows is the roundest of all wheels... I guess that settles it. There can't possibly be anything better than vista. m$ should just pack up and close shop. The wheel can't get any rounder, my friends; there is no room for improvement

Come on, seriously? Are you sure there's nothing better than the windows system?
That is not what I said. Improving something is a lot different from throwing everything you have away and starting from scratch. It is absurd and I could just imagine the complaints about software cost, bugs, incompatibility, ect, ect, ect.

There is something they teach you in programming 101. It is a lot cheaper to double your hardware power than to double your software performance. So perhaps you get a significantly faster Windows, but are you prepared to pay significantly more for it?
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #74 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
The car analogy doesn't really work too well in this case (although I agree we are quite fond of them around here). Rebuilding Windows from scratch would be like throwing away 50 years of manual transmission designs and starting from scratch when you build a automatic transmission. You have learned a lot of valuable lessons from manuals, why would you ignore them and start over?

Do you honestly think MS needs to recode notepad? Paint? Solitaire? I really don't think that is necessary. It would take a decade to develope the OS and it would take another decade to weed out the bugs. Guess what, after two decades of development we would be right back where we started.
Certainly not, that is not quite what I was getting at. The issue at hand is the kernel, I'm not talking about the rest of the applications. I think we agree there is no pressing need to rewrite Paint so it is 64 bit, but one has to ask if there really is a need to keep native support for things like 16 or 32 bit applications - of course it would be insane to drop them entirely, but again I point at virtualization as a viable means of supporting older architectures without having to keep them built into the kernel. The people not running those applications (and more importantly, the developers working on current software) get a more modern codebase, and the users who still need those older programs can run them as they need to.

(And I just read through my analogy again and realized that I changed from transmissions to fuel injection but forgot to revise the rest of the scenario, making it kind of half-and-half... It's too late )
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
post #75 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipp View Post
Certainly not, that is not quite what I was getting at. The issue at hand is the kernel, I'm not talking about the rest of the applications. I think we agree there is no pressing need to rewrite Paint so it is 64 bit, but one has to ask if there really is a need to keep native support for things like 16 or 32 bit applications - of course it would be insane to drop them entirely, but again I point at virtualization as a viable means of supporting older architectures without having to keep them built into the kernel. The people not running those applications (and more importantly, the developers working on current software) get a more modern codebase, and the users who still need those older programs can run them as they need to.

(And I just read through my analogy again and realized that I changed from transmissions to fuel injection but forgot to revise the rest of the scenario... )
And MS did drop 16 bit with 64bit Vista.

What you are suggesting is different from what the article is suggesting. The article wants MS to pretty much drop everything and restart.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #76 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
That is not what I said. Improving something is a lot different from throwing everything you have away and starting from scratch. It is absurd and I could just imagine the complaints about software cost, bugs, incompatibility, ect, ect, ect.
Certainly they don't need to throw EVERYTHING away. But I think lots needs to be done to the core system. We don't need to throw the foundation away, but I think we can work to improve the foundation. A renovation would be nice.

Sorry if I sounded like I was saying everything should be wiped and everything made new.

And I guess saying that engineering projects need to be tossed sometimes doesn't necessarily apply. I was talking about sometimes you're in the middle of a project, and you realize it just isn't going to work from there... But that doesn't fit here. You can disregard that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
There is something they teach you in programming 101. It is a lot cheaper to double your hardware power than to double your software performance. So perhaps you get a significantly faster Windows, but are you prepared to pay significantly more for it?
Well if you let crap build on top of crap, you're eventually going to have a pile of crap. I'm not calling windows total crap. I'm saying that somethings need to be refined. It might be cheaper to kick up the horsepower to make up for the crap, but the problem is going to have to be addressed at some point. There needs to be a balance of good hardware and optimized software. I would hope that no one would argue with this.
post #77 of 101
I do think Windows could use a rewrite.

I am not a programmer, or software engineer, but anyone who has had significant experience with Windows and seen what competing operating systems can do, can see that Windows is FUBAR. Windows is bloated beyond all reasoning or necessity, and has been this way for quite some time. Vista has highlighted this fact, but it's far from the beginning of the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
That is not what I said. Improving something is a lot different from throwing everything you have away and starting from scratch. It is absurd and I could just imagine the complaints about software cost, bugs, incompatibility, ect, ect, ect.

There is something they teach you in programming 101. It is a lot cheaper to double your hardware power than to double your software performance. So perhaps you get a significantly faster Windows, but are you prepared to pay significantly more for it?
The problem is that Microsoft doesn't seem to really ever improve much. They just bolt on new crap. Windows is so big that I would ba amazed if anyone at Microsft had a real clue as to how it works. When something gets to that point, it could use some simplification.

I seriously considered paying someone 5,000-10,000 dollars to build an embedded version of windows XP to my specifications. So yes, I am willing to spend a lot more, for much less (in a good way) of an OS than Microsoft is currently selling.

As it is now, I am no longer willing to pay for Microsoft's OSes until they actually improve.

The last Microsoft OS that I think was actually better than what came before it was Windows 2000. 2000 had significant advantages over windows 98SE, and over windows NT 4.0. Was XP much better than Wndows 2000, no it was not. Is Vista superior to XP in anyway that mattered to me, no it is not.

We are not talking about increasing the execution speed of code, just leaving out what isn't really needed.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #78 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hundred Gunner View Post

Well if you let crap build on top of crap, you're eventually going to have a pile of crap. I'm not calling windows total crap. I'm saying that somethings need to be refined. It might be cheaper to kick up the horsepower to make up for the crap, but the problem is going to have to be addressed at some point. There needs to be a balance of good hardware and optimized software. I would hope that no one would argue with this.
LOL
+ REPS
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q9300 @ 3.0 GHz GIGABYTE EP43-DS3L XFX 9800GT 512 MB 4 GB of DDR2 800 XMP 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 500 GB Hitachi Vista x64 32" SONY Apple Keyboard 2nd gen 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair 750TX Antec 300 Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse 2.0 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q9300 @ 3.0 GHz GIGABYTE EP43-DS3L XFX 9800GT 512 MB 4 GB of DDR2 800 XMP 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 500 GB Hitachi Vista x64 32" SONY Apple Keyboard 2nd gen 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair 750TX Antec 300 Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse 2.0 
  hide details  
Reply
post #79 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
So perhaps you get a significantly faster Windows, but are you prepared to pay significantly more for it?
I'm not going to pay for crap (which is why I won't buy any of the non-full "versions" of vista), and I'm not going to pay multiple benjamins for one that has everything. Therefore, I don't buy.

Well freakin hell, windows could use a price drop anyway. For the amount it costs, they should be giving me the "significantly faster windows" right here right now.

That said, the only thing I'm prepared for is to not purchase windows...
post #80 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hundred Gunner View Post
I'm not going to pay for crap (which is why I won't buy any of the non-full "versions" of vista), and I'm not going to pay multiple benjamins for one that has everything. Therefore, I don't buy.

Well freakin hell, windows could use a price drop anyway. For the amount it costs, they should be giving me the "significantly faster windows" right here right now.

That said, the only thing I'm prepared for is to not purchase windows...
I couldn't agree with you more on every part of this post.

The only reason I got vista is for games, and that's all I use it for. For everything else, there's Mastercard. Errr, I mean Linux.
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [NYT] Why Windows Needs to Start Over