[mdlug] Interesting information about Windows "7"

[Dave Arbogast]

Robert Adkins wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mdlug-bounces at mdlug.org 
>>[mailto:mdlug-bounces at mdlug.org] On Behalf Of Ingles, Raymond
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:09 PM
>>To: MDLUG's Main discussion list
>>Subject: Re: [mdlug] Interesting information about Windows "7"
>>
>>    
>>
>>>From: Robert Adkins
>>>      
>>>
>>>However, it looks like MS is appearing to be playing OS 
>>>      
>>>
>>market "Damage 
>>    
>>
>>>Control" caused by their currently stagnating Windows 
>>>      
>>>
>>ME2^H^H^H^Vista OS.
>>
>> They won't make that ship date. No chance, their whole 
>>development methodology is insufficient to manage the 
>>codebase they have. And Vista is too fundamentally broken by 
>>design - to come up with something that would help their 
>>marketing they'd have to start from scratch and what they 
>>produced would look a whole lot like XP.
>>
>> They have a *lot* of resources to throw at problems, don't 
>>get me wrong, but that kind of schedule is impossible even 
>>for them. Exponential complexity growth can swamp any finite 
>>amount of resources. Microsoft doesn't modularize well 
>>because they *want* a monolithic OS that can't be unbundled, 
>>but that makes coding it increasingly hairy.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>	You haven't been reading much about Windows "7". They intend on
>making it considerably more modular. As I understand it, the OS is being
>designed to be quite tweakable and modularized specifically to make it
>faster to put together as well as easier to tweak for specific purposes.
>
>	I have a feeling that Vista was the end of the Monolithic OS road
>for Microsoft. They learned their lesson, by ignoring prevailing OS design
>theory for to long and appear to have had a change of design heart.
>
>	I would just like, in the meantime, for Linux to make additional
>inroads and potentially grab enough of the market that Microsoft will start
>considering to do something actually beneficial with some of its newly
>modularized components. 
>
>	I for one, would have absolutely no problem with using Linux as my
>desktop, buying "DirectX for Linux" (For anywhere from $30 to $60 in order
>to play DirectX Games with no problem) and having the option of using some
>other MS technologies, IF for some reason I actually had a need/use for
>them.
>
>	-Rob
>
>  
>
Modular so they can keep using code from past versions ?  Remember the 
RPC flaw in XP ? 2 months before it was reported publicly I was in 
Richmond talking with the product team (developers and managers) 
directly about security. The said to my fact the IP stack and the RPC 
code was all new in XP....  when the exploit was reported, guess what ? 
Some of the code for RPC in XP was the same all the way back to NT 3.51

They have not had a clean sheet design with all new code in more than 10 
year. I doubt they'll change now.

-dave