Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 13:48 UTC
Windows Earlier today, OSNews ran a story on a presentation held by Microsoft's Eric Traut, the man responsible for the 200 or so kernel and virtualisation engineers working at the company. Eric Traut is also the man who wrote the binary translation engine for in the earlier PowerPC versions of VirtualPC (interestingly, this engine is now used to run XBox 1 [x86] games on the XBox 360 [PowerPC]) - in other words, he knows what he is talking about when it comes to kernel engineering and virtualisation. His presentation was a very interesting thing to watch, and it offered a little bit more insight into Windows 7, the codename for the successor to Windows Vista, planned for 2010.
Thread beginning with comment 279841
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This isnt new
by cchance on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 15:13 UTC
cchance
Member since:
2006-02-24

Microsofts been working with the idea of a new codebase for well.... forever vista was to be the new codebase with a ground up restructuring but it was pushed off due partly to stockholders impatience.

It's good to see microsoft evolving and looking to the future.

Windows isnt dead it just needs a major garbage cleaning, you don't throw out code that works XP was one of the best OS's in history especially since SP2.

The issue is Vista didn't do enough to move further than XP, it was XP SP3.5 perhaps but not the OS that microsoft had invisioned. They did a lot to make it close to what they wanted but their not getting the help they need.

The new TCP stack is great but only really if router and isp's work to implement the needed protocols and the fact is most arent.

The new Graphics architecture is great if the drivers support it and the hardware, but the problem is ATI nor Nvidia can produce fast stable drivers for their lives.

The new systems for increasing speed like the hybrid drives is great but only if the hardware and drivers support it, which to date neither has really been accomplished.

The new UAC works it really does, but it's very obvious a 1.0 attempt at it. It's in my view a great move it's just not a move that was 100% worked out, the fact that running installs requires a ok window before the secure UAC even launches is pretty much proof of that.

The new sandboxed environments is a wicked move, something even apple didnt do for safari and im very thankful microsoft did it for IE, but if we can't easily lock applications in sandboxes by themselves when needed then its effect is not as great... its also a 1.0 move

Reply Score: 2

RE: This isnt new
by TemporalBeing on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 15:40 in reply to "This isnt new"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Windows isnt dead it just needs a major garbage cleaning, you don't throw out code that works XP was one of the best OS's in history especially since SP2.

The XP code-based seemed to work. It was really a delinquent code base that really needs a lot of work, and a lot of legacy crap dropped from it. The author has a good approach for how to do so while still maintaining the backwards compatibility, and it would behoove Microsoft to actually do it.

As to throwing out a code base - yes, there are times when you do throw out a code base. Typically, it is when you can no longer control the code. Sure, you might be using CVS or SVN or something similar, but that doesn't mean you can truly 100% control the code.

For instance, I worked on one project where the code base was really uncontrollable. It had a legacy history to it and we couldn't solve the problems it had by continuing to use that code base. The only answer was to start a fresh - use new practices so that we could manage the resources of the code, ensure security, etc. The old code base, while it worked, wouldn't have supported those efforts. Moreover, the new code base allowed us to add in new features quickly, easily, and maintainably. (When we fixed or added a new feature was added to the old code base, we would end up with more issues coming out than we went in with. It was really bad.)

The Windows code base is likely at that point. It was likely there before XP, and only made worse by XP. It's easy to tell when you're at that point as every new change takes longer to get in and keep the old code functional.

So yes, it's high time Microsoft cut the cruft and started a new code base, and designed the code base to be more modular, maintainable, secure, etc. It's the only way the software will survive another generation (e.g. Windows 7 and Windows 8). Otherwise, it will collapse under its own weight.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: This isnt new
by n4cer on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 16:22 in reply to "RE: This isnt new"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

So yes, it's high time Microsoft cut the cruft and started a new code base, and designed the code base to be more modular, maintainable, secure, etc. It's the only way the software will survive another generation (e.g. Windows 7 and Windows 8). Otherwise, it will collapse under its own weight.


In large part, Vista is the beginning of the new code base. Again, MinWin isn't new to Seven. It's there in Vista/Server 2008. A lot of code was rewritten for Vista. They've started to virtualize system resources, and they've mapped/eliminated most dependencies and layering violations, and turned each feature into manifest-backed compoents. They are more agile in what they can add/remove without affecting other components because of this work and the processes put in place during Vista's development.

They aren't going to throw out all of that work in Seven. They're going to build upon it. I expect there will be a greater shift towards updated versions of the managed code services they've added in Vista as the preferred method for application development. I also believe they'll start to integrate application virtualization for legacy compatibility as well as driver virtualization for reliability, but the end product will be the offspring of Vista/Server 2008, not an all-new code base. I wouldn't expect something that big for another 1 or 2 major releases.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: This isnt new
by shapeshifter on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 20:50 in reply to "This isnt new"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Gee, what the hell are you talking about?
Have you ever used Windows at all?!

I'm really getting sick hearing that XP is

one of the best OS's in history especially since SP2


when if reality it's THE WORST in history (out of the 32bit ones).
Even OS/2 was/is better than XP.

And the stupid gimmicks you mention, the hybrid drives, UAC, sandboxed environments, are the lamest ever attempts to hide the complete incompetence and most horrible design of any OS in history.

TCP/IP stack, graphics architecture? What?!
Again, what are you talking about?
What's so great about them?
Have you used Vista at all?
Nvidia has had the best graphics drivers in the industry for quite a few years now, so that tells me that the graphics problems are not Nvidia's fault.
(ATI has been been crap since the early '90).
And the whole networking system in vista is seriously demented. Only a complete moron could come up with something that stupid.
Have you seen the network dialogs and screens that Vista provides? Can you say confusing?

To this day I have to laugh when I recall my first encounter with Internet Explorer on Windows 2003 server.
I start IE, I type a web address, and I get some idiotic notice that this will not work.
What?! A web browser is not allowed to browse the web?!
Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous.
What's next, Word without the ability to type text?

So Microsoft's solution to security is to simply cut functionality.
That convinced me that Microsoft is a company that will never write a good OS.
And yes, Server 2003 is garbage too, even though it stinks a bit less than XP, it's still garbage.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: This isnt new
by anduril on Tue 23rd Oct 2007 13:06 in reply to "RE: This isnt new"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

You might have used Windows but you apparently know little about operating systems. There's a good reason Win2k3 denied you using the browser. Its a SERVER. You shouldn't be trying to use the web browser with it! Yes, you can use it as a workstation or a desktop OS but thats not what its intended for. Why is IE included then? Well, because IE was still integral for much of the explorer based system. They're getting much better at moving that dependency out but as far as Im aware it still exists.

As to both the graphics and networking stack in Vista they have been significantly improved. The changes can, and will, greatly increase stability and performance down the road. However, as with ANY version 1 major change release, nothing works perfectly. Much of the blame does lay in the hands of driver makers (actually, ATI's drivers have been far, far superior to NVIDIAs in regards to Vista. They still are in most cases NVIDIA just has the higher performing and non-late hardware releases) but it doesnt help that its a completely different interface to the OS. That takes time to make up the changes. You think OSX.0 didnt perform like shit? Was highly stable? Must not have used it.

The same has mostly been true with Linux when they do big changes but again, most of the fault lies in the hands of the driver makers. Seeing a trend?

Reply Parent Score: 2