[mdlug] Interesting information about Windows "7"

[Aaron Kulkis]

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.
> 

But Microsoft also has a track record of taking 3 to 5 attempts
before they get ANYTHING right.

I wouldn't count on Microsoft getting a good handle on
modularity any sooner than 2015.

> 	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.

That will never happen as an official product offering from
MS until some judge breaks up the company into two or more
legally, financially, and managerially seperate corporations,
each with a seperate boards of directors with no cross
contamination (either by board members and/or employees)
from one corporation to the other.

Or until Linux has more than 50% of the desktop marketplace,
placing a DirectX API product as a rear-guard action to
stave off financial doom.