No, I wouldn't think so. Microsoft made its big OS transition, from whatever the underpinnings of Windows 95/98/Me were to what they had started with Windows NT, with Windows XP.
Is that really true, could Windows XP be 20 times larger than Mac OS X codewise?
On about longhorn, why do they fancy themselves with so many gradients of blue yet keep a bitty, system wide font plus the other ugliness all about it. Why does a $100 Billion company not be able to come up with an aethetically pleasing GUI when individuals can?
If someone has to work in a crappy OS all day, let it not be fisher-price melted plastic world!
Is that really true, could Windows XP be 20 times larger than Mac OS X codewise?
Windows 2000 is from 50 to 60 million. Seeing as XP is based on 2000, and adds some other stuff on top of that, it would be more like 60+ million lines of code.
I don't know about Mac OS X, but Linux, without the GUI is estimated to be around 500,000 lines of code. If the GUI is added, then it would be about 500,000 more making it around a million.
If you say so. But if it takes General Motors ten years to build a revolutionary green car because of technical difficulties and it only take the Mom and Dad Backyard Car Shop five using slightly modified tech I would question GMs efficiency. And thats without me ever even filling gas on a car.
Mac OS X is based on a Darwin microkernel. It's a different way to structure the OS that what Microsoft does (or Linux). The Linux Kernel can get fairly large on a stardard desktop installation -- bigger than 30MB. Windows is larger than 150MB. These are what the industry calls "monolithic" kernels. OS X uses a completely different paradigm, and if you count all of the add ins to Mac OS X, it's probably not that much different in size than Windows. It is, though, much more flexible to fix, rewrite, adjust, maintain, etc.
Let's not forget that OS X started with NeXT and BSD. M$ is so proprietary they have to do everything themselves.
[/B]
You can't forget either that OSX already had 10 years of development behind it when Apple bought it, and today, it's really 15 years old - and IT'S still not quite there yet (Panther)
And OSX doesn't even have to worry about any legacy code, which Longhorn does.
MS took on WAY to much. They simply panicked. On the one side they have to compete with Linux which is free and solid, and on the other, you have OSX with all these gee wiz features - MS felt forced to come up with something that would leave them both behind.
You can't forget either that OSX already had 10 years of development behind it when Apple bought it, and today, it's really 15 years old - and IT'S still not quite there yet (Panther)
. . .
MS took on WAY to much. They simply panicked. On the one side they have to compete with Linux which is free and solid, and on the other, you have OSX with all these gee wiz features - MS felt forced to come up with something that would leave them both behind.
This is a very interesting point. MS is realizing that they can't compete with open source as far as making a cutting edge, ultra reliable OS. I'd also like to point out that OS X is the product of the last 30 years of academic work, open source development, and Apple's own media technologies. Really, I don't think MS will even be able to touch OS X with longhorn. In fact, I think Tiger, and even Panther, will make Longhorn seem like a waste of time to most technological folks.
Have any of you ever written an operating system? Or even a PART of an operating system??? It's fvcking hard shlt.
If you're like me and can't work sequentially and keep to one task, it's difficult to accomplish much of anything. Getting started building an operating system requires that you not only integrate and structure a lot of knowledge and skills, but also maintain interest and produce code. And, of course, that's the difficult part for me. In about two or three years, I've written and tossed out a bootloader for FAT12 floppies, made a Multiboot Specification-compliant kernel that does virtually nothing (sets up a GDT and prints out keyboard scan codes by polling the keyboard controller). That's about it.
I often ask myself what the point is, anyway. For me, it seems that it's having the knowledge required to do something, rather than actually doing it, that's the reward. More successful people, I think, would be more rewarded by putting something into production.
Quote:
Longhorn is supposedly a total rewrite. No more DOS, no 9X code.
They're redoing it the way NT was supposed to be redone, but then they chickened out.
Look at Windows XP. It has the compatibility mode feature. I'd guess that at least 2 million lines of code are dedicated to that alone (500,000 for each Windows compatibility mode - DOS, Win95, Win98/ME, Win2K). Microsoft is saying they want to find and trim all this code, as well as any other backward-compatibility code that might still be lying around (for example, all the code dedicated to drive letters and drive letter management will need to go). Removing and testing the removal of all this dead code is what's holding up Longhorn, I'd guess.
Where are you getting your information? The Longhorn developer FAQ states that MS-DOS apps will still be supported in Longhorn, so I'm not sure how that's going to work out on a system that lacks compatibility with Windows 2000.
Microsoft is saying they want to find and trim all this code, as well as any other backward-compatibility code that might still be lying around (for example, all the code dedicated to drive letters and drive letter management will need to go).
That just doesn't make sense to me. Win32 is still there and DOS is still there, so drive letters will be supported.
Microsoft and the PC hardware industry have consistently demonstrated an obsessive commitment to backward compatibility. Backward compatibility won't be a priority in new technologies, but Microsoft isn't going out of its way to excise backward compatibility with current ones. It's parallel to what Apple is doing, and what most of us take for granted. Can you use QuickDraw in OS X? Yes. Will Quartz run on OS 9? No. Is OS 9 supported? No. Will you be able to run OS 9 apps in Tiger? Absolutely. Is Tiger going to support HFS+? Yes. Is Spotlight going to run on Panther? No.
It's my guess that what's bogging Microsoft down more is the mass of huge new technologies they're trying to develop simultaneously, not attempts to maintain old ones that they know well.
Microsoft and the PC hardware industry have consistently demonstrated an obsessive commitment to backward compatibility.
You're forgetting that longhorn was originally not going to have any backwards compatiblity whatsoever.
They're slowely doing away with compatibility. GTA 2 doesn't work under windows XP, for instance. Most DOS programs that are worth anything don't either.
I'm just wondering if MS is going to have a CLI in longhorn.
Also, Intel's Itanic? processor doesn't support any x86 programs whatsoever, so apparently not all PC companies are obsessed with backwards compatiblity... although with Itanic being near worthless, it's likely they'll stick to their guns.
You're forgetting that longhorn was originally not going to have any backwards compatiblity whatsoever.
They're slowely doing away with compatibility. GTA 2 doesn't work under windows XP, for instance. Most DOS programs that are worth anything don't either.
I'm just wondering if MS is going to have a CLI in longhorn.
Also, Intel's Itanic? processor doesn't support any x86 programs whatsoever, so apparently not all PC companies are obsessed with backwards compatiblity... although with Itanic being near worthless, it's likely they'll stick to their guns.
Microsoft is planning a command-line in Longhorn. I think its preliminary name is LCP (Longhorn Command Prompt), and it's going to have even more UNIX-like features than the Windows XP command prompt.
Microsoft's success at this point in the game is perpetuated by it being the 'standard' or 'compatible' with everything. If longhorn drops compatability with previous releases of windows, Microsoft will have lost most of it's edge.
Compatability isn't black and white though. Each little feature and individual program will be varying degrees of compatible.
Longhorn really is a tough project for MS, probably more difficult for them than copland was for apple. Apple was already incompatible with the rest of the industry. They were more free to ditch compatibility and rely more on a complete restructuring and modernization as their selling point. Microsoft has repeatedly taken the other fork in the road. they've maintained so many legacy APIs and neglected bits of code that it's no wonder that longhorn continues to see delay after delay. It's like they've been digging themselves into a hole, maintaining their monoploy, by continuously putting off the jump to a completely new OS.
Comments
Even Microsoft is not able to rewrite completely one billions of lines of programming.
Originally posted by Anders
Then what the hell are taking them so long?
Icons.
Originally posted by lemon
Icons.
I hope they are pretty and shiny. Maybe even a smidgen of animation as well.
Yippee!
Mac OS X: 2.5 million lines of code
Linux: : 5 million lines of code
Windows: 50+ million lines of code
Is that really true, could Windows XP be 20 times larger than Mac OS X codewise?
On about longhorn, why do they fancy themselves with so many gradients of blue yet keep a bitty, system wide font plus the other ugliness all about it. Why does a $100 Billion company not be able to come up with an aethetically pleasing GUI when individuals can?
If someone has to work in a crappy OS all day, let it not be fisher-price melted plastic world!
Originally posted by MajorMatt
As Iv heard,
Mac OS X: 2.5 million lines of code
Linux: : 5 million lines of code
Windows: 50+ million lines of code
Is that really true, could Windows XP be 20 times larger than Mac OS X codewise?
Windows 2000 is from 50 to 60 million. Seeing as XP is based on 2000, and adds some other stuff on top of that, it would be more like 60+ million lines of code.
I don't know about Mac OS X, but Linux, without the GUI is estimated to be around 500,000 lines of code. If the GUI is added, then it would be about 500,000 more making it around a million.
They're redoing it the way NT was supposed to be redone, but then they chickened out.
They've lost tons of their features to make the 2006 deadline.
Let's not forget that OS X started with NeXT and BSD. M$ is so proprietary they have to do everything themselves.
Longhorn is going to be pretty solid by 2006, even if they've dropped so many features by then it looks like win95.
Originally posted by slughead
Let's not forget that OS X started with NeXT and BSD. M$ is so proprietary they have to do everything themselves.
[/B]
You can't forget either that OSX already had 10 years of development behind it when Apple bought it, and today, it's really 15 years old - and IT'S still not quite there yet (Panther)
And OSX doesn't even have to worry about any legacy code, which Longhorn does.
MS took on WAY to much. They simply panicked. On the one side they have to compete with Linux which is free and solid, and on the other, you have OSX with all these gee wiz features - MS felt forced to come up with something that would leave them both behind.
Originally posted by the cool gut
You can't forget either that OSX already had 10 years of development behind it when Apple bought it, and today, it's really 15 years old - and IT'S still not quite there yet (Panther)
. . .
MS took on WAY to much. They simply panicked. On the one side they have to compete with Linux which is free and solid, and on the other, you have OSX with all these gee wiz features - MS felt forced to come up with something that would leave them both behind.
This is a very interesting point. MS is realizing that they can't compete with open source as far as making a cutting edge, ultra reliable OS. I'd also like to point out that OS X is the product of the last 30 years of academic work, open source development, and Apple's own media technologies. Really, I don't think MS will even be able to touch OS X with longhorn. In fact, I think Tiger, and even Panther, will make Longhorn seem like a waste of time to most technological folks.
Have any of you ever written an operating system? Or even a PART of an operating system??? It's fvcking hard shlt.
If you're like me and can't work sequentially and keep to one task, it's difficult to accomplish much of anything. Getting started building an operating system requires that you not only integrate and structure a lot of knowledge and skills, but also maintain interest and produce code. And, of course, that's the difficult part for me. In about two or three years, I've written and tossed out a bootloader for FAT12 floppies, made a Multiboot Specification-compliant kernel that does virtually nothing (sets up a GDT and prints out keyboard scan codes by polling the keyboard controller). That's about it.
I often ask myself what the point is, anyway. For me, it seems that it's having the knowledge required to do something, rather than actually doing it, that's the reward. More successful people, I think, would be more rewarded by putting something into production.
Longhorn is supposedly a total rewrite. No more DOS, no 9X code.
They're redoing it the way NT was supposed to be redone, but then they chickened out.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/s...q/default.aspx
Microsoft is saying they want to find and trim all this code, as well as any other backward-compatibility code that might still be lying around (for example, all the code dedicated to drive letters and drive letter management will need to go).
That just doesn't make sense to me. Win32 is still there and DOS is still there, so drive letters will be supported.
Microsoft and the PC hardware industry have consistently demonstrated an obsessive commitment to backward compatibility. Backward compatibility won't be a priority in new technologies, but Microsoft isn't going out of its way to excise backward compatibility with current ones. It's parallel to what Apple is doing, and what most of us take for granted. Can you use QuickDraw in OS X? Yes. Will Quartz run on OS 9? No. Is OS 9 supported? No. Will you be able to run OS 9 apps in Tiger? Absolutely. Is Tiger going to support HFS+? Yes. Is Spotlight going to run on Panther? No.
It's my guess that what's bogging Microsoft down more is the mass of huge new technologies they're trying to develop simultaneously, not attempts to maintain old ones that they know well.
Originally posted by Mac The Fork
Microsoft and the PC hardware industry have consistently demonstrated an obsessive commitment to backward compatibility.
You're forgetting that longhorn was originally not going to have any backwards compatiblity whatsoever.
They're slowely doing away with compatibility. GTA 2 doesn't work under windows XP, for instance. Most DOS programs that are worth anything don't either.
I'm just wondering if MS is going to have a CLI in longhorn.
Also, Intel's Itanic? processor doesn't support any x86 programs whatsoever, so apparently not all PC companies are obsessed with backwards compatiblity... although with Itanic being near worthless, it's likely they'll stick to their guns.
Originally posted by slughead
You're forgetting that longhorn was originally not going to have any backwards compatiblity whatsoever.
They're slowely doing away with compatibility. GTA 2 doesn't work under windows XP, for instance. Most DOS programs that are worth anything don't either.
I'm just wondering if MS is going to have a CLI in longhorn.
Also, Intel's Itanic? processor doesn't support any x86 programs whatsoever, so apparently not all PC companies are obsessed with backwards compatiblity... although with Itanic being near worthless, it's likely they'll stick to their guns.
Microsoft is planning a command-line in Longhorn. I think its preliminary name is LCP (Longhorn Command Prompt), and it's going to have even more UNIX-like features than the Windows XP command prompt.
Microsoft's success at this point in the game is perpetuated by it being the 'standard' or 'compatible' with everything. If longhorn drops compatability with previous releases of windows, Microsoft will have lost most of it's edge.
Compatability isn't black and white though. Each little feature and individual program will be varying degrees of compatible.
Longhorn really is a tough project for MS, probably more difficult for them than copland was for apple. Apple was already incompatible with the rest of the industry. They were more free to ditch compatibility and rely more on a complete restructuring and modernization as their selling point. Microsoft has repeatedly taken the other fork in the road. they've maintained so many legacy APIs and neglected bits of code that it's no wonder that longhorn continues to see delay after delay. It's like they've been digging themselves into a hole, maintaining their monoploy, by continuously putting off the jump to a completely new OS.
Interesting times...
Where's my bucket of popcorn?