Live data from Hacker News

Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

usenix.org

31–40 of 104 posts

Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

#32

There are details here no one else would know. Why would there be only a single mention of Xenix, when Microsoft bet the farm on it, only to vapor it for 4+ (79 to 84) years and outsource it less than 3 years later. (87)

Remember it well. I wrote a custom graphics card device driver for some mech eng code that would never fit in the 640K limit imposed by DOS.

Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

#33

There are details here no one else would know. Why would there be only a single mention of Xenix, when Microsoft bet the farm on it, only to vapor it for 4+ (79 to 84) years and outsource it less than 3 years later. (87)

Vapor? Xenix existed, and worked well, on the TRS-80 Model 16. Many small businesses basically ran on a Model 16 with Xenix back in the day.

Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

#34
post #6

Source Depot was still a thing in Office as of last year when they finally transitioned to Git. Windows started transitioning to Git 5 years ago. Also, they have about 10k people working on Windows (and devices) and about 10k people working on ads nowadays (that paints a good story of priorities). Source: 2nd hand from MS friends

[dead]

Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

#35
post #30

Can’t imagine how these Windows engineers feel about the enshitification of their baby. So much time invested into it - must be hard to see it taking this current trajectory.

> Can’t imagine how these Windows engineers feel about the enshitification of their baby. I think people are forgetting how unreliable Windows was in its early days. If you were doing anything complex (programming, editing pictures, ...) Windows couldn't run for 2 hours without crashing every so often. If anything, the core of the Windows operating system has only gotten better with time. Yes, they keep adding fluff…

> I think people are forgetting how unreliable Windows was in its early days.

Not to mention being as easy to attack as a house made of butter.

Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

#36
post #27
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kernel is better than ever. As for the shell, it's always had junk on it for commercial reasons - remember MSN and baking IE into the OS, or how the system requirements were ridiculously low for the reasons of marketing and to placate OEM manufacturers? And how OEMs were allowed to add loads of junk software on computers wearing their "Designed for Windows" stickers? I'm pretty sure XP came with a digital app sto…

> Remember MSN and baking IE into the OS Yeat another thing where Microsoft was ahead of the curve, nowadays we get Electron (aka Chrome) all over the place. People even buy laptops where the browser turned into the OS!

Some of us wipe that and install Linux because the hardware is cheap.

Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

#37
post #30

Can’t imagine how these Windows engineers feel about the enshitification of their baby. So much time invested into it - must be hard to see it taking this current trajectory.

> Can’t imagine how these Windows engineers feel about the enshitification of their baby. I think people are forgetting how unreliable Windows was in its early days. If you were doing anything complex (programming, editing pictures, ...) Windows couldn't run for 2 hours without crashing every so often. If anything, the core of the Windows operating system has only gotten better with time. Yes, they keep adding fluff…

> Windows couldn't run for 2 hours without crashing every so often.

I`m really curious, which version of Windows you mean?

Because I don't remember this on win 3.11, win XP, win 95, etc. etc. Of course there sometimes HW/drivers issue, sometime some programs corrupt system files, etc. etc. But crashing every so often.. thats strange.

Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

#38
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can’t imagine how these Windows engineers feel about the enshitification of their baby. I think people are forgetting how unreliable Windows was in its early days. If you were doing anything complex (programming, editing pictures, ...) Windows couldn't run for 2 hours without crashing every so often. If anything, the core of the Windows operating system has only gotten better with time. Yes, they keep adding fluff…

> I think people are forgetting how unreliable Windows was in its early days. Not to mention being as easy to attack as a house made of butter.

And some people still use WinXP, Win 7, Win 8 etc...

Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)

#39
post #37
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can’t imagine how these Windows engineers feel about the enshitification of their baby. I think people are forgetting how unreliable Windows was in its early days. If you were doing anything complex (programming, editing pictures, ...) Windows couldn't run for 2 hours without crashing every so often. If anything, the core of the Windows operating system has only gotten better with time. Yes, they keep adding fluff…

> Windows couldn't run for 2 hours without crashing every so often. I`m really curious, which version of Windows you mean? Because I don't remember this on win 3.11, win XP, win 95, etc. etc. Of course there sometimes HW/drivers issue, sometime some programs corrupt system files, etc. etc. But crashing every so often.. thats strange.

Windows 95 and 98 loved to crash because a fly at the other corner of the room moved an atom which hurt the OS' feelings momentarily.

Ran out of memory? BAM. An official driver from Intel or nVidia or ATI did something slightly off-time because silicon decided to wait a clock for something, BAM. You had a professional capture card with high bandwidth for that time, and you wanted to capture a video, BAM.

A blue screen because of a spinlock access violation, a Windows bundled driver, or any high-end software was common back in these days.

Post reply on HN