Microsoft Upgrades Vista Kernel in SP1

KrispySausage writes "One of the big features discussed in early speculation of Windows Vista SP1 was the kernel upgrade, which was supposed to bring the operating system into line with the Longhorn kernel used in Windows Server 2008. With Vista SP1 going RTM, there hasn't been so much as a peep from Microsoft about the mooted kernel update. Has it happened? Well the answer is yes it has. Presumably the main reason for Microsoft's silence on the subject is that as they're keen to promote the improvements and enhancements to Vista, rather than placing emphasis on a kernel upgrade, which some people might see as a risk of newly-introduced instability."

consumer vs. geek

[eck011219]

Not to mention that almost everything they've done to promote Vista has been aimed at the end-user, the joe-blow consumer. That user has no idea what the kernel is or why they should care -- it's just geeky mumbo-jumbo that would scare their target Vista audience.

Risk...

[Khyber]

When adding ANY code, there is risk of security vulnerabilities and potential exploits. Sadly, most people seem to not know this.

What?!

[ledow]

Seriously, you're telling me that a version number jump in the kernel during a Service Pack is somehow news? And not only that but *unconfirmed* reports of that. *With screenshots*. Wow.

And what does it do. What does the new 0.0.1 add to Windows? Dunno. There isn't a word about it in the article, just some screenshots of version numbers.

How the bloody hell does this make the front page?

good for vista or bad for 2008 server?

[mapsjanhere]

As bad as Vista has been doing, this better be a huge upgrade, or 2008 server is setting itself up as a huge flop from the get go. Unless of course they assume that servers are run by professionals who don't need the "allow or deny" pop-ups, and don't watch HD videos with special DRM.

I dont get it

[BlowHole666]

I do not get it. On my Suse box I see Linux kernel updates all the time. So Microsoft Updated the kernel to match 2008. How do we not know the only difference between the two kernels was 10 lines of code or something? So the version/build number changed. We do not know what changed. Can a normal user tell exactly what the differences were between Windows 2000 and XP (NOTICE I SAID NORMAL USER!!!) no they can not. I do not think normal people (the majority of Microsoft's user base) will know the difference. Maybe someone working for an anti virus company will notice or maybe a slashdot reader but not the majority of the users. Honestly I think this is just more slashdot fud on the front page to bash Microsoft for doing something that Linux does every few months.

Re:confused

[hazem]

I've always figured that the period after they declare they'll no longer support the product is that sweet spot when it will finally function predictably.

Re:What?!

[Dada]

What I find most surprising is that Slashdot's headline is quite tame compared to the source "article". Usually it's the opposite.

I've been out of the loop for a while... What's the geek news site that has replaced Slashdot? There must be one... Of course that's a rethorical question: anybody who found it would be there and would've stopped reading /. altogether.

That's just dumb

[Just Some Guy]

In other news, Linux v2.6.19.3 was released on February 5, 2007 (6 days after Vista). There have been 75 new kernel releases since then. Source: going to ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ [kernel.org] and counting ChangeLogs since then.

I'm not sure why this is news.

Re:confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful?

Dumbass mods.

This is opinion.

Standardize code base

[athloi]

From the article:

So if you look at it one way, the Windows Vista "kernel upgrade" isn't a fundamental update, but rather, an alignment of the two operating systems.

This is a smart move. It's easier to develop one kernel than two, so standardizing the two made sense. They've had more time to beat on Server 2008 and test it, and are incorporating those changes.

The end user won't see this, but the end user doesn't care. Their flashy GUI and UAC (snicker) will run faster as a result.

Re:good for vista or bad for 2008 server?

[Osty]

As bad as Vista has been doing, this better be a huge upgrade, or 2008 server is setting itself up as a huge flop from the get go.

Vista and Server 2008 have very different target margets, so you can't really judge how Server will do based on Vista's current market performance.

Unless of course they assume that servers are run by professionals who don't need the "allow or deny" pop-ups, and don't watch HD videos with special DRM.

Again with the DRM FUD. I'll point you here [slashdot.org] rather than repeating myself and others over and over again.

Re:Bias

[misleb]

As much as I hate (detest, revile) to admit that a good Vista is good for everyone in someways (slower viruses, etc.), ... oh wait. I can't get over hoping Vista dies a horrible flaming death. I don't mean to flame/troll... I know I'm biased.

I am similarly conflicted. On one hand I want the spectacle. On the other I know that I'm just going to have to support it over the phone for my parents.

And let me just head off anyone who is going to suggest "install Linux for them" or "get them to buy a mac..." I will say that I live thousands of miles away from them and, quite frankly, they're getting older and the change would probably be more trouble than it is worth.

-matthew

Re:confused

[mrxak]

Well, maybe whatever comes after Vista (if it even comes out in a reasonable amount of time) will replace my Bootcamp XP by 2014.

Re:good for vista or bad for 2008 server?

[kusanagi374]

What the hell are you talking about? Trollish troll is trollish eh?

Anyway, I'll bite. Windows Server 2008, like any decent server should have, is based on user permissions and if your user can't perform a given task, you can escalate to admin rights (OMG JUST LIEK SU!!) and do your thing. And obviously there won't be the same issues as on Vista because it won't be used as a desktop. At least it shouldn't be.

And the fact it's not a desktop means that the HD videos thing doesn't even matter.

You have to wonder

[bogie]

If that was a good idea. Microsoft spent so much time replacing things that worked with XP, for example Networking, that on Vista they were not mature at launch. I'm sure the new kernel is actually a nice piece of work, but IMHO they should wait until Windows Server 2008 SP1 then replace the kernel on Vista with one that is leaner and proven to be stable.

You know it's not that we don't like new features and upgrades, it's just that by 2007-2008 we expected Microsoft to be better at designing OSs. Should they get an automatic pass with every OS release just because "hey, you know they will get it right by SP2". I say phooey to that. Demand more.

Re:The real reason why SP1 is not ready

[ratboy666]

Quote
                "they" didn't do testing on a gbit network card.

And, this means that *I* am supposed to? The reason I spend money on an OS is to assure that it has been tested; if I do the testing there are plenty of no-cost alternatives.

Quote

                Network and sound drivers now userland.

Is this good? Back to the gbit network, that would be 100mbytes/second of data. Passed through kernel (i/o priviledged) layers back to "userland" (non i/o priviledged), back to kernel (process isolation) and to another process. What this means: A block of data (of, say, 50K) needs 4 process/privilege transitions. 2000 blocks per second to saturate the link -- that is 8000 context switches per second.

But then, processors *are* cheap these days.

Re:Bias

[misleb]

That's one of the arguments *for* installing Linux. Very easy to support remotely. Just whack Ubuntu on, and tell them it's Windows Vista or something.

They're old, not stupid. Besides, supporting Linux isn't the issue. Just getting them to the point where supporting it is the only issue is the issue. My dad runs so much Windows-only crap that it isn't even funny. He's uses the computer for much more than web browsing and email.

OS X would be my first choice for them.

-matthew

Re:confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that's skipping two versions. Skipping one version would have landed you with WinME (98 > 2000 > ME > XP in release date order), and no one would be bragging about that "upgrade"...

Re:good for vista or bad for 2008 server?

[Osty]

And even quoting Bott's highly controversial claims doesn't make the DRM FUD; it's there, and it does use cycles, and would be detrimental for a server kernel if it is using system resources uselessly.

The only cycles used by any DRM code is when you try to play back DRMed content. What are you doing playing video and audio on a server? Vista is to Win2k8 as Win2k Pro was to Win2k Server products, or Xp was to Win2k3. Win2k8 is not a desktop operating system.

Re:I dont get it

[iONiUM]

Slashdot isn't for "normal people", thus this is news for "nerds". I think you mistyped fox.com if you were expecting news for "normals".

Re:That's just dumb

[Just Some Guy]

Look out --> person posts a truth about Linux vs. Windows and gets modded down.

What kind of frustrates me there is that I wasn't saying anything bad about Linux. I only wanted to point out that the Ubuntu desktop I'm using right now gets kernel updates from time to time, and I can't see why that's good for me but bad for Windows users. Maybe I wasn't overly critical enough of Microsoft to satisfy the mod?

Honestly, this really is stupid. There are plenty of legitimate things to hold against Microsoft. Periodically releasing kernel updates isn't one of them. I mean, imagine the headline for the reverse: "Vista SP1 To Feature Same Old Kernel". In general, fixing things is good.

Re:confused

[sonofagunn]

On my old as heck home PC I have Windows 2000 and still receive software updates with security, performance, and stability updates. Pentium III, 500 Mhz, 384 MB RAM and it works fine for MS Office Pro and Opera.

Re:I was kind of hoping to see a performance revie

[corerunner]

I love my ThinkPad X61 tablet :)

It arrived from the factory with Vista Business, but I became so fed up with issues connecting to wifi that I wiped it and installed XP Pro the same day. After a few weeks of struggling to use my new much-anticipated tablet functionality, and then using a friend's tablet that still had Vista Business, I decided to give Vista another shot. I can't believe I battled XP for so long--maybe the XP drivers are just shoddy for my model, but the tablet was practically unusable (everything else was acceptable, but I could have saved a few hundred dollars, a few ounces of mass, and gotten a more reliable screen hinge if I didn't want the tablet).

Vista has far superior handwriting recognition, and now my multitouch actually works as it should so I can use a fingertip instead of a stylus. After reverting to the Win2k theme, my battery life is about the same as under XP. Hopefully SP1 will improve this even more. I still dual-boot XP to run my VJ software [resolume.com], and I run Xubuntu on my own time, but Vista is my best choice for academics and business. Anyone with a tablet should give it a shot. When decent linux drivers are available then I'll rid my tablet of the MS funk.

System specs:
1.6GHz Core 2 Duo (L7500)
100MB 7200RPM HDD
2GB DDR2 RAM
Vista Enterprise / XP Pro / Xubuntu

Re:consumer vs. geek

[swordgeek]

Honestly, the user SHOULDN'T care!

Back in 'the day', Bill Joy said "Operating systems are like underwear - Nobody really wants to look at them." This was true until Linux started getting attention, and MS turned their efforts to becoming a 10-ton monster by selling OSes. Since then, the word OS has morphed into meaning a feature-rich (feature-laden?) bundles of applications along with the software infrastructure required to run them. (Whereas formally the OS is really just the infrastructure itself.)

Now we're talking about kernels. NOBODY other than developers and support folks should need to care about their kernel. In fact, most people don't know what a kernel actually is, and that's OK. In fact, it's even good--it's pointless knowledge for end users.

I'm not one to support MS, but not blathering on about the kernel in end-user release notes is the right thing to do.

Re:Bias

[dn15]

What you consider to be easy depends somewhat on your learning style, but even more so on whether you learned the concepts or simply memorized some steps to do the task at hand. People who consider it difficult to switch between operating systems are people who have not learned how to use *computers*. They are people who know how to get around the OS they're used to by rote memorization.

No, I'm not saying your mom is dumb because she couldn't figure out Macs. But rather you can't rightly say Macs are confusing based on the experiences of one person who only knows Windows -- and is probably making a lot of assumptions about how the Mac will work based on that history of using Windows.

Re:confused

[Anonymous Coward]

...hesitate to call LoseMe an OS.

Wow, that was fantastically clever. I bow to your formidable intelligence. For your efforts, -1 karma!