Windows Could Use a Rush of Fresh Air

[Pat]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

MS Engineers are not so dumb that they don't even understand the open code they see!

Do you mean that Linux will set standards and MS will just copy it ?

[infra_red_dude]

^^^ 95% of the OS' out there use open source kernels. I didn't point specifically to Linux kernel. I'm also not talking about copying the "whole" kernel as such. Currently it uses tcp/ip stacks from BSD. So it makes perfect sense to take what is good and incorporate it into one's own products.

[Charan]

Baaa .. you guys started it again .. talk "technical" stuff guys..

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by Charan

Baaa .. you guys started it again .. talk "technical" stuff guys..

ok... "technical stuff" haha... lol

[MetalheadGautham]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

^^^ 95% of the OS' out there use open source kernels. I didn't point specifically to Linux kernel. I'm also not talking about copying the "whole" kernel as such. Currently it uses tcp/ip stacks from BSD. So it makes perfect sense to take what is good and incorporate it into one's own products.

BSD is released under take what you want but you are not obliged to care about us license.

Linux is different. Its sealed within the community and M$ can have lawsuits against them by the OpenSource community.

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

BSD is released under take what you want but you are not obliged to care about us license.

Linux is different. Its sealed within the community and M$ can have lawsuits against them by the OpenSource community.

Didn't get the last time.. if you are confused.. then what I meant was that.. MS doesn't need to take a part of Linux kernel as a whole.. they can look into the code and implement it in their own way...for better or for worse. How then, can you prove that there is Linux code in the kernel?

I'm not saying its copying or whatever.. this post of mine was in reply to your post about MS not catching up with the Linux kernel developed by "millions" over the years.

[MetalheadGautham]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

Didn't get the last time.. if you are confused.. then what I meant was that.. MS doesn't need to take a part of Linux kernel as a whole.. they can look into the code and implement it in their own way...for better or for worse. How then, can you prove that there is Linux code in the kernel?

I'm not saying its copying or whatever.. this post of mine was in reply to your post about MS not catching up with the Linux kernel developed by "millions" over the years.

Good point. But I think the reverse is also possible. You can study MS kernel using reverse engineering and decompiling and try to implement it in your own way too. MS can't prove anything against you.

And it was Million not Millions

[infra_red_dude]

[Offtopic]

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

Good point. But I think the reverse is also possible. You can study MS kernel using reverse engineering and decompiling and try to implement it in your own way too. MS can't prove anything against you.

Dude.. you think reverse engineering or decompiling Windows kernel is easy??!!!

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

And it was Million not Millions

lol.. whatever..

[/Offtopic]

[MetalheadGautham]

Originally Posted by infra_red_dude

Dude.. you think reverse engineering or decompiling Windows kernel is easy??!!!

ask some of those guys engaged in the ReactOS project.

[infra_red_dude]

psst.. why do I smell an OS War on the other side..??!!

[Indyan]

Guys get back to the topic. This thread isnt about FOSS and its principles.

Originally Posted by aryayush

Windows 7 is going to be to Windows Vista what Vista is to XP.

Actually its more accurate to say Windows 7 is going to be what Windows Xp was to Windows 2000.
Windows 7 core is an evolved version of Server 2008 core which itself evolved from Vista.

[aryayush]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

No one is looking at what MS is doing with Vista & Windows 7. MS has already given developers WPF & native vista apps must be made in .net 3.0 or later. this means managed code in 95% apps by the time Windows 8 comes, they will all be GPGPU accelerated with WPF, WCF etc. Singularity is a project right now in which the 98% OS is made from scratch in .net managed code, so by 2012 we will have a new architecture made from scratch

singularity can very well be foundation for windows 8. Since by 2012 almost all apps will be in either in .net or similar API like Adobe flex, MS won't need to care about backward compatibility & they can remove old code from windows.
ring wraith is right, if MS removes backward compatibility then people will scold even more, gautam, weren't U cursing MS for not supporting motocross madness yourself. MS can't start over just like, it takes time

When it comes to Microsoft, that's pretty much all the company has to offer -- exaggerated, rosy visions of the future.

There's a lovely quote that sums up the difference between Apple and Microsoft, "Why is it that Microsoft's future products always sounds better than Apple's present ones?" Or something like that. I'll look it up.

--------------

Yeah, this is the actual quote:

"It's amazing how future Microsoft products beat current Apple products time and time again, isn't it? You'd think Apple would've just given up by now." -The Macalope

[Pathik]

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

You can study MS kernel using reverse engineering and decompiling and try to implement it in your own way too. MS can't prove anything against you.

Dont you think it would be much much easier the other way round??

[kumarmohit]

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham
You can study MS kernel using reverse engineering and decompiling and try to implement it in your own way too. MS can't prove anything against you.

Mind asking ReactOS people why they ran a code audit? They do not use reverse engineering unless it is clean room. Which means the devs have to use dcumentations from other sources. Devs can not see MS code

[gxsaurav]

lolz, seems like arya has nothing to say on the topic due to his lack of knowledge.

Apple is simply removing Power PC code from universal binary which we can also do to reduce the size of OS, only Quicktime X seems worthwhile. I hope it brings GPU acceleration.

[Faun]

thou seekth the siggy of cuddcrazy shalt possess the wisdom

[FilledVoid]

Well the fact is all that Windows Has at the moment is a bunch of Mays, Mights and Hopefully which explains the quote Aryayush gave.

"It's amazing how future Microsoft products beat current Apple products time and time again, isn't it? You'd think Apple would've just given up by now." -The Macalope

[gxsaurav]

You guys said Windows should start over. Well, Windows is starting over with Singularity but Microsoft cannot just release a completely new OS all of a sudden. They released a fairly new OS in form of Vista with technologies never seen before & look how bad they were scolded for breaking compatibility with "some" old applications.

Microsoft is changing the Windows architecture & kernel etc but they also have 100000000 of third party apps so they require that all the developers should move to newer Vista compatible API like .net 3.0 or 3.5 so that by 2012 (approx) when Windows 8 arrives with Singularity as the foundation, there will be no backward compatibility issues. Windows is not just an OS, it is a platform for 3rd party developers to develop things.

.Net 4.0 is on it's way soon & GPGPU is going to be a part of it. Developers won't have to code in different APIs like OpenCL or CUDA for 2 different set of GPUs. It will have a standard for Windows like DirectX or DirectShow due to which a developer can code in .net 4.0 & the app will be automatically GPGPU accelerated, they won't have to code in different APIs for different GPUs.

[Indyan]

I dont think that Windows needs to start over.
From what I have read "most of the knowledgable people" seems to agree that the problem is not with the windows kernel. Its with the top layer. That's where Vista screwed up.
Mac needed to dump OS due to various reasons, Windows isnt in a similar position. MS shouldnt waste time creating an entirel new kernel - which would be undoubtedly buggier than the current one which has evolved over a long time. Not only that at one go all games and software would become incompatible. Yes, they could use virtualization, but then that would cause a performance issue which would have an impact - esp on games.

[gxsaurav]

That is what Windows is doing with MinWin, optimising an already existing kernel.

Apple chose to go the BSD kernel way cos they don't need to develop it themselves. Let the community develop it, Apple will simply take it & modify for there own use.

Originally Posted by Indyan

Yes, they could use virtualization, but then that would cause a performance issue which would have an impact - esp on games.

Not anymore. If you have a CPU with Intel VT or AMD Virtualisation technology & you are using VMWare Fusion of Microsoft Hyper-V along with a DirectX 10 GPU, then the performance loss will be only 5%. This is acceptable cos then old games will run on new hardware

[aryayush]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

You guys said Windows should start over. Well, Windows is starting over with Singularity but Microsoft cannot just release a completely new OS all of a sudden. They released a fairly new OS in form of Vista with technologies never seen before & look how bad they were scolded for breaking compatibility with "some" old applications.

Yeah, that’s what you get when you break compatibility without fixing anything.

[gxsaurav]

Well, Apple is doing the same by giving new technologies in form of Snow Leopard which is breaking compatibility with PowerPC. They are breaking compatibility & still giving features (as per U). MS did the same thing but still they retained 95% of the compatibilityty with old apps, so why this double standard of blaming MS only.

[shantanu]

Originally Posted by dada

Not anymore. If you have a CPU with Intel VT or AMD Virtualisation technology & you are using VMWare Fusion of Microsoft Hyper-V along with a DirectX 10 GPU, then the performance loss will be only 5%. This is acceptable cos then old games will run on new hardware

dude !

[CadCrazy]

Originally Posted by shantanu

dude !

Lol. I have found one spamming Mod
Ban him as i hate spamming

[k6153r]

If Windows 7 is also like Vista, then I'm going to ditch Microsoft as a whole.

(Infact, many would do that.)

[MetalheadGautham]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Apple chose to go the BSD kernel way cos they don't need to develop it themselves. Let the community develop it, Apple will simply take it & modify for there own use.

what makes you think MS won't do the same ?

[gxsaurav]

If MS wanted to, they could have adopted it already instead of developing MinWin

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

They released a fairly new OS in form of Vista with technologies never seen before & look how bad they were scolded for breaking compatibility with "some" old applications.

Haha... joke of the century!

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

.Net 4.0 is on it's way soon & GPGPU is going to be a part of it. Developers won't have to code in different APIs like OpenCL or CUDA for 2 different set of GPUs. It will have a standard for Windows like DirectX or DirectShow due to which a developer can code in .net 4.0 & the app will be automatically GPGPU accelerated, they won't have to code in different APIs for different GPUs.

Not much knowledge about .Net 4.0 so won't comment on that. But if this is true, then it'd lessen the developers' work by a large margin. Thats a welcome addition

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Not anymore. If you have a CPU with Intel VT or AMD Virtualisation technology & you are using VMWare Fusion of Microsoft Hyper-V along with a DirectX 10 GPU, then the performance loss will be only 5%. This is acceptable cos then old games will run on new hardware

Did you even understand what you typed???! Buddy, there are a handful of people here who understand what you post or at least the reason behind it

Originally Posted by shantanu

dude !

Haha... I get it!

IMHO, starting from scratch is foolishness. The NT kernel is quite mature. They shouldn't ditch it at all. Jus reduce the "monolith'ism" from the kernel and make it more modular.. MinWin is the way to go

[aryayush]

… if it works, that is.

[chandru.in]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

.Net 4.0 is on it's way soon & GPGPU is going to be a part of it. Developers won't have to code in different APIs like OpenCL or CUDA for 2 different set of GPUs. It will have a standard for Windows like DirectX or DirectShow due to which a developer can code in .net 4.0 & the app will be automatically GPGPU accelerated, they won't have to code in different APIs for different GPUs.

Well being a pretty comfortable Java programmer, I have to ask what is new here if it not just another MS effort to create a Windows specific re-implementation of Java?

In fact Java has been offering hardware accelerated GUI even as early as Java 5.0. That too in a pretty much platform independent way (that includes mobiles and devices).

Now if you are gonna bring up the Java desktop performance argument, all I have to say is you have not tried Java beyond 1.4. Yes Java till 1.4 was slow and that made Java lose desktop space. But 1.5 and 1.6 are far more faster and the upcoming Java 6 Update 10 has excellent features to improve desktop performance.

Inertia is the only reason why the world shouldn't consider desktop java (and applets) after Java 6 update 10 is released. Otherwise, Java is a perfectly capable desktop platform (truly platform independent and open too).