A truly new OS?

[Gabe]

I wonder when Microsoft will come out with a truly new
OS. Pretty much every version since Windows 95 has just
been an enhancement of the previous one. A few new things
here and there, but the core OS is still Windows 95 all
the way. It looks like it, and does the same things, with
the exception of the enhancements of course. Of course I
am not referring to the file system. NTFS is very
different from FAT. I like how they said W98 was much
better OS than W95 and that it was worth buying. Now,
after researching a dual boot setup, I see that they even
say you can't put W95 and W98 on a dual boot system
because "W98 is an upgrade from W95". Their words, and
what all of us already knew, and W98 to ME is pretty much
the same thing, although it can be loaded on the same
system. Yet, we pay ridiculously for enhancements and
especially "fixes" that should be free. I am not
complaining about these OSs mind you, because I am used to
them and they work fine for me, but isn't change sometimes
a good thing? I wonder when they will truly come out with
a "new" OS...

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Windows XP Technical Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xptechov.mspx

Kernel Enhancements for Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/XP_kernel.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


|I wonder when Microsoft will come out with a truly new
| OS. Pretty much every version since Windows 95 has just
| been an enhancement of the previous one. A few new things
| here and there, but the core OS is still Windows 95 all
| the way. It looks like it, and does the same things, with
| the exception of the enhancements of course. Of course I
| am not referring to the file system. NTFS is very
| different from FAT. I like how they said W98 was much
| better OS than W95 and that it was worth buying. Now,
| after researching a dual boot setup, I see that they even
| say you can't put W95 and W98 on a dual boot system
| because "W98 is an upgrade from W95". Their words, and
| what all of us already knew, and W98 to ME is pretty much
| the same thing, although it can be loaded on the same
| system. Yet, we pay ridiculously for enhancements and
| especially "fixes" that should be free. I am not
| complaining about these OSs mind you, because I am used to
| them and they work fine for me, but isn't change sometimes
| a good thing? I wonder when they will truly come out with
| a "new" OS...

 

[Gabe]

I guess I didn't say well enough what I meant, but oh
well...

 

[Guest]

I wonder when Microsoft will come out with a truly new
OS. Pretty much every version since Windows 95 has just
been an enhancement of the previous one. A few new things
here and there, but the core OS is still Windows 95 all
the way.

Sure, 95 was well aware of the fact your box had loads of memory to use
Sure, 95 was well aware of the concept of services
Sure, 95 knew definitely how to pre-emptivly multitask so it could work in a
much more stable fashion
Sure, 95 already had a miriad of actions it could perform 'on the fly'
Sure, 95 had it's own independent security sub-system
Sure, 95 ......

It looks like it, and does the same things, with

the exception of the enhancements of course. Of course I
am not referring to the file system. NTFS is very
different from FAT. I like how they said W98 was much
better OS than W95 and that it was worth buying. Now,
after researching a dual boot setup, I see that they even
say you can't put W95 and W98 on a dual boot system
because "W98 is an upgrade from W95". Their words, and
what all of us already knew, and W98 to ME is pretty much
the same thing, although it can be loaded on the same
system. Yet, we pay ridiculously for enhancements and
especially "fixes" that should be free.

Sure, because your local carshop does your car-tuneups for free as well,
don't they?

I am not
complaining about these OSs mind you, because I am used to
them and they work fine for me, but isn't change sometimes
a good thing?

It is, and if the craving for change is that big, why not just change all
the way and get some *nix version to work with. A whole new world would open
up for you (and those you have to cooperate with)

I wonder when they will truly come out with a "new" OS...

Probably by the time they feel the moment has arrived...

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I wonder when Microsoft will come out with a truly new
OS. Pretty much every version since Windows 95 has just
been an enhancement of the previous one. A few new things
here and there, but the core OS is still Windows 95 all
the way. It looks like it, and does the same things, with
the exception of the enhancements of course. Of course I
am not referring to the file system. NTFS is very
different from FAT. I like how they said W98 was much
better OS than W95 and that it was worth buying. Now,
after researching a dual boot setup, I see that they even
say you can't put W95 and W98 on a dual boot system
because "W98 is an upgrade from W95". Their words, and
what all of us already knew, and W98 to ME is pretty much
the same thing, although it can be loaded on the same
system. Yet, we pay ridiculously for enhancements and
especially "fixes" that should be free. I am not
complaining about these OSs mind you, because I am used to
them and they work fine for me, but isn't change sometimes
a good thing? I wonder when they will truly come out with
a "new" OS...

Windows NT kernel and Windows 9x kernels are very different.
Windows XP has the Windows NT kernel. It wasn't until XP that the 9x "line"
was pretty much ended.

As far as a "Unique OS", you expect them to write something from scratch?
When they have just added features and the likes that actually make it
better? If you started from scratch, you would likely end up with the same
growing pains and a decade later, someone asking "I wonder when XXXXXX is
going to truly come out with a "new" OS..."

Looking at the Microsoft documentation on Dual/Multiple Booting:
- Installing more than one operating system on your computer
- http://snipurl.com/7ql3
- How to Multiple Boot Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows 95,
Windows 98, Windows Me, and MS-DOS
- http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=217210
- Installing more than one operating system on your computer
- http://snipurl.com/7qld

You are correct - and yes - if you didn't know that, you were fooled by
something - I don't know what - since it is the same way for all OSes.

They were always upgrades. No different than any other evolving OS.. The
Linux Kernel improves, you have to upgrade, the Unix Kernel improves,
upgrade... Macintosh fixes stuff in OS X, you upgrade, Microsoft improves
things, you upgrade.. At least three of those you pay for when the upgrades
reach a significant level - but prior to that significant level, you patch
and do minor fixes... OS X has always been the most annoying to me.. They
actually (seemingly) upgrade about 130 things then charge you $129 for it,
stating that it is less than $1 per "enhancement". Please. State it as it
is. We are in this for the money as you would be, pay us or stay where you
are.

There have been very few "from scratch" revamps of an OS in a long time.
Macintosh did it. But they are now building on that newer OS as I stated
above. Linus did it with Unix, but it has been building on that kernel in
dozens of "flavors" since then.

There was BeOS, whatever happened to them?

There's that cool 32bit OS that runs off a floppy diskette.. That has some
promise.

I'm not sure what you are expecting.. Do you believe that Microsoft should
abandom the Windows line and start anew?

 

[hawk]

Gabe, what is your point? You don't like Windows/Bill Gates/MS/etc.?
Are you a Linux fan? You know, Linux, the system all the geeks tout as
being superior to Windows, but each and every new distro looks more
and more like Windows.

hawk

 

[Star Fleet Admiral Q]

Why are you complaining about dead-end Win9x OS in a WinXP newsgroup?
Adding file systems to confuse the issue to boot? Oh, in case you
didn't know, NT, 2k, XP are nothing like Win9x OS's - so now you've
been educated.

 

[Gabe]

Wow, quite a few replies. To answer your replies in a
roundabout way, I like Windows quite a bit. I would never
ditch it and go with Lynux or something like that. I was
just curious if Microsoft would ever work on anything
different. That's all. Windows is just fine with me, so
please relax people, you are getting the wrong idea...

 

[Rob]

out of curiousity, what would you suggest? it makes no sense to change just
for the sake of changing, there needs to be a compelling reason. what is it
that you feel is lacking in windows or needs to be changed? if you're just
tired of the way it looks you could always change that with a new theme.
yes, it has looked virtually the same since 95, but the internals that you
and I don't see are entirely different.

MS spent tens if not hundreds of millions researching a user interface that
was easy to use and that the majority of people would feel comfortable with.
they hired batteries of psychologists to try to gain an understanding of how
the human mind would react to certain features. so basically it's a case of
if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

I think you'll see a change when new interface technology is reliable, cheap
and common place such as focusing your eyes on a certain part of the screen
and having the computer react to that (this is already being done for people
with paralysis) or thought recognition or perhaps 3D holographic screens.
The UI today is geared toward a mouse and a two dimensional monitor, if/when
the mouse is no longer the standard interface tool, you'll probably see the
UI modelled differently.

 

[Guest]

Seems I struck a real chord. People are getting all
uppity about an idea. And no, I don't need your education
thank you very much, I think I can do just fine without
it. By the way, nice sarcasm...it was not necessary.

 

[***** charles]

Providing a micro-kernel based true multiuser multitasking self-aware
and self-healing OS that is stone reliable and scaleable from 1 to
thousands of cpu's would be nice.

By the way, the UI is NOT part of the OS just an extension. M$
or whoever has bastardized the definition of an OS, the true
definition is the code that manages the hardware.

charles.....