Why doesn't MS switch windows from MSDOS to *nix?

[Sporkman]

This is probably a dumb question, but why doesn't MS switch windows over to a *nix base like Apple did, then just make the window manager look identical to the current Windows? It seems like they'd tackle a lot of their quality problems by doing so...

[Mazza558]

They've spent so much money aquiring all manner of software tech companies, why switch to a better alternative? It'd be a waste.

[Sporkman]

They've spent so much money aquiring all manner of software tech companies, why switch to a better alternative? It'd be a waste.

I don't see why that'd be the waste - they'd still have the software source, IP, patents, expertise, etc from these acquisitions... :?

[diatribe]

if they switched their base to *nix they would have to port all of their software to the new codebase

[SunnyRabbiera]

actually the newer versions of windows are based on NT rather then DOS.
If I remember right ME was the last one to be based on DOS

[Mazza558]

I don't see why that'd be the waste - they'd still have the software source, IP, patents, expertise, etc from these acquisitions... :?

They can't just "port" windows over to Linux - they're absolutely completely different in terms of architechture and coding. That'd cost them a lot of money.

[Sporkman]

They can't just "port" windows over to Linux - they're absolutely completely different in terms of architechture and coding. That'd cost them a lot of money.

So how did Apple pull it off?

[louistan3]

AFAIK, apple pulled it off because it was originally UNIX based, so it made it easier to switch to linux.

correct me if im wrong :)

[Mazza558]

So how did Apple pull it off?

They re-coded their ported software using native Windows API and such. If you mean Windows software on mac, it was re-coded with OS X API.

[screaminj3sus]

AFAIK, apple pulled it off because it was originally UNIX based, so it made it easier to switch to linux.

correct me if im wrong :)

I believe OSX has a BSD base, also apple doesn't have so much of the marketshare so it was much easier, if windows were to suddenly completely change it would be chaotic.

[SunnyRabbiera]

well I think its because apple saw the limitations of DOS, practically everything is weworked in OSX.
all OSX is BSD with window dressing and quite a number of changes.

[zero244]

I agree I dont see how Windows could ever be as secure as Linux.
They could do it.......but it would a complete rewrite from the first letter of code on up.
OSX is a complete rewrite as well. Apple realized the old OS was not going anywhere or improving, so they decided to start over.
I figure MS will eventually have to do the same thing as Apple.
What has really hurt Windows is the Internet, no one at Redmond was able to forsee that security would become a huge problem. Since MS didn't see this problem coming it designed Windows without thinking about security.
To make Windows secure out of the box it would have to be rewritten from the ground up.
If your going to do that why don't you start with Linux as the foundation and work up from there.
But for MS to suck up and admit Windows is a piece of junk security wise, will not happen unless people simply stopped using it.
I think the best OS on the planet right now are the Linux distros.
OSX is ok but it still lacks much of the flexibility of Linux.....its too proprietary.

[diatribe]

windows could be made more secure be going open source

[FuturePilot]

Because then they would have to sue themselves:lolflag:

[jrusso2]

Actually I don't think this would be as difficult as people make it out to do. All they would need to do is take a BSD kernel and modify it. They could then design a windows like GUI to go around it.

Its true new applications would have to be ported, but they are already porting Office to OS X and they have done IE and Media Player in the past so the knowledge is certainly there.

With present virtual machine technology, which they own btw with Virtual PC, they could run older softer for compatibility much the way OS X originally did with OS 9 applications.

Not only do I think it would be a good idea for Microsoft to do this I think at this point its critical for them to.

[Sporkman]

Actually I don't think this would be as difficult as people make it out to do. All they would need to do is take a BSD kernel and modify it. They could then design a windows like GUI to go around it.

Its true new applications would have to be ported, but they are already porting Office to OS X and they have done IE and Media Player in the past so the knowledge is certainly there.

With present virtual machine technology, which they own btw with Virtual PC, they could run older softer for compatibility much the way OS X originally did with OS 9 applications.

Not only do I think it would be a good idea for Microsoft to do this I think at this point its critical for them to.

That's what I was thinking...

[phenest]

None of you have thought this through. We don't want MS anywhere near BSD or *nix. If that were to happen, MS's greed would bring the downfall of Linux, OSX, BSD, and Unix, taking everything for themselves and claiming sole rights to it all.

Besides, it will never happen.

Firstly, Windoze 98 was the last to be DOS based. ME never shipped with DOS. NTFS is only a filing system and is not the basis of an OS. And OSX is Unix based. As someone has already mentioned, MS only acquire software through buying rights from other companies. MS don't invent. They buy. Because of this, they know nothing of BSD or *nix. All their money has been invested in Vista (billions of $'s). They have no money to invest in a re-write.

I heard a rumour, that Vista will be the last OS MS produce. just a rumour, but let's hope.

[stmiller]

Firstly, Windoze 98 was the last to be DOS based. ME never shipped with DOS.

[SNIP]

I heard a rumour, that Vista will be the last OS MS produce. just a rumour, but let's hope.

I think you are taking the 'msdos' in the title too literally. Windows does need a fundamental rewrite, and more secure system which would have to come from the ground up. They could (and if they are smart) use a *nix based system, and have a transition compatibility layer to transition from old apps to new. OS X did this.

The critical problem (still remaining in Vista) is that the default user is full administrator. I know MS did this b/c most apps need to be full admin to run. But MS must find a solution to this, or viruses, malware, and kernel level exploits will continue well into all of the future Vista SP updates. Deep down Vista is still Windows with all of the same Windows issues.

Vista will be the last of its kind out of necessity.

They have no money to invest in a re-write.
Oh I think Microsoft has plenty of money. Apple did it, with a fraction of the money.

[metallicamaster3]

liek omfg liek I was totally having a debate with one of my friends over this...

Actually, I hear rumors that supposably 'vienna' will be UNIX-like......

[Xanatos Craven]

I don't think that porting the Windows base applications will change much for Microsoft. In the end, they'll just make the same stupid decisions that they've made for NT-based Windows and the end result will still be the same, IMO. All I'd really see them gaining for all the time, money and effort spent on porting Windows to UNIX is more cross-platform compatibility with other UNIX operating systems, which wouldn't benefit them much right now because MS already owns almost all of the OS market.

That, and NT isn't all that bad. There's plenty of other ways for MS to make Windows NOT suck that don't require a complete rewrite of it... let's just hope such changes are included in Vienna.

Get Linspire if you want MS Linux.

[cmat]

I think Windows 7 was planned to be profoundly different than any other Windows out there. Also they just kind of blown up MSDOS to make what we currently have, and rebranded it as NT.

NT = Neanderthal Technology

They need a serious rewrite and adopting some of the tried and tested security features of UNIX would be a start.

[phrostbyte]

Windows XP and Vista are based off of Windows NT, which in itself is based partially on MS-DOS and VMS. Windows still retains COFF executable format from MS-DOS, and the directory structure (crap) and driver model (crap), but has VMS like permissions (more powerful then POSIX), and multi-user support.

[jdong]

Windows XP and Vista are based off of Windows NT, which in itself is based partially on MS-DOS and VMS. Windows still retains COFF executable format from MS-DOS, and the directory structure (crap) and driver model (crap), but has VMS like permissions (more powerful then POSIX), and multi-user support.

I've been pretty impressed with the stability of the stock Windows NT kernels, particularly XP and 2003 Server. Most instabilities introduced are a matter of poorly written drivers and software, which clearly outlines the dangerous slope that Linux is sliding down with binary-only drivers.

When you use XP or 2003 with fully WHQL/MS HCL certified hardware, it runs just as stable as any Windows system. Install a crappy webcam driver, and all goes down the tubes.

I don't think Windows needs to switch to UNIX to be more stable -- *nix has nothing to do with the fact that so many people suffer from unstable Windows.

But all of the kernel and drivers need to be open sourced to public scrutiny and tweaking, and there needs to be a community interest in fixing up Windows when this happens, if it ever happens.


A blind rewrite of Windows, whether with a newly written kernel (NNT? :D) or based off some UNIX can end up a horrible disaster worse than the current state of Windows. Massive rewrites of OS'es almost always have a messy aftermath that takes year and years before the dust settles. Even OS9-> OS X was a very rocky path at first. Just because Apple switched to a UNIX OS didn't magically make their first few releases stable and unproblematic.

[macogw]

Windows hasn't been DOS-based since it became NT-based....2K and XP and Vista are all NT. I'm not sure about ME.

[jdong]

Windows hasn't been DOS-based since it became NT-based....2K and XP and Vista are all NT. I'm not sure about ME.

ME is kind of in between .It had almost the entire Windows 2000 userland, an extremely modified Windows 98 kernel that didn't directly use DOS (the only way to get to a DOS mode was to create a special bootdisk pair with a completely different kernel that just happened to have the filesystem drivers necessary for repair work)

IT had its ups and downs. Mainly people were retarded and tried to install 98 drivers onto ME and that blew up systems, as one would expect.

I have a friend who uses ME on milling machines and to the best of my knowledge it's been working fine since ME came out till now, no reformat or anything.

[kozy6871]

Windows hasn't been DOS based for years. The 'Command Prompt" you get when you click 'Start,' and then click 'Run,' and then type 'CMD', just looks like DOS. In fact, if you type 'VER' at the prompt, it will tell you that it is not DOS, but Windows NT 5.1.2600, if I remember right.

Windows ME is a completely different animal all together. They built an operating system with Internet Explorer 5.0 as its kernal, so its not really DOS, but I think it was added. I don't know, it was such a bad OS, that I never messed with it much. Anyone who asks me to try and fix ME, and I tell them to either buy a new PC with a newer operating system, or Install 98 instead.

Although, from now on, I will tell them to install a version of Linux instead. I'm new, and from what I've seen, I'm impressed. The price is certainly right. I got what I paid for!

[Sporkman]

The price is certainly right. I got what I paid for!

:lol: Indeed.

[nvteighen]

Sooner or later, MS will have to do a rewrite.. Without being a programmer, I can see the current Windows platform is a mess: there are lots of things that haven't been changed nor improved from 3.x, or at least I don't see any real progress...

[jdong]

Sooner or later, MS will have to do a rewrite.. Without being a programmer, I can see the current Windows platform is a mess: there are lots of things that haven't been changed nor improved from 3.x, or at least I don't see any real progress...

There have been a lot of fundamental redesigns of Windows components, definitely since 3.x, and even from the jump from XP to 2003 or XP to Vista... They are really fascinating to read about on MSDN, though IMO I haven't seen much of the improvements in real life.

By far my #1 choice for a stable, fast, and "light" Windows implementation, when I'm forced to use Windows, is 2003 Server. XP comes as a distant second.

[Afoot]

It would be much harder to sustain various software monopolies if Microsoft were to do that.

[raijinsetsu]

Windows hasn't been DOS based for years. The 'Command Prompt" you get when you click 'Start,' and then click 'Run,' and then type 'CMD', just looks like DOS. In fact, if you type 'VER' at the prompt, it will tell you that it is not DOS, but Windows NT 5.1.2600, if I remember right.

Windows ME is a completely different animal all together. They built an operating system with Internet Explorer 5.0 as its kernal, so its not really DOS, but I think it was added. I don't know, it was such a bad OS, that I never messed with it much. Anyone who asks me to try and fix ME, and I tell them to either buy a new PC with a newer operating system, or Install 98 instead.

Although, from now on, I will tell them to install a version of Linux instead. I'm new, and from what I've seen, I'm impressed. The price is certainly right. I got what I paid for!

The base code of all MS OS's dates back to pre-MSDOS.
NT was supposed to be a NEW OS, with a completely new base, but the development team was forced to fudge it to be binary compatible with the rest of the Windows lines, and therefore, had MS-DOS code cludgered into it.
XP/2k/NT/Vista are not MS-DOS, but they are based on it, heavily. MS needs to take a look at all their mistakes in the past, and instead of patching them up, rework them from the bottom up.
Don't complain about time or money because this is exactly the thing the people at Wine had to do to make their emulation layer.
My suggestion would be to move onto a new product, and provide an emulation layer to run older Windows programs on the new product. Oh wait... *nix does that already...

[dca]

I heard a rumour, that Vista will be the last OS MS produce. just a rumour, but let's hope.

The last 32-bit OS they produce...

[dca]

Actually, I hear rumors that supposably 'vienna' will be UNIX-like......

Unix-like to where it won't have a GUI, text-based... But let's face it, MS-DOS was a rip-off compared to PC-DOS...

[dca]

MS' biggest asset was the ability to straddle both the business desktop and consumer desktop. Windows2000 Pro & XPSP2 are indicative of this. However, Vista, not so much. I read somewhere that it cost 8billion dollars and 8000 programmers to create it from scratch, but then I read blogs from disgruntled MS people that went to Google saying that that was the orig concept but then it was scrapped half-way through and they just added on to existing technology because the choice was either to be 2 years late for a release or 5 years late...

I'm just saying it's all true, but...

[3rdalbum]

The better question would be: Why should Microsoft switch Windows to a Unix-like or even a BSD base?

Microsoft understands Windows as it currently is. If MS switched to a Unix-like system as Apple did, or even to one of the BSDs, it would be going to a platform that the company has almost no understanding of.

Let's take Apple's example. Apple had some Unix and Unix-like experience with A/UX and MkLinux; and bought more Unix-like experience from NeXT. Yet Apple spends every day fighting with Unix and the Unix way of doing things, whenever they hack around with Mac OS X. Apple doesn't understand Unix principles and how they apply to a desktop, and this results in its Unix-like system being full of vulnerabilities and glitches. Imagine Microsoft, a company that has never released a Unix, switching its codebase. The hybrid would end off being buggier than Windows ME, and with more security flaws than XP.

So there's no reason for Microsoft to switch to something that it has no knowledge about. And there are good reasons why it SHOULDN'T switch.

[hobieone]

short answer why would they want to do that! that would meean they can no longer bully every one around as they would not be a unique os

[Sporkman]

short answer why would they want to do that! that would meean they can no longer bully every one around as they would not be a unique os

They can continue to bully - it fact, by improving its quality & security with such a move, while focusing its enormous resources on interoperability & hardware support in general, it could effectively neutralize Linux as a threat, I'd think.

[err_ok]

This is just like saying why don't they scrap IE and build firefox into windows....
Never going to happen...