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.
Thread beginning with comment 316223
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by FunkyELF
by FunkyELF on Fri 30th May 2008 15:24 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

the problems with Windows lie in userland, not kernelland

Really? Didn't know the BSOD ran as a user process.

Also didn't know that process management was a userland thing either. That must explain why when I tell the OS to kill a process, I have to tell it 15 times before it dies. This explains a lot.

Is the whole shutting down process a userland thing too? You know, when you say you want to shut down, then you pack up your laptop only to find that the next time you want to use it you have a dead battery because Windows was telling you "Some crap is not responding...Ok?"
Why are you telling me this...I don't care if it isn't responding, I'M SHUTTING DOWN you idiot OS!

The problems with Windows lie in Windows!

Edited 2008-05-30 15:24 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by joshv on Fri 30th May 2008 15:37 in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18


Really? Didn't know the BSOD ran as a user process.


BSOD? What's that? Never seen one with Vista. In fact, I think I saw one in 5 years of working with dozens of XP systems.


Also didn't know that process management was a userland thing either. That must explain why when I tell the OS to kill a process, I have to tell it 15 times before it dies. This explains a lot.


Taskmanager will always kill a process immediately, but will be more likely to result in loss of data. The "End Now" dialog is a bit more conservative, and also invokes the various (slow) crash logging processes. I two wish the "End Now" dialog actually did what it said, but taskmanager is more than adequate.

Is the whole shutting down process a userland thing too? You know, when you say you want to shut down, then you pack up your laptop only to find that the next time you want to use it you have a dead battery because Windows was telling you "Some crap is not responding...Ok?"
Why are you telling me this...I don't care if it isn't responding, I'M SHUTTING DOWN you idiot OS!


You shutdown your laptop? I just close the lid, it goes to standby, and then hibernates after few minutes.

As for the "some crap is not responding" - would you prefer the OS terminate applications and lose your data without confirmation? I think I'd rather have depleted battery.

What I cannot understand is why the shutdown process is such a frigging pain - and it has mostly to do with userland programs that pop up interactive dialogs on shutdown. The OS simply can't know what to do in this instance. It'd be nice if most programs were written to simply save themselves to a safe state on shutdown, and address any outstanding issues when the user next starts the program - "When you last shutdown, you were editing this file but didn't save it, do you want to save your changes or revert?"

Reply Parent Score: 17

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by sbergman27 on Fri 30th May 2008 15:51 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

BSOD? What's that? Never seen one with Vista. In fact, I think I saw one in 5 years of working with dozens of XP systems.

This is as far as I bothered to read your post since you are obviously lying through your teeth. Even if the OS were perfect, hardware issues would have caused more than one if you have really spent "5 years of working with dozens of XP systems".

Learn to construct your untruths more credibly if you want to be believed.

Edited 2008-05-30 16:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by WereCatf on Fri 30th May 2008 16:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

BSOD? What's that? Never seen one with Vista. In fact, I think I saw one in 5 years of working with dozens of XP systems.

I think I have seen my XP installation BSOD once this year. Not much really. But then again, I have had quite a few times when XP just stops responding, or some app stops responding and won't shut down even from the task manager. In those cases it won't help even if you try to reboot or shutdown your machine, it'll just sit there for all eternity. The only solution to such is the power button..

Taskmanager will always kill a process immediately,

As I said above, it doesn't. I have had a whole load of times some app just refuses to shut down no matter what I do and then it's also impossible to reboot the system without pressing reset button.

As for the "some crap is not responding" - would you prefer the OS terminate applications and lose your data without confirmation? I think I'd rather have depleted battery.

Well..in the case of battery getting depleted you will lose the application data anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 30th May 2008 16:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by aaronb on Fri 30th May 2008 18:52 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06


BSOD? What's that? Never seen one with Vista. In fact, I think I saw one in 5 years of working with dozens of XP systems.


This is probably because Vista and XP are set to auto reboot when a system error happens.

One thing that is sure. XP and Vista don't have BSOD as much as Windows 9x. But BSOD still happen on occasion.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by Adam S on Fri 30th May 2008 17:22 in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I haven't seen XP drop a BSOD not identifiably related to bum hardware in almost 5 years. And, though it pains me to admit it, I've never seen Vista BSOD... ever. I have not seen Windows 2008 BSOD yet despite many connected users over terminal services.

The Windows kernel has been significantly hardened in the last few years, and it shows. Those who complain otherwise about issues that haven't been issues in the better part of a decade sound like people who complain motivated on politics with absolutely no experience with the technologies they complain about.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by joshv on Fri 30th May 2008 17:46 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

Early on with Vista I had what probably would have been a BSOD in XP. I installed the latest and greatest Vista nVidia driver (my mistake) and the driver itself would quite frequently crash while playing games. In XP that would have been a BSOD - in Vista the game crashed, and the driver restarted.

These days though I haven't had a video driver crash in probably 6 or more months. nVidia has cleaned up their drivers. No doubt the fact that the system doesn't blue screen when the vid driver goes down helps them troubleshoot the issue.

Reply Parent Score: 4

v RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by shapeshifter on Fri 30th May 2008 19:08 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by sakeniwefu on Fri 30th May 2008 23:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

The first Vista machine I used BSODed continuously, mind you it was when the thing had just been released and was running in a crazy laptop. XP has never BSODed on me but it has restarted a few times because of faulty hardware, yet nothing that can be tracked to Microsoft.

You can be mad at them because of their closed-sourcedness, their mafia-pushed standards, the stupid kids they have designing their GUIs, DRM, or the compulsory activation of software as I am, but you(the original flame post) lose all your credibility when you start outright lying about their software and its faults, denying problems with Linux, and other similar FUD tactics. You have become them, YOU ARE MICROSOFT.

The NT kernel is a modern kernel, it is similar to the Linux kernel in some ways, it offers similar features and has been updated as well to include the latest trends in lower end computing. A faulty driver or hardware will screw them both, BSOD or otherwise. FUD from the Windows 95 era is not fun or accurate anymore, so, stop it.

And I thought this site had a better population than Slashdot. In the end the GNUyatolahs are there to spoil any intelligent discussion.

We like OSs and want to discuss the real technical issues and differences between them and to get excited at the prospect of new better systems even if at the end we are gonna be disappointed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by shapeshifter on Fri 30th May 2008 18:47 in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by Robert Escue on Fri 30th May 2008 19:08 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

I'm a Solaris administrator, not a paid Microsoft shill. based on my 10 years of experience in working with and around Windows systems, I can count the number of BSOD's I have seen on two hands. If you are going to bash Windows, at least come up with something that actually happens on a regular basis that would constitute a problem for a large number of users.

I am sure my experiences are not unique, and as others have pointed out poor drivers have a great deal to do with various Windows issues. If you have nothing of substance to add to this discussion other than your anti-Microsoft nonsense, either stop trolling or go somewhere else.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by tomcat on Fri 30th May 2008 20:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I think I can say you speak for all of us, victims of Microsoft.
Now please ignore the posts form the Microsoft paid shills that will say that they never get any BSOD, and their Windows systems have 1000 apps installed, and running 100 apps at the same time all multitasking smoothly, and have uptime of 5 years without any slow down.


Hilarious. So, people that aren't experiencing BSODs are "Microsoft paid shills" now. Microsoft must have millions of people on its payroll, then... LMAO!

Edited 2008-05-30 20:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by joshv on Fri 30th May 2008 21:49 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

I've been saying that I have no BSODs, and I don't. I am also not some sort of paid shill. I've had my share of troubles with Vista. I have been hit by some odd search indexer and start menu indexer bugs that caused the search engine to thrash the disk and consume 100% of CPU - only on my desktop though, not my Vista laptop, and it ran fine for a year before the issue.

I disabled search indexing and set my start menu search options to "Don't Search for Files". Which really is a pretty unacceptable solution. Search indexing is a major feature of the OS, I shouldn't have to disable it entirely for some inexplicable reason.

So I have had problems. But this most definitely isn't an issue with the kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by CrazyDude1 on Fri 30th May 2008 19:44 in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
CrazyDude1 Member since:
2007-09-17

Your comments are so wrong about process scheduler. When you press the close button on the window of a process, it sends some windows message to that process. It then waits for some time (sorry i don't remember exact time) and if the application doesn't respond then the dialog box is shown to the user to terminate and send report to Microosft or just terminate and not send report. This is the slow process.

Instead, just open task manager and kill the offending process and it will die in less than 1 second.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by joshv on Fri 30th May 2008 21:53 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

Instead, just open task manager and kill the offending process and it will die in less than 1 second.


He claimed that he regularly has processes that are not killable even in the task manager. I *think* I've run into this behavior once or twice - and procexp from Sysinternals was able to kill the process, but otherwise, 99.9% of the time task manager will do the job.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by Redeeman on Sat 31st May 2008 02:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

except when it doesent die in less than 1 second, and it takes minutes....

Reply Parent Score: 2