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.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 99 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 316229
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
user vs server os
by google_ninja on Fri 30th May 2008 15:33 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Why in the world would a user need or want to strip his/her os down to command line only? That is something you would want to do in the server room, and you can with 2k8.

Something to keep in mind with MS products is that they are a big fan of the specialized sku. When it comes to install process, normal users want a LESS complected one, not more complected. While the internet geeks cry for more uninstall options, how successful has Windows-N been in EU? Normal people don't care about these things.

What MS should be doing is adding a geek sku to the lineup. 2k8 is incredible, but a) you don't want to pay 3k for an os, and b) you don't need half the things that make it cost so much (app server, domain controller, etc).

Reply Score: 1

RE: user vs server os
by joshv on Fri 30th May 2008 15:45 in reply to "user vs server os"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

Why in the world would a user need or want to strip his/her os down to command line only? That is something you would want to do in the server room, and you can with 2k8.


One of the comments in the linked blog entry I think gets to the heart of it. Nobody really wants to do it for practical use, but it's the capability that makes geeks wet their pants.

If given a "minwin" install option, most geeks will try it out, boot to a command line prompt, launch "sol.exe" and go "cool!" and then write a blog post that MS has finally gotten out all the bloat. Then they will reinstall with all the crap actually required to run real programs.

More practically somebody suggested a "remove components required for backward compatibility" option. That's an awfully nebulous concept, but even if MS could do it, they wouldn't, because there would be no noticeable performance increase. I suggest MS try - so that the geeks can do it, report imaginary performance increases in their blogs (even though half their programs don't work), and then reinstall the backwards compatibility components so that their programs work again.

Luckily MS doesn't listen to geek blogs when deciding product features. Most people could give two craps about slimming down Vista - all they want it to do is run their programs.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: user vs server os
by google_ninja on Fri 30th May 2008 15:58 in reply to "RE: user vs server os"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

actually, the last paragraph of my comment is

What MS should be doing is adding a geek sku to the lineup. 2k8 is incredible, but a) you don't want to pay 3k for an os, and b) you don't need half the things that make it cost so much (app server, domain controller, etc).


Vista is the only windows so far I haven't hated, but 2k8 is the first version where it starts entering my list of favorite operating systems.

Edited 2008-05-30 15:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: user vs server os
by jabbotts on Fri 30th May 2008 19:40 in reply to "user vs server os"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"
While the internet geeks cry for more uninstall options, how successful has Windows-N been in EU?
"

Would that be the Windows version where they removed features but then still sold it at the same price on the shelf along side the regular version then claimed N was a flop because everyone chose the other box? Would that be the Windows N failure in the EU market you refer too?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: user vs server os
by google_ninja on Fri 30th May 2008 20:25 in reply to "RE: user vs server os"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

What i mean is that people want what they are already getting, they want as little control panel configuration as possible, let alone having to go out on the web and download something new.

The people who complain about the lack of vista modularity are not the target audience of the sku. It has nothing to do with the ability to ship it, because it exists in 2k8. The point of my post is that they should ship a stripped down 2k8 for the geeks and charge the same price as the home version.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: user vs server os
by gonzo on Fri 30th May 2008 21:32 in reply to "RE: user vs server os"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Would that be the Windows version where they removed features but then still sold it at the same price on the shelf along side the regular version then claimed N was a flop because everyone chose the other box? Would that be the Windows N failure in the EU market you refer too?

Did you forget it was EU that ordered MS to set the same price for both versions?

Anyway, if I wanted Windows without Media Player, I would not care that other Windows, with Media Player, is priced the same. Why would I? I'd simply buy the one without it because I wanted/needed Windows with no media player.

So yes, Windows N is something no end customer really wants.. Microsoft's competitors are different story. Don't confuse those two groups.

Edited 2008-05-30 21:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2