OSDev.org

Why do everyone here hate microsoft ....even though they have created
one of the most user friendly os ever known.............

Hi,

SandeepMathew wrote:Why do everyone here hate microsoft ....even though they have created
one of the most user friendly os ever known.............

In my experience there's 2 reasons that are the most common....

The first reason is "ethics". Basically Microsoft are a company, and like all companies their primary responsibility is to their shareholders (not to their end users or the industry itself). Microsoft have proven themselves to be extremely good at looking after their shareholders (even if it's at the expense of their end users or the industry itself).

The second reason is "technical". Originally Microsoft's main product was DOS, which was crap compared to other OSs of the time and earlier OSs (UNIX, Multics, VMS, etc). The thing is that DOS was designed for (what IBM thought would be) a cheap little computer that wouldn't get too far and not a large mainframe like the more competent OSs, and therefore didn't need all the features that the other OSs had. Software written for DOS expected full use of the entire machine, and often needed to do very unusual things (like hooking IRQs, direct device access, etc) to get around the limitations of the OS. Unfortunately there's a need for backwards compatability - it's hard to get people to upgrade the OS when all the software they've paid for and currently use won't run. This meant that the design of Microsoft's next OS (Windows 3.1) had to handle crappy DOS software that wasn't designed for multi-tasking at all.

It's the same problem for all Microsoft OSs - the OS design itself is restricted by the need for backwards compatability. Part of the problem is that the applications themselves often weren't/aren't portable - you pay for a binary that's designed for one version of the OS, and you're screwed when you want to upgrade the OS (unless the OS itself has enough backwards compatability to run old executables).

As for Microsoft creating the most user friendly OS ever known, that's just plain wrong for 2 reasons. First, for a well designed OS, users use applications, GUIs, etc and never actually see any of the OS. Unfortunately, for Microsoft's OSs the GUI is "hard coded" into the kernel, and can't be changed, improved, replaced, etc (it's just plain bad design to have such a large piece of code hard-coded into the OS - it's as dumb as hard-coding an office suite or an internet browser into the kernel). Secondly, most of the ideas for Microsoft's GUI were stolen from other people, including the original inventors (XEROX) and other companies (Apple).


Cheers,

Brendan

Well I think the best OS's from Microsoft are Windows 2000 and Windows XP SP2. Windows 2000 for the stability, and Windows XP for a more "user-friendly" design, it's at least somehow designable (not very much though, but i dislike Vista, it gives me nausea from hearing "New OS: Vista!" )

Windows NT was stable, but complicated (it was not much easy to use, Windows 95 was easier).

Should be next release of Windows the real version of Windows CEMeNT ?

inflater

Unfortunately, for Microsoft's OSs the GUI is "hard coded" into the kernel, and can't be changed, improved, replaced, etc (it's just plain bad design to have such a large piece of code hard-coded into the OS

I remembered something about this, and I went and looked it up again. It does not appear that the actual GUI window drawing (lines, curves, icons, colors) are hard coded into the kernel but rather implemented in gdi32.dll and user32.dll.

I can not determine what you might have meant as you use "hard coded" in quotes and reference the kernel, then you use hard coded and reference the OS --- either way I do not think it is really hard coded you know, right?

Anyway, the rest sounded very correct and I enjoyed reading!

Hi,

inflater wrote:Well I think the best OS's from Microsoft are Windows 2000 and Windows XP SP2. Windows 2000 for the stability, and Windows XP for a more "user-friendly" design, it's at least somehow designable (not very much though, but i dislike Vista, it gives me nausea from hearing "New OS: Vista!" )

Windows NT was stable, but complicated (it was not much easy to use, Windows 95 was easier).

Which "Windows NT"? You're comparing GUIs, not comparing OSs...

The original versions of NT had the GUI from Windows 3.1, then they changed the GUI to look like WIndows 95/98, then they changed the GUI again (and renamed the OS from "Windows NT" to "Windows XP"). It's the same OS, just with different GUIs (and a few other improvements over time).

IMHO Microsoft have only really had 4 OSs - Windows 95 (and it's different versions), Windows NT (and it's different versions), Vista and Singularity. I'm not too sure if OS/2 counts (it was a joint venture with IBM, not a "Microsoft only" product). Windows XP and Windows 2000 are just later versions of Windows NT; and Windows ME and Windows 98 are just later versions of Windows 95. DOS doesn't really count (it's a crappy file system layer with a crappy command line shell implemented on top of a crappy BIOS, and isn't an OS by todays standards - it's more like a library of functions to extend the BIOS). Windows 3.1 doesn't count either (it's a GUI running on DOS not an OS itself, just like KDE or Gnome is a GUI running on an OS and aren't OS's themselves)...

Of course this is highly subjective - some people say DOS is an OS, and some people say Vista is another version of NT.


Cheers,

Brendan

Hi,

Kevin McGuire wrote:

Unfortunately, for Microsoft's OSs the GUI is "hard coded" into the kernel, and can't be changed, improved, replaced, etc (it's just plain bad design to have such a large piece of code hard-coded into the OS

I remembered something about this, and I went and looked it up again. It does not appear that the actual GUI window drawing (lines, curves, icons, colors) are hard coded into the kernel but rather implemented in gdi32.dll and user32.dll.

I can not determine what you might have meant as you use "hard coded" in quotes and reference the kernel, then you use hard coded and reference the OS --- either way I do not think it is really hard coded you know, right?

AFAIK GDI is just a layer on top of the video driver (and printers?) for drawing primitives.

I based my comments on this (from the "removing IE" page on Wikipedia):

It is unclear what it means to "remove IE" because such a removal depends on being able to determine which files or functions on an installed Windows system are part of IE — that is, to draw a line between IE and the rest of Windows. Microsoft has held that this is not meaningful; that in Windows 98 and newer versions, "Internet Explorer" is not a separate piece of software but simply a brand name for the Web-browsing and HTML-displaying capacities of the Windows operating system. In this view, the result of removing IE is simply a damaged Windows system; to have a working system without IE one must replace Windows entirely.

I *assumed* that if it's impossible to remove a stupid web browser without trashing the entire OS (as Microsoft claim), then something like the GUI must be so deeply built in that you'd need to replace the OS, your hardware and half the furniture in the room if you dare touch it...


Cheers,

Brendan

SandeepMathew wrote:Why do everyone here hate microsoft ....even though they have created
one of the most user friendly os ever known.............

I once applied for an internship at Microsoft (this was about 7 years ago, before the .com bust). I was amazed at how utterly unsupportive and downright hostile some people were about my decision, which I still think was very immature on their part. (I ended up taking a job much closer to home with a small software company that I'm still working for now.)

Say what you will about MS as a company, but remember that in the end it is just composed of people, and those people deserve respect in accordance with their individual attitudes and abilities. For example, Herb Sutter works for MS and is the chair of the ISO C++ Standards Committee. He has written some excellent books on C++ and is highly respected, despite the fact that he works for MS. Steve Ballmer on the other hand...

I'm saying this to pre-empt the kind of vapid and immature anti-MS comments directed at MS employees on this board like the ones I've seen in other threads lately. If you don't have something mature and civil to contribute, stay out of this conversation! (This is not knocking anyone who has already replied to this thread... it's just a warning for those that follow). I think SandeepMathew deserves a well-reasoned answer to his question. I sympathize because I was in the same boat 7 years ago (people called me some nasty names for no reason whatsoever... it was just bigotry).

@Moderators: Please watch this one closely and mod it aggressively. This should not turn into another anti-MS flame fest.

@Brendan: Sorry, but you got some technical details wrong. Unforunately, I have to run, so I'll have to fill in the blanks later. But one thing I want to address before I forget...

Brendan wrote: Microsoft have proven themselves to be extremely good at looking after their shareholders (even if it's at the expense of their end users or the industry itself).

Actually, I would argue MS is not looking after their shareholders, which is another reason some people aren't too keen on their direction as a company. I'll expand more on this later.

@Brendan, DOS is OS, crappy, black'n white, monotasking, but still: it was OS, it is OS and it will be OS.
Aren't you talking the kernels? Like MS Windows 1.0 was 1.0, MS Windows 2.0 was 2.0, Win3.1 - 3.1, WinNT 3.51 - 3.51, Win95 - 4.1, Win98 - 4.2 (?), WinME - 4.3 (?), Win2000 - 5.0, WinXP - 5.1... and Vista - 6.0?

inflater

I can't believe I actually know this stuff.. but as I like to say, Know your enemy..

Anyway, NT3.1 was a result of a joint IBM/Microsoft venture.. The two eventually split up and Microsoft used parts of the OS/2 codebase and Windows 3.1 to create their "new" 32bit OS.

There were several instalments to NT, But it was not common until Windows/2000/XP/Vista.

NT3.1 was the orignal. (They just picked up the version number from their already released Windows 3.1 product..)
NT3.5 and NT3.51 had releases and eventually service packs..
NT4.0 was IIRC released and had the "Windows 95 look"..
(Windows 2000 - NT 5.0)
(XP - NT 5.1)
(2003 Server - NT 5.2)
(Vista - NT 6)

NT didn't become common until Windows 2000.. XP.. and Vista...

But Brenden is right.. The early NT's had problems running DOS applications that took "full control" of users machines, it made home adoption of the OS complicated.. (Lack of DOS apps/games etc)

Think of it.. When the x86 lines came out, a small and practically template like OS was included called DOS.. companies wrote applications for the OS , It was unfortunately the backwards compatibility "Windows 95 and family" offered that started Microsoft's plans for world domination..

Just because they succeeded in the market, does not make their products "better".

People wrote for DOS, Most applications could run in Windows...
They eventually ported their applications to Windows..

DOS was well distributed.. That's all.

So in the end, you can design a revolutionary OS (Like most Unix-likes are)..

Joe Users will always ask.. "But will it run {random boring 2007 video game here}" or equivalent annoying software..

I personally have no real hard feelings against Microsoft. In fact I may one day end up trying to get a job at Microsoft. It's not like they are going to run out of money and end of firing 50,000 people any time soon. Anyways I really liked XP as an OS and when they finally fix all of the bugs with Vista I will like it just as much.

Ok, I'm back (long day).

So first, what's not to like about MS from a business perspective.

Brendan wrote:The first reason is "ethics". Basically Microsoft are a company, and like all companies their primary responsibility is to their shareholders (not to their end users or the industry itself). Microsoft have proven themselves to be extremely good at looking after their shareholders (even if it's at the expense of their end users or the industry itself).

As I said, IMO Microsoft is not doing as well by its shareholders as it should be. They are sitting on a mountain of cash right now, spending it left and right developing "me too" products to try and knock competitors out of the market (e.g. -- Zune).

There is an argument to be made that companies should give as much of their profit to the shareholders as possible in the form of dividends, rather than building a gigantic war chest for future expansion. That way, senior management has to justify the cost of borrowing money to expand, instead of just expanding willy-nilly in random directions, as MS now seems to be doing.

If I were an MS shareholder, I'd be a bit peeved that they're throwing money at things like the Zune out of some general anti-competitive paranoia ("Apple beat us in a market that's only tangentially related to our core business! We must retaliate!") instead of putting it into projects where they can actually deliver value for their customers.

Speaking of customers, IMO Microsoft has a problem with accountability. Most of Microsoft's revenue comes from Windows and Office. Most copies of Windows are sold via OEMs, not in the retail channel (I'm betting that most copies of Office are bundled with said OEM copies of Windows, but I don't know for sure). This means that all MS has to do to succeed is convince the OEMs to keep buying Windows. There isn't much incentive to actually make it better, because by and large they're not selling directly to customers, and there isn't any serious competition in the market for client OSes for businesses (Linux is making a big dent in the server space, which is good for everyone, but MS still owns the client).

To see how this works, think about how you as an indivdiual buy software versus the way businesses buy their software. Usually, you are not only the buyer, but also the end-user. You actually care about whether the software you're buying is going to meet your needs, and whether it's going to annoy you thoroughly in the process (anyone who tries to use the advanced features of MS Word will know what I mean). When someone buys software for a business, normally they're not the person who will end up using the software. This means that they're generally pretty clueless about whether the software is actually good -- all they have to go on is the marketing material.

Granted, this sad situation is largely the fault of uninformed buyers of business software, but MS takes advantage of this in a big way. So when individual end users like you (and me, before I bought my Mac) get pissed off at some long-standing bugs in Windows or Word or Whatever, we are basically ignored. IMO this is why MS is not doing so well in the consumer electronics space -- there is this disconnect with "regular people" caused by a lack of competition and incentive to actually listen to customers.

That's it for the business stuff. I'll get onto the technical stuff about the history of Windows tomorrow...

Microsoft is schizophrenic :p.

Time for technical bits on Windows.

Brendan wrote:IMHO Microsoft have only really had 4 OSs - Windows 95 (and it's different versions), Windows NT (and it's different versions), Vista and Singularity.

Not really... It's hard to count them exactly, because early versions of Windows underwent major internal changes, but were all based on the same premise (running "on top of DOS"). I would say the OSes are:

• XENIX (everybody forgets that one)
• DOS + real-mode Windows (1.x and 2.x I think)
• DOS + 16-bit protected-mode Windows (3.0 and 3.1)
• DOS + 16-bit protected-mode Windows (3.11) + 32-bit protected-mode kernel (the so-called Virtual Machine Manager or VMM)
• Windows 95/98/ME (very similar to Windows 3.11 but with protected-mode drivers, plug-n-play, and a new GUI)
• NT/2K/XP/Vista

Singularity isn't a commercial product, so I don't think it fits into this discussion.

I'm not too sure if OS/2 counts (it was a joint venture with IBM, not a "Microsoft only" product).

It's IBM's.

Windows XP and Windows 2000 are just later versions of Windows NT;

Yes, and so is Vista.

and Windows ME and Windows 98 are just later versions of Windows 95.

Windows 95 itself was not brand-new either. Its kernel started out as Windows/386, which was the first version of Windows with protected-mode components (more on this later).

DOS doesn't really count (it's a crappy file system layer with a crappy command line shell implemented on top of a crappy BIOS, and isn't an OS by todays standards - it's more like a library of functions to extend the BIOS). Windows 3.1 doesn't count either (it's a GUI running on DOS not an OS itself, just like KDE or Gnome is a GUI running on an OS and aren't OS's themselves)...

...Not really. Even though DOS was very limited, I think by the textbook definition it is still an OS, just a very primitive one. Also, Windows 3.1 was more than a GUI (more on this later).

Of course this is highly subjective - some people say DOS is an OS, and some people say Vista is another version of NT.

I don't think it is very subjective. DOS managed resources by including drivers (TSRs) for common hardware, and it abstracted resources (barely) by providing an API that apps could use. It was like swiss cheese, but it was an OS. And Vista is another version of NT. It's based on the code line of Windows Server 2003. The kernel is basically the same, but with some incremental improvements (same as 2K was to NT, and XP was to 2K).

I *assumed* that if it's impossible to remove a stupid web browser without trashing the entire OS (as Microsoft claim), then something like the GUI must be so deeply built in that you'd need to replace the OS, your hardware and half the furniture in the room if you dare touch it...

Don't confuse legalese with technical truth. The MS lawyers were just trying to escape having to remove IE from Windows. Removing IE from Windows is easy, from a product point of view: Get rid of IEXPLORE.EXE and stop advertising the fact that a browser named "IE" exists on the system. You wouldn't have to remove the HTML rendering engine component, which the shell relies on, in order to stop hawking IE as a product. In other words, it was a trumped-up excuse.

Also, the "integration" of IE and Windows has nothing to do with the GUI moving into kernel-mode in NT 4.0. The GUI is not "hard-coded" into NT, as you say -- it is implemented as a separate loadable kernel module called win32k.sys. The user32.dll and gdi32.dll libraries also implement some of the GUI, but delegate the more stateful operations to win32k.sys through a series of special system calls (basically Windows patches the NT kernel's syscall table at boot, installing entry points for win32k.sys).

I'll write more about the technical evolution of pre-95 versions of Windows later on...

wow...this is pretty interesting..