|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
00:17 EST/05:17 GMT | News Source:
Ars Technica |
Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum |
A couple of Gartner analysts have recently claimed that Windows is "collapsing"; that it's too big, too sprawling, and too old to allow rapid development and significant new features. Although organizations like Gartner depend on trolling to drum up business, I think this time they could be onto something. "Collapsing" is over-dramatic—gradual decline is a more likely outcome—but the essence of what they're saying—and why they're saying it—rings true.
Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it—that's the argument. The truth is that Windows is hampered by 25-year old design decisions. These decisions mean that it's clunky to use and absolutely horrible to write applications for. The applications that people do write are almost universally terrible. They're ugly, they're inconsistent, they're disorganized; there's no finesse, no care lavished on them. Microsoft—surely the company with the greatest interest in making Windows and Windows applications exude quality—is, in fact, one of the worst perpetrators.
|
|
#1 By
7760 (98.173.218.183)
at
4/22/2008 5:28:24 AM
|
I haven't a clue what this person is talking about. "The applications that people do write are almost universally terrible. They're ugly, they're inconsistent, they're disorganized; there's no finesse, no care lavished on them." Is he kidding? I encounter Windows applications all of the time that are exceedingly polished and cared for. I find what he has says as true of only a small percentage of Windows applications, and that's something that goes along with having such a huge library of applications available. Maybe the author prefers to have a library of applications that he can count on his fingers and toes (yes, I'm kidding, but you get the point), the quality of which he can always count on, but he shouldn't be bitter that more people don't feel the same way.
Articles like this are classic cases of trying to make something so by declaring it. We've been reading these things for the last decade and Windows market share hasn't declined one bit; if anything, it's gained a bit each year. That has got to be exceedingly frustrating for some (not the least of which is Jobs), but resorting to Windows bashing (i.e. PC vs Mac ads and "Windows is dying" articles) is just as exceedingly transparent and juvenile.
|
#2 By
82766 (122.107.17.90)
at
4/22/2008 6:32:58 AM
|
The article itself is reasonably well written, shame about the actual content topic. The idea that applications for Windows PCs are "almost universally terrible" is quite bizarre to me, even worse coming from the Ars site. I expect this kind of crap and completely short sighted content from Computerworld!
Microsoft cannot "start its entire OS from scratch", it really is as simple as that. Could you imagine the out cry if Microsoft just dumped compatibility with all "windows" software? Millions upon millions upon millions of software wouldn't work... and "lots of people" complained about a few (old and badly written) drivers not working with Vista.
I won't defend Microsoft about Win16 and 32 API's... but we're talking about 10+ year old designs! and thats just one of the reasons that makes Vista so much better than XP. WPF is yet another "invisible" (and massive) change that people don't see with Vista but its capabilities are far greater than what XP could ever dream of coming close.
Moan moan rant rant... /off ( i managed to stop myself this time :) )
|
#3 By
88850 (221.128.180.159)
at
4/22/2008 11:27:14 AM
|
My thoughts exactly, MyBlueRex. People love building a Microsoft mountain of a molehill.
|
#4 By
113862 (12.19.111.143)
at
4/22/2008 12:12:56 PM
|
I will be the first to say that, yes, Microsoft could have done more to improve "Win32". But hasn't Peter Bright ever heard of the .NET Framework, specifically versions 3.0 and 3.5? That's a "21st century Windows API" if I've ever used/programmed one!
For that matter, how about MFC? It has dramatically improved starting with version 8 / Visual Studio 2005, especially with "Side-by-Side Assembly" technology which has, at least in my experience, virtually eliminated "DLL Hell" and monster static builds for MFC apps.
COM? COM+?
I have to wonder how much Windows programming/development Peter Bright has actually done...
This post was edited by fewiii on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:19.
|
#5 By
72426 (69.109.8.160)
at
4/22/2008 5:28:13 PM
|
And back in reality...
In Apple news, Adobe will NOT release a 64bit version of their software, because Apple has dropped 64bit support for core framework development tools. Microsoft's 64bit platform is stronger than ever, with full 64bit development support across the board. (Additionally Vista x64 is a FULL 64bit OS, unlike OS X that still has a majority of OS level features in 32bit, becaue Apple doesn't even have tools to develop 64bit applications for many of the core OS GUI features.
The Microsoft Frameworks and new Vista APIs are stronger than ever, even trying to be implemented on other platforms. From XAML-XPS-WPF to expanded communication features of .NET 3.5.
PS Go look at XPS and XAML's move in the printing and printing press world, as XPS is faster and produces higher fidelity output with less tranlation or loss of quality. The comparison that is used by companies like Xerox is printing in PDF or Postscript, and then printing via XPS, the gradient, overlays, and transparency fidelity in XPS is far ahead of anything Adobe has, and is also beyond anything OS X is capable of even producing, as the Print Output format on OS X is PDF that doesn't fully understand the complexities of mask, alpha channels, gradients, weighted light, etc.
|
#6 By
72426 (69.109.8.160)
at
4/22/2008 5:28:27 PM
|
The whole MS should start Vista from scratch is about as ignorant as anyone could get. Vista is a NT platform. This would be like users asking for Apple to start OS X from scratch and write their own version of MACH and BSD, which isn't going to happen.
The NT kernel-architecture in Vista (and all NT products) is not only still modern in concepts, but still extensible (look at WDDM in Vista, as it was added to the kernel in hybrid fashion while letting the NT kernel still do XP style video drivers at the same time, most kernel technologies would have to re-written for changes like this).
NT is the most advanced consumer level kernel architecture, being a hybrid that doesn't have the limitations of either a heavy microkernel or multi-tasking locks like in a monolithic kernel (Like OS X). NT is a client/server kernel design in that it uses both a lightweight and robust low level API set that also hosts the upper layers of the OS in subsystems. Even Win32-Win64 is a subsystem, and NT can run without it if Microsoft wants to make a Vista API only version subsystem. The client-server (subsystem) nature of NT is why Vista has available for it a full BSD UNIX subsystem that runs side by side the Win32-64 subsystem and can talk to the other subsystems through NT.
NT's security architecture is also more advanced than unix, being designed to fill in the gaps of the Unix model of security. (If Microsoft had enforced the NT security in XP instead of waiting for Vista, XP would never have had the same amount of security issues.) Things NT security does: Token based, Object Based, and has advanced Object level ACLs.
So when people talk about NT needing to be written from scratch they know virtually nothing when it comes to basic OS theory, design or architecture. NT is more than advanced enough for several generations.
PS The whole MinWin 7 being a different or smaller kernel than Vista is journalism gone bad. The MinWin kernel demostrated was just the NT kernel from Vista with a light HTTP server subsystem for I-O. It is NO different than what is in Vista, other than maybe a slight newer build. Vista's core NT portions are very small and high performance. The HAL is under 256KB, and if you took just the NT kernel alone it would be under 30mb in size. This has not changed much since 1992, as the HAL then was 64KB, or XP where the HAL was about 150KB. NT is tight and efficient, and more advanced than Linux or OS X.
The reason there is not much regard for, or OSS support for NT, is because it is a closed operating system, so users can't build their own version of NT, so it is out of the hands of hobbists, but if it were OSS, it would be the prefered platform. There is not a single OS engineer or OS theorist that would say NT is bad, as most give it a lot of respect. The Win32-64 subsystem is another argument, and some can argue against it, but this is not the core OS.
PS What the heck is wrong with the text parser on this site anymore. It fails with some quotes, slashes, etc...
This post was edited by anthonyspt on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 17:30.
|
|
|
|
|