So What About That Re-org?

[nate0]

Let them debate. This is good stuff

 

[fatclue_98]

Let them debate. This is good stuff

Debate? More like drivel.

 

[nate0]

Debate? More like drivel.

One man's drivel could be another man's treasure.

 

[a5cent]

One man's drivel could be another man's treasure.

I agree with fatclue_98. It's drivel.

I think the only point Magnus made which I unconditionally agree with is that I reject his terminology.

I'm not sure what Magnus' bases his terminology on. It looks like it's partially based on branding, which I couldn't care less about ("Windows as a whole" = inappropriate terminology as MS can't market anything under that name) and additional arbitrary definitions as required ("Windows" = UWP + CShell, which at least currently is just incorrect).

Magnus is certainly misunderstanding most of my points, if not all, and I'm sure I'm misunderstanding some of his as well, because we're simple using different language, leading to claims like the following:

So basically you have two points made in the above list and that is:

Andromeda will be distinct of Windows 10.

... which is ridiculous, as that's the exact opposite of the point I've actually been making:

there will be no separate/distinct OS beyond that [Windows].

1)
Note that with "Windows" I'm referring to the software (the nuts and bolts), which MS distributes under that name, NOT the branding. If MS rebrands Windows to "Fnirgelwatz OS", as far as I'm concerned, we're still talking about the same OS. It just happens to use a different moniker.

2)
Note also that so far, I'm not saying what Andromeda WILL BE. I don't know what it will be. I'm asserting what Andromeda will NOT be. It will NOT be a distinct OS (in the way Linux is distinct from Windows). Whatever Andromeda is, it will still be Windows. If it has a UI, it will be provided by UWP+CShell, but that is not the same as saying "Windows" will provide the UI.

Summary)

There is no way MS can complete an entirely distinct and feature complete OS in the amount of time they have been working on Andromeda (Consider that it took MS three years to complete the comparatively simple and small WP7). It's also highly unlikely that MS would develop a separate and distinct OS, after having just spent over a decade unifying all the distinct versions of Windows. MS would be headed right back to the place they just spent billions to get away from.

Of course, if Magnus views the "Home", "Professional" and "Lean" editions of Windows as being distinct operating systems, rather than just different editions of the same OS (because "branding"), then much of this discussion can be thrown out, because one of us subscribes to a dysfunctional understanding of what defines an OS.

Without Magnus and I first agreeing on more common terminology, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

 

[a5cent]

Now I will speculate:

As usual, I think WCentral is, as a result of their technical incompetence, screwed up in their reporting on Andromeda. They repeatedly refer to Andromeda devices and an Andromeda OS, which I think is counterproductive.

From what I understand, Andromeda is a project codename, not a product or set of products. It's directly comparable to how Redstone is the codename for Windows 10. Every project at MS has a codename.

In the same way project Redstone doesn't mean MS is about to release a Redstone OS, project Andromeda doesn't mean MS will release an Andromeda OS. That's why I claim that there is little reason to believe "Andromeda OS" is actually a thing, i.e. a product.

The Andromeda device, I'll call it FMD (foldable mobile device) will be the first device this newer and more configurable version of Windows will be installed onto, which is why this device and MS' recent OS efforts are part of the same internal project. This device might actually be called "Andromeda", or it might not.

From a consumer's point of view, the OS related efforts of project Andromeda simply aren't very meaningful. It is meaningful primarily to MS and (to an extent) also to OEMs. It's been widely reported that Andromeda's goal is to make Windows more modular. Technically that means this will allow MS to more strictly segment the different parts of the Windows OS, have those segments be somewhat more granular, and have the boarders run along different/additional lines than they do now. Different technical segmentation invariably leads to a different organization of development teams, which is how project Andromeda relates to the topic of this thread (reorg).

I wrote this just to clarify some of my thinking. Most of my beef is with how "Andromeda" is being reported on, rather than what Andromeda (software or hardware) reportedly IS or IS NOT.

 

[Gregorius Magnus]

I never learn to compose my posts in a text editor, before the website engine decides to simply remove my writing somehow from the input field and have it all gone. So forgive me if my below thoughts will be even worse than before. But I always get somewhat frustrated when writing things for the second time.

From a consumer point of view, the OS related efforts of project Andromeda simply aren't very meaningful. It is meaningful primarily to MS and (to an extent) also to OEMs. It's been widely reported that Andromeda's goal is to make Windows more modular. Technically that means this will allow MS to more strictly segment the different parts of the Windows OS, have those segments be somewhat more granular, and have the boarders run along different/additional lines than they do now. Different technical segmentation invariably leads to a different organization of development teams, which is how project Andromeda relates to the topic of this thread (reorg).

This thought of you comes really close to mine. This is pretty much what I have been saying, only you don't make the re-brand that I do. That is basically it. But I can ask you a question and that will simply get things sorted.

Do you think it makes sense to call the desktop OS that you are using Windows 10 and call the chip in the Smart-Light-bulb Windows 10 the same way?

Probably you say yes. Otherwise I don't see your reasoning.
I say, no. Let's call both of them Andromeda-powered. And let's call Windows the set of Andromeda components, that make it the desktop we use. So what is a Windows department to work on? The components that are only used by the desktop OS. And what makes the desktop OS distinctive from all other devices that use Andromeda? The GUI. That is why I say, Windows will become a GUI.

As per your previous reply:

I'm not sure what Magnus' bases his terminology on. It looks like it's partially based on branding, which I couldn't care less about

So basically, yes, I am talking about re-branding here. It's okay if you can't care less about it. But I believe that branding a department is no difference than branding an OS. So why would you care about the reorg then.

Assuming Andromeda OS is even a thing (right now nothing points to it being its own thing), it will be as distinct from W10 as W10M was from W10, i.e. not at all.

Yes, you are right. I misunderstood you there. But probably due to two things. 1) I only see a partial connection in between your reasoning and your conclusion there. I agree that Andromeda won't be distinct from Windows 10. Actually that is what I have been saying all along. Windows will be made up of Andromeda Components, including CShell and UWP. But that is exactly why I can't agree with your reasoning saying "it will be as distinct from W10 as W10M was from W10". The reason Windows 10 Mobile was let die is that it was distinct in many ways, including the lack of CShell itself. It used a different shell. 2) I saw that you edited your post after posting while I had been already composing my reply and realized the changes after having my post sent. But I did not have time then to come back and tailor my response.

If MS was to rename the OS to "Fnirgelwatz OS", I'd be fine having a reorg and coming up with a Department of "Fnirgelwatz Experience and Devices", so I am completely fine also with current reorg, Windows becoming a secondary level in MS, while realising that components of Andromeda, playing a role in IoT devices as well will be raised to higher importance than the ones that are only included in the desktop OS, hence me referring to it as Windows.

Whatever Andromeda is, it will still be Windows. If it has a UI, it will be provided by UWP+CShell, but that is not the same as saying "Windows" will provide the UI.

So if "Windows" will not provide the UI for Andromeda, then why call it "Windows"? And what to do with "Windows" then? This is exactly what I am saying and asking. "Windows" will become a container of UWP, and a use-case of CShell.

And that said, here are my opinions about Windows 10 Mobile. Windows Phones and Windows Mobiles should have never been called "Windows", because they only featured full-screen apps. They would have been better fit with even Microsoft Fnirgelwatz 7, 8, 8.1 and 10. Or even Andromeda for what I care, although that stands for another concept or project as you say, but has the same relation to the device and its software that Windows 10 desktop has. Not much. On the other hand, I would not call a new mobile device, should that be a telephony-capable handset or a revived Currier, the Andromeda Device either, but that one could be called Windows by me, since it will run the same UI, the way I imagine it. Close to this implementation: (https://mspoweruser.com/instructions-now-available-to-install-windows-on-arm-on-the-lumia-950-xl/) So it would deserve the "Windows" name as opposed to Fnirgelwatz or Andromeda, rather than its predecessors.

But the "Windows" team inside Microsoft will be responsible for developing Sets, Taskbar, People Hub, Calendar fly-out, the Task View, etc... and make them scale to whatever form factor. But I doubt, that the "Windows" team will have to do anything about what the Kinect Project is running on. That camera does not display anything. Not even a teensy bit of a Start button. And it could still be Andromeda powered. The same applies for the smart light-bulb, the Cortana-powered Thermostat, Cortana also being a component of Andromeda as opposed to the speech recognition and voice command in Microsoft Phone 8.1, and the Thermostat does not have "Windows" in its name either.

 

[fatclue_98]

The same applies for the smart light-bulb, the Cortana-powered Thermostat, Cortana also being a component of Andromeda as opposed to the speech recognition and voice command in Microsoft Phone 8.1, and the Thermostat does not have "Windows" in its name either.

Andromeda is a part of Windows, not an independent entity. You keep throwing it around as if it were. I know we use individual brands in our daily lives but that's not at play here. For example, you wouldn't say "that Ford hauls a$$", you would say "that Mustang hauls a$$". But it's still a Ford with its Blue Oval and all.

 

[cloakandcipher]

Seems like Magnus is just conflating Andromeda with Cshell and the future Windows with the current desktop only model of OS. From what I've read (mind you I have zero expertise) Andromeda is simply the codename for the foldable mobile device project. Cshell is the shorthand for the modules Windows is being broken down into, some of which will be used to construct the software basis for project Andromeda. Cshell is all Windows though, just stripped down into components to be packaged in different ways for new form factors (i.e. Andromeda, Polaris, etc.) So Andromeda will never run on a lightbulb, but Cshell might provide the basis for Windows to run on a lightbulb.

 

[a5cent]

Andromeda is a part of Windows, not an independent entity.

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's the best way to think of it.

Redstone 4 is something transient. Once Redstone 4 is finished and MS' employees are reassigned to other projects, Redstone 4 ceases to exist. The results of that project are absorbed into a specific revision of the Windows OS. Because Redstone 4 ceases to exist, it can itself not be part of anything.

In the case of project Andromeda this is even clearer, as project Andromeda isn't adding anything to the OS at all. It's simply restructuring what is already there. Even while it exists as a project, it's not creating anything new that can be part of anything.


I know these are subtleties but I do think this helps to foster understanding.

 

[a5cent]

@Gregorius Magnus
I don't have the time to respond to everything you wrote, so I'll just focus on what I think is the main issue you're tripping over:

Do you think it makes sense to call the desktop OS that you are using Windows 10 and call the chip in the Smart-Light-bulb Windows 10 the same way?
Probably you say yes. Otherwise I don't see your reasoning.
I say, no.

Yes and no. It makes just as much sense as calling that OS "Fnirgelwatz" or giving it any other MEANINGLESS name.

The brand "Windows" has no technical meaning or implications. Your desire to make it technically meaningful is what's messing with your thought process.

While you don't think it makes sense to call an OS that runs on a chip in a light-blub "Windows", that simply doesn't matter, because MS does think it makes sense. MS will apply the "Windows" brand to almost anything and does so all the time, for example:

1)
Windows IoT has an embedded webserver but otherwise comes with no desktop at all and without support for UI windows, yet it's still called "Windows IoT".
2)
WP7 had absolutely nothing in common with Windows 7, i.e. there was no shared code between them. While WP7 did have a GUI, it had nothing resembling UI windows. Despite having nothing to do with Windows in a technical sense, MS still called it "Windows Phone".

MS doesn't agree with your view on what the term "Windows" means. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of that dispute.

Let's call both of them [desktop and embedded versions of MS' OS] Andromeda-powered.

[edit]
No. When the Andromeda project is over, that project will cease to exist. Despite the changes made over the course of that project, the results will resemble, to roughly 99.9%, exactly what we currently call Windows. Until MS officially changes the name by which it refers to that code base, I'll continue to call it whatever MS calls it, which currently is Windows. I consider the probability of MS changing the name essentially 0.
[/edit]

You're using the term "Andromeda" to refer to a (non-GUI related) subset of the entire Windows OS. However, MS and developers already have appropriate terms for those things, for example OneCore or Windows Core OS. Obviously you are free to invent and use whatever terminology you want, but it makes discussions like this very difficult. Why not just use the same terminology MS does?

Here's a very simplified way to think about Windows using MS' terminology:



Each layer can access functionality and services provided by the layers below it, but is oblivious to anything above it.

 

[a5cent]

Cshell is all Windows though, just stripped down into components to be packaged in different ways for new form factors (i.e. Andromeda, Polaris, etc.) So Andromeda will never run on a lightbulb, but Cshell might provide the basis for Windows to run on a lightbulb.

That isn't correct either. Take a look at the image I provided in my response to Magnus above.

CShell is nothing more than a Continuum enabled UWP app.

CShell is launched at the end of the Windows boot process, just like explorer.exe (the Win32 shell) is today. CShell has absolutely nothing to do with managing UI windows nor anything to do with creating the UI elements (dropdown, checkbox, etc) which apps use to composite/display a UI.

CShell creates and manage things like the start menu, virtual desktops, and the task bar. Because CShell supports continuum it can adapt these elements to different screen sizes. That's it.

Andromeda is focused on the layers below CShell.

 

[fatclue_98]

I’m gonna need some Dramamine to keep up.

 

[cloakandcipher]

Aaah I see. So I was confusing Cshell with WCOS? I think that makes sense now. Thanks for the info a5cent!

 

[tgp]

I’m gonna need some Dramamine to keep up.

Me too. I'm a software guy, but if it isn't SQL Server or Dynamics, count me out!

 

[a5cent]

@tgp @fatclue_98

I realize we're completely off topic at this point.

If it's something else you're unhappy with I'll need that to be pointed out in a more literal way as my sarcasm-meter irreparably broke years ago. Sorry.

 

[fatclue_98]

@tgp @fatclue_98

I realize we're completely off topic at this point.

If it's something else you're unhappy with I'll need that to be pointed out in a more literal way as my sarcasm-meter irreparably broke years ago. Sorry.

Nah, we're all good bruh. Pardon my sarcasm, I feel like this thread has evolved (or devolved) into a mock trial with opposing counsel throwing haymakers at each other.

 

[Gregorius Magnus]

And since Andromeda turned out to be a thing outside the box