Bill Promises M$ Will Suicide

“We’re certainly sharing between Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 – sharing the user interface, sharing some of those development tools, and over time we’ll just get to do more and more of that," he said in an in-house video (below). "It’s evolving literally into being a single platform."

Having such a system dovetails neatly into Microsoft’s cloud ambitions, he said, both in terms of storage and personalization across devices. This week’s announcements covering the two operating systems, not to mention the Surface launch, shows the direction Redmond is moving into long-term, he explained.”

see Gates: Microsoft will merge Phone and Windows platforms • The Register.

That’s like merging a large modern house into a gopher’s hole. It makes no sense. They’ve gone absolutely mad. No one has time to scroll on their smart phones. No one wants to go backwards in bloatware on the desktop. Why insist a Cadillac is a bycycle?

OK, */Linux will just pick up the pieces with a modular design with interchangeable parts that work in particular roles. Good riddance to M$. This will be easier than I thought.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Bill Promises M$ Will Suicide

  1. kozmcrae says:

    The Microsoft troll wrote:

    “But I could also write a book on Nix XXXX-ups.”

    You just said, no OS is perfect. Gee troll, what an insight! No OS is perfect but the poor Windows system administrators put in way more hours towards security than the Linux administrator does. In fact, Windows administration takes more man hours that Linux does. A lot more. And Linux administrators are higher paid than their Windows counterparts. They are also in higher demand right now. So what does that tell you troll? It tells you that Windows is a mess. A hopeless mess.

  2. oiaohm says:

    ze_jerkface
    –No they aren’t but they are running at much high clock speeds than p3s. NT was never built to be dependent on x86. Microsoft was always worried about a sideways attack from sparc.–

    Arm is a vastly different beast. Particularly dealing with big little arch set ups.

    NT core blue print is not x86 that is correct. But the problem is most of the internal design and research in current windows is x86 based. Even the NT design does not allow on what you have to for arm.

    Big little in arm gets screwy. Because the big and little cpu setups can take more than 1 cpu instruction set at the same time. As well as being different speeds of cpu. NT contains nothing to handle dealing with having use 2 different cpu instruction sets at the same time. The worst big little arm in existence you have to deal with 4 different cpu instruction sets at this stage.

    The means to handle 2 or more different cpu instruction sets at the same time in kernel space is currently unique to Linux. Arm is very alien to fully exploit to anything Windows NT design has handled before. That the problem. Even the Linux kernel design has had to go threw the preventable blender. Cost many years to get big little tech to work.

    Did Windows CE ever exploit big little no it did not.

    ze_jerkface
    –Registry bloat has never actually been proven to exist nor has it been proven that keeping configuration settings in a few dozen text files is more efficient than a registry. Go ahead and write 10k entries to the registry to see if it impacts system performance, post the results actually.–

    Correct term for NT issue is not Registry bloat. Registry Hive Fragmentation is the Microsoft title for the problem.

    Writing 10K entries unless done a particular way would not cause a problem at all. Registry bloat is not the problem. Its failure to clean up after delete. So write 10K entries delete all bar 1. The notice the remaining one takes as long to look up as when there were 10K. That is longer than a fresh registry with 1 entry. Very simple test. ze_jerkface

    A perfectly working b-tree the performance should be zero difference.

    Next now that slowed containing 1 entry. Write the 99999 entries you deleted back. Now notice its slower again. Keep on repeating deleting and inserting the pattern and watch the hive progressively degrade.

    ze_jerkface this is not bloat. This is indexing degradation. Windows NT 3.5 included a tool to clean this up. Windows 2000 you had to download it as third party. XP on the fix up is left to third party tools.

    The Linux individual files out perform the registry because it happens in most cases to be sitting on a b-tree file-system that works correctly.

    Also robert is right the policy of strict separation and not overwriting settings.

    Areas that need overwrite inside a distribution you find –service–.d directories that basically are place files in here you want added to that services configuration under you applications name.

    ze_jerkface would it be possible for Microsoft to implement some form of rule that applications cannot overwrite other registry entries owning to other applications yes they could.

    Posix Linux has to thank for the .d directory idea that is a god send to make clean removal of applications possible. Why because the default settings of a application have not been messed with. Returning to default delete the addon files.

    Per application hives entries would be a good way forward. Application only truly able to delete entries it created would solve a lot of problems in Windows as well.

    ze_jerkface
    –Are you really going to tell me that NT/Win32/.NET could not be ported to a quad core 1.5ghz ARM CPU?–
    I can serous-ally say yes. It will not run on a quad core big little panda board. 2 cores 1.5ghz one type of arm. 2 cores 150Mhz.

    The 150Mhz processors are highly power effective. Yes its still an arm quad core.

    There are also worse like 2 ghz 1 arm core 3 150Mhz core arm cores.

    Arm does not require all cores in a cpu to be at the same speed or even able to clock up. Yes the 150Mhz cores that is there max speed. Task management is required to be vastly different on a Arm or you perform like a dog.

  3. ze_jerkface wrote, “Registry bloat has never actually been proven to exist nor has it been proven that keeping configuration settings in a few dozen text files is more efficient than a registry”

    I really don’t care about bloat of “efficiency” but I have seen so many PCs with messed-up registries. It was easier to pave them over than fix the damned thing. Why is that? The registry was not properly protected and everyone and his dog could modify it in the old days. Between Debian policies and file-protection, one package is not allowed to alter the configuration of another and the configuration rarely gets messed up. How simple is that? Yet it works. The difference may be that M$ doesn’t do the packaging but that’s their problem and they gave an insecure mess to the world.

  4. ze_jerkface says:

    kozmcrae sez
    Because Microsoft’s OS was never built with security as part of the architecture for one. It was glommed on later.

    Even ohioham knows that Microsoft’s security problems have been in userland. Lock Windows users into a vetted software sanctum, kick out java and flash and there goes 99% of the problems. Microsoft certainly deserves blame though, not including a firewall with Windows 2000 was a huge blunder. They also took too long to include a basic malware scanner and they should have been more aggressive in pushing newer versions of IE. Hell I could write a book on all their fuck-ups.

    But I could also write a book on Nix XXXX-ups.

    Pogson sez:

    Tell us another one: the damned registry

    To keep it short I’ll just respond to this. Registry bloat has never actually been proven to exist nor has it been proven that keeping configuration settings in a few dozen text files is more efficient than a registry. Go ahead and write 10k entries to the registry to see if it impacts system performance, post the results actually. This is all a myth from computers loaded with crapware whereby errant processes are actually affecting performance. The user then formats the computer and buys into the myth that it was the registry when in fact the processes were eliminated.

    Ohio sez:
    Except arm chips are not x86.

    No they aren’t but they are running at much high clock speeds than p3s. NT was never built to be dependent on x86. Microsoft was always worried about a sideways attack from sparc.

    These features to start from scratch puts MS about 4 to 5 years behind at best.

    Ohio if you could speak King’s English then you could be an excellent lawyer as you are a master bullshitter.

    You too believe in Unix magic but like the educated creationist are able to concoct an elaborate technical explanation for what really is emotional attachment to a personal ideal.

    Anyhoo

    I played a 3D driving game in WP7 (WinCE kernel) and it was silky smooth on a 800mhz ARM CPU. Are you really going to tell me that NT/Win32/.NET could not be ported to a quad core 1.5ghz ARM CPU? Let’s say we have to isolate NT to a single core… so what? Windows is already broken into multiple processes. As for 32/64 they could make the split at this point. Basically a trimmed down Win64 for ARM.

    Oh and kozmcrae please don’t call me a Microsoft troll, Sinofsky undoubtedly hates my guts as my Windows 8 criticisms have been posted on his blog.

  5. oiaohm says:

    –There is nothing that makes Nix kernels magically special over NT.–
    ze_jerkface other than the fact Linux has the funding to try things like big little arch.

    –XP works fine on a p3 500mhz so I’m not sure why you think it would be so far fetched to have Windows running on a quad core ARM cpu with a few gigs of ram.–

    Except arm chips are not x86. Big little arm chips are more power effective and require some very interesting process management voodoo magic.

    So quad core of what. A big little quad core can have 2 arm processes of one version and 2 arm processes of a different version. With the only interlink between the two processor groups being ram.

    This is alien to x86 windows design. This is not alien to Linux. Super computer processing might seam to have nothing todo with mobile phones. But Linux has run on super computers for years that are not purely 1 cpu type. So you might have a power/x86 super computer. Windows does not run on that effectively.

    ze_jerkface it is not that the Linux or BSD kernels are magically special. Its that the Linux and BSD kernels have been in a environment that has required an extra set of features to be developed. These features pay off in mobile devices where power effectiveness is important.

    Yes the environment where the feature difference starts is mixed arch super computers where Microsoft has never got a foot hold. Does not have the tech even to get a foot hold.

    These features to start from scratch puts MS about 4 to 5 years behind at best.

    Some of the huge errors that Linux and BSD have had fine tuning for multi arch super is scary and worse seam insanely minor but stack up. To find some of these errors you need multi arch systems of 4000 Cores +. Windows NT no version yet can operate on a system that large.

    ze_jerkface getting it yet its not the NT design its how it can been tested.

    The registry issue could be fixed. Anyone looks closer enough will find the performance problem with the registry is mostly a broken b-tree implementation that gives performance gains on one hand but big performance costs long term as the price for the gains. Nothing is a free lunch.

    Also NT was design to have more than 1 copy of the sub-systems. Major clean up and going back the the base design would allow applications to have 1 hive per application. NT design is not past fixing but you are talking a huge investment required to sort out win32 and win64 subsystems so they can run more than 1 copy side by side without spitting chips. Microsoft has attempted this.

    Yes once you have win32 and win64 subsystems side by side the NT driver space has to be updated.

    The Linux BSD and solaris kernels already have been updated to support multi copies of their subsystems running on top of the same kernel.

    One mandatory rule. No kernel space drivers specially for particular user-space applications. So to catch up means Digital rights management drivers have to go by by from windows.

  6. ze_jerkface wrote, “There is nothing that makes Nix kernels magically special over NT”.

    Tell us another one: the damned registry, re-re-reboots, loadable kernel modules distributed with the kernel, generic kernel modules, the EULA… All of those things are more than sufficient reason to switch however M$ is locked in and cannot afford to let the sheeple know they were sold a bill of goods. Apple made the switch and they just said things will be better but Apple was tiny then compared to M$’s current installed-base. How many hundreds of millions of people does any business want to be angry with them?

    Reports are that “8” on ARM is sluggish. Android/Linux is snappy on the little woman’s smart phone. A bunch of apps and no waiting and she has a two-year old model. There’s a reason, M$ did not attempt to provide the old API on the ARM processor. They couldn’t afford the CPU cycles to emulate even on a Tegra 3. They rebuilt their office suite to run natively. They could not get ISVs to invest that much to port to ARM for a vapour-market.

  7. kozmcrae says:

    A Microsoft troll wrote:

    “Why would Microsoft rebuild Windows over a Nix?”

    Because Microsoft’s OS was never built with security as part of the architecture for one. It was glommed on later. The result is that Microsoft security is always one step behind the malware. They need an OS that has the security built into its framework. Not patched on afterward.

    Why don’t you step out of your troll suit and take a look around. You’d be amazed at how advanced the World’s OS has become. And its done it in far fewer lines of code than Microsoft has. And that includes all the hardware drivers.

  8. ze_jerkface says:

    Why would Microsoft rebuild Windows over a Nix? There is nothing that makes Nix kernels magically special over NT. That would also requiring bringing all their libraries over to Nix which would be a huge waste of resources.

    XP works fine on a p3 500mhz so I’m not sure why you think it would be so far fetched to have Windows running on a quad core ARM cpu with a few gigs of ram.

  9. Agent_Smith says:

    @Michael Rudas
    That was what I thought too. They can move the Suse engineers, but then, there are lots of things inside Suse Linux that are GPL’ed (like the kernel itself), so, they can’t make Suse BSD’ed. A BSD approach (using some BSD flavor) would work better for M$

  10. I don’t think Microsoft Linux is a practical idea, but Microsoft could go the BSD route (like Apple did) with no GPL worries. They could even transition SUSE to be a BSD distro or raid SUSE for developers. They still have a substantial war chest, after all.

  11. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson not that simple some of Microsoft loans are most likely against net worth. So share price tanks loans have to be paid back quickly.

    –M$’s insiders can sell their shares– They have been selling there shares.

    Microsoft is currently pinned.

    http://archive.is/20120523/http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/billg/default.aspx

    lpbbear he is still chairman of the board. But yes he is not meant to be a spokes person any more. This is showing kinda desperation.

  12. kozmcrae says:

    Robert Pogson wrote:

    “They have “7″ as a fallback position.”

    They could start charging for service packs. And they could produce smaller, more frequent service packs. Of course those who love Microsoft will endure the extra expense, (most likely their employer will) and call the complainers a bunch of whiners.

  13. lpbbear says:

    Here is the thing about this article no one yet seems to have focused on.

    Since when did Bill Gates return to being a spokesman for Microsoft? Wasn’t he supposedly “retired” and out of the company a long time ago? Or was that all BS?

    Hmmmm, inquiring minds want to know………

  14. oiaohm wrote, “Robert Pogson remember Microsoft still has to pay dividend to share holders.”

    No, they don’t. M$’s insiders can sell their shares, stop paying dividends and say, “So long, suckers!”. The world does not need M$ and M$ has made so much money there’s no particular motivation to make more. M$ is also too big to sell out. They can just fade away as Ballmer and others age.

  15. kozmcrae wrote, “This could very well be plan B if Windows 8 tanks.”

    I doubt “8” tanking will be sufficient condition. They have “7” as a fallback position. As with Vista, M$ can survive a debacle. They are big enough and have enough apologists who can spin the failure of “8” as R&D…

    Of course the failure of “8” will be another nail in the coffin but the lid is far from sealed. M$ can live of their pensions for a century and will no doubt find the time and energy to cause trouble for FLOSS forever. We can however stock up on popcorn to watch the show. The only way a fall from grace for M$ can be precipitous is if the OEMs wake up and kick M$ to the curb. Low margins and being jerked around on a chain has really ticked off OEMs from time to time. A rebellion could happen this year. Then it would not matter what M$ did, they would shrink on retail shelves and in mindshare. ISVs would flee.

  16. kozmcrae says:

    Agent_Smith wrote:

    “Will they (M$) pick Suse and base their next OS on it ?”

    They won’t have much of an alternative. It will be their biggest, boldest attempt at Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. They will market themselves as the true, one and only Linux. They will give reasons why people should use only their brand of Linux. They will be stupid reasons of course but they will be designed to make sense to the general, uninformed population.

    This could very well be plan B if Windows 8 tanks. Oh, and the Cult of Microsoft will be all over themselves telling us why Microsoft’s Linux is greatest OS ever because Microsoft added this minor feature and that minor feature. The reality would be Microsoft adding layers of cruft to a perfectly good OS thereby making it more vulnerable to malware.

  17. Agent_Smith says:

    But, folks, what are your thoughts ? Will they (M$) pick Suse and base their next OS on it ? I find it will be terrible(for them), in a legal licensing approach.

  18. oiaohm says:

    Go read the balance sheet again.
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312512427209/d406056d10q.htm

    Entertainment and Devices Division is almost making no income because it contains the cost of running windows phone 7.

    Robert Pogson remember Microsoft still has to pay dividend to share holders.

    That balance sheet threatening to read zero. Microsoft cannot afford this.

    Microsoft to get working income has no choice but to cost cut.

    –That may well be true but M$’s margins are huge on the desktop/client OS.–
    Look at the balance sheet. Half the income of the desktop/client OS goes into maintaining it. The remain a chunk taken out of it to pay share holders.

    About 2 billion a quarter goes off paying share holders.

    As a commercial entity that is doing all the development itself the price tag is huge.

    Robert Pogson Microsoft is not in a position subsidise another OS.

    Microsoft Business Division might still look good but its also taking a beating from the PC sales slowdown.

    Basically Microsoft has to brace of the impact that is coming. Merging phone and desktop os might keep themselves out of the way of trouble.

    The merge when you look at the balance sheets there was no other option.

    Robert Pogson the reality is Microsoft is not in a location to be too careless Microsoft has to prep for the contraction.

    Basically Microsoft is not healthy by the balance sheet.

  19. oiaohm wrote, “it takes about 1.5 billion dollars worth of developer investment every 3 months to maintain an operating system.”

    That may well be true but M$’s margins are huge on the desktop/client OS. Even if they had zero revenue from Phoney “7” and “8 RT”, they could subsidize a second OS out of pocket change. Still, you may be right that they are trying to lighten the bloat in total. The “brand” will be damaged by trying to shoe-horn in all the users/uses to the same OS. They could have allowed the OEMs to set the default display mode depending on the device or they could have coded it in somehow. Forcing really simple desktop GUI users to confrong something else on Day One is offensive. I have set up PCs for many kinds of users and most are shocked if anything is different. These people don’t equate an icon with an application, for instance. The “blue e” is “the Internet” for them… How many millions of times will someone have to change the GUI before the world decides “8” is a waste of time?

    If M$ really wanted to treat users fairly, they would spend that $billion on advertising to apologize for teaching a billion people the wrong way to use PCs and make a sharp break… They won’t do that because hundreds of millions would migrate to GNU/Linux or MacOS. Instead, they are hoping salesmen/women won’t mind retraining the world without pay. I expect most salesmen will decide it is easier to sell “7”. Merry Christmas, M$! Meanwhile, folks have been choking the channels with “8”. Expect wailing and gnashing of teeth. I would not be surprised if PC-OEMs met to discuss what to do with M$ and decided to all migrate to GNU/Linux. It would be one-time pain for long term gain. OEMs could recoup their losses within a few quarters and never worry about M$ again. ISVs will port like mad. By the time M$ buys/builds its own OEM the world will have moved on.

  20. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    –That’s like merging a large modern house into a gopher’s hole. It makes no sense. They’ve gone absolutely mad. No one has time to scroll on their smart phones.–
    You wrong there is sense to it. Microsoft does not have a choice.

    Be aware that it takes about 1.5 billion dollars worth of developer investment every 3 months to maintain an operating system. Windows Phone 7 did not provide this. Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 core base merge was no option if they wanted to remain in the phone game. Yes it was merge or give up having phones(long term second choice is not an option).

    Next problem is PC market has reached saturation points in the richer countries. This always happens sooner or latter. So it now Microsoft having to compete with Microsoft.

    Its like the model T ford sales compared to car sales today. Cars don’t sell as fast today. Because the car market is saturated so the market is replacement.

    Successful Linux Distributions are getting there hands on 1.5+ billion dollars of developer time ever 3 months. Yes maintaining OS is down right expensive.

    Lot of people look at MS billions in the bank. Problem if Microsoft does not get a income they will burn that up in 5 years unless they restructure. Microsoft is attempting to restructure to lower overheads for the predictable lower incomes.

    Microsoft is basically being squashed mostly under its own created weight. Microsoft never allowed for third world markets to avoid the PC and just go mobile phone.

    Funny enough too big to fail in Microsoft case is wrong. So big that it crushes its own future sales is what Microsoft is looking at.

    So FOSS does not have to do brilliantly to bring Microsoft down. Just has to prevent Microsoft from being able to raise prices. Prevent Microsoft from being able to raise prices it will implode.

  21. kozmcrae says:

    dougman wrote:

    “Taking SUSE and creating their own Linux distro is what I have always concluded that M$ will eventually do.”

    I second that conclusion.

  22. dougman says:

    Taking SUSE and creating their own Linux distro is what I have always concluded that M$ will eventually do.

  23. Agent_Smith says:

    Oh, pĺease, delete the 1st one (duplicated)

  24. Agent_Smith says:

    I fear they will get Suse to be the base of windows 9.
    But then, there’s the GPL and all the stuff, so, I guess they’re in a crossroad.

  25. Agent_Smith says:

    I fear they will get Suse to be the base of windows 9.
    But then, there’s th GPL and all the stuff, so, I guess they’re in a crossroad.

Leave a Reply