Microsoft admits Windows Vista is broken

[blastus]

Microsoft Windows Officially Broken (http://www.smartofficenews.com.au/Computing/Platforms_And_Applications?article=/Computing/Platforms%20And%20Applications/News/E5T7U6H8&page=1) :cool:

They could unbind IE from the OS, oh no wait, they can't do that because the OS wouldn't work.

[Ubunted]

Yeah, the article a while back about how Vista went through a redesign and overhaul - moving from the XP to Server 2003 codebase etc - of the development process came out a while ago. Every company needs a little shakeup every now and then. They tried to push an old model too far and failed, so they made a new one.

[mstlyevil]

It goes to show you you cannot pee in the wind and not get wet. Microsoft has always been about rushing software to market and not about the quality of their product. This goes to show you that Linux has had the right model all along. I find it hard to believe that Gates actually admited that creating a base code like Linux was a better plan. I guess now I will have to go get drunk after reading that one.

[blastus]

What's interesting about this is that the design of their OS has finally caught up with them. Traditionally they have favored a monolithic design because it makes it impossible for components or features they have bound together to be separated or removed. They have used this approach to leverage their monopoly into other markets by binding components to the OS and blurring the lines between essential and non-essential OS components.

They have even admitted that XP SP2 was a massive undertaking and was hugely complex. No wonder why, IE is a part of the stupid OS. From a design perspective, binding IE to the OS was the absolutely the most stupid thing they could have done. In the case of IE, it made it impossible for OEMs to remove it from the OS, therefore ensuring a monopoly on web browsers.

Will they ever unbind IE from Windows? Never. IE is just one example or proof of concept that Microsoft favors a monolithic design over modular design as part of their monopolistic strategy. But as this article points out, the consequences of this approach to designing software has increased complexity to the point where it has finally come back to bite them in the ***.

[openmind]

.................................................. .............................

Will they ever unbind IE from Windows? Never. IE is just one example or proof of concept that Microsoft favors a monolithic design over modular design as part of their monopolistic strategy. But as this article points out, the consequences of this approach to designing software has increased complexity to the point where it has finally come back to bite them in the ***.

So where does that fit in with the "New Kernel" philosophy? Are they going to write a base Kernel, similar to Linux and yet still sew IE into it? Or have they finally admitted that MS apps (including IE) can be removed by OEM's?

My own view is that quite possibly we are witnessing the beginning of the end for Microsoft as we know it.

[mstlyevil]

I think IE will be the one app they will include in the base code. They would say something like that IE would do everything windows explorer did and there fore they streamlined the code. That is a assumption on my part though.

[blastus]

So where does that fit in with the "New Kernel" philosophy? Are they going to write a base Kernel, similar to Linux and yet still sew IE into it? Or have they finally admitted that MS apps (including IE) can be removed by OEM's?

This article Software Monopoly, Microsoft Style (http://www.summitstrat.com/assets/LMnov03COL) describes the way Microsoft does business very plainly. My point is that their style of doing business negatively influences the technical architecture and design of their products. I say "negatively" because in the past their business style has been necessarily in clear conflict of good software architectural and design principals.