Now that it’s been more than a month since this “hidden camera” commercial from Microsoft with “converted users” has aired, I’m more than convinced this isn’t Vista they’re describing as I’m a user of the latter.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some things in Vista that are vast improvements, and I do appreciate the eye-candy (though I’ve turned it off for performance gains). But the issues I’ve come across particularly in the hardware arena leave much to be desired. Mind you I knew exactly what I was getting, so I wasn’t surprised, but I am a bit weary of this continued denial by MS that Vista has been a resounding success. It wasn’t.
I know it’s very fashionable to bash Vista these days purely for the stats (legitimate criticism is, of course, excluded from the term “bash”) as already pointed out by Konrad Strachan, but there are vast gaps from the hype MS has been pouring over all of us. Namely the “Do more with less” philosophy that was prominent with Windows Server 2003 seems to have been left by the wayside. Granted Windows server 2008 is leaps and bounds better than Win2003 at certain tasks, I’m still left wanting…
On Konrad’s Post, I made the following comment :
I think MS has finally started to realise that patchwork upon patchwork unleashed on the same NT core wouldn’t work for the next few years. I’d much rather see the fruits of this new labour than be given the same platter…
… I think the they are more focused on abandoning what ties Vista to XP and by extension Win2000.
Looks like my intuition was right after all.
Microsoft has been secretly working on a whole new core architecture for their flagship product as many people in the programming world have already become aware. Code named “Midori“, a name that has great ramifications (and I feel was not idly chosen), that promises to end this very same legacy that tied Vista to Win2000.
I’m by no means suggesting Vista is XP with window dressing and by extension, just a revamped Win2000, but there are far too many legacy strings that make this marionette stumble all over itself.
And if you don’t believe me, try the following to see a few hints of the old NT architecture.
Try and create a file or folder with the following names with the old right click > “Create New…” method :
- LPT# (Where # is 1-9)
- . (Just a dot or dot followed by a name)
- COM# (Where # is 1-9)
These names hint at an origin that predates Win98. Parts of the Windows core is older than even Win95. Scary thought isn’t it?
When I no longer see these limitations, I’ll be convinced it’s a new architecture. Until then, I’m not holding my breath.
This new “Midori” architecture is apparently an offshoot of “Singularity” (another name with deep rooted meaning). The approach is interesting to say the least and if they can pull it off without significant down sides, then kudos to MS!
Microsoft isn’t the first company that tried this as we all know the vitriol spewed at Apple Inc. when they decided to dump almost everything of Mac OS and introduced Mac OS X. But they became successful because the newer OS was far more stable, feature rich, and more importantly, extensible than its predecessor.
Apple became successful beyond anyone’s dreams because of desperation. MS may be desperate enough to follow the same route if their user base starts to evaporate.
OEM Domination will not last forever. However MS still has massive clout among hardware manufacturers that this “compatibility handoff” to the circutiry may take root.
I wouldn’t mind having all of my hardware sing to each other in harmony than strugle with a few flat notes in my choir. I also wouldn’t mind MS actually follow up on the “Do more with less” philosophy and abandon the cruft from two decades ago that make it near impossible.