“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. And yet 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, and 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.”
Also, users won’t notice anything different with the kernel because it’s invisible to their daily use and it won’t noticeably increase Vista’s poor performance. Replacing one turd with a peanut-encrusted turd still stinks.
Upgrading to a newer version of the kernel is hardly “junking” it. Would someone say that they junked Linux 2.6.20 and installed 2.6.24?
Also, does this mean that MS did not fix kernel bugs in previous service packs?
There’s a big flaw in your logic. There is a clear patch path from Linux 2.6.20 to 2.6.24, is the same true of this Vista SP1 kernel “enhancement”?
There’s no flaw in his logic, the kernel version in the first release of Vista is 6.0.6000, the version in Vista SP1 is 6.0.6001.
Sure they could have gutted it and replaced it and bumped the id by one, but there’s no evidence of that whatsoever so it’s a bit much to leap to that assumption.
Did I talk about version numbers of patch paths?
Have you ever seen seen a new Linux release that silently replaced the kernel? Or any other OS for that matter? Of course not. So, your theoretical situation isn’t based on anything realistic but instead on reactivity and false premises (and wishful thinking).
Was this just a cosmic oversight by the PR Department? If so, who allowed it to happen?
“silently replaced the kernel”. WTF does that even mean? I can’t remember a single upgrade/patch/service pack in memory that “noisily replaced the kernel”. Seriously, WTF requirement does MS have to tell you exactly which components it’s replacing in the service pack? The overwhelming majority of customers will have no idea what it means, and the ones who DO care are reading this article. So…
I thought your comment was a bit snide, overall, but I still had to mark it up for the first couple of sentences. I thought the sarcasm in “noisily replace the kernel” was funny. Kind of like people who say “dark black” as if there was such a thing as light black.
Anyway, I don’t see a problem with Microsoft not touting a new kernel upgrade for two reasons: a) Most people who use Windows wouldn’t know what the crap that meant anyway, and b) Most people who use Windows wouldn’t know what the crap that meant anyway.
I realize that technically these are both the same reason, but I thought it was important enough to warrant mentioning twice.
It’s kind of a hard call if you don’t know what the kernel source looks like. Who knows if it’s a fresh coat of paint over the rust, stipping it down to the frame, or throwing the frame out too. Given Microsoft’s history of recycling, it’s probably a fresh coat of paint. I’m also not sure how keen MS would be about releasing a changelog with the new kernel =)
I am hoping that this kernel upgrade would only mean that a lot of bugs got quashed and that the performance of Vista will probably see a good improvement. Lets face it with all the negative PR that Vista has received and is still receiving, they can use all the help they can get. I for one am looking at Vista in a better light. Kernel upgrade + the fact that I have not seen any malware out that takes over Vista and causes it to crash is a great sign for me. I will probably buy a copy of Vista Ultimate a year or so later and hopefully by then the Vista DVDs will have Sp1 integrated in to it.
I do believe Microsoft stated they’d do exactly what’s described: synchronize the kernels between Vista and Windows Server 2008. As such, this is far from news, and for each version of Windows prior to Win2K3, the server and the client kernel were exactly the same, with only differences being registry settings and various configuration parameters.
Presumably there are bug fixes and performance enhancements (performance enhancements and bug fixes aren’t always mutually-exclusive, as performance regressions are often considered a defect/bug) and it simply makes perfect sense for them to keep things in synch between the Server and the Client OS.
An action like this would be so monumentally idiotic that I cannot believe any company would do it.
And I’d just chalk this up to uninformed, sensationalist faux journalism, if it weren’t for the fact that the linked site is MSN…
It was clear since shortly after Vista RTM that Vista would get synched codewise to Windows Server 2008. I don’t see the issue here. It also doesn’t mean it’s a wholly different kernel. Win2k8 is just Vista a little enhanced.
Also, it appears that the service pack weighs around 1.1GB. Microsoft really has to overthink their system architecture…
Ha! thats bigger than a fresh Windows XP Pro Installation (after you used nLite of course)
Not sure where you go that info, but according to the MS TechNet site it’s more like 450MB for a stand alone update or 65MB for the online Windows Update version?
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/005f921e-f706…
Edit: Note, this is for the RC not the RTM, but I don’t think it grew that much!
Edited 2008-02-05 21:25 UTC
Hmmm. Appears that what I said before was quoted from someone who mixed up the AIK with the RTM release. Haven’t participated in the beta, so I guess I’m wiser now.
450MB still’s a bit huge, don’t you think?
Not if it includes every patch since Vista was released, which is a lot of stuff.
I think the size you’re referring to is the uncompressed size; so it is replacing 1.1gig of uncompressed files on the hard disk – a pretty big move if you ask me. With that being said, at the end of the day, SP1 isn’t going to fix the fundamental flaws with Windows. If someone doesn’t like Windows, it won’t matter how many service packs are thrown at the problem – the customer just isn’t interested.
The problem I find is that whilst most of the operating systems out there are toning down the appearance of their operating system, and rationalising the effects to what actually contributes to usability – Microsoft went in the completely opposite direction with Windows Vista. A massive penalty and boost in system requirements with no real benefits delivered to the end user over Windows XP.
Part of the confusion here is different editions. Last I looked, there were three:
1. English only (~450Mb)
2. 5 Language version (~550Mb)
3. “Full”, 35 language version.
So typically for North America/Australia, the 450Mb (English only) package is sufficient. I personally don’t know anyone who really needs 35 language updates.
Also note that prior to Vista, delivering multiple language updates in this way was effectively impossible, since each language had its own binaries. The only real comparison with previous releases is English only Vista (450Mb) against, say, XPSP2 (266Mb.)
I am not sure what the issue is with MS updating the Vista kernel. Is that not the purpose of SP’s but to update the system files? Now if they had made a statement that they do not plan on updating the kernel (which would be insane for them to make such a statement), the I guess people could/should have an issue.
Pay attention pleaseee!!
Microsoft Windows is moving its left hand up!
Microsoft Windows is eating!
Microsoft Windows is sleeping!
Microsoft Windows is waking up!
Come on guys! The Linux kernel gets updated several times a year and the same goes for Solaris, BSDs and all the operating systems around the world!
Why turning into big news something that all the OS developers do everytime? Why MS cannot do the same?
Maybe it is time to let them be (to MS) and getting focused in real news.
[The SP1 is big news, but the kernel update, does not]
“Why turning into big news something that all the OS developers do everytime? Why MS cannot do the same? “
You must be new here. Linux, *BSD and MacOS get the same treatment, it’s not MS specific.
Linux 2.6.24 Released:
http://www.osnews.com/story/19216/Linux_2.6.24_Released
Linux Kernel 2.6.23 Released:
http://www.osnews.com/story/18751/Linux_Kernel_2.6.23_Released
Even 2.4,
Linux Kernel 2.4.35 Released:
http://www.osnews.com/story/18343/Linux_Kernel_2.4.35_Released
No, I’m not new here, and I have no problem with publishing posts when a new kernel version has been released.
What I do not like is how the news about the MS kernel update are being told, something like: “MS is updating its kernel! What a shame! It indicates that the Vista kernel was buggy and crappy!”
OSNews is fully innocent in this issue, but I do not like how biased the news can be written.
[Disclaimer: I am a NetBSD user
]
My CIO handed me a RC1 copy of Windows 2008 server today at work. As the Linux, OS X and, yes, Windows server admin he wants my opinion on it.
I can actually report, much to my surprise, that Windows 2008 is actually a pleasure to install with one exception. The decompression portion takes just enough time form me to dump yesterdays coffee, was the globe, grab some water and fill the container, place new coffee grinds in a filter and brew a new pot. Funny how time is measured in the IT world.
Anyway, the new Windows server system installed without any errors or reboots. It takes security more seriously than its predecessors. Too bad it took the company nearly three decades to get it. One of the first things it asks you to do is enter a `good` password.
It appears to be stable and easy to manage. The GUI is a cross between a Linux desktop environment, both KDE and GNOME – Xandros or SuSE, depending on what your looking at, the Mac GUI, and some elements of good old Windows environments. No surprise there since Microsoft is like the Borg of Star Trek sci-fi.
The MMC has a lot of elements and these are highly centralized. The overall speed is fast for a Windows server. The command line is `more` than it previous incarnations. No real big surprise there because system administrators of all stripes use it to get real work done rather than jack around with multiple GUIs and annoying wizards. Maybe, just maybe, the command line will be enough get rid of Windows GUI on systems which need higher security and less GUI. One of the options was to just install the core.
I get to watch the new drama in IT of Win sys admins learn how to get around their servers with the command line like their unix-driven cousins. There was not enough time to hammer the server with any real tasks but I look forward to putting Microsoft’s latest toy through its paces.
If Vista’s POS kernel is replaced with this kernel server kernel it has actually made a step in the right direction.
Edited 2008-02-06 02:34 UTC
In System Properties where you check what version of Windows that is installed, I see a “service pack 1” on my Windows Server 2008 (technet copy).
I’m guessing that’s indication enough that Vista SP1 and Server 2008 shares the kernel.
Anyone who keeps up with this stuff could have told you months ago that MS is starting to keep the consumer and server OS kernels in sync. Vista was based on 2k3, 2k8 was based on Vista, and with SP1 they are bringing Vista back up in sync. They aren’t “junking” anything.
I don’t read too much server-side news, which is where I’d expect the characteristics of the Kernel to make a difference to people, but I haven’t read much actual press attention to the Kernel. And I think the team doesn’t mind that. After all, the only UI that the kernel displays is the boot logo and the blue screen, and the goal is to reduce exposure to both of these things.
I think it’s kind of funny though that this guy takes new Windows releases and trawls the registry for interesting strings. It’s certainly not what I’d do on a weekend.
Besides the typical lame anti-microsoft banter here, we know you guys have an anti-microsoft bias here. It’s obvious, people have attacked Vista since it’s release and not on it’s own merit and it’s managed to still sell 100 million copies or so.
For the record I have seen the SP1 release and it brings a lot of improvements about the things it actually updated..
Have you guys heard of hotfixes? If you actually installed them you probably wouldn’t have complained about Vista so bitterly.
Give it a break man, I use Vista and amazingly I have none of the problems. Of course I am using up-to-date non-legacy hardware that was designed for it. I love the speediness of my dual core laptop and Aero looks beautiful. I don’t find it slow. If you don’t like security prompts, simply turn them off by going into UAC (user account control) it’s a button in the USERS control panel and turn it off.
Seriously folks I heard worse things about Windows 2000 and even XP five years ago. They are now improved and useable. Give it a break..
This is Windows we’re talking about here. What does number of copies sold have to do with how good (or otherwise) the OS is? The thing is sold by default with pretty much all new PCs, whether people want it or not.
I know of several normal (non-geek) users who have bought a new PC over the last year or so with Vista on it, complained about it, and asked for it to be replaced with XP.