Windows could use a rush of fresh air

Microsoft's flagship software, Windows, built upon the same core architecture as preceding versions, seems to move an inch when its competitors take a lap.
(From The New York Times)

The story "Windows could use a rush of fresh air" published June 28, 2008 at 3:44 PM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[cschlise]

Sorry folks, Microsoft does NOT have the intestinal fortitude for this.

Stand by for a re-tread of Vista in Windows 7. Their only hope will be that they slim down the number of pre-loaded services enough to make it quick, and spend the next year-and-a-half stream lining the processes they need to have loaded to run well (as well as get rid of some UI bloat and annoyances). They will then have a "respectable" product, but still not the one they need to move into the future with the flexibility in code design that the *nix's do.

[getwired]

Comparing Singularity and NeXT as this author does is ridiculous. NeXT built well respected hardware and software designed from the ground up around two established architectures (Mach & BSD). Singularity is a research project. Nothing more. Even if pushed to production, it would be farther out than start to finish with Vista was. When Microsoft started the NT project when Dave Cutler first came to Microsoft, it was the opportunity to start over. But instead, more and more of the Windows consumer variants infected the NT core - and Vista, the first "large" release since the integration of Windows consumer and Windows NT, doesn't bode well.

Microsoft can't start over. They've forgotten how. More importantly, they are unwilling to shoot application compatibility in the head, even when it's critical to do so, and when a freebie of XP running under a VM (heck - they OWN a virtualization technology) would suffice, and would let them truly start over again. Windows 7 is truly Windows Vista warmed over. Perhaps it will be better. But at it's heart, it will still be Vista, and Microsoft will have to market the bejeezus out of that release to get people to mentally separate it from Windows Vista.

[Hernys]

When Apple ditched it's codebase in favor of a new one, they did it with something that had been working as an underdog for about seven years. At the same time, their user base was composed mainly of early adopters not caring much about compatibility and mainstream alignment. Microsoft is in exactly the opposite situation: their user base is composed of mainly people with a vested interest in legacy. They have millions (well, hundreds of thousands at least) of applications they care about (even if many are complete cr*p, they are needed) and run on a hardware base so diverse they cannot expect it to work on any other operating system, new or old.
I'm betting, if Microsoft did what you suggest, they would have five years to catch up with the current security and compatibility level. By then, fifty percent of their user base, that otherwise would have stayed wth Windows, would have moved to other platforms. Does that make business sense?

[t8]

And hence why Windows will remain a dog. It will keep the IT illiterate masses happy to a degree, while the IT literate people will use something better.

[Penguinisto]

"By then, fifty percent of their user base, that otherwise would have stayed wth Windows, would have moved to other platforms. Does that make business sense?" ----- When the only other alternative is to have that fifty percent leave anyway because Windows has become more of a hindrance than a benefit to the customers' bottom line? I don't really see what choice they have.

[Renegade Knight]

Simple Solution.
Sell Both. XT/Vista/7 but stop with 7.
Sell 8 which is the new from ground up. If folks want to stick wtih 7. Great. If they want to move to 8. Great. 7 becomes the legacy OS. Nothing new is released. They just sell it and ride the cash cow.

[contentcreator--2008]

A few details that might get in the way on this story: Windows NT was based largely on DEC's VMS, an established mature multitasking operating system. So it's a mistake to think all the core code is really that old or feeble. In fact, on my benchmarks with my 3rd party app that runs on Windows and OS X, performance is much higher on Windows than OS X on modern multi-core processors (on a Mac Pro with BootCamp you can compare directly). Windows handles many cores better, without the key bottlenecks of OS X, especially allocation of memory. While Windows' user interface is architecturally multithreaded, OS X is only a single-threaded mishmash. Windows has too much crap to be sure, some because too many committees have worked on it and some due to ISV's writing 'services', but one person's crap is often someone else's key feature. Apple avoids a lot of this just by not doing it, avoiding the business market, and that's their prerogative. Their rapid OS release rate is in large part because the updates are pretty thin. The next release will be even thinner as they concentrate on fixing their internals. That's fine with me too. At the end of the day a user never really sees the operating system, only some application-level interfaces. The operating system serves people like me, the developers. Apple has already decided to burn the developers on the 64-bit transition (on which they are years behind Windows) by forcing a rewrite that does not deliver value to users. 'Big switches' don't work. They create many new bugs (Apple has shown this with its own tools!) The challenge for both OS vendors is to improve their code bases in a way that enables developers to follow along without creating large costs which ultimately must be paid by end users. Virtualization is a way, but only a short-term stopgap in some regards. The challenge is to develop incremental improvements that can be cost-effectively integrated by ISV's into their existing gigantic code bases, whether that's with automated migration tools or writing good migration outlines and documentation, which are often sorely lacking.

[beg_ne]

@ContentCreator

You seem to be making a lot of strong, but extremely vague assertions

1. Your multi-platform app may show slower benchmarks, but thats pretty anecdotal. Was your program just a quick and dirty port? How many resources were made available to properly optimize your program for the Mac? Is your Mac port a Cocoa port? Carbon? Java? Or something else like Adobe AIR even?

2. What do you mean that OS X [UI] is only a single-threaded mishmash?
According to Leopards Developer overview page:

"Mac OS X is built around a powerful, integrated stack of graphics technologies, including OpenGL, Core Animation, and Core Image. These provide a solid foundation for application developers to create great applications. Mac OS X's multithreaded graphics layer handles application windowing, 2D and 3D drawing, animation, and multimedia."

3. I would also have to disagree that major OS X versions are "pretty thin", this sounds more like uninformed Windows fanboy talk than a OS X developer speaking. Every major version so far has provided many consumer visible features as well as many developer features, Leopard alone for developers brought:

-New Versions of Xcode, and IB.
-Instruments app for performance testing and optimization
-Objective-C 2.0 and Garbage Collection
-Core Animation
-Updates to Core Data
-New NSOperation API for improved multithreading
-Lots of 64-Bit improvements for Cocoa
-and a lot more stuff to make developers lives easier and other stuff to play around with.

I would also say it's incorrect to say that Snow Leopard "fixing" internals. Apple deserves a lot of credit for making a release thats more engineer focused than marketing focused.

4. Also regarding burning developers on the 64-bit transition I'm guessing you're talking about Apple dropping 64-bit support for Carbon?

I guess if you've got a lot invested in it(seems like only MS and Adobe are the main ones anymore though) then it sucks, but Apple has been saying for Years to get off the carbon train. It would suck to be one of those developers and have to do all the work to transition to Cocoa, but in the end having Apple focus solely on Cocoa will be better for all OS X developers as a whole.

[Penguinisto]

"So it's a mistake to think all the core code is really that old or feeble" Vista has proven that the NT core cannot really stretch as far as MSFT needs it to stretch. As far as your personal benchmarks, they cannot be counted as valid unless you publish the tools and methodologies used so that others can duplicate them. ------ "Their rapid OS release rate is in large part because the updates are pretty thin." To be honest, *** are you talking about? OSX 10.4 -> 10.5 has more new features in it than XP -> Vista does. Of course this says nothing about what goes on behind-the-scenes, but customers care little for that (and FWIW, OSX concentrates on performance improvements, whereas Vista seems to have cast performance aside entirely).

[getwired]

Windows NT isn't "based on" anything. Dave Cutler, the father of both VMS and Windows NT SURELY took quite a bit of knowledge from VMS and applied it to Windows. But the two share no source code.

[catbutt5]

In response to Henry's comment above : 'Does that make business sense?'
Does staying in a lifeboat with a big hole in the middle make sense when everyone else around you is moving to higher ground?

Also, 'When Apple ditched it's codebase in favor of a new one... their user base was composed mainly of early adopters not caring much about compatibility...' Are you kidding? At the time, the user base was mainly publishing houses, advertising agencies, recording studios etc. who care about nothing but maintaining their existing processes. It was not an easy transition.

Lastly, that boatload of applications you claim to 'care about', how many of those do you use on a daily basis? 10? How many of those are already cross platform? How many started on the Mac in the first place? Photoshop etc.?

[vitaboy]

@Henrys

Beg to differ. Apple customers always cared about compatibility, but only compatibility that makes sense. That's the key difference between Microsoft's approach to backwards compatibility and Apple's approach. Microsoft points to that arcane DOS program and says, "Wow, look, it still runs under XP or Vista!"

Mac OS X, up until Leopard, always had the ability to run Classic Mac programs. The compatibility layer that Apple developed was ingenious - basically, it was a built-in virtual machine that simulated a classic Mac. But instead of worrying about perfect compatibility, Apple focused on what was important and what was doable given their limited resources.

Turns out, by PRIORITIZING needs, Apple made the transition relatively painless. Sure, a minority of users ******* and whine because some obscure program didn't make the transition, just as a small tiny fraction still thinks Apple betrayed them by dropping Classic support in Leopard.

The thing is, Apple was willing to do what was right even when it made a small group of users angry because it advanced the platform by light years for everyone else. Jjust look at all the benefits Apple made when it switched from PowerPC to Intel - I doubt most people today even realize that Macs used to NOT run on Intel processor because the transition happened so seamlessly.

Could Microsoft successfully migrate Windows to a wholly different processor architecture while allowing 90% of existing apps to run unmodified?? Because that's essentially what Microsoft needs to do, and they don't even need to switch processors, but as the article noted, MS doesn't have the guts because it's afraid of pissing off the 1% of users who shake an angry stick at 99% compatibility.

Meanwhile, Apple has gained 3-4% marketshare while the house of Windows is burning down.

[nachurboy]

I'm not sure I would call gaining 3-4% of new users causing "the house of Windows" burning down. At last count, Windows still owns 90% or more of the market. Apple has just added to their marketshare from Windows owners doubling up (they own both like me).

[jemiller0]

There is a big difference between what Apple did and what this change would be. Apple controls the hardware and the software. What about all the different hardware that Windows currently supports? You need drivers for that. I'm all for simplifying things, but, I think you would see even more people ******** and moaning if they were to try to do something like this. I fully support the idea of moving everything over to .NET managed code though. Supposedly, Vista's UI is 90%+ implemented in .NET. I suspect this is why it uses so much more memory. I think they are continually improving it though and I think it will be better in the long run.

[eadeguzman]

It's really easy for somebody not in the OS business or not an ISV (Independent Software Vendor) to say, let's start and new version of Windows and screw-up thousands of companies depending on Windows code.

Apples has it easy. It is the only hardware manufacturer that needs to support it's own OS. And how many business and end-user applications does Apple have to support vs the number in Windows?

Windows is the OS that runs a lot of business-critical applications like POS, even ATMS, etc.

But as much as Microsoft would want to make radical changes to Windows, it has to do it in a very responsible way.

And vitaboy, so you think the switch from PowerPC to Intel is significant? Windows runs on Intel32, Intel x64, Itanium, AMD64, used to run on DEC Alpha. Moving from one processor family to another is "easy" compared to shifting to a code base that would have a radically different API. And wow, what an achievement, Apple has gained 4% marketshare (very good really since it nearly collapsed to 0% if not for a timely save by a 150M dollar Microsoft cash infusion into Apple.

So you see, it's not that easy...

Compatibility and the loyalty of its developers is what lead to Windows current market-share. I agree that it's also the very thing that "maybe" pulling itself down today. But I'm sure, Apple or any other OS vendor wouldn't mind to have that kind of problem.

[JuggerNaut]

"It is the only hardware manufacturer that needs to support it's own OS."

Not true, Sun Microsystems as well as IBM and HP (among others) maintain support for their own operating systems for their own hardware product (hence: Solaris, HP-UX/OpenVMS and AIX).

"And vitaboy, so you think the switch from PowerPC to Intel is significant? Windows runs on Intel32, Intel x64, Itanium, AMD64, used to run on DEC Alpha."

You're forgetting that Mac OS X was originally NeXTstep, which supported multiple CPU platforms including Motorola 68k, Intel x86, Sun's SPARC and HP's PA-RISC; which when Apple acquired NeXT, they ported it over to IBM's PowerPC platform. So Apple is probably more experienced than even Microsoft at handling CPU migrations since they've done it multiple times over (68k -> PowerPC -> x86).

"And wow, what an achievement, Apple has gained 4% marketshare (very good really since it nearly collapsed to 0% if not for a timely save by a 150M dollar Microsoft cash infusion into Apple."

Apple is enjoying awesome Mac growth these days. They currently lead the PC industry in growth by nearly 3 times and this has been a positive upswing for 3 years now. If marketshare mattered all that much, Apple wouldn't worth 2-3 times more than Dell

Microsoft's $150 million dollar investment did not save Apple (Apple was a $2 billion dollar company at that time and Microsoft's donation was like a drop in the bucket). Apple has just acquired NeXT for around $420 million and Microsoft had to settle with Apple on various patent infringements regarding IP in Mac OS and Quicktime that was an undisclosed sum worth way more than the $150 million Microsoft invested in Apple. From what I read in Time Magazine's interview with Steve Jobs (a 1997 issue published after MacWorld Boston), the $150 million dollar investment was Bill Gate's idea that was a symbol of good faith that Microsoft was devoted to Microsoft Office for Mac and possibly to help influence Apple to change the Mac OS default web browser from Netscape Navigator to Internet Explorer (and IE for Mac OS was a better web browser than NN during that era). What you could say is that Microsoft helped save Apple from ill-relevance in the computer industry, which wasn't financially correlated.

"Compatibility and the loyalty of its developers is what lead to Windows current market-share."

That may be somewhat true, but Microsoft abusing its monopoly and holding a contractual noose around the necks of PC OEMs like Dell, Gateway and etc... surely had way more of an impact on Microsoft success than anything else.

Read the below article for more insight on Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC industry during the late 90s.

http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/

[getwired]

For what it's worth, OS X will also run on every architecture you mentioned - except one (Intel and AMD's architectures are functionally identical now that Intel "fixed" theirs - AMD just doesn't use EFI for their firmware. That architecture? Itanium (well, and the Alpha, which is dead and subtly integrated into the innards of the Itanic.

[Tod Smith]

MS can't start from scratch. If it did Apple would win. They would claim more apps and then it's over!

Any one with a business head would know. Apple is the king of marketing and when they get the content like the IPOD it's over.

I think that MS needs to remove all compatabity pre Windows 2000 and make it GUI more independable of tasks unlike Vista which can hang on GUI now. It would be nice to see them KILL Win32 as I use X64 only.

Last reason MS can't rewrite is the governments and lazy devs. Most devs wouldn't support it and MS can no longer create competing software.

[Penguinisto]

Problem is, if they don't, Apple (and Linux) will win. They're not going to have a choice before long...

[Hopingator]

"it has become and obese monolith built on an ancient frame"

The "ancient frame" your referring to is Windows ability to run on so many different types of hardware. It is also the ability to maintain an API for developers that slowly migrates across generations of technology(i.e. 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit, DOS, Windows, .NET. This is why Windows is running on most pc's in the world.

"Adding features, plugging security holes, fixing bugs, fixing the fixes that never worked properly"

Give me a break. What do you think all these Mac OS X releases are?

"foundation that was never intended to support such weight"

Again... what are you talking about? Even XP clearly supported the "weight" of doing so many things the MAC OS X will never do.

"Windows seems to move an inch for every time that Mac OS X or Linux laps it"

Suggesting Linux laps Windows is...rediculous. Yes, Mac has always led in the user inteface, but even this may be short lived. If you look under the covers of Vista you find a vector based graphics system that is hardware accelerated just as games are today. You can bet Windows 7 and all the application developers are going to learn alot and be able to deliver compelling user intefaces on top of that 3 yr. old ancient foundation called WPF.

Windows 7 refers to the major version number of windows. NT 4.0, Windows 2000 (ver. 5.0), XP (ver. 5.1) (Vista ver. 6.0). You can type "ver" at any command prompt to see this info.

The only thing I agree with in the article is the fact Windows does too much. However your suggested fix of "starting over" is wrong as others have pointed out. Take a look at Windows Server Core 2008 and you see they are already moving in this direction of delivering a more modular Windows.

[Penguinisto]

"The "ancient frame" your referring to is Windows ability to run on so many different types of hardware." OSX currently can run on x86, x86_64, PPC, and ARM. What does today's various versions of Windows run on? Remove one from the list for OSX. -------- "Even XP clearly supported the "weight" of doing so many things the MAC OS X will never do." Such as...? Please, name some (and "Runs windows programs" cannot count because that's totally possible in OSX as well).

[Maccess]

What's really loading down Windows is all that marketing driven built-in stuff and limitations. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, MSN Explorer, Windows Messenger, Windows MovieMaker, etc. that MUST be included with Windows. That's not to say that some of these aren't good programs, its just that they shouldn't be in the operating system.

It's always such a pain to have to configure new machines and remove the unnecessary (or security compromising) "always has been, and will be a part of Windows." Leave those stuff on a server at Microsoft that people can download if they need to, but deliver a slim basic install.

I don't see the point of MS prodding users to newer and newer versions of Windows. If someone wants to buy 98 SE, 2000, or XP, then let them instead of trying to twist their arm into buying something they don't want.

Case in point--Microsoft already has a stripped down version of Windows - Windows Fundamentals for Legacy Computers. But can most people buy it? No you can't because it is only available to enterprise subscribers of its software assurance program. Yet, this would have been the ideal version of XP to sell to users of older computers (you know, those still using Win 98 SE).

But because MS feels it has to respond to (choose one: Netscape, Yahoo, Google, Apple, etc.) it sells a default Windows install that is so stuffed with unwanted bits that compromise security and performance.

Gets your Windows group back into the OS business and out of the "platform for other stuff " business

[tell_ron]

Just buy a new computer.

[Penguinisto]

Why should anyone have to? The old one works just fine. My 2004-era dual G5 Mac runs all the latest and greatest mainline apps without slowing down at all.

[Norseman]

When you own 9X% of the market and the money just keeps rolling in--even when you put out mediocre products--where's the incentive to make things better? Isn't the underdog more motivated to do better than the top dog? Maybe Apple getting 30% market share is what it's going to take to light a fire under Microsoft and get them to start thinking seriously about improving!

[Penguinisto]

"where's the incentive to make things better?" That's the problem - MSFT doesn't own "9X%" of "the market" anymore. Apple went from 3% to nearly 10% in less than three years, and is still growing at phenomenal rates. Linux usage is growing at a massive rate. I doubt that MSFT even has 85% of the desktop market anymore... and all indications are down for MSFT's future growth curve.

[gigo1000]

"We don't need to load up our machines with bloated layers we won't use. We need what Silver and MacDonald speak of as a "just enough" operating system."

Basically, that was the way DOS worked with command.com being the core and anything else being loaded as needed. The benefit is compactness and speed.

Speed and compactness are apparently what Apple is shooting for with next years Snow Leopard upgrade. The direction of the consumer market seems to be towards compactness (Think IPhone and IPod). A small, "'just enough' operating system" is perfect for that market. To be part of that market, and not just the business market, Windows has to go on a diet.

[Imalittleteapot]

Rewriting Windows would be pointless. You'd lose all compatibility. If you want a new OS that isn?t compatible with what you already use, why would you wait 5 years to get it when you can just switch to Linux, BSD, or Mac now? We already have completely different operating systems. Why wait around for Windows to be rewritten? Sometimes you just gotta run Windows, but if it gets rewritten you might as well use Linux because your favorite games and apps won?t work on that anymore either. Of course, they could add a compatibility layer. Guess what happens then? You?re still supporting the same old bloat you were to begin with. Now you?re just jumping through hoops to do it. The compatibility layer wouldn?t be perfect, and everyone would end up using XP. That?s the same problem Microsoft has now! There is no logic to this article at all. If people want another OS they?ll just download another OS! I don?t need to wait for Microsoft to make it happen. Look, all Microsoft products suck in their own little way. Right now Microsoft?s superstar is XP. Vista made people appreciate it for what it was, a sucky OS that sucked just a little less than everything else. Right now, it?s more popular than it ever has been. Windows 7 is just going to be Vista with touch. Microsoft has already told us that. The only difference is, when Windows 7 is released people will actually have hardware to run it. Plus, with the bad Vista press, Microsoft would have to be completely retarded to not have optimized it until they just couldn?t optimize it anymore. So, maybe it?ll be ok. But did they? If Microsoft really cared they?d scrap Vista. They?d just update XP for new hardware. Take DX 10 and the composition engine from Aero, strap a UI that makes at least some bit of logical sense, offload everything you can to the GPU, and remove every single system service that even thinks about thrashing your drive, and ship it out the door. Then tell the OEMs if they even think about having their adware start at boot Ballmer will personally hit the CEO in the face with a chair. People would love it. It?s really not that hard. Now, JUST SELL ONE GOOD VERSION!

[RompStar_420]

I really like my PowerMac, and it's good for games as well, QUAKE 4 is much better and smoother than any other PC I ever tried, only 128MB AGP card and it flies. ON XP with a 256MB card AGP and dual core, it's way slower and choppier.

As a consumer my eyes simply see what's better, I don't need to understand any technical speak or explanations. One of the main reasons that I skipped Vista is because it's very slow and resource hungry, even on new computers. If Windows 7 is the same story, I won't say doom, but definitely more market share loss to OS X, Linux and whatever else is out there.

People are tried of bull.... no ******** please.

[Imalittleteapot]

Well you know what they say. I game on Linux just fine too when I have time. If it doesn't run native you can wine games on Linux. Software is the same. A lot of people have the attitude of I can't switch from Windows because it doesn't run THIS software program. Well the other OS doesn't run THAT software program, but most of the time it runs another program that does exactly the same thing. Sometimes though you really do need the compatibility of Windows, but games aren't really the point. If you're picking your OS based on what games you play we're talking apples and oranges. When I boot the comp up I gotta get work done. I could care less if it ran Quake 4 or not you know. My Wii, PS3, and 360 play games real well too, but I won't be switching to Sony OS anytime you know.

[Penguinisto]

That's the problem, though. With business software, there isn't really anything you can do in Windows that one cannot do in OSX or Linux.

[Imalittleteapot]

And that was my point Peng. The reasons to pick Windows over Linux or OS X have become so few now. Rewrite Windows and there won't be any. I'm already able to use any OS I want to get my work done. It's only incremental progress needed at this point before everyone can do the same. So, if Microsoft wants to keep their lock in then 7 is going to have to be really really good.

[onlyauser]

Surprised Vista made it out the door. Old dead bloat. It makes me wonder where is Microsoft's incentive to create the best OS they can? I guess there is no incentive as long as people are willing to....? Software developers NEED to provide Linux versions of their software IMHO. Consumers really want an option beyond Apple and Microsoft's greed.

[EcuadorHomesOnline]

I can't believe that Apple is still in business - it makes crappy hardware and software, crashes a lot, and is hard to use. Just to prove to myself that I wasn't being myopic, I tried to use one recently (again) and my opion has non changed. Windows Rules!

[getwired]

Care to back up your "opion" (sic) with any fact? I've got three Macs. Two at the office, one at home. Have had them all for over a year. Though the first thing you have to do is trash the useless Apple keyboard and mouse with a grown up set from Logitech or Microsoft. But I have only had three crashes in the life of all of my Macs. ALL THREE were due to beta software from a specific vendor (who hasn't crashed on me since they released).

[tech_junkie14]

Oh, come on. You didnt prove anything. Plus, Apple's been gaining marketshare. It may not be much but, they're gaining. And, they won't be out of business soon.

[kojacked]

Hopingator, you nailed it. People just love to ignore the new, modular technologies that Microsoft has added to Vista like WPF. And when you bring up WPF they crow of all of those things that didn't make it in the release. WPF is very 0.9ish in Vista no doubt but between some of the creative things devs are doing with it now and Windows 7 I think you are going to see a pretty elegant OS in the future especially once a touch interface is added and hardware manufacturers get behind it. Oh wait -- I forgot to bow before the almighty iPhone. It surely will make a difference in my job...

I find it funny how some of these same trolls that crap on Windows for bloat also crap on it for compatibility. You can't have it both ways. Their spin is always based on such double-speak.

[weeblnbob]

The whole Mac vs Windows argument is about to be as relevant as the 8-track tape. Get used to the idea of web-browsing TV's, phones and toaster-ovens with built-in word processors and other software. It won't be too long before cell phones will easily plug into HDMI connectors on 1920x1080 LCD televisions to provide a full office suite and internet-based applications. Future high-speed wireless internet will give users the ability to log into servers running everything from real time hi-res video production software to old DOS games. The only processing the phone would need to handle is a GUI client for the remote server. Impossible you say? It's already here in the form of pocket-sized thin clients for business. It's only a matter of time before it makes it to wireless. As far as I'm concerned, Windows and Mac OS are already dinosaurs and the cell phone/embedded thin client are the meteor that will wipe them out.

Ya know, in 1983 I thought it would be cool to put the digital music from CD's onto solid-state storage that could be plugged into players. I should have patented that one...

[Mr. Dee]

I am sorry, but there is a lot of misinformation and bias in this article. Mac OS X's heritage upon which it is built is even older than NT itself. Development on NT started in late 88 when Microsoft hired Dave Cutler, so NT is probably one of the youngest Microkernels next to Linux which was developed around '91 by Torvald. There is also confusion between the code bases, Windows NT is completely different from Windows 9x/3x/1x. The only similarities they shared were version names and API's for those legacy applications you speak of. Microsoft does not need to rewrite Windows, they can clean it up, just like they did for example with the release Windows XP Professional x64 where they removed things like AppleTalk, POSIX compliance and NetBEUI. You must remainder just like Linux or Unix, NT was designed in mind to be a portable OS, in fact during its development it was specifically targeted at different platforms such as PowerPC, Alpha, MIPs, the Intel processor it targeted had to be emulated. So I would revise your analysis before dooming Windows. A lot of the work over years has been targeted at componentising much of Windows where vital components like the Network Stack, graphics don't create lots of dependencies. Rumors are much of the built apps for instance will be optional. Vista's only regret is, it made necessarily architectural for security and took a long time to reach market. Microsoft could even move legacy compatibility to a virtualized stack where old apps work normally on newer versions of Windows without a hitch.