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.
Originally Posted by pauldovi
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.