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 279880
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
my dream
by markoweb on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 17:27 UTC
markoweb
Member since:
2006-11-30

I dream of the day when Microsoft creates a sister company (just so that all those "monoply" aqusations wouldn't hold place and MS could do what ever with that product - for instance integrate AV).

That sister company should create a following OS:
1) Purely 64-bit (maybe even 128...)
2) Based on Singularity (great stuff that)
3) The .NET Framework should BE-THE-API (no need for p/invoke and stuff like that)
4) Everything even remotely related to backwards compatibility should be handled via virtualization
5) New PC hardware wouldn't hurt either. Throw out all the legacy crap (yes, your current hardware is also built around f**ked-up backwards compatibility layers) and definently redesign the USB stuff (programming for USB is such a-pain-in-the-A**)
6) Throughout, openess and well documentation should be embraced. For instance Bill Gates's letter - in which he said that ooxml should render perfectly only in IE - made me sick to my bones (really, somebody shoot that idiot instead of throwing a cake in his face).

I guess I'll be dead, burried and long forgotten before that ever happens... ;)

Edited 2007-10-22 17:28

Reply Score: 0

RE: my dream
by sbergman27 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 17:55 in reply to "my dream"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

1) Purely 64-bit (maybe even 128...)

"""

Oops! You lost a lot of credibility with that. What, pray tell, do you think that > 64 bits would buy you? At the traditional rate of memory increase of doubling about every 2 years, even the 48 bits allotted to memory access in current 64 bit processors will last us 30+ years. And that's just a hardware limitation. It can easily be increased to 64 bits, extending us out to 60+ years. 64 bit filesystems are good for a about 40 years at the current exponential rates of expansion. (The 128 bitness of the otherwise excellent ZFS was, quite frankly, a marketing gimmick.)

And besides, what processor would you run this 128bit OS on? Did AMD announce something that I missed?

"""
I guess I'll be dead, burried and long forgotten before that ever happens... ;)

"""

Well, you are thinking in the right time scale, anyway.

Edited 2007-10-22 18:00

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: my dream
by losethos2 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 18:06 in reply to "RE: my dream"
losethos2 Member since:
2007-10-22

Good point. Many novices use induction to say, well we ran out of 32-bit space and, now, 64 bit is needed, so lets jump to 128 bits.

Sometimes, people find uses for excess bits by incompletely utilizing the space... Like placing kernel stuff in 0x80000000-0xFFFFFFFF even before you run-out. I think I heard that IP numbers are way excessive, but good for routing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: my dream
by markoweb on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 20:56 in reply to "RE: my dream"
markoweb Member since:
2006-11-30

sbergman27

Don't underestimate the future. In 5 years someone might come up with something so revolutionary that will require that address space or maybe even more. God knows, maybe we'll all be living in full HD worlds (sound, music, video, etc) and memory will gome in TB sticks. So to say that >64 bits is unnecessary is to say like IBM did in the early 80's - "who needs personal computers?!?"

Creating a 128-bit or larger processor is a piece of cake anyways. All you have to do is enlargen the instruction size and mingle with the microcode. If I'm not mistaken...
The only reason no one is making these, is because there is no market for them yet.
But if you are starting a new and using a larger address space doesn't seriously hurt performance, then why settle for less? Why not embrace the future right now?


And for those who still can't see the point in 64-bit proccessors, all I've got to say to you is - memory, there is never enough of it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: my dream
by butters on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 20:41 in reply to "my dream"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Purely 64-bit (maybe even 128...)


As Dr. Albert Bartlett famously said, "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function".

Reply Parent Score: 6