BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 26d, 19h, 32m | CPU: 10% | MEM: 6043MB of 10995MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows 7 - start from 0 ?        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:20 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:00 pm

Posts
54
I want to start a discussion under the heading: Should Microsoft start to build a new kernel?

What do you think? If they would do so, old software wouldn't be compatible any more - if not.... well lets see what you think ;)

dean


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:26 pm 
Reply with quote
yes, they should totally scrap "NT", its good but well, a new kernel would be so much better :D


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:13 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:56 pm

Posts
600

Location
Vienna, Austria
I sell them the Phinx Kernel. It uses less than 1 MB Ram and 1 MB HDD space. And it can do everything the NT kernel can do.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:47 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
time for some real New Technology (NT)
NT is becoming Old Technology (OT)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:53 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
No. I don't think they should ditch the NT Kernel. Optimising the current kernel would suffice. Losing all that native compatibility with a new kernel would end the biggest advantage it has over it's rivals: compatibility.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:26 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:53 am

Posts
428
I think they should optimize the NT kernel. I think they should remove a lot of legacy stuff that's really not needed any more. I think MinWin would have been a step in the right direction, but the last I heard, it was scrapped.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:31 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:22 pm

Posts
175

Location
Germany
Can't they develop parallely?
have Windows 7, 8 etc. based on the NT kernel
and then Windows Superior (or something like that) "when it's done"?

Will lead to the same results in my opinion with NT 3.1 and Win 3.1 that they'll use it after a few ears just.. but should be better than just stopping and redoing everything.

Microsoft has to be up-to-date with his Customers OS (Windows NTs) but they have to develop something from the scratch


Top  Profile  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:02 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:56 pm

Posts
600

Location
Vienna, Austria
Ambig wrote:
I think they should optimize the NT kernel. I think they should remove a lot of legacy stuff that's really not needed any more. I think MinWin would have been a step in the right direction, but the last I heard, it was scrapped.



Well MinWin is actually in vista and in Server 2008.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:05 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:32 am

Posts
71
Ludacris wrote:
Ambig wrote:
I think they should optimize the NT kernel. I think they should remove a lot of legacy stuff that's really not needed any more. I think MinWin would have been a step in the right direction, but the last I heard, it was scrapped.


Well MinWin is actually in vista and in Server 2008.


Are you sure? I thought it was a complete rewrite.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:06 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:30 pm

Posts
303
Ludacris wrote:
Ambig wrote:
I think they should optimize the NT kernel. I think they should remove a lot of legacy stuff that's really not needed any more. I think MinWin would have been a step in the right direction, but the last I heard, it was scrapped.



Well MinWin is actually in vista and in Server 2008.

MinWin and Server Core are now two completely different kernels. Originally most people called Server Core MinWin. Now its different, MinWin is just a side project like Singularity.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:10 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
It'd be interesting actually to see MS take Singularity further...

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:43 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:43 am

Posts
732

Favourite OS
Win10/Debian Linux
hounsell wrote:
It'd be interesting actually to see MS take Singularity further...

Isn't Singularity a Real Time OS? It's great for research purposes, but as a replacement for NT, it isn't useful. Wasn't Microsoft working on something called 'Sky', or similar, to replace NT?


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:35 am 
Reply with quote
Permanently Banned
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:09 am

Posts
463
I think they need to fork the FreeBSD kernel and work with that, adding on all their Microsoft style crap. They also should write a different windowing system (perhaps a GDI/WPF based WS) because X11 sucks.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:06 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:30 pm

Posts
303
Zimmy wrote:
I think they need to fork the FreeBSD kernel and work with that, adding on all their Microsoft style crap. They also should write a different windowing system (perhaps a GDI/WPF based WS) because X11 sucks.

That is a nice dream, but its never gonna happen. It would be bad for both FreeBSD and Microsoft. For BSD since everyone will be trying to break the kernel somehow. For Microsoft because it would mean probably losing a significant amount of money because of licensing.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:56 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:00 pm

Posts
54
Working on the FreeBSD kernel wouldn't be good i think. Imagine:
Linux, Windows and Mac OS X uses the unix kernel. OK there wouldn't be any compatibility problems any more - but there wouldn't also be competition - and then products can't develop any more


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:18 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
Linux IS a kernel, it does not use a unix kernel, and it is not 100% compatible with unix anyway. MacOS is based on a unix-like kernel that has been developed apart from unix for about 7 or 8 years, now.

Linux is THE WAY FORWARD. Didn't someone say that the Windows line is ending in a few years? Linux'll take over! Computers'll be useful again!

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:31 pm 
Reply with quote
I think a rewrite of the kernel is overdue. Some improvements were made in vista, but only added more issues.

just my $.02


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:28 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
Maybe, but if they optimised it properly, and got rid of drivers for devices that weren't needed - maybe replaced outdated sets of drivers with generic ones, if they'd work. It could be streamlined a hell of a lot if they optimised it properly.

Functionally, it's a sound kernel, but they have moved more and more into the kernel - stuff that, if it was in userspace, would enable the kernel to run a lot more eficciently. If device drivers were not in kernelspace, the system would be a lot more stable. Yes, I'm talking about a microkernel. It's a good design, but it's very badly implemented.


EDIT: You think the Windows NT kernel is old? Granted, it's been in development since 1993, but what about Linux? That's been in development since 1991, and they've never rewritten that from scratch? The BSD variants are decended from the same code-pool that spawned Research Unix 1, way back in 1971.

Like I said - good design, but badly implemented. It's probably written in QBASIC or .NET or some tripe like that.

EDIT2: Spelling.

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:30 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
I'm interested in one thing, what would a new kernel add?
What new kernel features do you want? Why do you assume, given that nobody knows how it works, that the way Microsoft has written its kernel is bad?

For example, I like how in the Windows kernel I can reserve I/O bandwidth... Or how it has interupt priority levels. Lastly, I prefer the monolythic kernel approach beacuse it has the potential to be more secure by maintaing more processes as kernel mode. Secondly, there is no need to switch tasks. Thus, monolythics kernels have the potential to be more optomizable.

From the perspective a programer, I wonder what they could actually do. Most of the problems of Windows come from improperly written programs or drivers. To that extent I like the direction of the .Net framework, especially C#, because it recompiles the programs...

Ultimately, what do you expect from a kernel rewrite?

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:21 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:27 am

Posts
63
New kernel is what must-do for Microsoft.. .., but not now... I believe there should be parallel work~~~

anyway~ what we hope is having a new kernel and release the source codes for NTs... :D


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:33 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:20 pm

Posts
16
I think that they should ditch it. It would solve a lot problems. Only if they kept compatibility with most software.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:38 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:18 pm

Posts
342

Location
France
I don't think they will restart it from 0'

IF yes , it will takes very long time!


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:36 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am

Posts
1121

Location
Brisbane, Queensland

Favourite OS
OS/2 Wrp 3.0
Actually, Windows 32 runs on some other operating system, be it DOS or VMSoid. There are virtually no third-party progs that run on the NT kernel (O&O Bluecon is an exception here!).

The original intent of Windows NT was to replace OS/2, and its version numbers were numbered to continue from IBM's OS/2. Since at the time, Windows 3.1 was the DOS based Windows, so it became too the Windows NT version. But vers 1.0, 2.0 correspond to OS/2.

One should recall that most proggies run in Win32, which is an application that runs on top of DOS or WNT, so it should not be possible to replace the kernal.

One notes that the idea of replacing a kernel under a GUI has been mooted elsewhere. Apple's "Blackbird" project was to run Apple's GUI on the NT kernel, OS/X runs on a BSD kernel, Likewise, there is assorted discussion of running OS/2 on a linux kernel or on the NT kernel.

So it's not hard to modularise the kernel: the thing is _already_ modular. What it isn't is a general purpose environment for running anything other than windows, in the same way that MS-DOS 7 is a kernel that can run non-Windows DOS programs.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:18 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
This guy does a great job explaining the entire thing. Should you be complaining about the Windows kernel without actually knowing anything about it?

Besides, do you want more broken, crashing, and slow device drivers? Then everyone is just going to complain about it like they did Vista.

READ THIS: http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprised ... ntwin.html

An interesting NT tidbit that I ran into recently, Wikipedia does a better job at explaining it than I do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT ... esignation


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:05 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:06 am

Posts
28

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Windows 7 7600
hounsell wrote:
It'd be interesting actually to see MS take Singularity further...

Same here but I doubt they will. It was mainly just for research. For anyone who what to know about it, Channel9 (Microsoft's video site) posted a video talking to some of the devs.
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+De ... tten-in-C/


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS