Ideas For Next Operating System

[Guest]

I can't seem to find anywhere to email microsoft with my suggestion,
hopefully the moderator of this group can pass this onto microsoft's
developer's and they can take a look at my idea.

I am a long time user of microsoft, i started with windows 3.1 and have gone
straight through to win XP. I like so many others have been seriously
hampered by security issues, it all seemed to start when microsoft made the
move to abandon the win98 type of architecture that had the Core OS and
Windows Shell seperate. I have been dabbling with linux for the past few
months, probably something that will disgust everybody on this board, but i
wanted to try it out. Both operating systems are good in their own
respective ways, but i have found a big difference, now that one is MS and
one is UNIX. My idea stems from this, Linux runs a core OS, which has all
your system drivers and hardware drivers. They all boot and are controlled
by the core os, nothing is done from the shell for control. It seems this
seperation of OS from GUI offers some degree of security protection. Can
microsoft go back to the perverbial drawing board and design a 32/64 bit
system that runs your core drivers and hardware seperately from the entire
OS, Like windows 9x, but with all the functionality of today's modern
demands. The DOS/WINDOWS combo worked, in fact i still perfer windows 98 as
i have fewer issues with it. Hopefully i have put a bug in somebody's ear at
MS, i would really like to see INTERPOL crack down on people who assault
other's computer's. If we can't catch the culprits, perhaps we can make it
harder or damn near impossbile to gain access by designing tough Operating
Systems that seperate your Hardware Interface and Software.

Just A Few Thoughts.
Geoff Levson

(e-mail address removed)

 

[Plato]

I can't seem to find anywhere to email microsoft with my suggestion,

Type up a formal letter and mail it via the local postal service.

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

"Sir John Magazine - Webmaster" <Sir John Magazine -
(e-mail address removed)> wrote in message

I can't seem to find anywhere to email microsoft with my suggestion,

....

Suggest Improvements to Microsoft Products
We're always striving to improve our products; please send us your ideas.
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?linkid=23651

As regards your suggestion. The shell and core OS are still well separated
in the Windows (NT/2000/XP/2003) model. (we just do not expose functionality
to allow the separate operation of core OS without active shell.
So much so that our new Windows Server "Longhorn" release will allow the
installation and booting of the OS without the GUI running (pretty much just
a command line).
(There is more technically to this discussion but time does not permit me to
go into laborious detail of the architecture of the Windows OS - you can
read all about it in http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/4354.asp)
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups


"Sir John Magazine - Webmaster" <Sir John Magazine -
(e-mail address removed)> wrote in message

 

[Sparda]

I can't seem to find anywhere to email microsoft with my
suggestion,
hopefully the moderator of this group can pass this onto
microsoft's
developer's and they can take a look at my idea.

I am a long time user of microsoft, i started with windows 3.1
and have gone
straight through to win XP. I like so many others have been
seriously
hampered by security issues, it all seemed to start when
microsoft made the
move to abandon the win98 type of architecture that had the
Core OS and
Windows Shell seperate. I have been dabbling with linux for
the past few
months, probably something that will disgust everybody on this
board, but i
wanted to try it out. Both operating systems are good in
their own
respective ways, but i have found a big difference, now that
one is MS and
one is UNIX. My idea stems from this, Linux runs a core OS,
which has all
your system drivers and hardware drivers. They all boot and
are controlled
by the core os, nothing is done from the shell for control.
It seems this
seperation of OS from GUI offers some degree of security
protection. Can
microsoft go back to the perverbial drawing board and design a
32/64 bit
system that runs your core drivers and hardware seperately
from the entire
OS, Like windows 9x, but with all the functionality of today's
modern
demands. The DOS/WINDOWS combo worked, in fact i still perfer
windows 98 as
i have fewer issues with it. Hopefully i have put a bug in
somebody's ear at
MS, i would really like to see INTERPOL crack down on people
who assault
other's computer's. If we can't catch the culprits, perhaps
we can make it
harder or damn near impossbile to gain access by designing
tough Operating
Systems that seperate your Hardware Interface and Software.

Just A Few Thoughts.
Geoff Levson

(e-mail address removed)

First of all, I am glad you use (or used) Linux. Second, What you are
saying is true, the kernel (what you refer to as the core os) dose
work indipendantly, how ever it also dose for windows. My main concern
about windows is that it has a (some what flawed) web browser built
into the default shell, aditionaly when programs are writen for
windows the writer asumes that the program will be running as
administrator, where as in Linux, it is considered stupid to even run
x as root, aditionaly, microsoft don;t care if users PC’s are
comprimised as a result of there stupidity,they just want you to buy
there product, even though it’s seriusly flawed. Oh, and software
can never be made perfect, any one who makes that claim is a fool.
Take firefox for example, it is far better then IE, how ever over the
past few months more bugs have been found in firefox then IE, of
course it is still far better to use firefox becasue it only tkes a
few google searches befor your computer is comprimised though a IE
bug.