It's a wonder the thing ever worked at all.
Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)
31–40 of 104 posts
Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)
#32There 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)
Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)
#33There 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)
Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)
#34Source 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
Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)
#35Can’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…
Not to mention being as easy to attack as a house made of butter.
Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)
#36Earlier 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!
Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)
#37Can’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`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)
#38Earlier 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.
Re: Windows: A software engineering odyssey (2000)
#39Earlier 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.
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.