When will MS get out of the 80's?

[Psycho Fox]

It seems even though there is some voice of reason in Microsoft that want the next version of Windows (Longhorn) to have Linux under the hood of Windows like Mac OS X, it seems the hacked to death OS/2 v1 kernal (like XP,NT and 2000) will be under the hood.

Not only that but instead of making Windows more stable on more hardware or making it lighter they are making it bigger by putting MS Access embeded in the OS (Access will handle the file system since the file system will be a MS Access database making it incompatiable with every file system standard)

How is the computer industry suppose to evolve when its emperor is so out of date. Even IBM wasn't ever this backwards, I do hope MS crash and burn soon.

[Magwheel]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Not only that but instead of making Windows more stable on more hardware or making it lighter they are making it bigger by putting MS Access embeded in the OS (Access will handle the file system since the file system will be a MS Access database making it incompatiable with every file system standard)

How is the computer industry suppose to evolve when its emperor is so out of date. Even IBM wasn't ever this backwards, I do hope MS crash and burn soon.


ACCESS!? Is this serious? Wow. I hope that doens't end up being as terrible as it sounds... Know any good articles on this subject?

I don't really have any wish for MS to "crash and burn," but I sure wish they'd smarten up and focus on making clean, steamlined, functional systems. (Do I expect this to happen, ever? :rolleyes: No.) Though if I had no choice but to use, say, Linux, I'd maybe finally get around to installing it :p

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Magwheel
ACCESS!? Is this serious? Wow. I hope that doens't end up being as terrible as it sounds... Know any good articles on this subject?
Well a database system MS seems to be unsure of what that database system would be some reports say Access others say others. IBM experimented with the theory of a database filesystem a few year back when they were still supporting OS/2 but though it was stupid and made everything they learned public domain. Yet MS seems a bit more ambitious

from PC Wold (http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,104690,pg,6,00.asp)
Microsoft has said it will replace Windows' aging file system with one based on technology in Yukon, the next edition of the company's SQL Server database. That could drive a smarter, more task-based Windows that could juggle everything from address books to photo albums, wherever they are stored. (However, Microsoft has hyped database-like file systems before without delivering.

I don't really have any wish for MS to "crash and burn," but I sure wish they'd smarten up and focus on making clean, steamlined, functional systems. (Do I expect this to happen, ever? :rolleyes: No.) Though if I had no choice but to use, say, Linux, I'd maybe finally get around to installing it :p Well considering Amiga OS 3.1 can do everything XP can do (with a bit of hacking it can trick the average users that they are using XP) and that is 10 years old now Amiga OS is up to 3.9 and 4.0 is soon to be released.

I don't like Linux as a desktop OS. I don't mind it underneith like in MacOS X but it just too geek for day to day operations of a desktop (okay for devlopment or as server,ect).

I really hope MS jumps onto PPC and Risc ARM so Acon,Amiga, Pegasos and Mac users can use Windows as a second OS so people can see Windows next to a real OS on equal HW.

[Brainatra]

Mac OS X doesn't use Linux as the underlying OS---it uses Unix; the BSD version of Unix to be precise. That's what makes OS X very stable (and powerful)...

I'd like to see an article myself about whether or not Microsoft is truly making Access that heavily integrated with the OS...though frankly nothing they do would surprise me...do you have a link to an article about this, Psycho?

>>Well considering Amiga OS 3.1 can do everything XP can do (with a bit of hacking it can trick the average users that they are using XP) and that is 10 years old now Amiga OS is up to 3.9 and 4.0 is soon to be released.

I don't like Linux as a desktop OS. I don't mind it underneith like in MacOS X but it just too geek for day to day operations of a desktop (okay for devlopment or as server,ect).

I really hope MS jumps onto PPC and Risc ARM so Acon,Amiga, Pegasos and Mac users can use Windows as a second OS so people can see Windows next to a real OS on equal HW.<<


I already use Windows as a second OS (via library computers, friends' computers, the occasional job, etc.); I'm using it right now, actually (Windows ME). And yeah, would much rather be using my Powerbook (if this PC wasn't much faster/newer than my ancient laptop)...

-B.
Still hates OS X's (bleep)in' Dock...

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Mac OS X doesn't use Linux as the underlying OS---it uses Unix; the BSD version of Unix to be precise. That's what makes OS X very stable (and powerful)...
My bad.

I'd like to see an article myself about whether or not Microsoft is truly making Access that heavily integrated with the OS...though frankly nothing they do would surprise me...do you have a link to an article about this, Psycho?Well if you click the PC World link in my last message it will bring you to PC World's lastest article on Windows new OS. They are going to integrate a database for the file system. If it will be Access or not seems to not be too clear.

I already use Windows as a second OS (via library computers, friends' computers, the occasional job, etc.); I'm using it right now, actually (Windows ME). And yeah, would much rather be using my Powerbook (if this PC wasn't much faster/newer than my ancient laptop)...
The point is that the PPC arc was orginally ment to bring all of the platforms into a a general standard to bring costs down. Of course that hasn't happened.

Acorn is still sticking with Intel's Risc ARM Arc
Atari community is going to release their new platfrom on ColdFire

All PPC has made common is the new Amiga One, Pegasos,BeOS the Mac some embedded system and of course PPC Linux distro's..

Yet Windows that acound for close to the vast vast majority of the market is sticking with X86.

[atf487]

OSX uses a freebsd modified kernel, so you're both wrong :P

[Brainatra]

Originally posted by atf487
OSX uses a freebsd modified kernel, so you're both wrong :P

FreeBSD is just one variant of Unix, so I'm not wrong....a big deal's been made in multiple books/articles/Apple ad campaigns/etc. of OS X's underlying Unix structure, esp. among the "geek" computer crowd (since one can use the full range of Unix programs/commands/etc. with OS X)...

-B.
Who hasn't used any Unix since college...

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
FreeBSD is just one variant of Unix, so I'm not wrong....a big deal's been made in multiple books/articles/Apple ad campaigns/etc. of OS X's underlying Unix structure, esp. among the "geek" computer crowd (since one can use the full range of Unix programs/commands/etc. with OS X)...

-B.
Who hasn't used any Unix since college...
Okay but the real point is Win95,'98 and ME sits on Dos 7. NT,2000 and XP sits on OS/2 v1 (since it has Dos support and MS got it free when they seperated from IBM's OS/2 project) Both is horribly out dated and not really orginally ment to handle something like windows ontop of em. From the looks of it MS can only hack these and does not have the talent to write a underlying OS from scratch.(They bought Dos and IBM did OS/2). Really it would be better if MS put Linux or something else under the hood of Windows yet MS seems to be blinded by its own ego to do something like that.

[Brainatra]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Okay but the real point is Win95,'98 and ME sits on Dos 7. NT,2000 and XP sits on OS/2 v1 (since it has Dos support and MS got it free when they seperated from IBM's OS/2 project) Both is horribly out dated and not really orginally ment to handle something like windows ontop of em. From the looks of it MS can only hack these and does not have the talent to write a underlying OS from scratch.(They bought Dos and IBM did OS/2). Really it would be better if MS put Linux or something else under the hood of Windows yet MS seems to be blinded by its own ego to do something like that.


Hmmm...well, I'd imagine MS would only be interested in a new system under the hood as long as they can have complete proprietary control over it. Plus, since they're the de facto OS for 85% of the world's computers, why should they care about OS issues when there's $$ to be made off of upgrades/etc.?

-B.

[atf487]

Originally posted by Brainatra
FreeBSD is just one variant of Unix, so I'm not wrong....a big deal's been made in multiple books/articles/Apple ad campaigns/etc. of OS X's underlying Unix structure, esp. among the "geek" computer crowd (since one can use the full range of Unix programs/commands/etc. with OS X)...

-B.
Who hasn't used any Unix since college...

Yeah, but the word "unix" refers to the commerical berkely version. FreeBSD is the free implementation, different then the commercial.

As geeks say, *nix isn't unix....FreeBSD has many changes from the original..Maybe a variant, but that wasn't what you said...

Nit picking, but I need to be right at something for once!

[Brainatra]

Originally posted by atf487
Yeah, but the word "unix" refers to the commerical berkely version. FreeBSD is the free implementation, different then the commercial.

As geeks say, *nix isn't unix....FreeBSD has many changes from the original..Maybe a variant, but that wasn't what you said...

Nit picking, but I need to be right at something for once!

Well, it's still "Unix", even if not the "official" Unix version (just as "kleenex" these days gets used more as a generic term for "disposable tissue")... (shrug).

-B.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Hmmm...well, I'd imagine MS would only be interested in a new system under the hood as long as they can have complete proprietary control over it. Plus, since they're the de facto OS for 85% of the world's computers, why should they care about OS issues when there's $$ to be made off of upgrades/etc.?

-B. Well the outdated underlying system is already having effects on the next gen of CPU for the IBM compat.

Intel wants to go 64-bit yet it wants to do some house cleaning while its at it. For starters Intel was planing on removing the division of memory and reworking the memory addressing and cleaning out bottle necks.

Of course due to the age of Windows underlying system MS told Intel they can't do that and they need to keep complete backwards combatibly which seem to be hard for Intel's 64-bit projects. Basicly unless MS can get a new system under the hood MS is stuck with the X86 arc and stuck on a 32-bit arc (There is 32/64 duel mode CPUs in the works but they have not had the same performance)

Apple is going 64 with IBMs PowerPC 970 (Desktop version of the Power 4) as is the rest of the PPC systems since unlike Motorla, IBM is planning on allowing everyone not just Apple the best chips.

This seems like the Apple /// and GS problem where by keeping complete backwards compatiblity in each upgrade, the platform falls behind.