Originally posted by: nweaver
iirc, 2k3 had major portions of the code rewritten, and vista had even more rewritten.
😕
can you please elaborate?
i
Irc 2k3 is
mostly an application update (as in server services, such as dynamic DNS, terminal server, and improved activeD to name a few for example) with
some improvments to scheduling & better support for newer hardware, mainly targeted for better multi core/cpu efficiency.....
/ edit ************
hmm.. that wasn't really contributing to the OT, sorry about that.
😱
since this thread seems to be a half rent i'll add mine.
😉part 1 - in general
------------------------
I see two main reasons why microsoft is doing what they are doing (and i'm talking about every operating system they released since dos, including vista).
1) microsoft wants the o/s + office suite to offer a complete set of tools/application that a standard user will ever need, (for good or bad).
2) microsoft wants to make money!
now, if i look at the following trends:
trend no. 1: win95, then win98 then 98se then millennium
trend no. 2: win2k then winxp then vista
i see a pattern of using the same code base over and over, and with every step, the same code base is loaded with additional tools/bloatware (depends on the perspective i look at it), in addition of course to the standard new hardware support & a collection of tweaks.
the reason, for example, for the relative lack of core updates for win2k (prior to xp that is) is because microsoft don?t want me/you to stay with it too long because they already made as much profit as they can from it. except for new computers that are sold with it, microsoft isn?t making money from it, for them to make MORE money from their os is to take the same os, add some stuff to it update it a little and sell it as a new os, win98 to win98se and win98se to millennium are the best examples for that, but win2k to winxp isn?t a bad example either. and thus making you/me pay for essentially the some os twice. In other words every time microsoft is working on updating a given os (service pack/patches), they are making less money per resources spent. maximizing profits is like rule no. 1 in capitalist economy.part 2 - this windows that windows??
-------------------------------------------
back in the day the only 2 reasons i had (@ home) win95/98 was A. legacy dos apps and B. games.
considering the fact that i had very good experience with winnt, the fact that i needed to reboot a couple of times a day really pisses me off, and especially @ work when the companies that i worked for where too cheap to fork out the dough for a real os. But all that is ancient history, when win2k came about i hoped on the wagon and never looked back, sure at start a LOT of hardware manufacturer needed to learn how to make decent driver for it but if you installed it on components that where in the HCL you could see just how good that os really is.
and then came the xp?
/foul language and disturbing graphical description warning
NT 5
.1 my smelly hairy ASS, it's the same goddamn fr**** os + crap :|
/warning off
i swear if someone will one day compare win2k and winxp code without the added 'features' in xp they will see less code change then in win98 to win98se.
sometimes when i think about it, i cant but think of a following scene:
an employ comes to a one of the manager in microsoft headquarter telling him "
windows98se seems to be relatively stable, we still get complaints about some stuff but not as much as we got from win98 and win95", and the manager goes "
ok, time to add all the 'features' we want to windows", and after a couple of months windows millennium comes out.
a few years later the same employ come again to the manager saying "
ok, windows 2000 seems to be a lot more stable then all the previous windows we released" and the manager goes "
ok, lets hope this time it is good enough to handle all the 'features' we want to incorporate into windows without repeating the millennium catastrophe?" and walla you got xp!
man if all the work that was poured into winxp service packs and patches was directed at win2k then we would have a decent os, sigh?
anyways, although i keep hearing that vista is based on 2k3 i still get the feeling it is a lot of differences on the inside then 2k3 (only played with it for about half an hour and with an old build but still). however, directx was never a great api to begin with, i once read an interview with a game developer saying that directx calls are pretty cpu intensive and added that all the game management & AI had only half of the cpu resources left for it in a direct3d game so if directx 10 will improve that (highly unlikely) maybe it's for the best?
