Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th May 2008 14:49 UTC
Windows We have learnt quite a lot about Windows 7 this week, and one of the things was that Windows 7 would not get a new kernel. The call for a new kernel has been made a few times on the internet, but anyone with a bit more insight into Windows' kernel knows that there is absolutely no need to write a new kernel for Windows - the problems with Windows lie in userland, not kernelland. While the authenticity of the Shipping Seven blog is not undisputed, the blogger makes some very excellent points regarding the kernel matter.
Permalink for comment 316371
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Panajev on Sat 31st May 2008 07:27 UTC
Member since:

"Paid shills"

"PR school or CS == both the same to satisfy prerequisites required to work on the Windows kernel"

What are you trying to prove ?

Are you trying to confirm the notion that many fanboys on the other side of the fence have about *nix/OSS supporters being sort of religious zealots?

Not recognizing the things done RIGHT by MS with Vista is not a way to help open source software (I'd even say it hurts OSS IMHO), it does not STICK IT TO THE MAN.

It is wrong not to recognize mistakes made by closed source or open source projects alike just like it is wrong not to accept the great under-the-hood work done that might or might not fully show to the end user in a flashy way.

I am not going to throw away KDE4 because versions 4.0.0 through 4.0.4 still do not feel polished or close to being complete: I do recognize the great effort spent on all the new core frameworks KDE4 is built upon (Plasma [and the new Kwin], Solid, Phonon, wide QT4.3/4.4 deployement,Akonadi, etc...).

By the same toke, one cannot forget Aero (Flip 3D is a poor replacement of Expose' and more tricks should be stolen from OSX's Aqua ? Yes, but Aero can be extended to do just that... we already jumped away from GDI+ and old Windows window management and compositing), the massive sound/video driver model changes (WDDM and the reduction in BSOD's), WPF, WCF, deep Windows Defender integration, randomized address space layout, Data Execution Protection, IE7's sandbox mode, UAC (yes, UAC ;) ... Mandatory Access Control was sorely lacking as default option in Windows before Vista IMHO), better two way built-in Firewall support, etc...

Yes, some of those features were introduced with XP SP2 and/or have been backported to XP later on, but when you go down to it they are not as deeply integrated with the rest of the OS as they are in Vista (Windows Defender and IE7 Protected mode are two examples of what I am talking about that quickly come to mind).

I dual booted Windows Vista and Windows XP on the same Core Duo+GeForce Go 7300 (64 MB VRAM)+1 GB of DDR2 system (with Fedora installed on the side) and even on that machine after getting accustomed to Aero, Windows XP's GUI felt a bit too unresponsive to me.

I stand by what I always say to people wondering about downgrading: unless your system does not run Vista reliably or smoothly then leave it on (you are better off with it).

Reply Score: 3