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 316320
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[3]: user vs server os
by jabbotts on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 17:44
in reply to "RE[2]: user vs server os"
Member since:2007-09-06
Was it the EU that required MS sell a crippled Windows (by comparison to there existing line) for the same price? Ha.. If so, I'd missed that bit of information.
Maybe MS should have retained tehre media player, included uninstall and provided optional installs of competing media players.
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