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.
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.
I don't know how you could speculate on the Windows kernel, considering none of us have ever seen it. When Windows 2000's code leaked most experts said it seemed to be very well written.
Yes Windows is bloated, does it have to be no. That is pretty obvious by the vlite version of Vista that are well under 4GB (the size of most Linux distro's). However with GB's of storage so cheap it isn't really that big of a deal that MS shipped everything under the sun with Vista.
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.
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.
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...