Will Windows ever be finished?

Probably a naive question, but I'm curious as to whether the operating system (or any of its applications, for that matter) will ever be declared "finished", as in "This is the final version of Windows; it just can't get any better than this; it's complete, so rest assured that anything you develop henceforth will be compatible for ever!".

if your willing to never progress further, you could say that right now...

by the way, how long is a piece of string?

Software can never be finished as our society is constantly growing and progressing so technology needs to keep up.  The same goes vice versa.

Also, most software exists in the world of business. In business, there's competition.  Competition leads towards innovation, and therefore, new technology.  New technology = new product/upgrade.



mVPstar

This question isn't about software. It's a philosophical question about how you view the world.
In the early 90's, Fukuyama wrote about the End of History, how we are drawing to a time where there are no more big questions, only details of implementation. He was talking about political and social issues, and has since retracted his statements (and seems vaguely embarassed by them), but this eschatological point of view is prevalent in most western religions, as well as modern idealogies - Christianity's End of Days, Communism's final revolution, and any other belief that looks towards a singular event that will be the end of history - no need for anything new after that, since it's the RIGHT place to be.

Me, I don't buy it. I belief that change is eternal, and there is always room for improvement. Nothing is perfect, but we can - and should - always keep on trying.

Of course, this really isn't what you were asking. But do I care? Of course not. It's a Sunday. I never did get the hang of Sundays.

Yggdrasil wrote:

This question isn't about software. It's a philosophical question about how you view the world.

JScript wrote:

Probably a naive question, but I'm curious as to whether the operating system (or any of its applications, for that matter) will ever be declared "finished", as in "This is the final version of Windows; it just can't get any better than this; it's complete, so rest assured that anything you develop henceforth will be compatible for ever!".

Not about philosophy eh?


Though, I guess that philosophy still does play an important role to this discussion.

Plato believed (or indirectly stated) that the end of world happened only when the ultimate form of "good" is attained.  The everyday processes we carry out work towards that ultimate goal.  Until "good" is achieved, there is no stopping.


mVPstar

LIFE == CHANGE

NOT CHANGE = Death or extinction


BTW: rocks are alive; they change!

figuerres wrote:

LIFE == CHANGE

NOT CHANGE = Death or extinction


BTW: rocks are alive; they change!

Taking more from Plato's theories:

Everything in the world is not constant and always changing. The only things that are constant are the forms. Everything that can be seen, felt, etc are only visual abstractions of these underlying forms.

FORMS are CONSTANT
VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS are NOT CONSTANT

Taking this into terms of technology, the FORM of the Operating System is "Software designed to control the hardware of a specific data-processing system in order to allow users and application programs to make use of it."  There are different REPRESENTATIONS of the FORM of the Operating System: Windows, OSX, Linux, etc..

These will always be changing, whereas, the FORM of the Operating System will be constant.


(Yes, I do have a History Final Exam that covers this tomorrow:))


mVPstar

This is a good question (although philosophical questions do not seem to do very well on this site at times).  I think with XP, things have started to level off a bit.  Even with the hardware end of things, unless you are a gamer or are running a server setup, things are beginning to level off a bit.  Yes, you can talk about dual core chips, Cell chips, etc., but really, for most office users and home users, things are levelling off.  As far as Windows, it does need to keep evolving in some ways on the security front, and that will never change because the threat is always evolving. 

Of potential relevance: Software That Lasts 200 Years by Dan Bricklin

Hinds' first law of Computer Programming: "Any given program, when running, is obsolete."

There might be a point where somebody makes a perfect OS for everybody's needs, but while expectations change and people desire to work differently from what they are used to change, Software is going to need updating.

XP has done an amazing job at coping with the demands of the world's computing, but now people desire change again. An OS that derangements the hard drive on the fly, an instant document search feature, the ability to use an OS without ever needing to restart and 3D applications that connect the world to distributed systems, all mean that a new OS is needed for the next level of global productivity. And that is Longhorn, but even then it is not the end.

I suppose then what needs to be asked is..

Will people ever stop wanting more?

koorb wrote:

Will people ever stop wanting more?

That brings us to the fact that humans are selfish and always desire more.  Humans that don't desire anything are not humans at all.  In fact, being able to desire is aligned with the intelligence an organism has. You need aspirations and goals in order to truly "live".

So as long as we're humans, we will never stop wanting more.



mVPstar

LarryOsterman wrote:

Windows won't ever be finished.  Neither will Linux or any other similar platform, as long as there continues to be new scenarios for the platform.

I agree, and take it even further - Larry talked about new scenarios, but what about completely different paradigms? When will the desktop model be finally considered obsolete? Will 3D imaging force us to find a different working metaphor? Will new technology change the role of the operating system? I can see a possible direction where components become more and more independent - the screen and the speakers and the storage are all standalone components, and the OS is just a thin layer of glue and communications.
Bandwidth is getting wider and cheaper. Pretty soon, the OS will have not only to manage the data on our computer, but all the data that's available to us on the network. This is another fundemental shift that OSs are going through, and which will change their design in the future.

Computers are tools we use to get us through our life. Don't let anyone tell you that computers are the reason our society is the way it is - they are simply the tools we developed to deal with things. And as long as the world changes, computers - and the operating systems on them - will keep changing.

Analyzing the question from a sociological point of view - the thing that won't allow stagnation is Consumerism. Consumerism which can be viewed as a by-product of industrialization, would never allow people to be content with a single product. The constant cycles are the very essence of consumerism.

otech wrote:

if your willing to never progress further, you could say that right now...

by the way, how long is a piece of string?

Can there be a proverbial point of saturation in software technology (marketing aside)...

how wet can a towel get?

Aayush Puri wrote:

Analyzing the question from a sociological point of view - the thing that won't allow stagnation is Consumerism. Consumerism which can be viewed as a by-product of industrialization, would never allow people to be content with a single product. The constant cycles are the very essence of consumerism.

Everybody wants to blame poor old consumerism for this problem.  Consumerism never did anything to you, did it?

I'm kidding, but to put this in perspective:  When a plant finally decides to quit growing, it dies.  Growth is the only way to overcome chaos and entropy.

So, to answer your original question:  Until I sell my MSFT shares, their OS had better not be 'finished'

No idea can ever be finished without being dead, or at a state of perfect. So it seams that finished can only be achieved by being at either end of the spectrum, and things are rarely at the end of the spectrum. There is an interesting story about the spacing of tracks for rail roads. The spacing is at its current distance because that’s the distance they used in England, England used that distance because it was the distance between wheals on carts, carts used that distance to fit the groves in the roads, the groves where carved by Roman chariots wheels. Civilizations may come and go, but specs live forever!

Beer28 wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that windows will be finished in 10 years. (so what if I'm wrong)

Amiga and BeOS got done a few years ago, so it's possible.

If only because Windows is not based on Unix.

I would say that windows not being based on Unix would be the reason why it WILL out live Linux.
 Windows, based on nothing but itself!