
NYT on why Microsoft should rewrite Windows from scratch - michael_dorfman
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/technology/29digi.html?ref=technology
======
Feynman
Hmmm, the article starts off with "Windows seems to move an inch for every
time that Mac OS X or Linux laps it." Then moves to "A MONOLITHIC operating
system like Windows perpetuates an obsolete design."

I'm no OS expert, but I thought Linux was also "monolithic" in terms of kernel
design.

I think Mr. Stross should keep to writing about subjects in his expertise.

~~~
silverlake
Yes, Linux is monolithic. MacOS X is a micro-kernel, but I believe the BSD
stuff runs in kernel space, so it's effectively a monolithic kernel with a
nice layered design. I think NT is somewhere between OS X and Linux. The
article was terrible.

------
aston
Aston on why the NYT should read the mythical man month ...

Also, microkernels aren't the end-all-be-all of OS design. And Singularity is
more about a managed-code kernel than a microkernel.

------
soundsop
An engineering argument written by a businessperson using evidence from
Gartner analysts. Nuff said.

~~~
mattmaroon
Yeah, it's pretty easy to see why MS ignores them. At the same time, even
though the methodology is flawed, the conclusion seems pretty accurate. It's
time for MS to rewrite from scratch.

------
mynameishere
NT is solid. They just have it loaded down with cruft.

 _Vista is the equivalent, at a minimum, of Windows version 12 — preceded by
1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, NT, 95, NT 4.0, 98, 2000, ME, XP_

Wow, what ignorance. NT and the earlier Windows version are unrelated.

~~~
allenbrunson
they are not unrelated in the sense that the NT series includes a lot of APIs
from earlier Windows versions, which increases the cruft level.

------
rplevy
Forget rewriting, they should open the source. That's just about the only
thing they could do that would make their operating system interesting to me.
I don't know much about business, but it also might be just the shark they
would need to jump in order to reverse their gradual decline.

------
jeroen
"The internal code name for the next version is “Windows 7.” The “7” refers to
nothing in particular, a company spokeswoman says."

Uhh, how about NT4, 2000, Vista, 7?

Anyway, I thought we all agreed that the Mozilla rewrite wasn't a great plan.
Why would it be any better for Windows? What' wrong with refactoring?

~~~
allenbrunson
a more relevant analogy is apple's mac-to-macosx switch. they completely
dumped the old os and replaced it with a new one, relegating the old one to a
poorly-integrated emulator.

it was very painful. the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the old guard was
loud and angry. but it was good for the company in the long run. now the old
macos emulator is all but gone, as are the complaints. it was short-term
painful, but a long-term gigantic win.

the same would be true for windows, if it were rewritten from scratch. it's
not that the code itself needs a rewrite, it's that the windows api is a patch
on a bag on a pile of spit. the fact that microsoft has put such a high
priority on backward compatibility is slowly strangling windows to death.

------
allenbrunson
dupe:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=231411>

and my version only got three votes. people preferred the "rewrite from
scratch" title, perhaps?

------
ericb
If you thought vista was late... oh the joys of The Big Rewrite...

------
ahold
Microsoft should write the next Windows based on Unix finally. They could use
UNIX from their big friends at SCO :))

