PDA

View Full Version : 60% Of Windows Vista Code To Be Rewritten



sikosis
24th March 2006, 06:26 PM
"Up to 60% of the code in the new consumer version of Microsoft new Vista operating system is set to be rewritten as the Company 'scrambles' to fix internal problems a Microsoft insider has confirmed,"

:rolleyes:

Source: http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Pla...tforms/R7G5G6U4 (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Platforms?Article=/Computing/Platforms/R7G5G6U4)

mechcon
24th March 2006, 06:30 PM
good!

Rayd
24th March 2006, 06:31 PM
not surprised.... i bet once they re-write it ... they will have to AGAIN re-write it... and the cylce continues. :)

grorr76
24th March 2006, 06:51 PM
seriously why have they had so many issues with vista why has there been such a huge delay. B)

Graham
24th March 2006, 07:31 PM
Being a software developer who has worked in large corporations and is currently trying to develop and sell my own product I can give a few pointers.

The first is not having a clearly defined target of what is to be produced. The problem Microsoft faces with Vista is that it suddenly has competition from OS X (perhaps not in economic terms but in public perception) and an increasingly knowledgeable market. As a result it has to go beyond making a nearly good enough copy and has to try and prove it can produce something on its own. Since that target is always shifting (sometime unexpectedly) they have no defined target. It then becomes a version of Zeno's Paradox.

So if requirements are the first then design is the second. The latter always comes from the former and the initial design affects all further development of the product. To re-design on the fly while adding new features causes massive problems and I suspect that's what happening with Vista. Since there's no definitive description of what should be produced there lots of different groups producing slightly different interpretations and that causes so many problems when trying to tie them all together.

The third comes down to the developers. Microsoft developers are very bright people. Idiots simply do not get hired there (Accenture on the other hand...). But like all people they can sense when things aren't right. Productivity drops when internal politics takes over or the developers feel they are becoming marginalised. That is what is currently happening in the predominately sales-driven Microsoft and there's more than a few MS developer blogs stating that.

Overall it's because Microsoft senior management became complacent and distracted and that rippled down through the company. It's not a rare situation. If Ballmer stays in charge for a few more years they'll fade. If they get a decent CEO they'll bounce back. Steve Jobs would make them invincible. What a scary thought :)

CaptainComic
24th March 2006, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by mechcon@Mar 24 2006, 06:30 PM
good!
Depends...

60% of code written from scratch means they have another chance to get it right and improve speed & security.

However 60% of OS code rewritten for release in less than 12 months? BUGS BUGS EVERYWHERE!

eroda
24th March 2006, 07:42 PM
because m$ sucks bullox

gmask1
24th March 2006, 07:46 PM
I'd go with the moving target theory. If MS delivered only the OS that people clammered for in 2004, they'd be lynched. Us 2006'ers want much more than that. As technology and expectations increase, new requirements become mandatory and the goal posts move.

Blizzard and WoW have highlighted something similar in recent months - a feature that is delivered in a release is being worked on and tested for months earlier. Taking customer requests or changes in expectation and throwing them into production is not a simple task. In the case of Vista, determining the impact that a new feature has on the schedule must be frightening.

melbmac
24th March 2006, 07:54 PM
They should just release what they have, so it's full of bugs and probably doesn't run properly, when has that stopped them before?

grorr76
24th March 2006, 08:30 PM
ok then heres a follow up question, why can apple deliver a stable os every 18 mnths and ms cant.. please no apple bias im interested in real opinion here.

Wheels
24th March 2006, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by grorr76@Mar 24 2006, 09:30 PM
ok then heres a follow up question, why can apple deliver a stable os every 18 mnths and ms cant.. please no apple bias im interested in real opinion here.
Yeah because there has been an extremely long time between XP and Vista. Wondering if we'll ever see it or if they'll just continue to rewrite it.

grorr76
24th March 2006, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by wheels8989@Mar 24 2006, 08:33 PM
Yeah because there has been an extremely long time between XP and Vista. Wondering if we'll ever see it or if they'll just continue to rewrite it.
it is an interesting question because one would of thought the market leader ms , with all the money and power would be spewing out a new more often than apple being the much smaller player..

Graham
24th March 2006, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by grorr76@Mar 24 2006, 09:30 PM
ok then heres a follow up question, why can apple deliver a stable os every 18 mnths and ms cant.. please no apple bias im interested in real opinion here.
Because Apple aren't changing the underlying core of the system. They are applying well-defined layers around it. They also have extremely focussed software development managers who are all aiming for the same target. There was a time when they didn't and we had (or didn't have) Pink, Taligent and Copland.

Microsoft has become infested with corporate politics where actually producing something becomes less important than shifting responsibility elsewhere so you look good in comparison. That signifies a problem in leadership. The trouble is that the people in those leadership positions have been there a long time and so can't see the forest because of all the trees.

Currawong
24th March 2006, 10:02 PM
This is the second time they've come out and said that the whole attitude towards the development of their core OS was fundamentally flawed. We saw this first time when a dev built was released missing numerous features, as they'd decided to start from scratch using the more carefully coded server version.

The Fluffy Duck
24th March 2006, 10:11 PM
Anybody heard of a game called "Duke Nukem Forever" ?

Those who have will see the similarities :)



EDIT: For the love of GOD, could MS just make ONE operating system. ITs just to confusing for consumers and third party developers alike. One project means one objective.

xfodder
24th March 2006, 10:26 PM
the biggest problem microsoft has is that apple is in a strong position in terms of having an OS that is stable, secure and fast, so all apple has to do is keep adding those 'layers' and they are fine....apple was smart enough to do the hard yards earlier, while microsoft just added layers to their old OS......my point is that microsoft is now in a difficult position, they are trying to transition their OS to the next gen, but with apple releasing flashy new features in each OS, microsft also has to 'keep up' with apple....microsoft dug their own grave....

forgie
24th March 2006, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by grorr76@Mar 24 2006, 09:30 PM
ok then heres a follow up question, why can apple deliver a stable os every 18 mnths and ms cant.. please no apple bias im interested in real opinion here.
I would call OSX stable, but I wouldn't call it bug free. The first release of both 10.3 and 10.4 both had a lot of little bugs that took a while to get rid of. Getting your customers (us) to basically be your beta testers by releasing an OS that's stable but not bug-free is a much quicker way to get things done then to do what MS do, which is to release an 'update' (or service pack, or whatever) every 12-18 months at the quickest.

It's part of MS's lowest common denominator marketing mentality to have 1 release of Vista, not Vista 1, Vista 1.1, Vista 1.2 etc.... they can't do that because of the precedent they have set. They won't want to release Vista SP1 3 months after Vista or everyone will publibly criticise them.

At the end of the day, MS have a serious lack of vision. They never looked ahead or at the bigger picture. Just like a typical conservative government! :P That's not to say that Apple don't shoot themselves in the foot too, it's just nearly as regularly! :)

Silver
25th March 2006, 08:39 AM
The other issue is the age of the Windows code base and the desperate need for backward compatibility. This restricts what can be done, and means previous mistakes have to be worked around rather than removed.

mab
25th March 2006, 12:18 PM
MS has fired back at the SmartHouse article here (http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_No_Vista_Code_Changes/1143232877)

Granny Smith
25th March 2006, 12:26 PM
Rewriting Vista code is like trying to polish a turd.

Buthidae
25th March 2006, 02:36 PM
60%?! Bollocks! Do they have any idea how much time that would take?

I get Smart House & News in my email (cause I can't turn the f--king things off!), and last week they were doing a review of the "new" 17" PowerBook! Reputable source, ey?

grorr76
25th March 2006, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by mab@Mar 25 2006, 12:18 PM
MS has fired back at the SmartHouse article here (http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_No_Vista_Code_Changes/1143232877)
well there you go, interesting article. think the origanal article about that was from a very deep apple bias. Dont beliieve everything you read guys. :thumbdn:

Quamen
25th March 2006, 03:16 PM
As mab said Microsoft have already debunked the claim.

The real problem with Microsoft as I see it is the need to provide a level of backwards compatibility that no other software vendor is required to do.

Apple's userbase is a lot smaller, and much more active when upgrading their OS. Apple is about to drop classic support completely. Microsoft don't have the luxury of being able to do that.

forgie
25th March 2006, 03:21 PM
Yep, backwards compatability is the crux of the difference. OSX users know that sometimes software will need to be upgraded when they upgrade their OS. That's the price of progress.

MS have their philosophy, Apple have theirs. One creates market domination, one creates product innovation. You take your pick....

marc
25th March 2006, 06:34 PM
Couldn't agree more forgie. That's it in a nutshell. Apple break backwards compatibility all the time, to the advantage of the future. M$ just don't seem to do that. This weighs them down as they have to keep more legacy code, but older hardware and software is more likely to be supported.

OS X's core frameworks seem to have had lees and less changes with the last 2 major OS releases, so it seems like they've set up a good foundation for a long time to come. This is really where M$ would want to be.

Squozen
25th March 2006, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by marc@Mar 25 2006, 06:34 PM
OS X's core frameworks seem to have had lees and less changes with the last 2 major OS releases, so it seems like they've set up a good foundation for a long time to come. This is really where M$ would want to be.
From an enduser perspective perhaps, but I seem to recall reading that Apple stated that they only finalised their core frameworks in Tiger...?