Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Feb 2012 23:07 UTC, submitted by ronaldst
Windows This is the kind of news just tailor-made for OSNews. After 16 years of trusty service, the venerable Windows CE will be history as far as Microsoft's mobile operating system offering goes - the next major version of Windows Phone will use the NT kernel from Windows 8. As a heavy former Windows PocketPC Mobile CE Ultimate SP2 Edition user, this makes me sad. As a fan of the NT kernel, this makes me happy.
Thread beginning with comment 505728
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: back to the future
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE: back to the future"
Member since:

Maybe the kernel will be evolutionary, but the userland could be (but maybe not). A modern OS is more than just the kernel, and we haven't seen Windows Phone 8.

"Modern OS" these days seems to be a term for an OS which has had its GUI butchered and mutilated to work especially well with smaller touch screens (ie., phones, tablets), at the expense of traditional desktop users. In some of those cases, it works. In all of those cases where it works, it's running on one of those portable touchscreen-based systems (iOS, Android, etc.). In those cases where it's running on a traditional desktop computer (Ubuntu's Unity, GNOME 3, Windows 8), it fails... miserably.

Sure, being an OS designed for a phone, Windows Phone 8 should probably work out. But I'm not sure that I'd call it a "modern OS" just because, well hey--it's following the recent trend of going all touchscreen! Sure, it's something new, and modern in many ways (ie. the slimmed down and more modular nature of the kernel vs. its CE counterparts), but to me it just yet another OS. Only maybe it'll work better on its native devices (cell phones) than its big brother Windows 8 will work on its native systems (desktops, laptops, netbooks).

Edited 2012-02-03 05:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: back to the future
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 07:51 in reply to "RE[2]: back to the future"
UltraZelda64 Member since:

Let me add, or correct myself, since I forgot to in my original post:

"...but to me it is just yet another specialized OS."

We seem to be going from general-purpose and specialized (ie., locked down). I call this a restriction, not a modern feature, and refuse to call an operating system doing this "modern" in any way, shape or form. [And yes, these "mobile" based operating systems seem to all lock down the system quite a bit compared to the traditional OS counterparts.]

Edited 2012-02-03 07:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: back to the future
by BluenoseJake on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 09:31 in reply to "RE[2]: back to the future"
BluenoseJake Member since:

I'm not trying to discuss the merits of a walled garden phone OS over a general purpose OS, or your rather strange definition of "modern" I'm just saying that just because it will use the NT kernel, doesn't mean it couldn't be revolutionary, because an OS is more than just the kernel, it's also the userland, drivers, and built in apps, as well as other many other things.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: back to the future
by fran on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 12:04 in reply to "RE[3]: back to the future"
fran Member since:

My thoughts on this is that Windows NT is really used as the basis for Windows releases since 2000.
Almost everything Microsoft has done since 2000 on Windows is NT based.
Really nothing new here.
The only reason we did not see architecture portability was not so much the technical challenges to port it but the Microsoft/Intel alliance.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: back to the future
by Neolander on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 17:51 in reply to "RE[2]: back to the future"
Neolander Member since:

I propose that the expression "Modern OS" be used to describe an OS whose oldest component's design is less than <insert arbitrary and obviously biased number> years old.

Anything else is just too subjective without extra context information : in some cases, it makes sense to use quite crude and dated OS designs by desktop standards (e.g. no user-mode processes, no multitasking) in order to fulfil some engineering criterion, typically a performance one.

Edited 2012-02-03 17:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2