(OT) vista is already outdated...

[John Jay Smith]

http://windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/53913/windowspaulthurrott_53913.html

Microsoft Talks Up Future Windows OSs, Sort Of

Admitting that the current Windows architecture is getting long in the
tooth, Microsoft is now finally in the early stages of creating a new OS
based on an entirely new foundation. This new OS would eventually replace
Windows. This news shouldn't come as a surprise, per se. But what's
interesting is that Microsoft is actually talking about it for the first
time. A future OS with a new foundation would better leverage the power of
multicore microprocessors, the company says, but would require
software-development tools that don't yet exist. Replacing Windows won't be
easy, of course, and Microsoft is only at the first, tentative stages. But
given how deftly the company handled the transitions to technologies such as
the Intel 286, Windows NT, and x64 architecture, I can state with some
certainty that we should be free of Windows by 2050, at the latest.

 

[Art]

http://windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/53913/windowspaulthurrott_53913.html

I can state with some
certainty that we should be free of Windows by 2050, at the latest.

LOL! At age 70, I'll be free of Windows long before that!!!

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[hummingbird]

http://windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/53913/windowspaulthurrott_53913.html

Microsoft Talks Up Future Windows OSs, Sort Of

Admitting that the current Windows architecture is getting long in the
tooth, Microsoft is now finally in the early stages of creating a new OS
based on an entirely new foundation. This new OS would eventually replace
Windows.

Shall we call it NT II ?

This news shouldn't come as a surprise, per se. But what's
interesting is that Microsoft is actually talking about it for the first
time. A future OS with a new foundation would better leverage the power of
multicore microprocessors, the company says, but would require
software-development tools that don't yet exist. Replacing Windows won't be
easy, of course, and Microsoft is only at the first, tentative stages. But
given how deftly the company handled the transitions to technologies such as
the Intel 286, Windows NT, and x64 architecture, I can state with some
certainty that we should be free of Windows by 2050, at the latest.

Any company the size of MS *has to have* a plan for the next
generation of software if it intends to stay in business...

The greatest thing to fear from MS are not new op/sys per se but
unannounced changes in current products to restrict and limit what
you can do on your machine - DRM and all that.

My prediction is that the next MS op/sys will be built into a read
only chip on your motherboard in the form of microcode, thereby
eliminating viruses, trojans and also control what you can do with it.

 

[Slarty]

My prediction is that the next MS op/sys will be built into a read
only chip on your motherboard in the form of microcode, thereby
eliminating viruses, trojans and also control what you can do with it.

What a woderful boost for Linux, or Apple, if that were ever to happen!

But why, logically, should it? Why should international companies
manufacturing motherboards be willing voluntarily to cripple their products
for the benefit of MS? That would simply create a wide open market for
their rivals, or new manufacturers, to step in and supply the resultant
demand for non-crippled harware, surely?

Cheers,

Roy

 

[thoss]

http://windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/53913/windowspault
hurrott_53913.html

Microsoft Talks Up Future Windows OSs, Sort Of

Admitting that the current Windows architecture is getting long in the
tooth, Microsoft is now finally in the early stages of creating a new OS
based on an entirely new foundation. This new OS would eventually replace
Windows. This news shouldn't come as a surprise, per se. But what's
interesting is that Microsoft is actually talking about it for the first
time. A future OS with a new foundation would better leverage the power of
multicore microprocessors, the company says, but would require
software-development tools that don't yet exist. Replacing Windows won't be
easy, of course, and Microsoft is only at the first, tentative stages. But
given how deftly the company handled the transitions to technologies such as
the Intel 286, Windows NT, and x64 architecture, I can state with some
certainty that we should be free of Windows by 2050, at the latest.

With any luck we might be free of Microsoft before then, if nobody buys
Vista because of this announcement.

Remember Osborne? Adam Osborne announced his new computer when he still
had a warehouse full of the old one, which he then couldn't sell. That
triggered the company's collapse.

 

[hummingbird]

What a woderful boost for Linux, or Apple, if that were ever to happen!

But why, logically, should it? Why should international companies
manufacturing motherboards be willing voluntarily to cripple their products
for the benefit of MS? That would simply create a wide open market for
their rivals, or new manufacturers, to step in and supply the resultant
demand for non-crippled harware, surely?

There are plenty of benefits for non-tech savvy end users.
Think of the selling benefits - a new virus free PC.
Just plug it in, switch on and surf.
MoBo manufacturers will be falling over themselves to build them...

All your PC supplier will want to know is what size HDD drive you
want. The rest will be standard like a commodity product.

The entertainment industry has already succeeded in getting MS
and Intel to implement DRM controls. That is clearly not in the
interests of end users but it still goes ahead.

 

[meow2222]

With any luck we might be free of Microsoft before then, if nobody buys
Vista because of this announcement.

No chance. XP has nothing to recommend it, but end users are buying it
in droves, on the simple assumption that it must be better than 2k.
Most buyers are quite ignorant, and MS understands that very well.

Remember Osborne? Adam Osborne announced his new computer when he still
had a warehouse full of the old one, which he then couldn't sell. That
triggered the company's collapse.

MS is a very smart company.


NT

 

[Art]

There are plenty of benefits for non-tech savvy end users.
Think of the selling benefits - a new virus free PC.
Just plug it in, switch on and surf.
MoBo manufacturers will be falling over themselves to build them...

All your PC supplier will want to know is what size HDD drive you
want. The rest will be standard like a commodity product.

Hard drive? To store data files? No software would presumably
exist on the hypothetical machine which has all apps in ROM as
well as the OS. BIOS would not be reflashable. No CMOS or battery
for timekeeping since CMOS can be overwritten. Wideband
"always on" internet service would be a necessity so the computer
could keep in continual contact with a appropriate UTC adjusted
time/date source. No more boot sectors on the hard drives. The
system would boot exclusively via BIOS and the OS.

I suspect it still might be possible for a web site to cause some
mayhem via unpatched vulnerabilities in the firmware that
allow buffer overruns and code execution that could
damage data files on the hard drive. If so, whatta mess that
would be since the ROM in question would have to be
remasked and redistributed. Make sure all the ROMs are
socketed

Personally, I don't think it will fly.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[The Wizard]

My prediction is that the next MS op/sys will be built into a read

only chip on your motherboard in the form of microcode, thereby
eliminating viruses, trojans and also control what you can do with it.

Heh-Heh!, Much like the CBM 64 and Spectrum, Never had any problems with
viruses/spyware/trojans etc on those ;-)

 

[meow2222]

Heh-Heh!, Much like the CBM 64 and Spectrum, Never had any problems with
viruses/spyware/trojans etc on those ;-)

Turn on the computer, beep, its ready. I remember it well, every time
ms boots up. Pricing is too aggressive to do it now. If it costs £1
extra, it wont happen.

There was no POST cos it wasnt needed, the hardware worked. The market
has changed greatly since.


NT

 

[hummingbird]

Hard drive? To store data files? No software would presumably
exist on the hypothetical machine which has all apps in ROM as
well as the OS. BIOS would not be reflashable. No CMOS or battery
for timekeeping since CMOS can be overwritten.

I'm not aware of any malware currently which overwrites BIOS but
that could be protected by a built-in firewall like routers are today.
OK nothing is 100% secure but.....

Wideband
"always on" internet service would be a necessity so the computer
could keep in continual contact with a appropriate UTC adjusted
time/date source. No more boot sectors on the hard drives. The
system would boot exclusively via BIOS and the OS.

I was only referring to the op/sys being on a read-only mobo chip
instead of the supplier/user having to install it onto HDD. Apps might
still be installed like they are now. I haven't thought about many
other aspects of a PC but I can see numerous benefits for the likes of
MS and also for the masses of users who just want something which lets
them surf etc. I think it will come down to when they think it can be
sold to the public.

They are working towards the PC being a non-techy consumer product
which does a range of things - not anything.

Think about it - you buy a satellite TV box or DVD player which is
designed this way and you think nothing of it; why not a PC?
Each box allows you to do a specified range of things.

Most people don't want all the complicated messy tech problems that
we currently have, so they'll go for an op/sys on a chip. Easy peasy.

I suspect it still might be possible for a web site to cause some
mayhem via unpatched vulnerabilities in the firmware that
allow buffer overruns and code execution that could
damage data files on the hard drive. If so, whatta mess that
would be since the ROM in question would have to be
remasked and redistributed. Make sure all the ROMs are
socketed

That's a worst-case-scenario speculation.

Personally, I don't think it will fly.

I firmly believe that MS and other interested parties are determined
to lock down what people can do with their PC systems and IMV this is
the direction they will go - step by step. Consider also that many of
these developments get smothered in marketing hype and hidden from
the average end-user. Eg: It wasn't long ago when you could take a
HDD with Windows installed on it and physically transfer that drive
into another PC and boot it up - not any longer. Was that hyped by
MS? No way. Did you refuse to buy Windows because of that constraint?
We now see constraints being deviously built in to prevent you from
copying CDs/DVDs etc. Is that being hyped? No way. It often happens
through new laws or pressure from the entertainment industry.

Watch this space! :-(

 

[hummingbird]

Heh-Heh!, Much like the CBM 64 and Spectrum, Never had any problems with
viruses/spyware/trojans etc on those ;-)

Quite so. It will be a big selling point for the a breed of computers.
The masses will go for it and Hollywood will get its way.

 

[hummingbird]

No chance. XP has nothing to recommend it, but end users are buying it
in droves, on the simple assumption that it must be better than 2k.

There's a lot of truth in that...
But in fairness to MS - XP-Pro is by far the most stable version of
Windows I've ever used, even though it installs with layers of MS
arrogance - eg many unnecessary services running automatically and
numerous junk appplets installed by default - MS Messenger and of
course IE and OE.

Most buyers are quite ignorant, and MS understands that very well.

Exactly. People want an easy life, nothing too complicated.

 

[Art]

I'm not aware of any malware currently which overwrites BIOS but
that could be protected by a built-in firewall like routers are today.
OK nothing is 100% secure but.....

So you've abaondoned your claim then of 100% malware immunity.
That was quick

There should be no need for a firewall on a system such as you
have in mind since all the unnecessary services that keep open
internet ports would presumably not be available, such as file/
printer sharing, etc. on such a dumbed-down machine. And the
machine would have to be very dumbed-down in order to
approach a really high level of malware immunity. That's partially
why I say the idea won't fly.

A firewall alone doesn't protect against all forms of ingress and
attacks, and your assumption that a firewall is a solution to
malware of any kind whatsoever, and not just BIOS overwriting
malware, is wrong. After all, most people take hits because they
click on email attackments, and a firewall is useless in that
case and in many others.

I was only referring to the op/sys being on a read-only mobo chip
instead of the supplier/user having to install it onto HDD. Apps might
still be installed like they are now.

Your whole "malware/virus free" argument is shot right there. As long
as software is allowed to run, there will be malware problems.

I haven't thought about many
other aspects of a PC but I can see numerous benefits for the likes of
MS and also for the masses of users who just want something which lets
them surf etc. I think it will come down to when they think it can be
sold to the public.

Actually, I've often thought along similar lines. But by the time you
dumb down the machine to the point where there is a fairly high
malware immunity, nobody would want it.

They are working towards the PC being a non-techy consumer product
which does a range of things - not anything.

The devil is in the "range of things", and in any kind of software or
devices that can be "programmed" or altered in any way. Also, as
I've pointed out, the firmware is bound to have flaws and
vulnerabilities that can and will be exploited.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[HVS]

On 29 Jul 2006, Art wrote

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:21:29 +0100, hummingbird


Actually, I've often thought along similar lines. But by the
time you dumb down the machine to the point where there is a
fairly high malware immunity, nobody would want it.

You could be right, but I'm not sure about there being no market
for a dumbed-down machine.

They wouldn't *replace* wider-range machines, but I think there
could well be a market for a cheap machine that just accesses the
Internet for browsing and e-mail, has limited downloading
capabilities, and can be hooked up locally to a printer for
simple word processing and spread-sheet printing.

I know a number of non-techie people who would be entirely happy
with that sort of machine (not to mention some parents who would
love to stop their kiddies filling the family machine with crap),
instead of a fully-fledged PC.

(Indeed, ISTR that this was (or is) one of the blocks to the
development of MIT's "hundred dollar PC" -- it is believed that
if they're made available only for shipment to the target market
of eastern and third-world countries, there'd be an immediate and
lucrative return market to the west for people who want precisely
that sort of stripped-down machine.)

 

[hummingbird]

So you've abaondoned your claim then of 100% malware immunity.
That was quick

Not really, just pointing out that nothing in life is 100% safe.
But it won't stop the step towards an op/sys on a chip.

A read-only chip containing the op/sys would be fairly safe.

There should be no need for a firewall on a system such as you
have in mind since all the unnecessary services that keep open
internet ports would presumably not be available, such as file/
printer sharing, etc. on such a dumbed-down machine. And the
machine would have to be very dumbed-down in order to
approach a really high level of malware immunity. That's partially
why I say the idea won't fly.

What you're doing is raising objections to the notion. People always
do that but the developers find solutions. That's what technology is
about.

A firewall alone doesn't protect against all forms of ingress and
attacks, and your assumption that a firewall is a solution to
malware of any kind whatsoever, and not just BIOS overwriting
malware, is wrong. After all, most people take hits because they
click on email attackments, and a firewall is useless in that
case and in many others.

ditto.
A read-only chip containing the op/sys would be fairly safe.

Your whole "malware/virus free" argument is shot right there. As long
as software is allowed to run, there will be malware problems.

No, by having a protected Op/Sys, you are going some way towards
the machine being safe. Also remember I said that having a
virus/trojan free PC is only one of the benefits of having an op/sys
on a chip.

Actually, I've often thought along similar lines. But by the time you
dumb down the machine to the point where there is a fairly high
malware immunity, nobody would want it.

Duh!
It only begins to look dodgy if you claim it to be always 100% free of
viruses/trojans. But my belief is that the main benefits will accrue
to the likes of MS and the entertainment industry etc because it will
give them more control over what you can do with your PC. That's what
they want and the end-user benefits will just be marketing slogans to
get you to buy it.

The devil is in the "range of things", and in any kind of software or
devices that can be "programmed" or altered in any way. Also, as
I've pointed out, the firmware is bound to have flaws and
vulnerabilities that can and will be exploited.

IMV that's speculation, not certainty.

 

[Art]

On 29 Jul 2006, Art wrote

You could be right, but I'm not sure about there being no market
for a dumbed-down machine.

They wouldn't *replace* wider-range machines, but I think there
could well be a market for a cheap machine that just accesses the
Internet for browsing and e-mail, has limited downloading
capabilities, and can be hooked up locally to a printer for
simple word processing and spread-sheet printing.

I know a number of non-techie people who would be entirely happy
with that sort of machine (not to mention some parents who would
love to stop their kiddies filling the family machine with crap),
instead of a fully-fledged PC.

(Indeed, ISTR that this was (or is) one of the blocks to the
development of MIT's "hundred dollar PC" -- it is believed that
if they're made available only for shipment to the target market
of eastern and third-world countries, there'd be an immediate and
lucrative return market to the west for people who want precisely
that sort of stripped-down machine.)

I agree that there would likely be a significant market for a
dumbed-down, more inherently secure home PC. In fact, the
sort of dumbining down I have in mind is similar to what I've
done with my machines over the years. I won't get into all
the details. Suffice it to say that with very minimal and simple
"safe hex" guidelines, a average user would be quite unlikely to ever
take a hit using my machines. Yet they could browse freely and enjoy
the good things the internet has to offer.

There's no need for a OS in ROM or anything like that. I'd like
to see PCs shipped with a spare backup drive on a removable tray,
and backup instructions and software included.

There's simply no getting around the user education issue. I
suspect that many users would appreciate a combination
of a inherently more secure machine coupled with info
on how to avoid taking hits built right into the OS and apps
that are supplied with the PC.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[arachnid]

A read-only chip containing the op/sys would be fairly safe.

An OS running on a hard drive can be equally unwritable, provided it's
properly designed and configured. Linux and the BSD's have the ability
(via the "immutable" bit) to make individual files or all of the files in
a directory unchangeable even by root. With a few additional machinations
you can make the files unalterable without rebooting the system off a
CD and changing the immutable bits from there. That in turn requires
having physical access to the machine.

Whether the kernel is on a HD or a PROM, you still have the problem of
users being able to configure hardware for their service provider, add
drivers for new peripherals and hardware, install and update the
applications they need, and so on. To be successful in the market you have
to allow users to customized their machines to do whatever they want them
to do. As soon as you allow this level of access, you have unskilled
people messing with system configuration and installing & configuring
potential malware. This is already the point of attack for most of the
malware that plagues us today. Further securing the kernel isn't going to
solve the major part of the problem.

What's badly needed is to make it easier for unskilled people to install,
upgrade, and configure applications and hardware without opening up
vulnerabilities. I'm not familiar enough with OS-X to comment on it,
but IMO Windows and Linux are both massive failures in this department.


By the way, here's a site you may find interesting:

http://www.linuxbios.org

LinuxBIOS is a Free Software project aimed at replacing the normal BIOS
with a little bit of hardware initialization and a compressed Linux
kernel that can be booted from a cold start. The project was started as
part of clustering research work in the Cluster Reseach Lab at the
Advanced Computing Laboratory at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The
primary motivation behind the project was the desire to have the
operating system gain control of a cluster node from power on. Other
beneficial consequences of using LinuxBIOS include needing only two
working motors to boot (cpu fan and power supply), fast boot times
(current fastest is 3 seconds), and freedom from proprietary (buggy)
BIOS code, to name a few. These secondary benefits are numerous and have
helped gain support from many vendors in both the high performance
computing as well as embedded computing markets.

 

[Dos-Man]

Shall we call it NT II ?


Any company the size of MS *has to have* a plan for the next
generation of software if it intends to stay in business...

The greatest thing to fear from MS are not new op/sys per se but
unannounced changes in current products to restrict and limit what
you can do on your machine - DRM and all that.

My prediction is that the next MS op/sys will be built into a read
only chip on your motherboard in the form of microcode, thereby
eliminating viruses, trojans and also control what you can do with it.

I have been calling for this for a while now. People are tired of
sitting around waiting for today's supposedly fast PCs to boot. Booting
from ROM would be fast, and no install/reinstall would ever be
necessary. And yes, it would slow down the onslaught of viruses and
trojans. Hard drives would eventually be replaced by usb drives, and
would become a thing of the past.

The problem here is that MS will package a bunch of garbage software
and trials and demos in with their OS and it might be impossible to get
rid of it. It might fly with the average consumer but it wouldn't fly
with power users. If that is their intention, then it will work. If
they think that power users would accept this, they are only fooling
themselves.

dos-man

 

[arachnid]

I agree that there would likely be a significant market for a
dumbed-down, more inherently secure home PC. In fact, the sort of
dumbining down I have in mind is similar to what I've done with my
machines over the years. I won't get into all the details. Suffice it to
say that with very minimal and simple "safe hex" guidelines, a average
user would be quite unlikely to ever take a hit using my machines. Yet
they could browse freely and enjoy the good things the internet has to
offer.

It doesn't really have to be hurting for applications. Since the hardware
configuration is fixed and isn't designed to ever be changed, you could
install and preconfigure Linux and a few thousand open-source
applications. The user wouldn't even be able to add peripherals or
applications or alter their hardware, so they'd never have to get into
Linux administration beyond configuring the networking for their provider
and adding/removing user accounts (both of which can be made childishly
simple).

There's no need for a OS in ROM or anything like that. I'd like to see
PCs shipped with a spare backup drive on a removable tray, and backup
instructions and software included.

That's one of the things I used to like about my old Dell Latitude. They
sold me a HD bay that could be plugged in in place of the removable CD
drive.

My current laptop doesn't have that but the USB2 is fast enough and you
can get all sorts of small USB2 backup drives for laptops. Don't ever get
a Seagate though. I bought two of their 2-1/2" drives at $225 each. Both
failed within 6 months. They were 100G drives. I lost a *lot* of important
backups and data, plus half of a year's worth of downloads of Linux and
BSD ISO's, plus my system was down at a critical moment, all my install
CD's were at home 1500 miles away, and I couldn't restore the HD off my
backup drive. I replaced 'em both with Hitachi drives and am real happy
(so far).

There's simply no getting around the user education issue.

Unfortunately true, though I do think software and perhaps even networking
standards could be better-designed so you don't have to be such an expert
to run a reasonably secure system.