Filed under: OS, Odds and ends
Tevanian: Does Microsoft have the guts to slim down Windows?
For your lazy Sunday afternoon, The New York Times investigates what it would take Microsoft to remove decades of cruft in its Windows operating system, like Apple did in 2000 with Mac OS X.
Avie Tevanian, formerly senior VP of software development at Apple, oversaw the transition to Mac OS X. When asked if Microsoft could pull of a switch to a small microkernel-based implementation of Windows, Tevanian said "perhaps, but I don't know if it has the intestinal fortitude." Oh, snap.
Actually, Avie was referring to an atmosphere of desperation, as the Times calls it, just before Apple started the Mac OS X project. Microsoft, possibly, hasn't hit "rock bottom" yet, and therefore doesn't feel a need to build something from scratch.
Personally, I thought "Windows 7" was going to be a leaner, less-backward-compatible build, but I was wrong (as I frequently am): "Our approach with Windows 7 is to build off the same core architecture as Windows Vista," said Bill Veghte, a Microsoft VP. Hello, Windows Me 2.0.
[Via John Siracusa.]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
mike said 3:29PM on 6-29-2008
i Apple for always have intestinal fortitude... but here's the rub... I run Mac OS X at work but VM Windows XP... all my users are on XP systems... with no desire to upgrade our systems to Vista.
I would love... as much as this will pain some... to see Microsoft get their act together and produce a decent OS again. Not because I like windows... but because I get so tired of answering requests like "my computer has an error... should i worry about it?" and "it's running really slow..." due to incessant spyware and an OS no one knows how to deal with.
Reply
Hobbes said 3:49PM on 6-29-2008
I'm a Mac user and at work a senior C# developer (that pays the bills for now, though I'm studying to make the switch to Cocoa/Objective-C soon) and just the other day a colleague and I were talking about how Microsoft used to be the source for lots of cool tech news. Of course we were talking of something that used to happen many many years ago.
Not anymore and the only reason I can see for Microsoft going downhill like they are (for many years now) is bad management. The fact that they started the plans for Vista with so many nice features and promises and ended up with a major disappointment a la Windows ME, tells me it's time they do major shuffle in their management ranks.
The company is loosing ground fast both technologically and in the perception of their customer base.
A good example of how much people were "brainwashed" to accept the fact that Windows doesn't work properly (e.g. reboots, crashes, frozen systems, unresponsive apps, etc.) is the answer I got from a friend when I suggested he should switch to a Mac. His answer was "oh, but I know Windows, I know how to fix it". He missed the whole point. On a Mac there is nothing to be fixed!
Microsoft didn't get to be where it is for developing quality products, but for being at the right place at the right time (and not even with their own product "DOS").
Let's hope that they can come out of this and bring some innovation and quality to the table. Heck, competition is good for everybody: Apple, Microsoft and specially us consumers.
Reply
John Hall said 7:29PM on 6-29-2008
"Microsoft didn't get to be where it is for developing quality products, but for being at the right place at the right time (and not even with their own product "DOS")."
And they didn't even develop the original version of "DOS", a company called "Seattle Computer Products" did. They had an OS that ran on the 16 bit Intel 8086/8088. Bill Gates & Paul Allen bought it when IBM asked if they had an OS for the then in development IBM PC.
Before then, Microsoft was just known for their computer language interpreters and compilers. Their first product was a BASIC interpreter for a company called MITS in Albuquerque, NM. Here's a link to a page on my web site with a scan from a page from the old BYTE magazine showing an ad they had back in 1977. There's also an ad for the old Apple I in SCCS Interface magazine from 1976.
http://www.sonicmood.com/ComputerHistory.htm
xcaine said 4:28AM on 6-30-2008
@John Hall
In the beginning of the OS world, no one should be throwing around to much weight.
Do anybody remember Epson Valdocs and Xerox PARC.
Microdot said 3:56PM on 6-29-2008
i for one... and going to go the negative route. i hope microsoft swigs down a large bottle of fail-juice before imploding. the further down the totem pole they go, the quicker developers are to opt for other platforms. the goal being, to see a day in which i actually have a CHOICE in what operating system i want to run, and not a choice made for me by system requirements. granted, my choice will still most likely me osx/mac... but its nice to have options.
Reply
Jansperus said 4:24PM on 6-29-2008
Wouldn't Windows 7 be Windows Me 3.0? Surely we haven't forgotten about Vista yet! :)
Reply
Virtuous said 4:26PM on 6-29-2008
OS X boots and shuts down much quicker than Windows. Game, set and match Apple.
Reply
steve ballmer said 4:47PM on 6-29-2008
Hello! Vista is the new, leaner, faster, modern OS!
Haven't you people been paying attention?
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Reply
James Madley said 5:02PM on 6-29-2008
I do believe the "7" in "Windows 7" refers to NT7. 2000 and XP were NT5, and Vista is NT6.
Doesn't Microsoft know that?
Reply
Gerald said 5:39PM on 6-30-2008
Because NT started their numbering at 3.5, "Windows 7" will only be the fifth NT operating system.
Wheels said 5:49PM on 6-29-2008
When was the last time Microsoft built something that was "just enough?
Reply
Dave said 6:01PM on 6-29-2008
The normal process for life is for something to be born, to live/grow, then die. Apple recognizes this; other companies recognize this. Sometimes it's necessary to let things go and start wit a clean slate.
Microsoft doesn't recognize this. It just keeps adding and adding and adding and adding and ...
Reply
Level 5 said 7:07PM on 6-29-2008
It's not that MS doesn't recognize this. It's more so that a complete re-write without proper legacy support means you're alienating 90+% of the world's systems. It's a different ballgame than with OS X completely. In 1999-2000 when OS X was nearing completion, Mac's had a minimal at best market share. Apple HAD to do something drastic because it was about to go under, and because it could afford to; alot less was at stake back then, much less then there would be for MS now.
I'll be the first guy to admit Vista is disappointing. But a complete re-write without legacy support would hurt so many businesses, or said businesses simply would not upgrade. Period. And if no one would use the new OS (which MS more than likely learned from Vista, that they WILL NOT), what's the point in a re-write? Conversely, if you have to implement legacy support for 90% of the world's systems applications to run virtually or through some kind of emulation, why not just INCLUDE it in the OS to begin with? Thus keeping the software bloat of course, but this is easier for the development team, easier for the end users, much fast, and much cheaper to produce that kind of OS. I mean do you guys REALLY think that this has never come up at the roundtable of MS?
I can run OSX86, but I don't. Why? Most of my applications aren't available for the OS. Sure I could virtualize, but if I'm going to do that through a hacked OS, why not just RUN WINDOWS to begin with? So I do.
I mean hell, if it were just about the OS (and not its applications), everyone on this earth would run some distro of Linux because it can literally be molded into any sort of experience you wish, even an eerily close clone of OS X. If Ubuntu (and all linux) didn't have "me too" clones of software that really can't hold a candle to their closed-source counterparts, it would be a no brainer. OS X would be much of a no brainer as well. If Windows applications were not so business critical (deny it as much as you want, THEY ARE), there would be no Boot Camp, and no Parallels, VM Fusion or VirtualBox, etc for OS X and Linux.
It's not solely the fault of MS either. Developers make more MONEY on Windows apps, and in turn, MS has to support them. If all of a sudden Windows didn't support your app anymore, would you have a reason to run Windows anymore? No. And you would either pony up for new software, or think about switching OS's.
Microsoft loves customer satisfaction, but not as much as it loves (and needs!) money. The Zune is no crutch to MS as the iPod/Phone is to Apple. Apple could drop Macs all together, and still make millions and millions. MS, not the same.
Sam said 6:19PM on 6-29-2008
Tech writers like to throw around terms like core architecture and microkernel, but given how well Mac OS X is doing with a core architecture that's about as old as the NT architecture, I'd say the problem is higher up - closer to low level APIs than it is to the kernel itself. You can run many programs designed with Windows 95 in mind on Vista thanks to API (and ABI) compatibility, but the kernel of Vista is dramatically different to DOS-based Windows. In terms of backwards compatibility, that's actually a Very Good Thing.
However, the problem is that programs written with the Win32 APIs are *still* treated as first class citizens, because there isn't anything dramatically different. Well, there's .NET which is more technically advanced than Win32 in a number of ways, but AIUI it still relies on Win32 and is VM based which is inappropriate for some things - Microsoft tried and failed to build the post-XP Windows on top of it and failed. They've also failed to sufficiently inspire the largest developers to start using it - as long as Win32 is still a first class citizen on Windows companies like Adobe will continue to use it.
The way I see it, Microsoft are going to have to again emulate Apple, and introduce a whole new set of APIs while relegating each and every program that uses the old ones to second class citizens. This is what Microsoft probably doesn't have the "intestinal fortitude" (or rather, the balls) to actually do. As it happens, Apple lacked that as well and struggled for years making the sort of incremental changes to its OS that Microsoft has been doing recently - the decision to refocus on an OS that was entirely new to Apple was only taken at the utmost end of need, when Apple was not only failing technologically but also as a business.
So the real issue here is that Microsoft, as a company, is not yet failing. While Microsoft is entirely failing to keep up with Apple in terms of technology, their dominant status as a monopoly ensures that they will be able to continue like this for years.
I think I ought to touch on developer loyalty. I'm not a developer myself (I'm mildly proficient in VB and VB.NET, but that's only because I've been taught them and lack the patience to learn anything else), but I read a lot and it's fairly obvious that very few Windows developers are actually loyal to Microsoft. They use Windows as a development platform because they know it and because lots of people use it but *not* because they're loyal. If Microsoft tried to force a whole new set of APIs on them they'd probably jump ship, or force Microsoft to stop.
Apple on the other hand, have managed to force their developers through no less than three multi-year transitions, and still have most of their developers.
So, in my eyes, it all boils down to one question: can Microsoft successfully force developers through a massive transition, without major losses in market share? Taking into account Apple's phenomenal gains in market share, and growing exasperation with Microsoft within the tech community, my answer is No.
All roads lead to Microsoft losing its dominance of the computer industry, and I suspect that the only interesting thing about future Windows releases will be seeing just how many ways tech writers have to express disappointment.
Sam
Reply
Peter Kirn said 6:27PM on 6-29-2008
I'm a huge fan of Mac OS X -- and likewise, I think it does ZERO service to the operating system when Apple shoots off their mouth at random or articles like this get their facts wrong.
"Slimming down" Windows has nothing to do with the kernel. It has to do with the number of services Windows runs that aren't essential to your work (like the bloated and often unstable Media Center crap).
In fact, microkernels by definition are *larger* than traditional kernels, despite their name. Ironically, only a few years ago Apple was under fire for using a microkernel because of assumptions that it would cause performance problems. We now know that isn't the case. Thing is, real-world performance is another matter. People were just fear-mongering then with OS X and they're fear-mongering now with Windows.
There's no reason to join in just because you're a Mac avocate -- especially with so many real, factual arguments to have instead.
Part of what caused all of this is that Microsoft let slip that they did have a slimmed down mini Windows kernel. The question is whether that would be useful to Windows users. I suspect the answer is, it wouldn't, particularly if Win32 continues to give the kind of performance that it does now.
Is Windows more unstable and difficult to use than Mac OS X? In some cases, yes. But look to dated APIs, driver systems, and (very often) poor third-party software, not the kernel, for an explanation of that. Likewise, a lot of what makes Mac OS X desirable -- Core Audio, Core Image, Quartz, the UI, Finder, plug-and-play hardware support, etc., etc. -- has nothing to do with the XNU kernel in Mac OS X.
For comparison, try booting Mac OS X into a plain BSD command line or something. (Hell, even if you do that, you're hardly down to the kernel level.)
Tevanian is a big microkernel advocate, so it makes sense that he'd make some outlandish comment here. Of course, the NYT could have gone and talked to someone other than analysts, who have gone from bashing Apple to bashing Microsoft but with an equal lack of facts.
Reply
Peter Kirn said 6:27PM on 6-29-2008
Also, the fundamental rewriting of Apple history to me I find really annoying. This whole thing blew up a few weeks ago with the same issue.
Apple didn't start from scratch. They ported NeXT to the Mac hardware and ported Apple's own APIs. In fact, NeXTStep is older than the Windows NT roots of Windows, so age has nothing to do with it. And the fact that what they did was really at the API level demonstrates my point -- this is really about the high-level parts of the operating system, not replacing the kernel. The only really dated kernel in this whole picture is the one that was at the heart of Mac OS 9 and earlier. But I don't think a kernel transplant is going to be necessary for Windows any more than it will Mac or Linux.
Reply
Rille said 6:43PM on 6-29-2008
I think that the real nail in the coffin over at microsoft would be that apple releases osx so that you could install it on non-apple hardware.. Then I think that the fact that people would have a choice between windoze and osx could sink that sinking windoze-ship to the bottom of the os-sea..
Though i'd still run apple hardware..
Reply
SpinThis! said 9:28PM on 6-29-2008
Non Apple hardware? That's blasphemy!
And never going to happen. Part the reason Mac OS X is so stable (and Apple sucessful) is actually the limited hardware support. Mac fans say they would purchase Apple hardware over the competition if clones where available, but history would disagree with you there. Rewind to the clones in the mid '90s. One of the first things Jobs did was put an end to them because 3rd parties were cutting in Apple's bottom line. Apple didn't sell a machine cheap enough to compete.
At the end of the day, Apple's strictly a hardware company that just happens to write damn good software and an excellent OS. I can't believe people still don't get this...
JiN said 9:45AM on 6-30-2008
Also the clones were crap. I went through 20 of them at the ad agency I was working for back then and gave up on them. This included Umax and Power Computing. Apple purchased Power Computing not because it needed low cost hardware but it's license agreement was unique when compared to the others.
George said 9:43PM on 6-29-2008
Great thoughtful comments instead of the usual "Mac Fanboi rah rah and MSFT must lose for Apple to win, etc".... Good stuff. Keep it coming...
Reply