All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Microsoft capable of making good OS
Lead Head:
I have always wondered if MS is capable of making a good OS. You can't blame Bill Gates, I know i said bill gates sucks earlier but that is before i found out that he only owns 30% of Microsoft.
Siplus:
Short:
No.
Long
Yes. MS _IS_ capable of makeing a good OS, it just wouldn't help their business of perpetual upgrading. In fact, making a good OS would be hazardous for microsoft.
See, in order to make an OS that rivales Linux/BSD/Solaris and Mac OS X in terms of stability, security, and reliability, MS would have to remove legacy code.
If you don't know what this means, then here: Microsoft **ONLY** exists today because of the legacy code. If it was not for the IBM/Microsoft agreement, and QDOS purchase by Billy G then there would be no foul operating system in the industry today.
The legacy code all the way back to "Quick and Dirty Operating System" is the sole reason windows is still around because it is the set that began the Windows API (which, if you don't already know, is what makes windows programs work on windows, and only windows (discarding wine project)).
This legacy code, while being the only thing that gave MS a logistic advantage, is also a horrible peice of crap. It is the reason behind much of the insecurity of windows.
If they get rid of the legacy code, they secure their OS; but at the cost of their 'bread and butter' that has kept them alive.
I can see them implementing a (true) compatibility layer in some later version of a secure windows that would allow them to secure the OS, but using the said layer would leave gaping holes whenever someone ran a program, thus defeating the purpose unless someone doesn't run any programs at all (what's teh point?)
Annorax:
--- Quote from: Siplus ---Short:
No.
Long
Hell no.
--- End quote ---
Fixed.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Siplus ---Short:
No.
--- End quote ---
Some people think Windows XP is a good OS, to be honset I think Windows has it's good and bad points but I wouldn't say Windows is good or bad, just the company who makes it is bad.
--- Quote from: Siplus ---Long
Yes. MS _IS_ capable of makeing a good OS,
--- End quote ---
Windows isn't that bad if you configure it correctly.
--- Quote from: Siplus ---
it just wouldn't help their business of perpetual upgrading. In fact, making a good OS would be hazardous for microsoft.
--- End quote ---
Some people say they could have trouble shifting Longhorn because Windows XP was good, my work place and college still use Windows 2000 and I can't see them moving to Longhorn any time soon.
--- Quote from: Siplus ---See, in order to make an OS that rivales Linux/BSD/Solaris and Mac OS X in terms of stability, security, and reliability,
--- End quote ---
Windows XP doesn't crash or become infected with anything if you know what you're doing.
--- Quote from: Siplus --- MS would have to remove legacy code.
--- End quote ---
Why?
People would just bitch because it'd break backwards compatability.
--- Quote from: Siplus ---If you don't know what this means, then here: Microsoft **ONLY** exists today because of the legacy code. If it was not for the IBM/Microsoft agreement, and QDOS purchase by Billy G then there would be no foul operating system in the industry today.
--- End quote ---
You never know it might be worse we could all be using Macs.
--- Quote from: Siplus ---The legacy code all the way back to "Quick and Dirty Operating System" is the sole reason windows is still around because it is the set that began the Windows API (which, if you don't already know, is what makes windows programs work on windows, and only windows (discarding wine project)).
--- End quote ---
I get your point but Windows is no longer DOS based it's now NT based.
--- Quote from: Siplus ---This legacy code, while being the only thing that gave MS a logistic advantage, is also a horrible peice of crap. It is the reason behind much of the insecurity of windows.
--- End quote ---
The insecurities in Windows have fuck all to do with legacy code. They are due to the braindead default Windows XP configuration which is only in place to keep backwards compatability with old applications
--- Quote from: Siplus ---If they get rid of the legacy code, they secure their OS; but at the cost of their 'bread and butter' that has kept them alive.
--- End quote ---
Who knows, Windows XP may have already done that.
--- Quote from: Siplus ---I can see them implementing a (true) compatibility layer in some later version of a secure windows that would allow them to secure the OS, but using the said layer would leave gaping holes whenever someone ran a program, thus defeating the purpose unless someone doesn't run any programs at all (what's teh point?)
--- End quote ---
Bullshit, compatability layer would be and ideal way of solving thier problem, WINE is a compatability layer but how does it introduce "gaping holes" in a UNIX operating system?
Lead Head:
I think i big help in improving their OSes would be to remove all the bloat code. I mean i could fit win98 into a 500 MB HD and still have about 400 MB of free space and WinXP needs roughly 1.2-1.8 GB of HD space. Isn't longhorn supposed to be like 3 GB or somethink like that. Apple, in the 80s by shrunk all the code to GUI OS and fit it on like a 256KB rom chip. If microsoft wanted to they could shrink the code so you don't need a special version of windows like WinCE to fit in small integrated devices. CE is just like XP
XP=Experience many reboots and errors
Anyone know Microsoft's real slogan, i do it is "What's in your wallet"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version