A couple months ago I posted about an article by some guy at Business Week, that made all sorts of rubbish claims about Windows and OS X.
Not to be outdone, Randall Stross at the NY times decided he could use some TechMeme love and wrote basically the same piece.
He says of Windows:
Painfully visible are the inherent design deficiencies of a foundation that was never intended to support such weight.
Yet he fails to mention what any of these deficiencies might be.
He then says the the best solution to any problems with Windows is to “start over.” You know, because that worked so well for Intel when they tried it.
Stross has a point when he says that the time between XP and Vista was too long. He probably even has a point when he says that Vista doesn’t look like a product that was in development for 6 years.
Guess what? It wasn’t. You see, back in 2001 the Windows division at Microsoft came up with the hair-brained idea to change pretty much everything, as Stross is suggesting now. Only he’s too late, and Microsoft has already learned that throwing out everything you know about Windows and rocketing into a brave new managed-code-centric world just doesn’t work all that well.
Stross also uses some funny math and says that Vista is the equivalent of Windows “version 12.” It’s as if he’s trying to say that somewhere under the pretty UI, the core of Windows hasn’t really changed since Windows 1.0.
Of course that couldn’t be further from the truth. Windows NT was a completely new OS. Windows 2000 was nearly a complete rewrite of that. Server 2003 and XP SP2 saw more major changes under the hood, as did Vista itself.
That is to say, this isn’t your older brother’s Windows (”grandfather” didn’t quite seem appropriate given the time scale).
Even then, I’m still not sure why anyone thinks this “start over” idea has any basis in reality. Do you really think it would only take a couple of years to write an entirely new OS with all the capabilities of Windows Vista?
Stross also repeats the dubious claim that Windows is too “monolithic.” With its NT microkernel, layered and massively componentized architecture, and hardware portability - he can’t be talking about the same Windows that is sold today.
Nobody’s OS is perfect and I’ll gladly accept that Windows has its flaws. But if you want to get on someone’s back about being monolithic and having a hairy, crufty architecture - perhaps you should direct your attention elsewhere. But at least Linux doesn’t have bugs or security holes, right?
Lastly, Stross and others seem to be under the mistaken impression that Microsoft is somehow unable to change the existing Windows codebase. These guys present two options:
1) Build stuff on top of the last version of Windows.
2) Start over.
Why pretend that these are the only two options? Especially when historically Microsoft has always chosen door number 3:
Take what you have and make it better.
Replace the parts that need replacing.
Don’t break something without a good reason.
As I read the initial details about Apple’s “Snow Leopard” release (ostensibly called OS X 10.6), I got to thinking… What do they mean that they’ve taken the focus away from new features?
From Apple.com:
Taking a break from adding new features, Snow Leopard — scheduled to ship in about a year — builds on Leopard’s enormous innovations by delivering a new generation of core software technologies that will streamline Mac OS X, enhance its performance, and set new standards for quality.
One word was striking to me, not for its presence, but for its absence. That word is “security.” A few years ago Microsoft was more or less caught with its pants down when it came to the wild world of the web. But a couple years after Windows XP was released, Microsoft “got religion” on security and made some deep changes. Those culminated in the release of XP SP2 - which consisted of a top-to-bottom review of the XP code and a major security-focused overhaul of its code. It’s been said many times that certain high-level Windows execs thought XP SP2 should have been an entire OS release instead of a service pack. That’s how big the changes were. But who would ship a new OS with basically zero new features? Well, now we know.
That has me wondering… why is Apple taking the focus off of new features for 10.6. Especially when Leopard wasn’t exactly brimming with new hotness. I think there are three reasons:
1) iPhone. Jobs has shown a great ability to focus the entirety of Apple on a “north star” and drive toward it full-steam-ahead. That’s what the iPhone is doing now, and to great effect. However, this is not without cost. Apple’s focus on the iPhone has left it with fewer resources to devote to other projects, particularly when it comes to software development. Thus I have a feeling the crew working on OS X these days is a good deal smaller than the group that worked on Panther and Tiger.
2) Embedded devices. Apple says they’re going to slim-down OS X in 10.6. That makes sense, especially when you consider their affinity for flash-based devices. If we’re going to see a Mac sub-tablet / super-sized iPhone device, this will be the OS for it. It’s also likely a way to leverage some of those iPhone-focused resources in order to ship a version of OS X timed to counter Windows 7.
3) Security. Apple’s PC marketshare is growing. This is great for them, but only if they can hold onto it. An onslaught of security nightmares, like those suffered by Windows XP a few years ago, would be disasterous. They can’t afford to risk it. Apple knows that they won’t be spared by attackers for much longer, not when their market is growing. The untested nature of its software (untested by the “hacker” community) and its increasing prevalence on machines will make it a very tempting target soon enough.
So why is number 3 so important? Because Apple can’t keep claiming that gaping holes in their software aren’t important. They have an opportunity to have their XP SP2 without having their MS.Blaster / Code Red / Slasher / etc. They can do something now to prevent malware from becoming as rampant on Macs as it was on Windows XP systems. If they aren’t doing this, they’re being foolish, and they’ll get little sympathy from those who keep telling them to get their act together.
So how much time does Apple have left to figure this out? I think not long. Heck, the first shots may already have been fired.
Found this slightly amusing.
My greatest concern with McCain is how different he is today from the man he was a year or two ago. I feel that he’s compromised far too many of his principles, and turned the wrong direction on many issues - apparently believing that is how he will get elected. What do you think? Did John McCain sell is his soul to win the primary? If he wins, which John McCain will walk into the white house? The one from two years ago? Or the one campaigning today?
Pretty decent summary, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last year or two.
When I first posted about the WS4 release on Neowin a few members had a response that I had never expected. Some examples:
Windam - I wonder why this would be released for Vista since search is already a well integrated feature to begin with.
Is it just because(optional)?
Maudit - Pardon my ignorance, but what the difference between Windows Search 4.0 and the one in Vista ultimate sp1, does it streamline into windows ?
A similar question was asked on Channel 9.
The answer is quite simple:
A good analogy here might be DirectX. Windows XP shipped with DirectX 8.1. When DirectX 9 was released for XP, it didn’t change the way anything looked or behaved, but it made your system better. You may apply a similar understanding to WS4.
Windows Search 4.0 was released this afternoon. This release focuses on performance and reliability improvements. Here are some highlights:
This release also adds the following Vista / Server 2008 features to Windows XP / Server 2003 systems:
Read the KB article here for more details and complete feature list.
Download Links
Vista users - don’t forget to grab the indexer status gadget!
[powered by WordPress.]
Hi. I'm Brandon. I'm a geek, and I work on Search technology for Windows at Microsoft. This is my blog.
The views expressed within my blog are my own - and are not in any way indicative of those of the company I work for, Microsoft, or it's employees. No warranties or other guarantees will be offered as to the quality of the opinions or anything else offered here.
