Doesn't require an entire new OS. Performance optimization. In order to realize the full potential of cable modem, a modified OS seems necessary. A modified OS doesn't mean throwing away everything that has been done, rather an enhancement to existing OSs, but substantially different. Why?
Let's look at NT. Can it handle up to 10 mbps streams without delays? Yes, if we have one process and only several threads. How about several processes in full motion a/v with time slice task switching? Do process locks create problems? How about the NT shared data protection scheme, would it not slow the local cache dumps, so you get herky-jerky? Wouldn't another data model caching scheme be necessary based on a hierarchy of coordinated complex data types, so that feeds of similar object genus could be co-stored, co-managed in order to improve throughput speed?
I'm trying hard to find another way for NSCP and its partners to climb out of a tailspin, so I'm looking for a way to use NSCP's software composition resources to write around or on top of MSFT OSs.
A "designed for cable traffic" OS. OSs now access storage, run exes, and manage the network. The complexities of the network have exceeded the capabilities of systems that were designed around local storage. NSCP is an app developer, but there is no reason why they need to stay hostage to MSFT's un-mission critical wares. In the past they were hostage because the installed base was MSFT OS. If that OS base can't deliver efficiently, then if MSFT can't run as fast as NSCP developing an alternative, NSCP could reverse the whole ball game.
What has changed is the paradigm. Cable modem is the new one. MSFT can easily develop the cable modem OS, because that means displacing the massive installed base they have. Can MSFT be sure that if they wrote a modified OS, that it would run without glitch on top of WIN9x or NT? NSCP would be creating a whole new OS market specifically addressing cable modem orientation. To a small extent Windows CE is doing this in the settop. An OS that doesn't need to have all the capability that Windows has accumulated in order to do the myriad of things a 90% share demands, would be substantially simpler, more stable, and dedicated to network actions. This kind of OS is narrower in functionality and esier to compose or to compose on.
Are you getting my drift? Let's kick this around some more. Please take apart or expand. |
