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."

Comments

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.

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.

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?

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.

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/ and counting ChangeLogs since then.

I'm not sure why this is news.

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.

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.