- Related Stories
-
Microsoft lays plans for 'Vistagami' tablets
May 24, 2006 -
Microsoft unveils new betas for Office, Vista
May 23, 2006 -
Bounty for Vista coders who squish bugs at home
May 12, 2006 -
Gartner predicts longer Vista delay
May 2, 2006 -
Longhorn will run on some older PCs too
April 28, 2005
(continued from previous page)
The system requirements guidance all along has been 512MB of memory (to run Vista), but earlier on a lot of people at Microsoft, I think yourself included, expressed a lot of confidence that the final version should run on systems with far less memory. Well, we got the final requirements this week, and it requires 512 megs.
Allchin: If I said it, I was wrong. I don't know if I said it, but if I did I was wrong. XP definitely works on lower memory. Our performance analysis today says that on low-memory machines, XP beats Vista, and the more memory you give it, Vista beats XP, and it's just because we're better at memory management, but we don't work as good on low (memory PCs) because we just have more stuff that we've got in the system.
One of the things that's very clear is Vista loves memory, and the more memory you put, the faster it will (be). It will not only be faster, but it will learn and get faster over time. So more memory is just a good thing for it.
If you had to offer a list of a few lessons that the whole Vista development process has given you, what would be at the top? Allchin: Well, since about August or whatever--the middle of 2004--when we reset, I think we did most everything right. Before then, there has been a large postmortem on paper that I personally wrote on all the things that we needed to improve, which dealt with changing the engineering process, that had to do with dependencies, what dependencies you take at what levels and the projects at what level in the system, layering. Of all of the issues, I really think dependencies are probably the biggest one. I think it's an illusion and a mirage to say, "Oh, there's a better way to do this, we'll just ship software on the Internet, somehow the quality will improve and we'll do it faster." It doesn't work that way.I do believe controlling dependency is something that for Windows is super, super important, and if you control dependencies, you make so much better progress. I mean, look at the server; the server with its new role--we'll set it up so that each of those roles can operate independently with a smaller development team that's working just on that role, so they don't have to worry about the others.
So when you look forward and you say, "Oh, it's just getting more and more complex"--the fact of making those things more modular and more so they can be independent but still work together in a common way through the management console and the like--but if you do that, you end up where the teams can be smaller, not as monolithic, and make faster progress. The same thing can be done on the client side.
In the future, more modularization, fewer dependencies are the answer. I'm a believer that cars or software, both will get more complicated in the future, and at the same time they will get simpler; you just have to mechanize, modernize the way you build them and the way the parts fit together. In an auto, the bus structure of how you plug in is pretty well-defined; you don't really get to mess around with the bus structure of the car. And so they have a lot of replaceability and they have a structure that you can plug in to. We just need to do more and more of it.
It seems that virtualization opens up some doors here. Apple Computer has obviously got a much smaller array of applications that they had to deal with this, but both when they moved to Mac OS X and to some degree when they moved to Intel chips, they said, "We need to make some changes forward, and this is how we're going to preserve compatibility." It would be a mammoth task, but is it something Microsoft is going to have to do at some point?
Allchin: I don't necessarily think that we would do it the same way as Apple did, because for a variety of technical reasons their problem is much simpler. But I can tell you that the top problem--I did a paper on the future of Windows--the top problem is this application compatibility, and we have a team who is doing prototypes for how we may have an answer to that in the future. We've got prototypes running with several different solutions about how to do this. It's a very complicated problem, more so than in the Apple case.
See more CNET content tagged:
Jim Allchin, WinHEC, Steve Ballmer, device driver, feedback
On the other hand, my current computer came with the pre-SP1 version of XP preinstalled, and that didn't cause any significant problems.
On the other hand, my current computer came with the pre-SP1 version of XP preinstalled, and that didn't cause any significant problems.
Garbage. This will be one of the worst releases ever. Possibly worse than ME.
That way, we dont need a driver and no control over the hardware. Just to let you know, MS's implementation of PnP is far superior to APpls, hence, more control over your devices through apps that can transform that hardware. Example, Try getting your video card on your Mac to change AA settings on the fly using the respected Applications prefence..Oh thats right, its not possible. How about overclocking that video card? or putting unique sound effects through your sound card. Wouldnt ever want to check those memory timings on the fly....Id rather have bloat than nothing et al. Noting that "everything" works on OSX (ROFL) Does that include fonts? and "other" media players... LOL
If there is one thing Id like to see copied from apple, its the damn pinwheel...being since that is such a well known "feature".
Unfortunately, I can't seem to get my non-Apple webcam to work on the Mac. Or my non-Apple keyboard or my non-Apple PPC or my non-Apple monitor. Any tips for me there?
Oh, and by the way, how do I get SharePoint installed on my Mac? Does anyone know how to get Visual Studio working on the Mac? How about SQL Server or Oracle? Oh yeah, I guess I'll have to stick to FileMaker Pro, Cocoa and editing web pages with whatever the Mac-equivalent of notepad is.
I guess I'm having a little trouble with the wonderful plug-and-play features of the Mac. Is there ANY software or non-Apple-approved hardware that works on this POS???
i don't know why you are screaming about debug features in a beta OS...
i'm not here to bash mac users, but it seems exclusive mac users would be less aware of device drivers seeing as how Apple keeps all mac hardware proprietary (i believe this is still the case). once you know all the available pluggable devices on the market for your OS, and knowing that those devices were all developed by the same company...well, it's pretty easy to include all the drivers you'll ever need in the OS. Consider how many brands of PC devices are on the market and you'll get a sense of what MS has to take into account when implementing their drivers.
Garbage. This will be one of the worst releases ever. Possibly worse than ME.
That way, we dont need a driver and no control over the hardware. Just to let you know, MS's implementation of PnP is far superior to APpls, hence, more control over your devices through apps that can transform that hardware. Example, Try getting your video card on your Mac to change AA settings on the fly using the respected Applications prefence..Oh thats right, its not possible. How about overclocking that video card? or putting unique sound effects through your sound card. Wouldnt ever want to check those memory timings on the fly....Id rather have bloat than nothing et al. Noting that "everything" works on OSX (ROFL) Does that include fonts? and "other" media players... LOL
If there is one thing Id like to see copied from apple, its the damn pinwheel...being since that is such a well known "feature".
Unfortunately, I can't seem to get my non-Apple webcam to work on the Mac. Or my non-Apple keyboard or my non-Apple PPC or my non-Apple monitor. Any tips for me there?
Oh, and by the way, how do I get SharePoint installed on my Mac? Does anyone know how to get Visual Studio working on the Mac? How about SQL Server or Oracle? Oh yeah, I guess I'll have to stick to FileMaker Pro, Cocoa and editing web pages with whatever the Mac-equivalent of notepad is.
I guess I'm having a little trouble with the wonderful plug-and-play features of the Mac. Is there ANY software or non-Apple-approved hardware that works on this POS???
i don't know why you are screaming about debug features in a beta OS...
i'm not here to bash mac users, but it seems exclusive mac users would be less aware of device drivers seeing as how Apple keeps all mac hardware proprietary (i believe this is still the case). once you know all the available pluggable devices on the market for your OS, and knowing that those devices were all developed by the same company...well, it's pretty easy to include all the drivers you'll ever need in the OS. Consider how many brands of PC devices are on the market and you'll get a sense of what MS has to take into account when implementing their drivers.
case."
You're telling me that Microsoft's compatibility issue is more
complicated than running an Application designed for ONE
PROCESSOR (PPC) on ANOTHER PROCESSOR (x86) in an
absolutely seamless manner, even while interacting with the OS
that is running under a different processor. Is that right?
Wow, either Microsoft is incredibly inept or incredibly arrogant.
their products are a JOKE compared to Apple's (or other
companies) original versions.
Never underestimate MS ability to spread FUD or to BLOW in
terms of quality. They do a good job of supporting their
fanboys, and leveraging the monopoly, but that's about it.
Developers! Developers! FUD Spreaders!!!
As for what some of my fellow posters are saying about Apple, it
almost goes without saying that you have no experience
whatsoever with anything not out of redmond. You sound like
complete idiots saything, for example, that standard keyboards/
monitors/printers/ etc... ad nauseum do not work with Mac.
There can be driver issues, but it's nothing compared to what we
have to do in Windows.
Also, MS has never had to go through a single transition that
was anywhere near the complexity of any of the following:
Apple's switch to PPC
Apple's switch to OSX
Apple's switch to Intel.
Make up some more believeable FUD, please, Apple needs the
"competition".
case."
You're telling me that Microsoft's compatibility issue is more
complicated than running an Application designed for ONE
PROCESSOR (PPC) on ANOTHER PROCESSOR (x86) in an
absolutely seamless manner, even while interacting with the OS
that is running under a different processor. Is that right?
Wow, either Microsoft is incredibly inept or incredibly arrogant.
their products are a JOKE compared to Apple's (or other
companies) original versions.
Never underestimate MS ability to spread FUD or to BLOW in
terms of quality. They do a good job of supporting their
fanboys, and leveraging the monopoly, but that's about it.
Developers! Developers! FUD Spreaders!!!
As for what some of my fellow posters are saying about Apple, it
almost goes without saying that you have no experience
whatsoever with anything not out of redmond. You sound like
complete idiots saything, for example, that standard keyboards/
monitors/printers/ etc... ad nauseum do not work with Mac.
There can be driver issues, but it's nothing compared to what we
have to do in Windows.
Also, MS has never had to go through a single transition that
was anywhere near the complexity of any of the following:
Apple's switch to PPC
Apple's switch to OSX
Apple's switch to Intel.
Make up some more believeable FUD, please, Apple needs the
"competition".
"...reason to have hope that Microsoft may yet meet its latest deadline to ship Vista."
By definition, anyone always meets the latest deadline.
Can't ship in 2006? that's easy, make the "latest deadline" 2007? Still can't meet that? make the "latest deadline" 2008.
It's the earliest declared deadline that matters, too bad that was some three years ago.
"...reason to have hope that Microsoft may yet meet its latest deadline to ship Vista."
By definition, anyone always meets the latest deadline.
Can't ship in 2006? that's easy, make the "latest deadline" 2007? Still can't meet that? make the "latest deadline" 2008.
It's the earliest declared deadline that matters, too bad that was some three years ago.
- Hope I Can Turn Off Vista Services
- by maxwis May 25, 2006 9:52 AM PDT
- The only way that I get decent performance and an acceptable boot with XP is by turn off 2/3 of the services, most of which are unnecessary anyway. I hope that I can do the same thing in Vista to cull the bloat that MS is apparently building into it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(38 Comments)