60% of Windows Vista to be Rewritten
 

This, after an announcement to delay Vista until "January 2007". Now, I'm just a meager Computer Science student, but with the (limited) experience I've had with huge coding projects (and none of them NEARLY as large as Windows), the idea of trying to rewrite 60% of Windows' codebase in a mere 9 months (It's almost April) does NOT seem like a good idea. Even assuming you threw a giant fleet of programmers at it, it's highly unlikely that you could get it coded, properly tested, and finalized for launch before then. I anticipate either a longer delay or some major security and/or stability flaws.

Either that or some employee is thoroughly confused and really shouldn't be talking to the press about stuff he doesn't know. It'll be interesting.

Does sound scary, but as long as the parts being recoded aren't essential to the stability of the operating system, it might not be a big deal. I hope this is modular stuff they're working on.

That number just doesn't make sense. There's no way that sixty percent of the code can all be bad. You just wouldn't have a program if that was the case.

I'd love to believe that, but with Microsoft's motto of "If it's not integrated in as tightly as possible it's EVIL", a flaw anywhere could turn into a major security issue.

Damn, 60%? What the hell did they do all these years? With the way Vista is going, I might not opt to spend extra on a 64bit processor when I upgrade my PC. Hopefully Vista will have some improvement over XP, I'm tired of using a five year old OS that has glaring security holes. Since I don't even use most media features built into Vista, I really don't care about any multimedia enchancements, I just want a more stable and secure OS.

Now it's even more evident that Vista will be a slap and pack job, with 60% of code to be rewritten and out by January 2007...we could see Windows Update swamped once again which happened during XP's release date.

Lollin. I'll be running Leopard before Vista hits shelves at this rate.

Operating systems are a pain the ass. Try coding one. It's fun as hell.

Windows XP (2002) was about 40 million [source] lines of code. 60% would be about 24 millions lines. I wanna say Vista is more...

...Holy fucking shit.

When did you try to code an operating system?

I wouldn't even attempt that. Then again, I only know Java and C# (and lately, a little Ruby.)

Maybe someguys after using the leaked beta version told them"Hey Micro, your new Windows is shitsack".

I took the operating systems course offered at my school back in fall of 2004, a requirement for computer engineers. It's the most notorious course the school has to offer for computer science/engineering. I would be up for days doing the projects for that class. I practically lived in a Linux lab that semester (as with the other students) and we just ordered food and drinksto the lab everyday. Fun times.

Now I do some less stressful stuff and work on embedded operating systems for some independent research credit. Without time constraints, I haven't done much, but as the semester ends, there'll be hell to pay.

Now this sounds like fun ... both, the news about Vista and nazpyro's OS course experiences. ;)
I mean, what does MS think Mac enthusiasts and Linux zealots - like me - are going to do until January? Of course, we're going to try to get as many people converted as possible. And the odds aren't bad, with Apple adopting the Intel architecture and Linux becoming more user friendly with every iteration of certain distros (think SuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora Core).
Has anyone here messed with the XGL (read: OpenGL based) desktop they're developing for *ix based OSs? It's only alpha status right now but it looks as sweet as OS X and performs well on my aging Athlon XP system (check out the live CD, it's really neat). I won't need a new PC for that when it becomes stable.

Way to go Microsoft, you're doing nerds like me a favor.

That 60% is the Media Vomit Center, so they are essentially rewriting all the bloat in the OS. Either to make it less bloat and annoying or for it to be less annoying and easier to remove/ignore.

On a related note, I heard somewhere IE7 will be a seperate component of Windows and not embedded into the OS anymore. Thats including the XP version of it too.

They probably have to after the European Union went after them over the integration stuff a couple years back.

Um how was the beta version considered leaked when Microsoft themselves mailed discs out?

Man, Vista is just sounding better and better every time a press release or new article comes out about it. At this rate, I had better get myself more familiar with some Linux before XP support dies.

But then you can't play Halo 2!!!

Speaking of gaming on Vista, Microsoft wants everyone to know that the minimum requirements for gaming on the new OS will call for 2gb of RAM.
TWO GIGABYTES.

Is that a problem? I've had 2 gig of RAM on my freaking laptop that I've had for a year.

Russ, I have a grand total of 2GB of RAM spread across the 4 desktops in my house.

I upgraded from 512 MB to one gig half a year ago and looking back it was pretty much a placebo purchase... my Linux box just doesen't go there in everyday use.

I've got 2GB myself, but then I thought that was actually something a year ago >_<. NExt time I need to build a 3D workstation i'll just go for a gaming rig, as they seem to have higher specs. I wonder how many people will expect their software to run on a computer with more than 2GB, without patches? You can be pretty sure that unless Vista has some clever way of dealing with it, that a lot of software people are used to won't run.

I don't see a problem with the minimum resourcements. This is for an OS intended to be released a year from now on, and also intended to be the standard OS for 5-6 years ahead.

1 GB of RAM was ridiculous in 2001 too yet XP needs that much to run fluidly with games.

171 users plus russ. LOL.

I really don't care about Vista, sometimes I'm very cranky when it comes to upgrade. It took me a while to switch to XP (when Adobe released Photoshop CS, that's it) and I think it will be the same with Vista. That media center concept doesn't appeal to me, especially when Microsoft is behind it.

There are tiers to the RAM and Windows experience:

Minimal (128MB RAM on XP, 512MB on Vista)- You can run everything fine, after waiting 10 minutes for the hard drive to cache all the excess RAM to the page file.

Minimum Recommendation (256MB on XP, 1GB on Vista)- Same as above, just not nearly as bad as with the Minimal RAM

Recommended (512MB on XP, 2GB on Vista)- Every thing runs smooth and fast, great for multitasking and the latest games

Power User (1GB+ on XP, 4GB+ on Vista)- Programs load extremely fast, possibly more RAM than you'll need to use for a perfect experience. Only with the highest end, most demanding programs could you ever experience any slowdown.

That doesnt mean jack. Vista uses a completely different GUI so for all we know it may run fine with 256mb even, if you set it to use classic no-show gui. If anything, the needed videocards are much higher classes. Then again, this will finally make Pixel Shader based cards the absolute standard.