Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Won't Have Compact "MinWin" Kernel
An anonymous reader points us to an interview Microsoft's Windows 7 development chief, Steven Sinofsky, did with CNet. He reveals that Windows 7 will be a further evolution of Vista, and will lose the rumored MinWin kernel. "We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same. We're going to not introduce additional compatibilities, particularly in the driver model. Windows Vista was about improving those things. We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you've been talking about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well."
oooooh that was quick.. /marks that one off the list/
shall we have a pool as to what will be next?
(and yes I know powershell was released as an addon)
The current fortune cookie ("User hostile.") at the end of the page is somehow very fitting...
Why would we believe these guys in Redmond again? They have sold us vaporware for decades. They promised the cool new file system in Vista and it was scrapped early in. They are going in the right direction--abandoning the hamstring of backwards compatibility--but who has any faith in Microsoft's ability to execute? I think I know the reason too. Microsoft has always selected the highest rated developers. Well, ratings may judge raw intelligence but not creativity. And it is the latter thing that is in short supply. Microsoft just does not attract creative rule benders. Instead, it attracts go alongs--people who followed the rules and did the right thing all along--which leaves them with high scores on standardized tests but bereft of any creative initiative. This has been my experience, at least.
"..and will lose the rumored MinWin kernel." So in other words, the only thing really going for Windows 7 has been dropped. I feel that many businesses were holding out for Windows 7 to fix all the problems that Vista introduced.. it looks likely that this is not the case. If this shift is confirmed, then I really suspect that a lot of Microsoft houses will begin to dump the platform altogether.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Great, an article telling us what Windows 7 isn't. While they're at it, somebody should write a story about how it doesn't use the Linux or MacOS kernels either. From the start Microsoft has been telling us that MinWin is an experimental, non-production kernel and that it wouldn't be in Windows 7. Now CNet reports it and its like new news all over again. Yawn.
We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7
What, all five of them?
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
...now, what exactly?
Not only could the average user not find an advantage in Vista over XP (remember, users rarely care what's under the hood, they just want to use the system), now even geeks won't see a difference between the old and the new system?
Ok, let's be constructive. We heard now what will not be different between Vista and "Windows 7". So what will? Because, well, if it's the same... I'm no marketing guru, but I guess even the marketing guys in Redmond might have a hard time selling the same product again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's see now... MS develops great new technology, but only so far as so that it can be seen what potential it has. MS hypes (to a greater or lesser extent) this new technology. MS explains that actually this new technology won't be used in the next version of MS Windows.
What was that really good filesystem we were going to see in Windows XP, sorry I mean Vista?
Oh right, this time it is because of backwards compatibility, rather then any other reason. But still, people keep saying it, why doesn't MS just dump the crud, go with a great new secure system (MinWin sounded like a good start), and use emulation to support all the old software?
With drivers (the specific reason given here), they could easily have a backwards compatible layer implemented above the microkernal for drivers that needed it.
Meh.
I wank in the shower.
Is there anything actually wrong with the NT6.1 Kernel?
I mean, Vista has it's problems, granted, but can any informed person here state what's so bad about the Kernel itself, since that's what's causing all the fuss??
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Isn't this slow and steady 'removal of promised features' what got us Vista in the first place?
If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
"drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same"
Bzzt! Logical inconsistency detected! Abort/retry/fail?
apterous.org
Augh. The entire concept of MinWin has been lost to time. It's NOT a custom kernel. It's NOT a kernel rewrite. It is, and always was, the literal minimal version of Windows. MinWin was never a shipping feature that any customer would care about - in fact in the first iteration it was intended as the first, required, component of Windows embedded - the fully componentized version of Windows.
"We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7"
Windows 7 will be incompatible with just about every third party application. Any compatibility with other Microsoft will be purely incidental.
"We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel"
We're making it an even larger resource hog. Idling, Windows 7 will likely occupy 2 or more cores, and 4GB of ram.
"The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well."
We're going to try our best to make Windows 7 so convoluted that no one can possibly discover the vast security holes.
Hope this is a bit easier to read.
"We have no idea if drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work at all on Windows 7; in fact, they didn't work on Vista either. We're going to introduce additional incompatibilities, particularly in the driver model. Windows Vista was about perverting those things. We are going to build on the relatively lack of bad publicity of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you've been complaining about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an incompatible fork of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further incompatibly forked up fork of that kernel as well."
(I'm sorry)
In my home business, I'm down to ONE program that runs only on Windows (ebay Blackthorne). ONE. (Wine doesn't cut it).
Otherwise, I could be running on OS X for 1 laptop and the PCs would be switched over to Ubuntu or something similiar, maybe RedHat.
Years ago, the internet was hamstringed by many windows only incompatibilities. Firefox evened the playing field there. Most programs were windows only (Quickbooks and Tax Programs can run on Mac now).
Windows grasp in my business is tenuous indeed. Granted, mine is a small business - but aren't many in America?
Plus in Linux, it's simple not to include a webbrowser. You can do the same in Windows, IIRC, (actually just turn it off), but there always seems to be a workaround on firing it up again. Those are one of the biggest productivity killers - my employees should be surfing at home.
It's not that I care about licensing fees, but my operation is too small to hire someone technical who knows how to do everything the right way and I find the Windows boxes need the most babysitting. Time killer = Money Wasted.
Even worse, he then said "We're going to not introduce additional compatibilities", so there's a chance that they're planning to introduce a few incompatibilities.
which is totally what she said
"...and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well."
Could you guys just go back and evolve Windows 2000 instead?
The Microsoft OS development model:
1. Promise the next version will be a geek's wet dream
2. Over the course of the several years of development, slowly step away from each and every major feature
3. Release the new version which is, at best, a minor upgrade from the previous version.
4. Profit!
We are currently at step 2.
Windows 7 = Vista 1.1
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Am I the only one who's leaving system administration over Vista?
It's being rammed down our throats right now and it's just way too awful. It's actually the reason I'm quitting my sysadmin job and am going back to college for a non-computer related degree this fall.
Of course the drivers and software that run on vista are going to run on Windows 7. Clearly, all they're going to do is rebrand Vista, change some eye candy, and pray it sells thistime around!
They'd be doing it now, but they need to wait long enough that people will believe they've done some actual work on it.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Why, can't find jobs as a Unix, web server or even plain networks administrator?
Computers != Microsoft.
Yah. Windows Vista has been a bit of a learning experience for them. What they discovered is that the popular press, overflowing with security concerns, was not entirely representative of their customer base. Their customer base does want security, but they by no means want their security ahead of compatibility... or even convenience, for that matter.
Vista's mistakes are understandable from a certain point of view.
Really, they should take a major hint from apple. Go ahead and make major transitions, but use virtualization to bridge the gap. Under no circumstances break compatibility.
C//
We're rolling it out, even though none of the IT staff (just the manager) wants to. We just see it as being a hassle -- retraining the staff as well as ourselves -- with no real benefit, as all the software anyone needs to use works fine on XP.
Not to mention that we'll now be running an OS which contains code specifically designed to prevent the computer from working. We've already had one system fail to activate using our key management server, and we've only rolled out half a dozen. In a perverse way, I'm actually looking forward to when every desktop is running Vista and then decides it's not activated and nobody can do any work while we try to fix a problem caused by code that shouldn't be there in the first place. A high profile screwup like that could be the death knell for shitty license activation schemes.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if every machine in your organization suddenly decides its not authorized and refuses to boot, it won't help you at all. The IT staff will be blamed even if they recommended against it. We did the same thing with regards to MS Exchange at a place I worked at a few years ago. The company hired a new VP for Tech, and he was a seagull manager (fly in, shit all over everything and then fly out again) who had no idea what was what. He insisted we move to MS Exchange and easily sold it to the top execs because of the stupid scheduling feature. We spent probably 250k or more in upgrades and licensing. We replaced one reliable Linux box with 2 Top end servers, a DB server, 3 expensive tape back up units and a loadbalancing setup, and it was no more reliable than the linux box, but boy could you schedule a meeting easily :(
When it went down, we had the boss of the company standing in the center of the IT space screaming out that it was costing the company $10k a minute when the email was down (he worked it out apparently). The VP then left the company a month after we were done implementing things.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Driver compatibility will come with time as people like Nvidia get their act together.
Streamlining Vista can already be done though, it doesn't have to take a lot of resources unless you want all the eye candy and the resources. I think you still have a valid point, with all the work that went into it you would think it would work faster. Personally I don't notice any lag, but I'm running on new hardware.
It remains to be seen what Windows 7 will offer that will redeem it. The vast majority of people see no reason to go to Vista and as a home user I understand their feelings. As a sysadmin though I understand why Vista is the way it is and how it's desirable for a corporate environment.
It's the same basic issue that developed when the 9x line died and everything moved to NT. We can all agree that the NT model is far superior to the old real-mode model. The problem is that you have a business optimized OS being pushed on home users, in an attempt to make the home users happier you screw the business users and you end up with Vista where no one is happy.
Of course if the whole thing was more modular then it would be less of an issue. Then Microsoft would be doing what the Unix world has been doing for 40 years and what Apple caught on to a few years ago.
Big companies take a long time to adapt though, look how long it took IBM to recover from a failing business model, almost 10 years. I think Windows 7 will be Microsoft's wake-up call if Vista isn't already. Execs have a habit of being hard-headed about stupid things though so I wouldn't be surprised if that was holding things up.