I woke up this morning and thought of something after seeing a commerical for golfcentral.com (or something). It was displaying microsofts IE, of course on a windows machine. I was just amazed how far windows has gone. Not to say that I do or do not support them, but its just really amazing. How do you start with DOS then come up to this, heh. I want to see the code for XP... not too much to ask now, is it?
Alan
Amazing
-
carbonBased
RE:Amazing
Yeah, it only took a few decades to get a 'doze that is at least comparable to *nix (XP), and it's still not good enough to make me switch 
Linux has made exponentially more improvements in less than one decade. One more plus for open source projects
Actually, QNX and the BeOS both matured much faster than Windows, and are both less bloated. I wouldn't boast for M$s effeciency... to me their still behind (except in user base... ).
lol... just my two cents... sounds a lot more vicious then I intended I've been anti-M$ since my first 386 cost me $3860 
Jeff
Linux has made exponentially more improvements in less than one decade. One more plus for open source projects
Actually, QNX and the BeOS both matured much faster than Windows, and are both less bloated. I wouldn't boast for M$s effeciency... to me their still behind (except in user base... ).
lol... just my two cents... sounds a lot more vicious then I intended
I've been anti-M$ since my first 386 cost me $3860 Jeff
-
AnotherNewOS
RE:Amazing
I know the most of you guys are more linux friendly.
Windows isn't a bad OS. Since Windows NT/2000 it
is working very stable. Its a very good system for end-users.
Even for developers it's a good system. I use the
Windows SDK every day. For my OS-Development I use
Microsoft Visual C++. It's working fine !
I don't see that linux is THE OS. Linux and Windows,
both have pros and cons !
But; I'd like to see the code, TOO !
Joerg
Windows isn't a bad OS. Since Windows NT/2000 it
is working very stable. Its a very good system for end-users.
Even for developers it's a good system. I use the
Windows SDK every day. For my OS-Development I use
Microsoft Visual C++. It's working fine !
I don't see that linux is THE OS. Linux and Windows,
both have pros and cons !
But; I'd like to see the code, TOO !
Joerg
-
Alan
RE:Amazing
heh if thats true, then i'm related to bill gates
now what i wonder is, (this is a really loaded question to start up conversation) why did microsoft get so larger than, so to say, Redhat, Suse, etc?
heh replys are very much welcome!
Alan
now what i wonder is, (this is a really loaded question to start up conversation) why did microsoft get so larger than, so to say, Redhat, Suse, etc?
heh replys are very much welcome!
Alan
-
garf
RE:Amazing
I worked for a company that had a Windows source code license, and as a result I have had the pleasure (or displeasure of working with the NT/Win2k/XP source. You guys aren't missing much. There really is not anything revolutionary in the source. The reason MS guards the source so closely is not because they have any special or extraordinary technology, but because it gives them a market advantage.
As far as learning from it, stick to Linux. It is so much more straight forward. If you were to take a look at the boot/init stage of both OS's, you would give up quickly on trying to learn anything from Windows. In Linux, the boot record loads the OS does some basic init and starts the kernel. Windows on the other hand goes through many different stages of init before the kernel EVER really executes. It can be a real pain to follow. This is just one example of how the source code for Windows is a behemoth. There are many others, but I wont bother going into detail.
Now don't take me the wrong way, the Windows source is not necessarily bad, it is just designed with a different mind set, and a different set of goals. The open source community prefers to have code that is more elegant and easier for new people to work on, more academic if you will. MS does not have those same concerns, they built an OS within the constraints of marketing and deadlines, and their source reflects that fact. You really can not make any judgements about which kernel or OS is better. They both are good at what they were designed for.
As far as the internals of each kernel, they are quite similar in a lot of ways. Windows is a little closer to a micro kernel design than Linux, but not by much. The memory management is different, but both designs are good for there respective purposes.
I would love to tell you more about Windows if I could, but it is so big that I just never got any real expertise on any single aspect of the code, and besides I am also, unfortunately, bound by the NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement for those who are challenged in the legalese department) that is part of the Windows source code license. So in a nut shell, I could tell you, but then I would have to hit your reset button and reboot you.
As far as MS getting so much larger than Redhat, etc. You have to remember that MS has been around a lot longer and was larger than the Linux guys are now before the Linux shops even started up. Windows NT was built with the "help" of IBM (remember OS/2?), and MS has had commanding control over the consumer level market since about 1990.
The Linux shops also have different revenue streams than MS does. MS actually sells a product. When you buy a copy of Windows, you are buying an actual license to use it. MS will also sell you a support agreement as well. The Linux shops can't "sell" Linux because it is GPLed, so they instead, sell you a support agreement only. When you buy Redhat Linux you are only buying the customer support and the Linux license is free. You make a lot more money on licenses and support than you do on support alone.
Just my .02 cents (or more like a $1.02 hehe)
of working with the NT/Win2k/XP source. You guys aren't missing much. There really is not anything revolutionary in the source. The reason MS guards the source so closely is not because they have any special or extraordinary technology, but because it gives them a market advantage.As far as learning from it, stick to Linux. It is so much more straight forward. If you were to take a look at the boot/init stage of both OS's, you would give up quickly on trying to learn anything from Windows. In Linux, the boot record loads the OS does some basic init and starts the kernel. Windows on the other hand goes through many different stages of init before the kernel EVER really executes. It can be a real pain to follow. This is just one example of how the source code for Windows is a behemoth. There are many others, but I wont bother going into detail.
Now don't take me the wrong way, the Windows source is not necessarily bad, it is just designed with a different mind set, and a different set of goals. The open source community prefers to have code that is more elegant and easier for new people to work on, more academic if you will. MS does not have those same concerns, they built an OS within the constraints of marketing and deadlines, and their source reflects that fact. You really can not make any judgements about which kernel or OS is better. They both are good at what they were designed for.
As far as the internals of each kernel, they are quite similar in a lot of ways. Windows is a little closer to a micro kernel design than Linux, but not by much. The memory management is different, but both designs are good for there respective purposes.
I would love to tell you more about Windows if I could, but it is so big that I just never got any real expertise on any single aspect of the code, and besides I am also, unfortunately, bound by the NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement for those who are challenged in the legalese department) that is part of the Windows source code license. So in a nut shell, I could tell you, but then I would have to hit your reset button and reboot you.
As far as MS getting so much larger than Redhat, etc. You have to remember that MS has been around a lot longer and was larger than the Linux guys are now before the Linux shops even started up. Windows NT was built with the "help" of IBM (remember OS/2?), and MS has had commanding control over the consumer level market since about 1990.
The Linux shops also have different revenue streams than MS does. MS actually sells a product. When you buy a copy of Windows, you are buying an actual license to use it. MS will also sell you a support agreement as well. The Linux shops can't "sell" Linux because it is GPLed, so they instead, sell you a support agreement only. When you buy Redhat Linux you are only buying the customer support and the Linux license is free. You make a lot more money on licenses and support than you do on support alone.
Just my .02 cents (or more like a $1.02 hehe)
-
SebS
RE:Amazing
My proposition is to run soft-ice - but I`m not sure if there is a port for XP
SebS
- but I`m not sure if there is a port for XPSebS
-
keithf
RE:Amazing
Another reason that I feel that Windows has grown so much is due to the fact that you have so many divisions of Linux. You don't have a single distribution, you have many of them. All these varying distributions causes varying loyalties with each. One person might prefer slackware, while another might prefer Redhat, Debian, what have you. I also agree with the previous statement, you are also simply purchasing support, not just a license. However, let us not forget that Microsoft isn't much into selling a support contract with their software these days. They want the OEM's to be responsible for this
-
Alan
RE:Amazing
I sometimes think of this, what would it be like when you start your car and the windows theme comes on and your windshield says "Where would you like to go today?"
*shivers*
*points to the bumper sticker on his '89 dodge shadow that says "honk if you're a penquin"*
what can ya do? lol
Alan
*shivers*
*points to the bumper sticker on his '89 dodge shadow that says "honk if you're a penquin"*
what can ya do? lol
Alan
-
Tim Robinson
RE:Amazing
Remember that Windows has grown up alongside the PC, whereas Linux, QNX and BeOS have come in more-or-less at the end. If the PCs of 1985 had been as powerful as they are now, and we'd all had Internet access, Windows would have grown as quickly (or more quickly, given Microsoft's size, even then) as these other operating systems have now. In fact, Windows in 1985 was far more innovative and clever on the machines of the day than Linux in 2002 is on today's computers.
-
Schol-R-LEA
RE:Amazing
our statement is largely correct, except for one exception: QNX. The earliest version of that OS predates the PC, and it was to be the first multitasking OS for that platform, predating both Xenix and MP/M (Does even Digital Research remember MP/M anymore?) by years. Most versions come with a Bourne-shell clone for it's CLI; the PC edition has had a Quarterdeck-style text windowing system from around 1986, IIRC. While it's true that the spiffy GUI it has now is much more recent, that's partly because the PC market was never a very big one for them - it's mostly used for embedded systems, where the interface is more likely to be a control panel on a device than a console.
(Information sources: http://schoenbrun.com/~mba/faq.htm and http://www.passageway.com/camz/qnx/qnx4.html. Both of these FAQLs are years out of dtae, but the history is fairly accurate.)
If nothing else, QNX is a good object lesson in what can be done by small-scale OS developers, if they know what they're doing from the start.
(Information sources: http://schoenbrun.com/~mba/faq.htm and http://www.passageway.com/camz/qnx/qnx4.html. Both of these FAQLs are years out of dtae, but the history is fairly accurate.)
If nothing else, QNX is a good object lesson in what can be done by small-scale OS developers, if they know what they're doing from the start.