Slashdot Mirror
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."
I thought "improvements and enhancements" was MS marketing speak for "newly-introduced instability".
thats right, I rarely use capitals. deal with it. but don't mistake my laziness for stupidity
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.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
"which some people might see as a risk of newly-introduced instability."
now who would think that? Honestly now, lets see some hands. You in the back, PUT YOUR DAMN HANDS IN THE AIR!
When adding ANY code, there is risk of security vulnerabilities and potential exploits. Sadly, most people seem to not know this.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Prepare for a new worm. They either:
1. Fixed something exploitable
2. Created something exploitable
I doubt they found everything. Even less likely they actually fixed what they did find.
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?
So they've decided to distribute linux afterall?
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'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
They didn't put any electrolytes in it...
..of SP1 RTM, kind of like what the exo performance/xpnet people did late last year.
I am one of the many who switched back to XP..performance on my tablet stunk with Vista. However, I did like some of the ease-of-use mobility features, but it wasn't worth the grief of performance and drivers.
I would like to run Vista....I just need a compelling reason to do so.
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.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
It's long since I got excited about a Linux kernel update. Since I upgrade the kernel along with everything else perhaps it's hard to say, but on the plain non-virtualized desktop running conventional applications there aren't any revolutions going on. There's new drivers but in theory every USB device is already supported by Linux, it's the userland bits that are missing. Don't get me wrong I'm sure there's a lot of important developments going on, I just don't see it affecting me. Or if it does, it's some months later when applications or the control center improves somehow. I think the situation is much the same for Vista...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
In case you haven't noticed ... Vista is a new OS and _not_ an incremental update of XP.
The overall design of it may be good but of course there is going to be bugs at this point in the game. It seems like everyone keeps forgetting how complicated an OS is.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
That's how much you rev the version number by when all you are doing is fixing bugs that only required very minor code change.
Mmmm.. Donuts
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/ and counting ChangeLogs since then.
I'm not sure why this is news.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
What is the difference between the Vista and Longhorn kernels? What advantage would I see from this upgrade? Is it more stable? Are there features (scheduling features I'd guess, better realtime support maybe?) that Vista doesn't currently have? Other than the danger of introducing new and exciting bugs, why do I even care?
I read the internet for the articles.
Maybe you should, you know, keep up. Network and sound drivers are both now userland. Network purposefully yields to the sound driver when its playing sound so you don't get choppy sound. There's a bug where it yields too much. And only if you're copying files on a LAN, IIRC. It was missed because they didn't do testing on a gbit network card.
This has been known almost since Vista's release... where have you been?
As opposed to the pervasive long-standing instability inherent to Windows operating systems?
This is Micro$oft we're talking about. They fixed 20 exploitable things and put in 30 more exploitable things, but will refuse to admit the 30 in the name of "security through obscurity."
That's some kind of contradiction along the lines of "military intelligence." I kid.
Slightly off topic:
Vista desktop + openldap win32 binaries + apache and bind = GNU Windows Server?
openldap on win32: http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200705/msg00152.html
apache2: http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
kerberos5: http://web.mit.edu/Kerberos/kfw-3.2/kfw-3.2.2.html
Granted, the average win32 admin will hit a wall because Microsoft does not design their product, documents and services for an admin smart enough to DIY.
Openldap/kerberos5/apache2 opens many, many more security/identity/authentication possibilities than Microsoft's active directory.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
As long as they get rid of that stupid "calculating time to transfer files" dialog.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
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.
technical writing / development
Now for more than 1 year launching, microsoft release SP1 for vista? is that so fast?
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
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
There is no separate "Windows kernel" and "server kernel" or whatever nonsense the article is talking about. There is one Windows kernel...the current version as of late 2006 shipped with Vista RTM, the current version as of now shipped with Vista SP1 and Server 2008. Not clear why anybody would expect anything different.
Think of it this way; which does Windows need more of a foot-holding in; the server market or the desktop market? Let me give you a clue.
throw new NoSignatureException();
First of all, I don't want to use Vista. I now run a half crippled XP because HP refuse point blank to supply XP drivers for this model.
Vista is a failure. Even though people complained non stop when XP came out, the adoption rate was MASSIVE when compared to Vista.
Microsoft: From the moment the very first Longhorn alpha were leaked to P2P networks, and people got a taste of the new MS vision, Vista was doomed to fail. Even though there was a complete rewrite, it was all downhill from this point.
I suggest you put this one down to experiance Microsoft and realize that your user base is becoming more and more knowledgeable and discerning. Your old tactics will not work for much longer.
Let see if you can come up with something REALLY good with the new MinWin (Windows 7). From what I've heard about the kernel development, it takes a lot from the modular approach used in many Unices, and if MS can build a (fairly) open, and moreover loosly coupled modular system, then I think they'll be onto a winner.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Very subtle /sarcasm
Finally, another tablet user!
I occasionally game on my unit, so now I'm running an XP/Vista dual-boot, but msot of my work time is in Vista these days. For my unit, it doesn't seem to be appreciably slower than XP was, (but to be fair, I'm not running Aero Glass since the integrated graphics don't support it) and some of the features work noticeably better.
For me specifically:
- Handwriting Recognition is improved. (In both English, and Japanese.)
- Searching was greatly improved.
- Hibernation to file now restores properly every time.
System specs:
Toshiba R15-s822
1.6GHz Pentium M
160GB HD
2GB RAM
Vista Ultimate.
Would you tell me a bit more about your Vista experience? Specifically, was it the over-all experience that sent you running back to XP, or was it the tablet specific features?
If there's a castle floating upside down in the sky, then there's a castle floating upside down in the sky.
Well, the GUI is so cumbersome, it's no wonder that even the viruses are slowed.
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)
The Vista kernel, is probibly the ONLY thing going good for it. ONLY. Nothing else seems to be some kind of 'improvement' The UI blows, Mabye a smidgen of DX10, interesting, but coming to XP, sureptitiously. BUT not on any production machine, or one that I cannot run multiple OSs on.
The Longhorn kernel? Probibly another improvement, technology wise. Really just M$ Business as usual.
"Service Pack 1 remains the milestone by which many companies and consumers judge when a Microsoft product is truly bug-free and mature enough to deploy."
Now that is Sad. Windows 2000 is just getting to be a good product, after Service Pack 4+. Stable, but still has that pesky scheduler that blows...but for single applications or games, its pretty good. Only crashed once, so far in about a year. I downgraded from XP, when SP2 cut my frame rates in half, ate a ton of Ram for lunch, and cut the netspeed again by half.
XP maybe maturing in the next few years, but I cannot wait to look at the LongHorn Kernel:
There are a few presentations about the Vista kernel, that make me want to upgrade, but even at a 15% discount at CompUSA liquidation, I am still not buying. ( Home and business editions probibly come with a 'limited' kernel. ).
"...where have you been?"
Waiting for his download to finish...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
New OS huh? So they rewrote everything from scratch eh? Completely changed the way we use an operating system?
All OSes these days are an evolutionary process. I would argue all software is. Take the old stuff, make some improvements. This makes sense since re-inventing the wheel is a waste.
are the 2008 Server changes made to address the incompatibility issues Vista had with older software? If they are, then great.
What I had originally heard was that Windows 2008 Server and Vista SP1 were going to be based on XP code for compatibility issues in order to make the OS more stable and more compatible. I am not sure how much XP code was used on the new kernel.
Since I support many friends and family members who have Vista machines, I am thinking of buying a new PC with Vista preinstalled on it, and hopefully SP1 to see if it fixes the problems that the original Vista had. As I recall the original XP also had instability issues and compatibility issues and XP SP1 fixed those, and then XP SP2 made even more improvements and made XP more stable and more compatible.
What I hope is that Vista SP1 ends up being what the original Vista had promised. The only thing is the hardware requirements for Vista are 3 times or more the requirements that XP had. So of course upgrading an XP machine to Vista is going to run it slower. Vista on a newer machine made in 2007/2008 should run a lot better than Vista on a 2004/2005/2006 machine.
If all else fails, I hope that ReactOS is developed into a stable build in 2008/2009 some time. People need to keep an eye on that open sourced OS. Once it goes into beta testing, it is in alpha right now, but 0.4 or 0.5 will enter Beta testing and be good enough to use as an alternative to Windows.
Keep in mind that Windows 2008 Server is based on Windows 2003 Server, which was based on Windows XP. Windows Vista was not based on Windows XP, but was a rewrite attempt. Vista and Longhorn are actually too different projects, Vista was a rewrite of Windows, while Longhorn was based on Windows XP. At least that is what I heard.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
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.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
...and go after the reference drivers for your components. Pull the make and model numbers off of your chips that you need drivers for and head after them via Google.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
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.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
> It seems like everyone keeps forgetting how complicated an OS is.
Including Microsoft....
ROFL. Well, atleast with Vista's DRM you're guaranteed those viruses are 100% Authentic Genuine made for Vista viruses. And the Spyware popups look pretty and transparanty too!
This makes sense since re-inventing the wheel is a waste. Agreed Take the old stuff, make some improvements. Depends.
You're right that a lot of software development is evolutionary. You try not to duplicate work that doesn't need duplicated. Just because don't write (anew) all the code does not imply that it's an update. You may have a good set of libaries that can be used. It's not all solely make improvements to old software. Sometimes the design of the system limits how well you can continue modifying it and then you have to redesign and rewrite it.
I do see where you're coming from, sometimes there's a fine line between if a piece of software is more of a redesign or more of an update. It can blurred, however I point you to here. I standby my opinion that Vista is more of a new product then an incremental update of XP.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
old people can still remember dos and lotus 123.
Dungeon Tactics : Free Open Source SRPG
Ya gotta love the wording here:
"Also coming with SP1 but not in the current release candidate, we will also be including updates that deal with two exploits we have seen, which can affect system stability for our customers. The OEM Bios exploit, which involves modifying system files and the BIOS of the motherboard to mimic a type of product activation performed on copies of Windows that are pre-installed by OEMs in the factory. The Grace Timer exploit, which attempts to reset the "grace time" limit between installation and activation to something like the year 2099 in some cases."
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20071208/vista-sp1-changelog/
Get your own free personal location tracker
i bet you speak for your own experience, here i have none of that.
Its funny to watch all these comments, and check which ones are really productive comments and which ones are from 12 year old kids.
Oh and no im not a Microsoft defender, neither Unix neither Apple by the way.
Its just i think people should wait to see and comment on what they know, and when they comment try to be productive.
The reasoning is precisely because we have cheap and fast CPUs we can now sacrifice some performance (it doesn't take much to deal with fast ethernet) in order to get more stability. In the case of network and sound, driver faults, for instance, won't (shouldn't anyways) take down the system anymore. It's all theory of course, but I can see the reasoning at least.
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
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
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.
No, nobody said you should either. Yes, they fucked up by not testing this scenario well. It happens though; I know because I develop software for a living. FWIW, I tried the "no-cost" alternative. That only works if you're 1) lucky 2) buy hardware from a list of things known to work and 3) have lots of time to invest. No thanks.
Is this good?
Well, given that the automated crash reporting Windows has had built in for some time now says that many failures were attributed to crappy network and sound card drivers, yes. I'd rather a slower file copy than crap network drivers bringing the WHOLE system down.
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.
So what? Everything is a trade off; I'd take a perf hit for reliability, especially for something I don't necessarly care about.. which is does it take 5 minutes or 6 to copy a file to my server.
But then, processors *are* cheap these days.
Yup. MS got what it has been pushing for; commodization of hardware. Hardware is now cheap, and the main value is in the software.
oh boo-hoo!
a company which makes 20 billion profit a year with 100000 employees cannot make a stable operating system, where as a couple of guys in their mother's basement (linux programmers) can.
forgive my incredulity here.
How the hell was that off-topic? He didn't criticize Linux so you can't even mod him "-1: disagrees with me".
"It seems like everyone keeps forgetting how complicated an OS is."
Especially MS.
Changing the kernel is a big deal, And defiantly a reason for any large organization to hold off implementation.
While complicated, they ahve been done many times. It's not new and SHOULD be down to a science, literally.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The very fact that this story makes it to the front page but http://it.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=504352/ remains unloved in the Firehose pretty much epitomises what is rubbish about Slashdot.
Slashdot is many things but news it ain't. Microsoft release a service pack for their OS. They do this because they need to change things. So they decide to use a different version number from the previous release of the OS. How on earth can that be a surprise to anyone? Please can someone explain the significance of that? When was any OS updated without the version and build numbers changing?
One of the most respected experts on Windows internals blogs all about the technical details behind the much discussed Vista copy issues, and about what MS have done to improve things with SP1. And that post languishes in the Firehose? Has anyone else here heard of Mark Russinovich? Or Sysinternals? Or is it just me?!
Microsoft Windows Vista SP1:
Codenamed: XP
My dad is very conservative. I went to the store to help him buy a new laptop and he didn't follow my suggestion of buying a Mac. I almost convinced him of letting me install Linux but I needed some time and he was in a a hurry to take the laptop home, to the country.
Anyway, he hated Vista so much that he asked me to set it to the Windows 2000 look and feel. Even so, he has a fit every time one of those stupid popups comes up with some badly translated bullshit that he can't understand. I can't wait to have him here again so I can install Linux on the fucking thing.
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, 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
"Don't hate the media, become the media." -Jello Biafra
did you just call me old?!
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Maybe they didn't tell anyone because they were afraid that people would start to kernel panic about it.
I'll be hiding now.
today is spelling optional day.
The thing that intrigues me is how they are going to fix the speed/memory issues without ripping DRM out. I have a hard time seeng other than smaller improvements in isolated areas as to Vistas performance less they rip/replace large parts of it. A new thorough benchmark comparing XP SP2 vs Vista SP1 would be very interesting. Does it still demand 2 GB to run smoothly under moderate load? Had one for testing on my desk a while ago (im a sysadmin) and frankly it was a real dog.
Dont get me started at audio issues in most games and audio applications, EAX? forgedaboutit!
HTTP/1.1 400
It's funny, when my mom was buying a new computer I tried to talk her out of buying a Mac, but she insisted. Turns out she hates it, she has trouble figuring out how to do things, nothing is where she expects it, etc. I find it hilarious that the operating system specifically marketed for "dummies" (not literally, but in the sense of computer neophyte) and she can't figure out how to make it do anything but has no problem with Windows XP. Go figure.
One of these times I'll try to get the old beta of Boot Camp running on her machine so I can install XP...
maybe that's why they are so quiet.
I'm wondering if xpsp3 is going to include a kernel upgrade as well..
May I suggest walking them through turning on Remote Desktop. Might save you (and them) some frustration. Or maybe try this if setting up Terminal Services is too much trouble. Works for me.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Until they invent some machine to read your brain this problem will never be solved. Some guy wants the widgets to be on the left, the other prefers them on the right, etc.
Mom was probably trained on Windows, and didn't get that a) everything is in one place b) in about half the clicks away.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
No, the real issue is that instead of processing tcpip at a lower priority than multimedia, it simply refuses to process more than 10,000 packets per second.
What happens is that tcpip processing occours as a 'deferred procedure call' which I think is in kernel mode. Anyway, such DPCs pre-empt multimedia processing which is a user-mode thread (even though multimedia processing is at high priority - DPCs preempt all threads but lose to low-level interrupt service.)
See http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx
I hope they fix the bug where you sleep, wake the PC up and your network connection is gone for good unless you disable/enable the hardware. It's rendered the sleep feature useless.
Oh and I would like to see the shutdown button actually shut down the PC but I'm just a romantic dreamer.
Still a pain in the ass for someone (me) who doesn't really use Windows on a regular basis. I hate supporting Windows and dealing with its "quirks" with a passion. But I can't say no to my parents when they need help. *shrug*
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
She already knows where things are in XP so that's where she looks pr tries to look.
If she didn't know XP she'd be coping much better.
but to be fair, I'm not running Aero Glass since the integrated graphics don't support it)
Although I doubt you will have a choice(as all probably will), but for your future Tablet purchase, make sure the Video in it supports Glass.
The DWM/Aero interface in Vista is actually 'faster' than running in non-glass mode.
Most people assume the 'pretty' = slower, which is incorrect with the Vista reference to Glass. The only exception is a couple of odd cycle GeforceFX (the oldest to support glass) GPUs, and by correctly setting the GPU clockrate due to a driver issue clocking it down or by turning off the 'blurred' edges that Glass also does increased the performance of even these 2003 level video cards back to faster than XP and Vista Basic with Glass/Aero on.
When the Aero interface in enabled, not only is the WDDM composer handling the redraws, etc, but additional acceleration in areas of the GDI and especially in native WPF and Direct3D applications running.
Sadly, many users think glass always hurts performance and turns it off for speed, when they are often slowing down redrawing of applications by a factor of 2x to 20x depending on the type of application. This is really horrible when you see reviewers of Vista using A) Old pre-June 07 video Drivers B) Doing performance test day one, while Vista is optimizing, C) Turning off glass and SuperFetch and other technologies in Vista that actually make things faster - and then the reviewers complain the system is slower than XP or seems slow to them, and it would from their own idiocy.
I have been a Tablet user (Digitizer from CAD days to Portables) for over 20 years now and even on desktop PCs a pen tablet is my preferred interface. Vista does well as a Tablet OS, not only with handling ink but handrecognition and being able to even search for handwritten text in documents is quite exception and a testament to why Vista does some things rather well.
Here is a Tip from Tablet PC users to non-Tablet users:
Go into the Folder options and turn on 'Enable Check Boxes to Select' - this is a Tablet feature anyone can use, and is a great alternative to having to use Ctrl-Click to select specific documents/files when using Explorer, and it something that is there if want to use and doesn't get in your way if you don't.
>> I occasionally game on my unit,
I bet you do, I'll bet you do... Nudge-nudge say no more, say no more!
I faced the bug where I'd lose my network connection after restoring from Sleep mode. But it was fixed about a month ago during one of the automatic updates.
Configuring the shutdown button to actually shut down the pc is actually quite easy. Just go to:
Control Panel --> Hardware & Sound --> Power Options
From the panel on the left, click on "Choose what the Power buttons do"
Hope this helps.
Personally I prefer to let my widgets use the entire dashboard, not just one side of it.... oh wait, you meant gadgets...
In case you haven't noticed ... Vista is a new OS and _not_ an incremental update of XP.
Vista is Windows NT 6.0. XP was Windows NT 5.1. While it *is* a major update, it is most certainly not a "new OS".
Oh man, and I just used my last mod point this morning - someone give him a funny, please.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Give me a break. XP's networking stack was NOT the panacea. XP's network stack was not able to adaptively adjust its TCP window size based on network latencies etc. Also, it wasn't built to cleanly support IPv6. Vista's new network stack does both of these, plus adds support for SMB 3.0 which DRAMATICALLY improves the performance of copying files to/from Vista/Server2008 machines. I nearly fell over the first time I saw my Vista machine saturate it's network socket whilst copying files to another Vista box. Whilst there were indeed some unfortunate bugs in Vista RTM's network stack, SP1 has nailed a huge number of these issues and it's network performance is now AWESOME. Microsoft also took the time to adjust how SuperFetch and the File Indexers worked, reducing the brutal disk pounding that Vista RTM delivered to users' hard drives and which accounted for the vast majority of percieved performance issues. SP1 is now smooth, fast and enormously more usable for practically all desktop uses. Server 2008 is a wonderful improvement over the already hugely respectable Server 2003. Both Vista and Server share much common code. Server, of course, has extra features that Vista client doesn't need (e.g. DNS, DHCP, WINS, AD, WDS, etc. services), but the core kernel and the vast majority of the rest of the core OS are the same code. Since Server 2008 has been tuned, issues fixed and features improved in the 18 months since the Vista team had to down tools on new feature implementations, they've done a great deal of work to improve perf and stability. So before bitchslapping VistaSP1/Server2008, why not take them out for a drive - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Interestingly, user mode network drivers do not add appreciably to OS stability. The reason is that the driver needs to interact intimately with the network stack -- if the driver is in user mode, the network stack is also in user mode.
If this is not done, either (1) certain features won't work well (failover for one), or (2) performance will be REALLY bad (each packet will require many more context switches - many more than 4 per packet).
Presuming that the network stack itself is moved into user space, it can be brought down with the (supposedly) buggy driver. In turn, the network stack will/may not be able to transfer any other traffic, rendering most any socket level services useless.
The implication is that a bad driver can shut down the network stack. This doesn't affect non-networked or local use, but is just as much of a show stopper as having the OS itself crash.
We still need a "dead-man" switch that can reboot the system (or another communications channel -- the SUN "lights out" management for example).
Putting the network driver into user space *may* increase security, but it would be better to simply 'vette the driver itself.
Personally, I think that the network drivers have been moved to isolate them and prevent driver issues from being potential security holes. This is the (arguably) the only use of the feature. So, the tradeoff is security vs. speed in the context of unreviewed drivers.
We can regain the speed by simply reviewing the drivers -- and network physical drivers are simple enough to verify.
[tinfoil hat]
There is another possiblity. Network drivers are SO simple, that the mechanism to actually run the driver has been put into alternate Operating Environments. The "NDIS" driver model no longer locks the user into Windows. It was time to change the model to keep drivers from the other Operating Environments.
[/tinfoil hat]
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Interestingly, user mode network drivers do not add appreciably to OS stability. The reason is that the driver needs to interact intimately with the network stack -- if the driver is in user mode, the network stack is also in user mode.
Really? And you've seen the crash reports that MS has? Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. The network stack doesn't need to be in user land (and in Vista, is not) for the drivers to be in user land.
If this is not done, either (1) certain features won't work well (failover for one), or (2) performance will be REALLY bad (each packet will require many more context switches - many more than 4 per packet).
Again, no one cares how many context switches networking will incur. I'd rather decreased performance over system relability.
Presuming that the network stack itself is moved into user space, it can be brought down with the (supposedly) buggy driver. In turn, the network stack will/may not be able to transfer any other traffic, rendering most any socket level services useless.
The implication is that a bad driver can shut down the network stack. This doesn't affect non-networked or local use, but is just as much of a show stopper as having the OS itself crash.
Last I checked, networking wasn't a requirement of an OS. That is, you don't need networking to use an OS.
Personally, I think that the network drivers have been moved to isolate them and prevent driver issues from being potential security holes. This is the (arguably) the only use of the feature. So, the tradeoff is security vs. speed in the context of unreviewed drivers.
Security and reliablity can complement each other. Moving the drivers to userland may have improved security as well, but that's not been the stated reason.
We can regain the speed by simply reviewing the drivers -- and network physical drivers are simple enough to verify.
Your agenda is showing.
[tinfoil hat]
There is another possiblity. Network drivers are SO simple, that the mechanism to actually run the driver has been put into alternate Operating Environments. The "NDIS" driver model no longer locks the user into Windows. It was time to change the model to keep drivers from the other Operating Environments.
[/tinfoil hat]
Ugh. Get outside more often.
hey, i choose to upgrade my kernel to the latest v2.6.x.x linux kernel each week
- to get the latest features and bleeding edge OS designs.
i guess thats why my 1.2GHz P4 will run rings around a 2.2GHz CoreDuo running Vista
Networking is, indeed, not a necessary component of an OS. However, a number of services do depend on networking.
And, as to my "agenda" -- I am actually a Solaris guy. Yes, I do Linux and Windows work on occasion, but I mostly deal with "lights-out" server farms. Currently, two projects: "utility computing" billing, and a VMS to Unix migration. So, yes, in a way, my bias shows. Both Solaris and VMS have source available, and the drivers can be "end user audited prior to deployment".
Also, the systems I work with (with utility computing test machines are on the other side of the country) would be "useless" without networking.
Back to the technical discussion:
Now... I questioned whether a "user mode network driver" is of use. I *DID NOT* specify whether (or not) such a thing exists. Now, from my (meager, except that I *have* written commercial deployed Windows drivers) knowledge:
From Wikipedia (the simplest reference) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_networking_technologies we discover that the ONLY thing that runs in "user mode" is WinSock. WSK (WinSock kernel), TDI (Transport Driver Interface), AFD (Ancillary Function Driver) all run in kernel mode. The bottom end is still an NDIS driver and this runs in kernel mode as well. (NOTE: this is a reasonably accurate article, in my opinion. But I will also link to other sites, including Microsoft, later, as well).
The UMDF (User Mode Driver Framework) supported in Vista is designed for such things as cell phones, digital cameras, USB devices, etc. UMDF drivers do NOT require Code Integrity Signing (package signing will do) to load as well (which makes it easier for some vendors).
Low performance networking (along the lines of "USB connect ethernet") should CERTAINLY go into a UMDF driver. But, the original poster SPECIFICALLY mentioned gigabit ethernet. To which I replied...
Microsoft ITSELF recommends (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/foundation/DrvRoadmap.mspx) KMDF for network drivers (which is KERNEL MODE DRIVER FRAMEWORK). As a quick overview for KMDF, try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel-Mode_Driver_Framework
"Ugh" - Can't answer to that, sorry (I guess I DON'T get out much).
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I'd like to join your Active Directory chapter of the Right Thinking Fellows Club. That's right. I see the hideous errors of my years of misguided ways. From big companies to little, Active Directory just works! There isn't a single limitation with the product.
I will need a new job though, as my current line of work is fixing the mess that my new friends in the Active Directory chapter of the Right Thinking Fellows Club make. And it looks like I'll need to get paid less too, which will cut into my family's standard of living and create a great deal of uncertainty. But that's okay because Active Directory just works and is everything to everyone.
Thanks for straightening me out.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
In other words, you have no substantive reply
Your inference is false. There are many substantive points to discuss. Your belligerence leaves no room for discussion.
Also, I never said AD was perfect
Oh really? You sure implied it while you were shouting me down. "Huh? Of course it does" to a couple of big-time Linux/Win gotchas sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.
though it really is a good product.
Keep telling yourself that. Your biggest employers/customers will be hiring me to clean up your mess.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html