Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th May 2008 14:49 UTC
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 316236
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: user vs server os
by google_ninja on Fri 30th May 2008 15:58
in reply to "RE: user vs server os"
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
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-03-18
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.