Ictinike Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 http://digg.com/microsoft/Windows_Vista_now_unmaintainable 'Part of the source code to Windows 2000 was leaked onto the net...I found a vast sprawl of spaghetti...Just one word stuck in my mind: unmaintainable.' I can digg it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Great article. It is what I have always suspected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_muad_dib Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 indeed, but i don't think badwords are really included.. hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ictinike Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 xD I just hate Microsoft haha. If they bomb, I'll be so happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 So is the monster known as Windows based on legacy code AGAIN? The same legacy code that gets MS in virus trouble time and time AGAIN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xplizid Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 yea it amazes me people have switched to vista in the first place over xp. I personally like all my software, hardware and games to work correctly. to each his own i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cringemaster Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 yea it amazes me people have switched to vista in the first place over xp. I personally like all my software, hardware and games to work correctly. to each his own i guess. Its all about looks.... (Aero glass, sidebar, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFI Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Its all about looks.... (Aero glass, sidebar, etc) Though what many people dont realize is that if they wanted the Vista look, they could make XP look exactly like Vista...down to the shell toolbar and menu styles if they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabr Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Though what many people dont realize is that if they wanted the Vista look, they could make XP look exactly like Vista...down to the shell toolbar and menu styles if they wanted. Yeah, but then you have a bloated up XP with all these extra programs running in the background = not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baliw Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Like it or not, you are going to be a part of the Collective. You can not escape. Mwahahahahahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 This is just stupid FUD and doesn't really have anything much about being unmaintainable. Also, this person chooses his facts/situations at will and ignores many such as the fact that Microsoft 'rest' the Longhorn codebase using a shell of the 2003 kernel and it than goes on with the common "Vista is a hardware hog and you need to upgrade everything" myth. Just for the fact alone this guy is yet another one of those "XP with a pretty GUI" people everything he says is completely void and his ignorance of managed code, the code reset and so on doesn't help. And: The author seems to think there have been no OS's released between XP and Vista.First, there was the release of Windows XP Then there was the release of Windows XP MCE, which added a full media center integrated into Windows Then there was XP Service Pack 2, which in itself is a major operating system upgrade, provided free to the consumer Then Windows XP 64 bit edition After that there was Windows Server 2003 Then there was Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PC's, which is an extremely barebones version of XP meant to run on older PC's, with support for acting as a thin client And finally, there is Windows Vista, which is built on top of Windows Server 2003, NOT Windows XP. This is a point that many people miss. Windows Server 2003 is drastically different than Windows XP in terms of speed & stability. And to note, there are two main causes of application failures on Vista. One is apps being written to assume that the user has administrative privileges. That is a problem with the developer, not a problem with windows. Those apps can usually be fixed by just running them as Administrator (an option in the right click menu). The second issue is drivers. Vista uses different drivers than XP for most things. This leads to applications such as older versions of Cisco VPN to fail because it tries to install incompatible drivers. This too is a developer issue. They are responsible for providing updates. To sum up, Vista closes a lot of loopholes and hacks that many applications (improperly) used to rely on to function. They are doing exactly what the blogger claims MS is incapable of doing. I suggest he stop ranting and read up on the facts of Vista. I would post this on his site, but I don't want to give him the satisfaction of adding any more hits to his site. ---- Summary of this article: 1) Vista's sales are bad because Dell has reintroduced XP as a preinstall option. 2) The author downloaded the Win2k source code because he was a fan of MS-DOS, and was disappointed that the source code was written in C, C++, and assembler, instead of just assembler. 3) Apple has released 5 versions of its OS in the past 5 years. 4) Therefore, Vista is unmaintainable. On a site aimed at developers, I was expecting a code analysis: bad conventions, lack of reuse of code, obvious flaws in logic, but this article had absolutely no substance. It's just an aimless rant. It's great that Apple is releasing software quickly and it's great that Dell is giving customers more choices, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Vista is maintainable. ---- Exactly. And you can't judge Vista based on the 2000 code. Heck you can't even judge XP. Microsoft seems to have (mostly) fixed their "hacky code" problem in XP (though we can never been sure). From https://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/...2/24/45779.aspx "The new application compatibility architecture in Windows XP carries with it one major benefit (from an OS development perspective): See all those DLLs in your C:WINDOWSAppPatch directory? That's where many of the the compatibility changes live now. The compatibility workarounds no longer sully the core OS files. (Not all classes of compatibility workarounds can be offloaded to a compatibility DLL, but it's a big help.)" Sorry to ruin your FUD party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 This is just stupid FUD and doesn't really have anything much about being unmaintainable. Also, this person chooses his facts/situations at will and ignores many such as the fact that Microsoft 'rest' the Longhorn codebase using a shell of the 2003 kernel and it than goes on with the common "Vista is a hardware hog and you need to upgrade everything" myth. Just for the fact alone this guy is yet another one of those "XP with a pretty GUI" people everything he says is completely void and his ignorance of managed code, the code reset and so on doesn't help. And:Sorry to ruin your FUD party. QFE. Theres a lot of bad things to say about Windows. However, Robotskip hit the nail on the head when it comes to this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMaurice Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 "Vista is a hardware hog and you need to upgrade everything" myth. I wouldn't call that a myth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFI Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 You present some valid points Robotskip, and I think that the author was not as serious as he should have been in talking about codebase...which btw..you cant bulls**t your way through. Its either you know what your talking or you dont. But that being said..I must say, you included X64 versions of XP as a new OS...which technically is not considered a new version of windows. There is nothing new feature wise other than the fact that the OS can now allocate a much more dynamic range of memory. You cant call XP SP2 a seperate OS version of windows either...thats not correct. SP2 was nothing other than patches, fixes, and a new integrated security center app. Hardly anything to consider it as its own OS. Patches are the responsibility of the OS maker, so they cannot be included as an integral "part" of an operating system. Its stricly features, features, and more featues that bulds an OS. Windows XP MCE is very much a debatable one as to whether its a seperate OS/new version or not. Because it consists of one relatively huge integrated application that handles a lot more smaller features...you can call it a new OS. However, that being said, if you were to look at the general operating system, and look at all the individual features...all you have is the Media Center application, and in this case, you cant consider as a new operating system. So like I said XP MCE is a very much debatable one. Server 2003, yes, I would agree that its a newer version of Windows, which most people dont realize (probably because of the same GUI from XP). Features such as volume shadow copy, were already present in Server 2003 itself...and Vista only stepped up from Win Ser. 03's codebase. "Vista is a hardware hog and you need to upgrade everything" myth. I honestly wouldn't call that a myth though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
track09 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 I honestly wouldn't call that a myth though. Here's where I side with the Apple fans. Although the requirements for Vista aren't that high, good luck getting it to run on anything even close to the minimum, and have it bearable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Those are quotes, you must have missed the big quote thing around them. About it being slow/a hog: Vista Mythbusters #1: It’s not a hardware hog Don't be misled by these 10 Windows Vista myths: Myth #1: You'll have to buy a new, high-end PC to run Vista The Great Vista/Mac Showdown: Return to battle, no memory hogs found at startup The Great Vista/Mac Showdown: Goodbye, WinRot Study: Aero user interface has little effect on performance Vintage Vista: running Microsoft's newest OS on your older hardware And more proof this guy, like most people who talk about Vista and who will be quoted by many of you in the future, have no idea what he's talking about: Modularization Maybe now some of you will realise how untrustworthy most of these articles are which many of you vehemently agree on with no basis and simply out of glee for Microsoft hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFI Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 RobotSkip, I dont mean to sound like a prick or anything...but every single one of those links you provided are from totally Microsoft favouring/biased sites. Znet and ArsTechnica even so more. CNet and Znet both hate Macs to the extreme, (just read any of their reviews on any Mac, especially the Macbook Pro, and you'll know what I mean), and Ars not as worse, but still shows favrouritism towards Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 ZDNet has tons of different bloggers. Arts Technica isn't biased towards Microsoft. CNet hates Microsoft as much, if not more than Macs. And, even if they are biased it does not change what they're saying, you could post the same thing anywhere else and it would still be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFI Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 And, even if they are biased it does not change what they're saying, you could post the same thing anywhere else and it would still be true. Now you're just letting your personal self opinionative judgement get the better of you, not that you would ever come out with the truth eitherways...but point proven in that last sentence nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 They deal in facts (PC specifications, pricing of hardware, timings and so on) which don't magically change when you post them on a site which has an imaginary bias. And what about TechRepublic, are you going to say it's biased too ? It says the same thing as the others which was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFI Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Can you honestly name 3 negative things about Vista? ...if you cant answer this...then I'm not even going to waste my time trying to prove you're wrong. Might as well add you to my ignore list as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 So, you can't refute what I said or what the linked pages say so you go off on some random point ? Nice work. I don't like: - Sidebar (Well, now that I learnt about the shortcut to bring it to the front I don't mind it as much) - Part of how the new 'My Documents' is organised/structured - Lack of extended dual monitor features - The top colour of apps when maximised - How sometimes the chosen View doesn't stick - How sometimes folders have weird settings, for example sometimes folders will randomly be classed as one containing Music - How I need to add 'By type' to the sort menu a fair few times - Trying to change icons in the Game Explorer and adding games manually There are also many other things I do not like. Also, what does whether I do/do not like Vista have to do with anything at all, right now ? And if I couldn't name 3 things I do not like that does not magically change anything I have posted. Now, care to prove that those sites are biased and also prove the information they convey is false ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFI Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Good job, I was just verifying, that your not totally obvlious to anything else. Now that you passed that test, ill make you a bet. For every 1 site that you found that says Windows Vista is not power hungry....ill find 3 sites that say it is. Want to bet? Will that be enough to prove that what the sites you linked convey are false? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Err, that's just dumb. I could find a hundred posts on this site alone of ignorant people saying "LOL VISTA IS LIKE TEH HOG" than imagine the internet which has even more anti-MS lemmings. Either prove what those sites say is wrong or go away. The bottom line is, this is true: Myth: You’ll need to spend a small fortune on hardware upgrades to run Windows Vista. Reality: Most mid-range and high-end computers sold in the past three years will run Windows Vista just fine. If you bought a bottom-of-the-line, loss leader system in 2004, you may find it unacceptably slow. But any mainstream system purchased after early 2004 should be just fine with Windows Vista. Here’s a case in point: ---- Many in the mainstream media are claiming that to run Vista, you'll almost certainly have to buy a new computer. This myth is undoubtedly being encouraged by hardware vendors, but it's not true. I was able to install Vista on my existing Dell Dimension mid-priced system with no problems, and the existing video card, an ATI x600, runs Aero Glass. If your computer is older or a low-end machine, you can still probably install and use Vista but you may not get the Aero Glass interface. Than couple those with the other articles such as the one explaining memory usage and you have it, Vista is not some massive hardware hog. Also, since I answered your petty test how about you have the decency to prove what these sites say is wrong and no, finding a bunch of random sites which say Vista is slow won't be hard -- WHY DO YOU THINK THESE SITES MADE THOSE "MYTH" PAGES ? BECAUSE TORRENTS OF IGNORANT PEOPLE WERE REPEATING THE SAME, INACCURATE THING. Actually, you didn't answer a single thing, for example, why whether I do/do not like Vista, or certain things about it, would magically change the content of sites completely unrelated to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 I know this thread has moved on but: Vista is a hardware hog and you need to upgrade everything" myth. Hardware hog? Yes Need to upgrade everything? It all depends, before I upgraded to a dual core everything still ran fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts