Slashdot Mirror
Vista's Graphics To Be Moved Out of the Kernel
Tiberius_Fel writes "TechWorld is running an article saying that Vista's graphics will not be in the kernel. The goal is obviously to improve reliability, alongside the plan to make most drivers run in user mode." From the article: "The shift of the UI into user mode also helps to make the UI hardware independent - and has already allowed Microsoft to release beta code of the UI to provide developers with early experience. IT also helps make it less vulnerable to kernel mode malware that could take the system down or steal data. In broader terms, this makes Windows far more like Linux and Unix - and even the MacOS - where the graphics subsystem is a separate component, rather than being hard-wired into the OS kernel."
So this is like cell division. The bloat of Windows divides into the Kernel and UI pools.
Taking this article into account, it seems clear why the massive graphics card requirement. However, if this much is being pulled from the Kernel, then why still such a massive minimum RAM?
"if you hold down ctrl+shift+alt and tap the backspace you can watch a video of steve wrecking a chair"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Who needs the overhead of a windowing GUI on a server?
You know when they market this you'll see it as
New! - Microsoft's Exclusive Patented Technology allows for graphics outside the kernel, to provide higher stability.
New! - Microsoft's Revolutionary Technology allows for graphics outside the kernel, to provide higher stability.
Just wait.... they'll make it sound like a new concept. Rather than a copycat.
its taken them a bit to see they where wrong when they put them in kernel space
but didn't they do this on nt(4 i believe) because it was to slow otherwise?
mind you with the specs needed for a vista machine, whos going to notice......
Mod me down if you must, but some of Linux's apps are starting to feel more "
windowsy," and now MS is getting into gear and adding "security" and no seems to be copying X. What's next, they both use the same filesystem?
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
It was only a matter of time until Windows took on some of linux and OSX's traits to acheive better performance.
if you can't beat'em, join'em
oh, and (if it isn't too late) FIRST POST
IT also helps make it less vulnerable to kernel mode malware that could take the system down or steal data.
And it also helps with all the stupid DRM that the MPAA/RIAA wants to force down our throats! Yay, when I wanna watch DVDs on my computer in the future I have to get a new OS, new monitor, new graphics card. Thank you for that innovation!
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
So, does this mean that MS's stated goal of "deprecating" OpenGL in favor of DirectX is now irrelevant? If the graphics subsystem is outside the kernel, it can be replaced by another driver that does not make OpenGL play second fiddle to DirectX. Perhaps this is a good thing?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You mean copyright infringe data! The data's not going anywhere.
For a site that complains about this whenever it comes up, get it right!
For all you Linux fans which will argue that Linux had that for ages (and Microsoft copied the concept) - back in 1992-1995 graphical system of WindowsNT already was user-mode (in versions 3.1 and 3.5.x).
Slashdot - free anti-Microsoft propaganda 24/7
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but will the movement of the UI into user mode allow one to tailor the environment according to the user's preference as opposed to just the developer's presence, harkening back to the days of uwm only or Microsoft?
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
the biggest mistake MS made was to listen to the marketing droids
:) but if it was a Terminal Server - WHO CARED! keep it running!
(Windows 95 ist faster! Nein!) and to move the video drivers into
kernelspace in NT 4.0.
to do that, they had to rip out the entire terminal server subsystem,
to the extent that in order to fix it for NT 4.0 and NT 5.0 (aka Windows 2000) they had to _buy_ a company that had managed to do it (Citrix, i think it was - someone correct me, here).
NT 3.5 and 3.51, the screen driver, being userspace, could crash - and leave the machine, as a server, completely unaffected. If you _did_ need to use the screen, as long as you knew what keys to press, or where to move the mouse....
Now - surprise, surprise, hardware is fast enough, memory is cheap enough, the [stupid] decision has been revisited.
It never ceases to amaze me how many incredible, fresh ideas come out of that powerhouse. This is easily the biggest development since the animated paper clip!
So, Information Technology (IT) makes it less vulnerable to kernel mode maleware? I would think It's graphics being moved out of the kernel would do that....
. . . that the entertainment industry's precious content becomes more vulnerable?
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Is it only "innovation" that repeats really old design decisions that we can look forward to?
Surely if this were truly new there would be a million patents to stop it by now, at least in the US.
Does this mean we can customize our own BSOD?
smart move all round for everyone really, who woulda thunk it.
now can we please have rid of the microsoft spyware that has been around since windows 95 that saves all your email correspondance,typed urls etc in hidden folders? seriously, it is good to see them take this step though, shows they are thinking about system stability more seriously.
I wonder if there will be some other design problems we can laugh at instead.
I have a beast of a machine that i use only for playing games (and porn but that's a different story). All these years, my excuse for using windows was gaming and how the graphics subsystem is faster (though less reliable: weird driver behavior and BAM!! blue screen) since it's wired into the kernel. Another line of reasoning was that since the graphics subsystem was in kernel space, it got higher priority :|. If only more game publishers were brave enough to release for the Macintosh platform (and now with the move to Intel, that porting might not be such a pain), it might be time to consider a Macintosh (i feel totally ridiculous for saying this since i am in the "Macs are overpriced, you can get a PC for much less, Mac fanboys should be shot" camp). Oh, how times change.
In broader terms, this makes Windows far more like Linux and Unix - and even the MacOS - where the graphics subsystem is a separate component, rather than being hard-wired into the OS kernel.
I know it makes you all hip and tres cool to bash Microsoft, but they actually had this design wa-a-a-y back in NT 3.5/3.51. That would be in the mid/late 1990s for you youngsters in the audience. They made the change to the current model in NT 4.0.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Microsoft programmers found this solution by modifying a secret Vista file called WIN.INI with the following line:
shell=command.com
Then, they added the GUI in another secret Vista file called AUTOEXEC.BAt containing one line:
win.com
I'm sure everyone will say this is great and that UNIX has been doing this forever, it took MS forever to see the light.. etc, etc.. Hogwash.
For those that don't know hardware and don't know drivers -- this isn't a good thing. The X.org crew has been talking about taking video drivers out of X and putting them back into the kernel, and for good reason.
When drivers are in the kernel, they handle the dirty low-level work and (ideally) present user mode with a nice, friendly, safe API for configuring and using the hardware.
When drivers are in user space, there is a small kernel-mode shim that lets the user-mode code access the hardware. On Linux, we know this as DRI (Direct Rendering Infrastructure). This doesn't eliminate bugs -- it just provides a simple path for user-mode code to get access to hardware registers, etc. Any bugs that exist in the kernel mode driver would yield the same problems in user mode. If a video driver incorrectly configures your graphics card, you're going to get a garbled display, period.
This is a very bad thing from a security and reliability standpoint -- compromised code can poke at the kernel-mode shim and get nearly direct access to hardware. Any bugs in the kernel mode layer WILL be discovered and WILL be exploited. The only upside I can see is that video drivers could be more easily swapped in and out without a reboot. This could be accomplished in better ways.
Lower performance and less security. Genius.
Those who fail to understand UNIX are doomed to reimplement it. Poorly
X11 was conceived 20 years ago and was an incredibly forward looking design; both Macintosh and Windows have now moved to an architecture very similar to it.
Unfortunately, technical and historical facts won't stop people from making bogus claims about their pet architecture. There are still lots of Mac zealots going around complaining about X11's supposedly inefficient "network transparent architecture" even though the Mac has pretty much the same architecture and is, if anything, less efficient. I imagine it will be the same with Microsoft zealots, although many of them will, in addition, claim that this architecture was invented by Microsoft.
If I remember correctly, BeOS had the drivers in userpace and it was quite snappy. There existed some portions of the graphics driver subsystem in kernel space that allowed developers to write "accelerants" that made available the necessary functions needed by the oprating system (app_server), and your applications, to directly control the video hardware.
It was fast, stable and was much easier to debug.
In other words OpenGl will suck, because DirectX will have direct access to the kernel while OpenGl (and other graphics APIs) will be delayed by inumerous error checks by the interface.
Don't worry, you can keep the utopia that is XP on your crappy box.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
First they bring out Monad Shell (MSH). Now the graphics subsystem is moving to user-space. What's next? A Journaling file-system and opening the windows source code? I am not sure what's happening: Windows is becoming more Linux like to be reliable and people are trying to make Linux UI more Windows like so the average joe can switch? A little puzzling...just a little.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, it was copycat even wa-a-a-y back in NT 3.5; X11 had this architecture in the mid 1980's.
My guess would be that video cards are a lot better at doing those kinds of things than general purpose CPUs do. Something Apple started doing years ago.
Damn it someone buy my bullshit please.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
Without an altenate way to access the console what is the value except for server configurations. If X windows or OS X window server locks up I can always ssh in and restart things. On linux I can just use an alternate console. Would be great if OS X had something similar. If Vista doesn't have something similar than a graphics system lock up is almost the same as a BSOD. Maybe you will still be able to do a controlled shutdown through the power button.
Well, here is one less subsystem whos buggs will NOT immediately lead to kernel-level privleges. So the benefits of this move are more platform flexability and (somewhat) limiting the effects of buffer overflows, etc.
Of course they are not going to openly admit that their system is so bug-ridden that this is necessary/helpful, but I am sure they are thinking that.
In Windows 3.5, the graphics subsystem was outside of the kernal, then they moved it in for 4.0, and now, they are undoing that.
This is my sig.
What, you DON'T use it? You kick up an enormous fuss about what should be done, but haven't actually tried the idea out yourself?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
... of a windowing GUI on a server?
When was the last time you met a Windows admin who was able to completely administrate a Windows server from the command line? I have met a few very competent Windows specialists who were deeply knowledgable of the Windows commandline interface, they do exist, but even these guys had tasks that they could only perform via some lame GUI even after installing a whole slew of Microsoft and third party add-on commandline utilities. The typical Windows admin is ususally lost without a GUI and some seem to be downright scared to death of the Windows commandline.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Whatever happened to Microsoft's mantra about innovation? It seems they haven't been able to do anything innovative for years, only play catch-up. Catch up with Linux. Catch up with Apple. Catch up with Firefox. Catch up with Google. Is Microsoft taking the lead in anything it does anymore?
I love gaming in general but prefer gaming against other people rather than NPCs, which leads into my question.
What does this mean for cheaters who use DX hooks in online gaming? Will this move make it harder to hook into a game engine to allow cheats or hide them from anti cheat programs or will this make it harder? (hopefully harder)
Sig
It takes about twenty years of beating a company's collective head against a brick wall in order to get an idea through it. Now we know ;-).
Not a joke. There has to be a huge contingent of intelligent Microsoft programmers who are itching to get rid of some of the 1950's technology legacy, in particular the CR+LF line breaks and the drive letters. These are undeniably defects in Windows compared to Unix, no questions or arguments are possible, and intelligent non-zealots at Microsoft certainly realize this and really, really want to fix it.
Changing stored dates to be GMT would is also an obvious improvement but it is less visible. Everything else about the file system (how protection is done, case-dependent filenames, reserved characters in filenames, the directory names used, etc) are all debatable and you can make intelligent arguments to say the way Windows does it is better. Interestingly enough, these more debatable things are also much less of an impediment to cross-platform code.
Fixing the newlines is pretty easy: change the system and libraries so that "text/binary" is ignored while writing, but still there while reading. And fix stupid Notepad, which is the only program on Windows that does not understand LF.
Drive letters should be fixed by adding "/My Computer/A/" and so on to the namespace. The names should EXACTLY match what the user sees in Explorer (if they changed this for Vista it should be changed to match). Any other solution is bogus.
Repeat after me, the GDI is not part of the kernel, it simply runs in kernel space (AKA higher privledge). Unlike, linux where everything in kernel space is basically compiled against the kernel headers and is bound to a kernel version, NT has both user and kernel mode API's. To say the graphics system is hard wired to the kernel is like saying my hello-world program is part of libc. Moving it back to userspace should be about as hard as it was back in the NT 3.51 timeframe to move it into kernel space.
Later the GUI system was moved into the NT kernel for performance reasons.
Just for clarification, is this the actual graphics drivers, or the UI? Yes, I know the UI is mostly contained within explorer.exe, but you can still execute the task manager with full control, meaning that some remnant of the UI is still running...
A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
In 2013 they'll put the graphics driver back in... and shake it all about.
Microsoft has already responded to this article by saying that nothing has changed: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,190 2540,00.asp
Vista == Linux.
I rather go with the older, more mature architecture as Microsoft argues, hence it would be Linux.
Enough said.
shouldn't prevent network access.
HAND.
It seems they have fixed almost everything that was wrong with windows. I mean:
And people complain that there is nothing new in Vista, phew... I mean if they manage to do all those things, and do them the right way like they seem to be decided to (for once...) it will be damn worth a new release...
And no, i'm not a microsoft fanboy, i've been using Linux since 97 and I really like it where it shines. But if you have even a little objectivity you can't say the stuff they're putting here is not interesting...
Crikey, this whole article and the ensuing gibberish from the Linux nerds is entirely pointless, the article and the article summary are absolutely 100% wrong.
If windows GUI becomes as slow as anything on the Linux side us gamers are screwed. But maybe that is Microsoft's plan, to make every go out and buy an X-Box because games no longer run fast enough on the PC anymore.
"... this makes Windows far more like Linux and Unix - and even the MacOS - where the graphics subsystem is a separate component, rather than being hard-wired into the OS kernel."
Now if Microsoft could just find a way to separate the internet browser from the OS...
** cough, choke, gag...**
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Linux when given the same UI abilities (desktop, -graphical- file system browsing, etc) as Windows, becomes extremely bloated. One needs to use Elightenment just to keep the bloat down. Then of course, you don't have the same UI options available. From what I've seen in forum posts, KDE needs 600 mhz+ to be usable where Windows XP checks in at 300mhz.
There are times by GUI locks up on a machine with no remote-control.
I would love to hit CTRL-ALT-number to get to a command prompt where I could manage or reboot the system.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
FYI, Monad is available in unrestricted beta right now, if you want to play around with it. I have it installed on my machine.
Wrappers for other graphics protocols have been around for a long time. You can still get Glide Wrappers for games that specifically require a 3Dfx Interactive Voodoo graphics card. Most of the newest wrappers work great. eVoodoo for instance is one of the best.
What wrappers do, in "Windows", is take the function calls ment for Glide (or whatever graphics subsystem the program needs) and translates them into function calls that DirectX can understand. I've heard of Glide wrappers for Linux that translates into OpenGL.
Anyway, DirectX in Vista will have something like a wrapper for OpenGL since there will not be any actual OpenGL drivers in the OS. This could be good or bad but the move does make sense. Instead of having two separate graphics subsystems in Vista they are narrowing it down to just one and keeping the ability to use programs that requires OpenGL. Most game developers have left OpenGL far behind anyway including Id Software a company that used OpenGL almost exclusively for years until Doom 3 and Quake 4 arrived which use DirectX. It wouldn't be too hard to add in OpenGL Optimization into the wrapper code so programs that use OpenGL won't suffer a performance hit. I cna also understand why Vista will need high graphics and memory requirements. The whole reason why the GUI was put into the kernel for NT 4.0 was for improved speed, but at the loss of stability. Taking it out again will improve stability, something that Windows needs badly. Todays faster CPUs and graphics card GPUs shouldn't really have a problem with Vista. Builtin video on motherboards usually aren't that good, but this move might convince manufaturers to start offering builtin video that is much better quality or switch to using standard video cards instead which is what they should have been doing in the first place.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
This just seems like non-news to me. I mean, yes it's news because we've been suffering for so long, but at the same time, do they really deserve a heroes welcome for something that others have been doing for years?
When are the reporters going to state the facts as they are? How about instead of:
"In broader terms, this makes
Windows far more like Linux and Unix - and even the MacOS - where the
graphics subsystem is a separate component, rather than being hard-wired
into the OS kernel."
They could write this instead:
"This has been a long time coming, everyone knows that most lockups are GUI related, and it's about time this 800 lb gorilla got its head in the sunshine. End of story."
I am so tired of the media giving M$ fanatical fanfair for actions that are just so far behind the times. I mean look at all the fanfair about M$ and MTV or M$ and their mapping system. What next, M$ and the wheel?!?!?! I mean come on already. If a business were to invent a system where computers could communicate across the world (like the Internet) no one would give them a second look as it has already been done, but for some reason if M$ would do it now, there'd be news for weeks.
I'm sick of it.
Microsoft has decided to rename this new, kernel-distant graphics interface "X". Fringe groups note that this name is already taken, but Microsoft is in talks to buy said fringe groups.
stuff |
In broader terms, this makes Windows far more like Linux and Unix - and even the MacOS -
or DOS and windows 3.1.
*ducks*
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
If the GUI is no longer part of the kernel, can I now get a Vista Server without the GUI? Just barebones Vista with the new command line shell?
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Windows graphics not in the kernel
Apple on Intel
If this keeps up all the good flame wars will be gone.
- Peace
Free as in "the Truth shall set you..."
By now, hardware has gotten to the point where any performance difference will be pretty much unnoticeable. performance was the reasoning to put it in the kernel space in the difference, but now that it makes a negligable difference, they're favoring stability. Really, the main reason windows makes the best gaming OS is just because there are games availible for it.
No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
I could have just been reading the wrong articles, but aren't graphics drivers in Linux kernel modules? The Linux kernel is a monolithic one, as most Unix kernels are. (Not including the Mach-based kernels, such as OS X.)
NT is far more like the Mach kernel than it is like a monolithic kernel. The graphics subsystem was moved into the kernel back in the NT 4 days because software rendering was the norm and performance was horrible. Now that hardware rendering and dedicated GPUs are the norm, this isn't really necessary and only serves to hurt reliability.
In addition, Microsoft's push to move most drivers out of the kernel is not one I see replicated elsewhere. Why have a printer driver as part of the kernel? It doesn't need that performance boost... at least not anymore.
Again, I'm not super-well versed on Linux driver implementation. Please, somebody provide some insight.
It seems to me that moving graphical operations to userland would make them more hackable rather than more secure. One userland app could more easily preempt another userland app, and something kernel-loaded could be used to trick a userland app into ignoring copy protection.
Also, I believe that a userland application might be a little easier to decipher, and you wouldn't need to know as much about the hidden tricks that the windows kernel might be using (or you could intercept the various calls).
Will this make it easier to reverse engineer the graphics drivers, since they will now be in userspace? This could really help the effort to write working 3d graphics drivers for Linux.
Yes, as you might notice, many of the accelerated cards have both a kernel module and a GUI driver that communicates with it. The nice thing is that, assuming the kernel module is stable, farking something in userland does not necessarily bring your entire system to its knees.
I'm assuming there would still be a kernel component, but perhaps a seperation of the layers would allow for graphics cards to attain more stability in that a glitch won't lock your entire system.
I do agree with your statements, but I don't think that "GUI-less server" is the big picture. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft would offer such functionality except perhaps in a safe-mode/recovery context. In fact, most sysadmins wouldn't even notice the difference because most administration (even gui-based administration) is done via a client utility that runs on the admin's workstation.
The big win is that (in theory) the OS can gracefully recover from a fault in the video driver and simply write the issue to the event log, rather than bluescreening.
There are even benefits for home users, albeit smaller ones. For example, you could upgrade your video drivers without having to reboot the system. I bet you could even assign different video drivers to different logins (Dad gets the stable, WHQL-certified drivers, little johnny gets the bleeding-edge, pre-alpha directx10 ati drivers from that shadowy website operating out of prague...)
before video was at level 0.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Isn't this where NT started going downhill? I vaguely remember that NT3.51 was the last OS that microsoft released without Kernel Level video.. and that's when things started going down hill..
No matter what, a better Windows just means a harder time for Linux adoption.
It certainly doesn't mean that Microsoft is any less evil.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
I actually found this on google: Vista w/o GUI
It's even free!
because of the huge games market for NT 3.51?
O_o
+++ATH0
Yeah, running graphics drivers in kernel space is just plain ugly... Luckily for us Linux users, we can get full graphics acceleration by running the "userspace" NVIDIA kernel module
size
text data bss dec hex filename
2476901 947920 6916 3431737 345d39
Kernel mode has NOTHING to do with something being configurable. win32k.sys is just assumed to be there by many other components, while a system can do reasonably fine without beep.sys or the Sony rootkot. All are kernel mode.
Only took Bill 20 years to implement the obvious. How he made an empire out of crap technology is beyond me.
With this change, there won't be any mainstream OSes that still have windowing code in kernel space. That means Windows will have the same context switching performance hit when resizing windows that anti-X11 trolls rant about on *nix now. They'll have to find something new to complain about, or at least some new specious benchmarks to support their nebulous claims about X being "slow by design".
Please, Microsoft, think of the trolls! Moving windowing code ouf of the kernel may be a sound design decision, but by doing this you'll set anti-Linux trolling and Windows fanboyism back by 3-5 years!
0 1 - just my two bits
Keep believing that because you do something a certain way, anyone who doesn't is inferior. It's not true, of course, and your belief will never make it so, but please continue it. It amuses me to see the superiority complex of those who are dogmatically locked into "One True Way." It's almost like conversing with an Intelligent Design proponent.
This has nothing to do with the 'One True Way', essentially it has alot to do with money and time. It also has something to do with what happens when you run out of options with the GUI interface. Of course you can also run out of options with command line utilities. The difference is that when this happens developing new GUI tools to do your specialized job is much more inefficient than knocking up a commandline utility to do the same task and they also tend to be more flexible. You can quickly develop and maintain a commandline utility written in C#, Visual basic or even as a simple Windows shellscript that does the grunt work you require just as well as any GUI utility without you having to spend extra time on creating the idiot proof GUI. Just for example quite a number of recent additions to the suite of IIS administration and migration tools are command line utilities and the reason for that is probably that Microsoft can churn those out alot faster and at a lower cost than any GUI based counterpart. The fact that experienced and well educated system administrators on Unix or Windows systems tend to regard GUI utilities as nice to look at and occasionally useful but mostly just as a dispensable luxury has nothing to do with arrogance.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
It's funny how so many folks have flamed MS when I still spent 2 hours getting Ubuntu to work with X the other night. At least screen Windows drivers for ATI and nVidia work without having to resort to VI'ing tedious config files. I'll take that over a bit of bloat or risk to the kernel any day. Besides, most Windows servers where stability counts running on decent HP or IBM come with embedded Intel graphics chips whose drivers are rock. I bet there are few (if any) people in the world who have seen a production crash on Windows 2003 due to video drivers.
is because enough high level graphics functionality is moving into and being required of the graphics hardware now that the performance loss on most machines will be acceptable. i.e. it is heavily tied to the hardware requirements Vista has added. If they couldn't do it without losing significant performance, they wouldn't. Performance sells before stability.
While i was reading the comments at the end of the page, slashdot displayed this quote: "We have found all life forms in the galaxy are capable of superior development. -- Kirk, "The Gamesters of Triskelion", stardate 3211.7"
...most of the really exciting stuff is still quite far off.
;-)
Explorer rewriten from scratch.
I cannot say that it hasn't been a major rewrite, but I believe it is still not maanged code, and the real dramatic features will require quite a high end system. The improvements are quite dramatc if your rig has the power of course (icons that move and resize in real-time and in 3-d, windows that rotate in 3-d space to save screen real-estate, all the transparency and so forth). Seems like so much eye-candy though and my home rig doesn't have the horsepower. Besides, I'm more comfortable clicking my way around Nautilus now
Monad. A real shell, which could possibly be much more powerfull than say bash+ standard Unix commands
Except that Monad is not going to be ready for Vista--it will not show up in any Microsoft product until the next major release of Windows Server (Server 2007 -- most likely the END of 2007). It does indeed look quite promising, and is fairly innovative in that it is supposed to be an "object oriented" shell. However, UNIX and Linux systems are more "open architecture" and there are quite a number of choices for shells. Linux's standard is BASH, but 2 years is a long way off, and by then maybe we Linux fans will be using a tricked out, Parrot/Perl6 based shell that kicks monad butt. Anyways, I think most Windows users don't realise the potential of a REAL shell typically provided on Linux or UNIX.
They're moving the graphics subsystems and all the bloody drivers in userland. That means it will be dead stable, period.
This is another "wait and see" thing. There is a huge legacy problem with Windows, and IMO for at least one more major version of Windows MS will probably have to allow old drivers intended to run in kernel-mode to operate for compatibility purposes. Application software can probably work fine through some sort of compatibility wrapper. I do believe the move will dramatically reduce BSODs and total system lockups, however I think that unstable legacy software and drivers will negatively affect stability--it's just that the crashes will be less catastrophic.
A hardware accelerated graphic system, ala Quartz.
If you want to see the true potential from this subsystem you'll need a massive graphics card (more massive hardware than for Quartz).
And no, i'm not a microsoft fanboy, i've been using Linux since 97 and I really like it where it shines. But if you have even a little objectivity you can't say the stuff they're putting here is not interesting...
I agree wholeheartedly, MS has some impressive offerings...two to six years away. I've been privleged enough to have a closer look than most people however. Much of what is coming is already in Mac OS X, and with Linux, you don't have to sign an NDA or blow a whole paycheque or two on MSDN to look at the beta stuff. The fight to the top (or to stay on top) will certainly be exciting though.
If you've got a network-friendly graphics system like X Windows or NeWS, the GUI clients (which do need to run on the server) don't need to be on the same box as the graphics display, but that's not the issue here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Microsoft Linux
NTFS is a journaling file system.
How many cycles the gui eats up is not the "big deal"
The big deal is eliminating a potential source of crashes. Right now, a video driver bug can (and often does) bring down the entire system. By putting the gui in a user process you can (in theory) avoid all that. What's more, you get that addes stability Whether you decide to use the gui or not
Hi!
you may have the impression that video card drivers live in kernel space in
Linux. But they don't. Only a very small part does. The rest is done in user
space. Don't confuse kernel space with "root"...
Hth,
Dscho
M$ is just struggling in agony and will soon fade away...
Per Aspera Ad Astra.
"copyright infringe" isn't a verb
It may not be in the dictionary yet, but the neologistic compound "to copyright-infringe" is just as structurally sound as "to babysit" or "to house-sit", and I guess a lot of us would find it more precise and more understandable than the stretched analogy "to steal". Likewise, "warez" is derived from a plural noun, but people still understand what you mean when you say you "warezed" Photoshop.
The connections in are already there. Windows NT/2K/XP all have a telnet service available (but not enabled by default). Yes, it's cleartext, so use a VPN outside your LAN. There is also http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/PsExec.html" >the psExec utility by sysinternals which is similar and it has some way of easily installing itself over a LAN. I've managed to kill apps remotely that have effectively locked up the Windows GUI by way of an infinite loop or other problem. Granted, this requires a 2nd computer to login remotely.
How many people already running Windows XP or 2000 will dump their computers + OS to buy the next Windows from Microsoft?
Depends on how many proprietary killer apps (such as games, media players, and business programs for protecting privacy) appear within the first two years of Windows Vista that require the Protected Video Path, the so-called Trusted Platform Module, the DirectX 10 Graphics Framework, or other features that are supported starting with Windows Vista. For instance, Microsoft is promoting a new "XNA" framework that allows a game to be developed for Xbox 360 and Windows using one code base, but Windows games developed with XNA will likely work best with Windows Vista.
heh, Vista, viruses, intrusions, spyware, trojans, and adware...
What does this mean for cheaters who use DX hooks in online gaming?
Windows Vista's Next Generation Secure Computing Base supports the so-called Trusted Platform Module specification published by Trusted Computing Group. In order to connect to a "Trusted" gaming server, you'll need to authorize the server to query the process list through your computer's TPM. Then the server will be able to see the hash of your kernel, video driver, and game binary, to make sure that they have not been surreptitiously modified.
Use a real linux, one with a GUI configuration system.
On SuSE?
Go to online update.
Click on the checkbox next to 'fetch nvidia drivers'.
Push 'update'.
Wait for update.
Once that's over, open up SaX2, which is conveniently labeled 'Graphics' under the 'Hardware' tab of the Configuration tool.
Select Resolution. Select color depth. Select correct screen size/aspect ratio if they aren't properly detected by DDC (not all monitor correctly report DDC information, and lots of rarer/generic monitors aren't in the DDC databases).
Push 'Save'.
Log out. Log in. Done.
Seems easier than Windows to me.
Oh, and I feel that stability, although it does count MORE on servers, is plenty important on workstations/desktops, too. I've seen countless Bluescreens on where the nvidia or ati or intel or via/s3 or whatever driver is at fault. Or so people claim: "Windows is plenty stable, the bluescreen is the graphic card drivers!"
ATI's drivers are shoddy. Lots of features, but shoddy. Nvidia's drivers are hit or miss, you have to find a good version. XGI, Via/S3, and PowerVR drivers are atrocious. Intel's drivers are good, however, if you are using OpenGL or Direct 3D, or want dual monitors, Intel's Extreme Graphics won't get you there.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
i really love how 75% of /.ers made comments without having any idea what the fuck they are talking about.
Secure video path, anyone?
This is all pretty ironic in light of the fact that
there has been something of a movement afloat in Linux
circles to move Unix "graphics" functionality into the
kernel.
"Just what we all want. Command-line administration of Active Directory and Exchange."
This needs to be said...
Closely linking the OS and diretory is a *major strategic mistake* that most companies will realize when MS does a major upgrade to AD and links it to server 2009 or whatever it will be called.
AD as a concept is dumb, because LDAP does everything needed, but that's a separate post.
No, the real dumb part is that AD should have been an add-on to the OS that would be both backwards and forwards compatible. Switching OS's is hard enough for a corporation. Soon, they'll have to simultaneously plan a directory and OS upgrade all at the same time.
Presumably, most of the MCSE will all be fired at that point.
This article has already been declared as wrong - see http://www.longhornblogs.com/ and http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,190 2540,00.asp
Is it possible to let users decide to run UI in usermode or kernel mode during booting?
Slashdot = Sarcasm
NTFS was a journalling filesystem around the same time Linus was first annoucing Linux.
now it won't be possible to break / hack the kernel, just by drawing ... :P
objects, moving some windows around and coloring some random spaces on/in
the gui
bye-bye are the times you could hack with the mouse *sniff*
So we're finally going to see MS Linux. Huh, never would have thought that they would see the obvious, and remodel Windows to look/act like an effective, stable, OS.
Of course, you still need COM exploits, rootkit security holes, and DRM lockout for "backward compatibility".
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
So basically, Microsoft is going to copy Linux in the one area where Linux is doing badly. X-Windows is undoubtedly the most fragile and badly-working part of Linux, mainly because it tries to manage a device (graphics card, keyboard and mouse) in userspace. A crashing fullscreen X application often leaves X unable to read mouse or keyboard, requiring restarting it - which, if you mainly use the graphical environment, is the same as rebooting the whole system, since all your programs are closed.
This is getting offtopic, so: does anyone really believe that Windows can survive a crash of the graphic system, and that there is no hidden APIs (read: security holes) in kernel for use by it ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
History repeats itself:
A return to the architecture of Windows NT 3.x-3.5x really, which had the GUI subsystem for graphics in "usermode" (RPL3/Ring3) for stability's sake...
(So, if you had a 'bad videocard driver', it would not take out the OS core/kernel & all else!)
The designer of Windows NT (from DEC) @ MS, Mr. David Cutler, afaik/iirc?
He almost quit Microsoft when they told him they were putting the graphics subsystem into RPL0/Ring 0/kernel mode in fact...
However, in this "return to yesteryear", it seems that in the end?
It appears that he was "right" after all, regarding OS design &/or stability from an architectural point-of-view!
APK
Why not create several microkernels, each engineered towards the optimal management of a specific function? I'd say there's room for a master hypervisor, a local real time scheduler, a parallel scheduler, a kernel optimized for guaranteeing bandwidth and resources for drivers, a highly abstract network message passing system, etc...
This, to me, is the only way to have our cake and eat it too, without getting fatter.