First Details of Windows 7 Emerge 615
Some small but significant details of the next major release of Windows have emerged via a presentation at the University of Illinois by Microsoft engineer Eric Traut. His presentation focuses on an internal project called "MinWin," designed to optimize the Windows kernel to a minimum footprint, and for which will be the basis for the Windows 7 kernel.
that sounds good but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
The os might load fast with a bare minimum but what about the excess baggage of hardware?
has mac done this or is it just that the OS on a linux bas system is just plain faster.
now i know linux fans and mac fans will say that they already knew that but can someone provide hard facts
Rinse, Repeat (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to coincide with patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, you purchase the base-system and tack-on additional subscription based modules. My concerns are how the subscription model will function, the subscription pricing, and the potential for removal of prior features such as 3D acceleration on the 'base' system.
It also appears that DRM will be used extensively in this model and will not be solely limited to music/video as previously thought.
Honesty, and I'm not trolling here, but this looks pretty scary. This reminds me of driver-signing gone awry. I don't see the potential for open-source/free modules due to item #3. Arbitrary application, memory, CPU, and process limits are also concerning.
The whole "add-on" 3D support as well as "don't limit my desktop to 5 open applications/processes" seems incredible. I imagine the base system will be usable to about 3% of the population and the subscription-based add-on modules may be pricey. I can't imagine a DRM style approach for 3D gaming/enthusiasts being acceptable. Imagine having to pay $20/mo for 3D + multiple core CPU + 2G RAM and the minute you stop paying all those modules expire and are no longer active until you resume payment; like Napster and other DRM based music models work.
-evilghost
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, notice that (with consumer releases), Windows seems to be following the even-odd rule? 3.1, meh. '95, good. '98, meh. '98SE, good. ME, ai f'thangan! 2k/XP, excellent. Vista? Pfft. Windows7? Good things to come.
That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:5, Interesting)
This is step one. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been saying it for years now. Windows should either be an open standard for operating systems to be built or be a desktop manager built on a Linux kernel. Of course, then what would the diehards bitch about on slashdot?
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can I get a little insight, please? (Score:3, Interesting)
At one point I had full XFCE desktop and latest (at the time) 2.6.xx kernel running in under 35 MB. That was a few months ago.
But I'll be the first to admit that it wasn't a typical install. I was going more for speed, but I compiled the kernel with exactly the set of drivers/modules I needed; and compiled X, XFCE, and most "important" system libraries myself. Base distro was Slackware.
I'm running a fairly standard Debian install right now, and with no apps running it'll use about 150 MB with X, Fluxbox, and some fairly "standard" background services.
I'll also point out that the 35 MB Slackware was running on a 32-bit Pentium 4, and this Debian install is running on AMD64. Doesn't make much difference, but enough that I thought I should point it out.
Re:Windows 7 preview (Score:3, Interesting)
I honestly wonder if some of these posts aren't printed and used internally at Microsoft as either: cubicle decorations, motivation to make better code or ammunition to convince managers to improve the development process.
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
the linux kernel was called so by those that supported Linus Torvalds
Torvalds never named Linux after himself, his supporters named the kernel and then the OS after him much to RMS disgust.
Osx was based on NeXT... Next was a variation of one of the Unixes (A BSD of some variety I think?)
So you could say OSx has more connection to Windows than it ever could to Linux (since so many Windows programs are under the BSD license.
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you didn't understand what they mean by internal. They won't commercialize the kernel itself. They have planned to, are, and WILL use this project to build Window 7 on.
Unless you've missed that Microsoft has hit some hard limits in the way it managed its codebase and for 2-3 years now is spending heavily on analyzing the source code, separating the code in layers, modules, and removing dependencies between the modules.
There's no other way forward.
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, what are you going to do with the code that's already built on top of the old kernel? Rewrite it? Deprecate it? Do you even begin to comprehend how difficult it is to do at this point if you want solid app compat (which I assure you is a top priority for Microsoft - they don't want to push folks towards Linux by making apps incompatible with the new OS).
The only way forward now is to start over and do something other than same old NT and support NT as a subsystem a-la POSIX NT subsystem.
Einstein said "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." This applies to Windows in its current state very well, and they are at the limits of their ability as it is. It's a heck of a lot easier to tangle something than untangle it.
Re:Seems to coincide with patents (Score:3, Interesting)
the component oriented model seems like it could be a smart move - business users may not want fancy 3d or even sound functionality, a barebones os may be perfect for them, especially for terminal services clients.
this kind of model could also make them immune to their ongoing legal disputes regarding bundled software.
it could also address user complaints about OS bloat, and fears the next version of windows will come on 2 dvds
it could also reduce the confusion between the different versions of windows as seen with vista
as for the price, i expect each module is going to be a lot cheaper than a world of warcraft subscription
there's a lot of coulds in here, but hey, we still really don't have any useful information - and besides, microsoft could completely screw it up and make a shemozzle of the whole thing.
alternatively, they could set a new standard which is quickly adopted by their competitors, apple included.
maybe i'm new here, i'm not prepared to write off anything i don't know anything about out of knee jerk predjudice
Please elaborate? (Score:2, Interesting)
I once had a crazy friend who was upgrading his Pentium III era PC, and got fed up with getting certain peripherals to work, so he started yanking things out of the PC with the power on. We then found that the sound card was hot plugable, it would dissapear and reappear in device manager every time.
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I went to check my facts. I found this visual history [wikipedia.org], and OSX was nowhere on there. Great, I thought. I just need one more link to cement my position. Then I found the Open Group's list [opengroup.org], and damn, I was wrong again. OSX 10.5 is Unix 03. Sucks to be me.
Here's what they need to do. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry to be shouting and all but I'm a Windows guy, I always have been a Windows guy, sure I have that slashdot bone in me, wanting OSS to be huge, great, free and out there for everyone to share and love but let's be realistic now, for some people it's not an option, myself included.
Honestly I have been really quite satisfied with XP (after becoming accustomed to its own issues)
However after having recently tried Vista (multiple times) it's a disgrace, PURELY from a look and feel perspective, it's like 500 people designed it around a board room table but consistency and ease of use just aren't even considered.
I'm definately NOT an apple man by any means, yet having now used OSX for a week and an ipod for a year, they just get (most) stuff right, logical and simple - just how it should be.
Vista is wrong, it looks wrong, some of you can whinge it sucks under the hood or perhaps DRM ate your babysitter, maybe it has poor performance copying files and playing MP3's (doesn't bother me) but that UI? Good lord if you can't make it better at least give us back the XP one as an option.
It's time that MS made some RADICAL changes to the user interface, crazy out there stuff, which is actually USEFUL! rather than just re-hashing the same old thing, stapling on some stuff (poorly) and expecting us to enjoy it.
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ah! just in time (Score:4, Interesting)
Because, of course, you can't wait to have MinWin on your machine - the Windows that does only one single thing: publish your tasklist via HTTP.
Hmmm, so much better than Leopard
Come on, it's just a tech demonstration, Microsoft in fact closed themselves solid after the release of Vista. Management thinks part of the bad reception of Vista is because they were so open about the whole process for the entire 5 years.
For some part they are right. We'd never know about the dropped features if they were never pre-announced. Most products plan various features that get dropped or deferred in the process of development.
We'd also be surprised at the Aero Glass UI, and the new security features.
What we'd be most surprised about though, is the lack of consistency in the UI and stability/performance issues. So I'm not sure Microsoft has the right strategy right now.
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I don't think the priority should be a new version of paint. You are completely missing the point. I am saying that with the resources Microsoft has, they should be able to produce a very, very good operating system, cutting edge and advanced in almost every way, and STILL have enough money left over to do things like update Paint. And after all that, still have $billions of dollars in the bank.
If MS Windows came with a good image manipulation program, there still wouldn't be anything preventing you from buying a better one if you wanted to. And, if Microsoft didn't suck at writing operating systems so badly, it would be a very easy to set option to decide at install time what features you wanted and what you didn't.
Are you saying that having NO choice is better than having SOME choice? Or that Microsoft's productivity *isn't* pathetic given their resources?
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing here is not whether they have the resources to make a fantastic product (they have made some decent products when all things considered) but whether they have the management. You contradicted yourself when you said "... Windows Paint is a pathetic application that does almost nothing, a team of open source developers could better it in a week."
So if OSS devs were to recreate MS Paint, assuming a minimal to non-existent budget, the obvious conclusion is that their product will blow since they put hardly any money into it at all... Notice the flaw there?
Microsoft doesn't need "BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars" to reverse their history of bloated, buggy, unsupported, incompatible, insecure, closed-source code. They need management to care more about the product they are creating and direct the developers to stick to a standard and enforce it. Worst ever scenario is to cause a "Them and Us" mentality within the company and would be more disastrous for us - the consumer - in the end. Look where that ideal got Apple in the late '80s/early '90s...
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:2, Interesting)
The way I understand it, the progression is as follows:
1.x (on DOS kernel) -> 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04
2.x (on DOS kernel) -> 2.03, 2.1 (Windows/286), 2.11 (Windows/386)
3.x (on DOS kernel) -> 3.0, 3.1, WFW 3.1, 3.11, WFW 3.11
3.x (new kernel, based on code originally slated to be OS/2 rewrite - known internally as NT-OS/2 for much of it's life, later simply WindowsNT) -> 3.1, 3.5, 3.51
4.x (on DOS kernel) -> 4.0 (Windows95), 4.1 (Windows98), 4.9 (WindowsME)
4.x (NT kernel) -> 4.0
5.x (NT kernel) -> 5.0 (Windows2000) 5.1 (WindowsXP)
6.x (NT kernel) -> Vista
7.x (presumably NT kernel) -> Windows7 (whatever it's final name is)
The story of Me is semi-interesting (actually not so much interesting as it is tedious). Basically, MS had intended NT 5.0 to be what XP actually became; they planned on merging the consumer and business platforms to a unified (NT) codebase (codenamed Neptune [cnn.com]). NT 5.0's codebase was not finished with time enough to add all the features consumers needed, like compatability with 4.x and 3.x applications. The reason for naming NT 5.0 Windows2000 was to create a clear naming scheme for home users to upgrade, but by the time it became clear that 2000 would not be for home users, the name had already caught on. To prevent confusion, they revamped 98, adding Windows2000's icon set and interface enhancements, as well as a few odds and ends such as UPnP, to call it Millenium Edition, or Me.
Me really should never have existed, and it was quickly slapped together to avoid a marketing catastrophe. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Me is their Pinto. OTOH, it made XP that much more appealing.
Side note: NT starting at version 3 was a multi-reason decision, slightly influenced by it's relationship to OS/2, but much more due to marketing. NT started at version 3.1 because that was the version Windows was currently sitting at. Also, MS didn't want customers to think NT was less mature than OS/2 (then at version 2.1). NT got its name from the fact that they totally rewrote the OS/2 kernel, opting for a microkernel that was designed from the start to be portable and adaptable, with multiple "personalities" sitting on top of it e.g. a Unix personality, an OS/2 personality (IIRC there were even plans for a NeXT personality as well as a few others, though those never happened), etc. The concept was fairly new at the time, hence the name New Technology. NT 3.x included a 16-bit OS/2 "personality" and a basic POSIX "personality" both to ease migration to the new platform, but also to showcase NT's capabilities.
I'm an OS/2 fanboy turned Linux fanboy, and I've never seen the NT sourcecode, but from what I've read the NT kernel itself is a marvel of software engineering. It's the userland crap piled on it that makes Windows the lumbering beast we all love to hate.
Re:Wrong family line (Score:2, Interesting)
We built an early 3.1 server soon after the release date, just to compare it with the Netware servers we used.
Since the system took 10 minutes to get to the login prompt, and the file and print services were atrociously slow, we soon abandoned the exercise.
It's not that long ago, though - only 15 years :P
Get off my lawn, you damn kids!
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Although there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the Linux Monolithic Kernel (especially since it's behaving more and more like a microkernel these days), Linus has admitted that were he to start from scratch, it wouldn't be monolithic.
I don't know too many specifics of the OS X (Mach) kernel, although from what I understand, there are some fundamental performance and latency issues holding the entire system back that have existed in Mach since the beginning.
Although the software on top of NT is often less than stellar (ruined by the businesses execs, and trashed by the requirement for backward-compatibility), the NT kernel is generally regarded as being the most solid part of the operating system.
GNU/Linux vs. uClinux (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:2, Interesting)
No, he's right and you're wrong. DOS was the underlying architecture and loaded before Windows 9x. Many (older) drivers needed to be loaded there (often soundcards) and Antivirus programs always embedded them in that part. The only thing that was different with WfW 3.11 was that you didn't need "win.exe" in the autoexec.bat.
However, that was easy to change and you could make Win9x boot in CLI by adapting a config file, I just don't remember which one. Also creating a bootdisk with 9x, gave you a 9x bootdisk that went straight to CLI and typing VER didn't say aynthing about DOS, it talked about Windows 95 but for all intents and purposes it was DOS. Heck it even said "Starting Windows 95" as first text upon bootup.
Agreed! (Score:4, Interesting)
They both do Hardware: xBox vs Apple Line (I think apple probably has more employees on their hardware than Microsoft.)
They both do MP3: iPod vs Zune (It should be a wash in employee #'s)
They both do Office Suite: iWork vs Office (Office has obviously more employees than iWork)
They both do "Family" apps: iLife vs Microsoft Movie Maker, etc. (iLife probably has more)
They both do an OS: OS X vs XP/Vista. (With out a doubt XP/Vista has more employees on it than OS X)
You'd think that they'd be able to do something right. Heck AppleMaybe it's bureaucracy collapsing the whole thing. Maybe what Microsoft needs is a Steve, a dictator, someone that says what goes and no questions from above. Back in the day Apple wasn't run like this and we had Copeland and all other "Next OSes" there were some iffy products (OpenDoc). Then Apple bought NeXT. Steve came back and the rest is history. (And about 3000% in the stock market).