jaclaz, on 11 October 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:
Quote
Q: You've talked about this year being the most epic. Is there another year in Microsoft's history you could compare this to? Maybe the launch of Windows 95?
A: You know, Windows 95 was certainly the biggest thing in the last 20 years until now. I think Windows 8 certainly surpasses it. It's a little hard to compare things like the founding (of the company) and the introduction of the first popular PC and the system that popularized it, but it's at that scale.
That is simply offensive. Being a business weasel and not a tech guy, he doesn't even realize the giant crap he is taking on those devs that made that Herculean leap from Windows 3.x ( aka WinDOS ) to Win9x. That
was a sea-change. It was an actual improvement in every way. It is not the same as producing
Windows 8 ( 6.2 ) by tweaking and dumbing down "Windows 7" ( 6.1 ), which itself is a fine-tuned Vista ( 6.0 ), which was a tweaked mashup of WinXP ( 5.1 ) plus graphics rewrite and added bloat, which was a tweaked Win2k ( 5.0 ) plus bells and whistles, which was a fine-tuned evolution of a decade of NT and OS/2 research plus some Win9x user friendly features. That is a greatly simplified description, the point being that Win3.x carried little over to Win9x, they didn't just pile on code and hit 'compile' like they have been doing all through the Win9x branch and ever since Win2k on the NT branch. What those OS devs did in Win95 was marvelous, and the thing worked with only 8 MB of RAM and ran any program you could throw at it. Nothing like that is being achieved by these generation Xbox babies. So Ballmer is once again insulting the past successes they have achieved, like they often do with WinXP, and it is a clear indication of his unfitness to be involved with Windows.
Tripredacus, on 11 October 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:
x86 is going to disappear not because of popularity...
I can't speak for him but for the past 30 years we have used " x86 " purely in a generic sense, as encompassing the entire 8086 architecture. As long as Intel keeps the chip register and instruction compatible, with new bit widths being supersets of the previous, the x86 world remains ( and AMD64 got it pretty much right unlike other
riscy forks

). Microsoft has been the one making forays into dropping off previous generations ( 16 bit, 32-bit ) at both the compiler and at the OS system file level and will continue doing so until people wake up and remember that backward compatibility is key. There is no excuse for an operating system incompatible with 16/32 bit x86 on a chip that
is compatible. If they are incapable of doing their job or simply are using planned obsolescence ( can't say which is worse really ) then someone else needs to take over and write core OS's for " x86 " CPUs. Either that or split them up and send the OS div away from Redmond. Of course there is nothing stopping Intel from simply writing their own operating system, they have some useful compilers actually, and you never know what might happen as Microsoft morphs into
MicroApple and starts courting ARM and other non-x86 architectures more than they have done in the past.