PDA

View Full Version : Dear MS: Didn't we *just* deal with this?


idea_hamster
Jul 24, 2003, 09:19 AM
It's really just a shame that thing are so lax over in Redwood....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3092399.stm

Really, it's a shame.

How can Windows users sleep at night?

Capt Underpants
Jul 24, 2003, 09:22 AM
I just patched last night!! Grrr... I want to switch so bad. Well here's hopin they get it fixed soon.

MacFan25
Jul 24, 2003, 09:30 AM
Heh..this really isn't too surprising. Poor windows users. ;)

patrick0brien
Jul 24, 2003, 09:43 AM
-Hmmm

Legacy code can only be laver upon so many times before the bugs (security issues can be considered bugs here) will become too great to manage vs. the improvements being done to said code.

The law of diminishing returns.

It appears that after honestly doing a terriffic job of prolonging the DOS code base for 25 years, the law of diminishing returns is catching up with M$. If they wish to really improve things, they need to reinvent their OS (Like Apple has done three times ProDos->MacOS->OSX).

And the OS is too imbedded for that. They're honestly in a pickle.

jxyama
Jul 24, 2003, 09:48 AM
patrick... you always sound like an intelligent fellow, so i'm asking a "stupid" question. is XP still based on DOS? i thought they finally managed to shift away from DOS, but perhaps i got the wrong impression.

it's entirely possible that there's no DOS in XP, but it's still "based" on previous OS's, which in turn is based on DOS..? something like that?

Capt Underpants
Jul 24, 2003, 10:13 AM
I don't thnk XP is based on DOS, however, it can sometimes run DOS programs. I think XP is based on windows NT, which isn't based on DOS.

Capt Underpants
Jul 24, 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by MacFan25
Heh..this really isn't too surprising. Poor windows users. ;)

Poor me. (sobs quietly in the corner)

MacFan25
Jul 24, 2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Capt Underpants
Poor me. (sobs quietly in the corner)
I've been there, too. If/When you switch, you'll try not to look back, though. ;)

idea_hamster
Jul 24, 2003, 10:36 AM
If MS really were to decide to overhaul their OS and go to some sort of OS X rip-off *nix-based system, do we predict success? Or debacle?

patrick0brien
Jul 24, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by jxyama
it's entirely possible that there's no DOS in XP, but it's still "based" on previous OS's, which in turn is based on DOS..? something like that?

-jxyama

That's a very good point. And one that MS does a good job of obfuscating. Is it still based on DOS? Ultimately yes - it's been an evolution. This is why you can still run a lot of ancient code on XP.

You are correct that XP, and Win2k before it was borne out of NT technology. However, NT was based on the work done on the OS/2 project, and a evolutionary step from using DOS as the foundationary OS.

XP/Win2k/NT communicate with the computer differently than using DOS as the underlying layer, but rest assured, it's still there and calling a lot of the shots.

The only difference is that Windows is no longer a pretty face that uses DOS to run the machine - it's more direct.

(this information is based on the expertise of several IT managers and MS consultants I know - it's a bit beyond my own hands-on experience)

davy the bunny
Jul 24, 2003, 12:02 PM
Aren't the DOSes in NT, 2K, and XP really just a completely seperate DOS emulator?

patrick0brien
Jul 24, 2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by davy the bunny
Aren't the DOSes in NT, 2K, and XP really just a completely seperate DOS emulator?

-davy the bunny

Not according to my supplement.

They are more analogous to the terminal in OS X.

Abstract
Jul 24, 2003, 01:16 PM
XP doesn't use DOS anymore. In fact, you'll have trouble running some older Windows programs. That was Bill's promise----- you'll have trouble using older software and the such because we can't keep supporting every single piece of old software and whatever that has ever been created.

The problem with his statement is that Windows has trouble running any sort of software. :)

Awww... I shouldn't say that. Poor Underpants. Also, I'm using a PC (AMD 650MHz), and normally do so while posting here. :( Its actually pretty fast and quite stable.........as long as you're not doing anything to make it mad. :(

jaykk
Jul 24, 2003, 01:18 PM
Here is a brief history of WNT( VMS++) from winnetmag - Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=4494&pg=1)

Microsoft's internal project name for the new OS was OS/2 NT, because Microsoft's intention was for the new OS to succeed OS/2 yet retain the OS/2 API as its primary interface. The success of Windows 3.0 in April 1990 altered Microsoft's thinking and its relationship with IBM. Six weeks after Microsoft released Windows 3.0, Microsoft renamed OS/2 NT as Windows NT, and designated the Win32 API (a 32-bit evolution of Windows 3.0's 16-bit API) NT's official API.

Gates decided that compatibility with the 16-bit Windows API and the ability to run Windows 3.x applications unmodified were NT's paramount goals, in addition to support for portions of the DOS, OS/2, and POSIX APIs. From 1990 to NT's public release in August 1993, Cutler's team was in a mad dash to complete NT, and the project grew to involve more than 200 engineers and testers. Figure 1 shows a timeline of the major events in the history of NT.

"when Digital engineers noticed the similarities between VMS and NT, they brought their observations to senior management. Rather than suing, Digital cut a deal with Microsoft."

"Although Microsoft presents NT as a homegrown OS, NT is actually much older than its official 1993 birthdate. "


Interesting read - according to this article DOS is not an emulation, rather "support for portions of the DOS, OS/2, and POSIX APIs." Also, Cutler's team was in a mad dash to complete NT - no wonder so many buffer over flows/memory leaks.

The best example of OS Migration is from Apple - the Classic Mode.

patrick0brien
Jul 24, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Abstract
XP doesn't use DOS anymore. In fact, you'll have trouble running some older Windows programs. That was Bill's promise----- you'll have trouble using older software and the such because we can't keep supporting every single piece of old software and whatever that has ever been created.

-Abstract

Oh, very true. However that promise was a hollow one as NT couln't either. Mainly because NT was a 32-bit clean OS and couldn't run 16-bit code, while Win95 at that time could run both.

Since NT was adopted as the primary technology, that 32-bit only application launching ability came aboard by default, not by some change in the codebase brought about by a promise.

All of this harkens to my original point - MS has done an incredible job of evolving their original idea over the last 25 years, but it's still the same idea. And now the ship is springing so many leaks, the ship isn't riding as high in the water as it used to.

If they wish to stem this, they need to dump the entire OS and start anew, like when Apple moved from ProDos, and again with OS X (though jaykk is right, Classic was a good migration facilitator)

Now this bakes the question: Can MS dump the OS? My answer would be a twofold no.

1) Their current OS is the largest install base - we all know this - at ~80% or so. To ask all of the millions of users to migrate would be ludicrous. Thus the bane of their success.

2) Come up with a new OS? I strongly doubt it. They have never come up with their own OS. NT was largely from OS/2 (as stated) and DOS was an OS based on the merging of three that were purchased from others.

Capt Underpants
Jul 24, 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
I've been there, too. If/When you switch, you'll try not to look back, though. ;)

I am definately going to switch. I have been saving up for 2 years and I don't really have a steady income because I can't get a job. I am about 600.00 away from a g5.

patrick0brien
Jul 24, 2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Capt Underpants
I am about 600.00 away from a g5.

-Capt Underpants

Woah. You do realize that's a bit like driving a nail into a board with a planet right?

That's an awful lot of machine, do you really feel that this beast is all that necessary for your budget? I only ask because you could get a perfectly good 1.42DP and get a killer monitor or something.

Side note: I see a striking similarity in our 'sigs. Is this a co-inkydink? :D

MrMacMan
Jul 24, 2003, 03:52 PM
Aww so sad

*fakes sob*

NavyIntel007
Jul 24, 2003, 06:24 PM
Dear MS Users,

SUCKERS!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Love,
ME!!!!

:cool: :D

applemacdude
Jul 24, 2003, 07:59 PM
VULNERABLE SOFTWARE

DirectX 5.2 on Windows 98
DirectX 6.1 on Windows 98 SE
DirectX 7.0a on Windows Me
DirectX 7.0 on Windows 2000
DirectX 8.1 on Windows XP
DirectX 8.1 on Windows Server 2003
DirectX 9.0a on Windows 2000
DirectX 9.0a on Windows XP
DirectX 9.0a on Windows Server 2003
DirectX 9.0a on Windows Me
NT 4.0 using Media Player 6.4 or Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition using either Media Player 6.4 or Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1

Hahhahahahahah! Poor windows users....Hahahhaha:D

patrick0brien
Jul 24, 2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by applemacdude
Hahhahahahahah! Poor windows users....Hahahhaha:D

-applemacdude

So tell us how you really feel.

I detect some ambiguity.

:D

bennetsaysargh
Jul 24, 2003, 09:07 PM
i really feel sorry for them. just a couple of weeks ago, my nieghbor was talking about how she hasn't heard of any problenms with windows recently.
hahahahaha!*





HA!:P

Xero
Jul 24, 2003, 09:37 PM
i agree that this is a pretty sad affair. i still own a pc with winXP Pro installed and theres honestly got to be 2 security updates almost every week. my list of winXP "hotfixes" under the add/remove programs window is ridiculously long. i think MS and society in general needs to have a little faith in modern technology, so MS can build a new OS from scratch... or more people should just buy macs. :rolleyes:

patrick0brien
Jul 25, 2003, 11:03 AM
-All these patched and updates, no wonder the registry get haystacked so damn fast anymore.

Makes me think that if you turned off that functionality and didn't install any more patches, sure, you're machine wouldn't be up to date with security (note I didn't say 'as secure'), but at least it'll still be able to get out of its own way speed wise.