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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
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
Member since:2006-03-18
Wow. But sorry, I am telling the truth. I had a Windows 2000 system that BSOD'd a couple times on me, I believe due to hardware issues, though I am not sure, but I am not lying about XP - I remember at most one BSOD with XP, though I might be misremembering that one.
More recently I have a work laptop with XP I used for two years - never BSOD'd. I have a work desktop with XP, 3+ years old, never BSOD'd. I have another work laptop I've been using for 6 months with XP - never BSOD'd. I have a Vista laptop I've been using for 1.5 years, never BSOD'd. I have a Vista desktop I've been using for over a year, never BSOD'd.
But then again I never get infected by viruses or malware, a point which credulous cretins such as yourself also refuse to believe, but I think malware and viruses will significantly increase your chances of BSODing.
Member since:2005-12-02
"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."
Easy champ. I enjoy reading your posts, and agree with a whole lot of them. Does that mean I am lying when I say I have only seen 1 BSOD on Windows XP since the product was released? The machines I maintain, about 200, have never BSOD. The 1 I refer to was when I was experimenting and doing my best to make it blue screen, and was successful. BSOD is not common on Windows XP, though can be done.
Member since:2005-07-08
Afraid I am going to have to agree with joshv on the BSOD issue. I use Windows XP, Windows 2000 and 2003 Server at work and XP at home and I cannot remember the last time I saw a BSOD.
Now I have had issues with misbehaving applications (Outlook/Exchange) that would lock up the system, this is further complicated if you use CAC middleware on your machine (DoD). And the result of those problems have required myself and others to perform a "one finger salute", but I think calling joshv a liar is just wrong. If you have some data to backup that joshv is wrong I'd love to see it.
Member since:2006-01-06
My God, you're obnoxious.
Member since:2005-07-10
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. "
Now that you mention it I don't think I have seen a BSOD in about that long. Maybe the original author is just working on really crappy hardware.
Edited 2008-05-30 18:43 UTC
Member since:2006-01-24
I dunno, I could second that. I've had 3 xp systems in my house since the release of xp, 2 have been perfectly stable with ZERO bsods in 5 years, and 1 has had them weekly. It really comes down to driver support, and if the parent's dozen computers were all of the same model and that model just happened to have a good combination of hardware, no bsods in 5 years is quite doable IME.
The most stable system for me has been my old gateway notebook, the least stable has been my thinkpad t60.
Member since:2006-07-16
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. "
How do you know he's lying? What, are you so all-knowing in your arrogance that you presume to read people's minds too? Give me a break! He didn't say what he did with the dozens of XP boxes he's worked with over the past five years so, it is indeed possible he's never seen a BSOD in that time. Grow up!
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.
Member since:2006-03-18
Member since:2008-05-31
So you've never used Vista, and never will, but you hate it?
Well that's simply not true. If you shutdown and apps or services are not responding, Windows shows the dimmed screen with the list of processes preventing it from shutting down. If you don't answer, it will eventually just shutdown. Then again, I haven't actually seen this screen since the beta, so I'm rather skeptical about it being a common occurrence.
Besides, even if it's stuck and you close the laptop, it will go to sleep. XP may have had some problems with that (mainly due to crapping add-on software from IHVs for docking and such), but Vista doesn't.
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.
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.
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?"