If I told you there was a public presentation and arguably demonstration of Windows 7, you probably wouldn’t believe me. Which is why I had to share this video with you.
Thanks to DigitalDud on Channel9 for noting, on October 13 last week, Microsoft’s distinguished engineer Eric Traut gave a presentation at the University of Illinois about Microsoft’s virtualization technology and also mentioned Windows 7 - the next version of Windows after Vista. And believe it or not it was on video. Whilst the presentation is not directly about Windows 7, it does contain a demonstration of MinWin - an internal project to build the most efficient Windows kernel which will in turn be used in Windows 7.
The whole presentation (WMV) goes for approximately 1 hour and includes a very deep look into hypervisors. I’ve clipped out the 8-minute segment which Eric focuses on Windows 7 specifically to make it easier to watch. Because Eric goes into a lot of detail as well as background information about what is presented, and because it’s 2AM, I won’t regurgitate it. All I’ll say is that if you think Windows at its core is bloated, think again.
The ASCII bootscreen is very classy.
Comments for "Eric Traut talks (and demos) Windows 7 and MinWin"
Brandon Clinger
I’ve always thought Microsoft should strip windows down to the kernel, clean up the code and make it the most efficient piece of code ever, then allow users to choose what they want on top of that, a completely customizable efficient system.
rieuwa
I’d love to have all those virtual images : )
Nice video Long.
tino
Very nice! While I believe that Vista is really what was “Cairo” at that time (but with a product released), Windows 7 really could be the next Windows 95. Because a lot of technologies that were planned for Cairo were released with 95 and maybe that is what will happen to WinFS and all the cool things MS hasn’t released jet but worked on in the last years.
Jock B
It’s good to see that Microsoft are making an effort to deal with one of the biggest complaints about current Windows releases - it shows that are some people there who care about the product they create.
Like Tino I can’t help but be optimistic that Windows 7, being built to a new or at least significantly revised kernel, will be the delivery vehicle for features like WinFS that weren’t ready for Vista.
And I too am digging the bootscreen. Very classy.
bluvg
What astounds me is how little the vast majority of folks (in IT, even… or especially!) know nil about the internals of IT. How many people even know the *name* Dave Cutler (who at least one person has said is a “contender for the programmer of the century award”)? The Windows people see/discuss/complain about/bash is really userland Windows. The NT kernel is a very elegant, amazing piece of software. Saying that they should “clean it up” and that kind of thing is really nonsense… if anything, that claim should be made squarely against userland Windows, nowhere else.
Also, just thought I’d point out that the history stated for Windows in the video is somewhat incorrect–NT 3.1 was the first release of the NT kernel-based version of Windows, not 3.5.
Shane
He was wrong on a few points.
The reason why Windows Seven (not 7)is called that is that it is the seventh revision of the NT line, not Windows altogether.
Count the releases.
NT 3.1
NT 3.51
NT 4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows Seven
Saying “It’s Windows Seven because it’s the seventh version of Windows,” shows just how little he knows about the history of the OS he is working on.
Not to say that he is not a great guy (he probably is) but don’t give out a history lesson without verifying the history
venuspcs
bluvg - the first release of the NT kernel was not Windows 3.1. It was “Windows 3.11 for Workgroups”. Windows 3.1 had a totally different kernel than 3.11. They did however share more or less the same USER INTERFACE.
Keith
SHANE:
your wrong
It’s the 7th version of the NT Kernel like he said.
NT 3.1/3.51 = Kerenel 3.X
NT 4 = Kernel 4.X
2000/XP = Kernel 5.0/5.2
Vista = Kernel 6.0
Windows Seven = Kernel 7.0
It just hapens there was Seven editions based on the NT kerel since then. It wou be stupid to call it 7 due to its “revision” when there are a few more ^ based revisions scheduled to be released.
Des
I don’t see how this work makes WinFS much easier though, I think WinFS may have been killed because they realised they could offer developers & users much more. If they move the ideas behind WinFS into the cloud then that is when things start to get really interesting.
venuspcs - Win 3.1 & Win 3.11 were 16 bit dos based, Win NT 3.1 was 32 bit and different altogether, this marked the first release of the NT kernel.
Keith - I’m with you on this one, if you include Win Server 2003, Win Server 2003 R2 and Win Server 2008 then I think you can see that there are more than 7 “releases” based on the NT kernel.
Anonymous Coward
So what does this tell us? He’s running a “minimal” Windows Kernel, which still uses no less than 33 Megs of RAM for doing… nothing, really. Hell, my Router only has 16 Megs of RAM, and yet it runs Linux and actually does something useful.
Andrew Clunis
Unfortunately, without the source code, this just isn’t particularly interesting.
Windows would be a pretty fun free software project, but alas, I suppose that will never come to pass…
Jacob
Shane: Actually, Windows 7 is called that because it IS the 7th version of Windows. They haven’t used version numbers in the actual name in years, so it’s all a bit confusing. (Plus, the NT split wasn’t recognised in version numbers.)
Windows 95 is 4.0, Windows 98 is 4.10, Windows Me is 4.90, Windows 2000 is 5.0, Windows XP is 5.1, Windows Server is 2003 is 5.2, Windows Vista is 6.0, and Windows Server 2008 is 6.1.
HBK
Ditto on the boot screen. It looks nice. Unfortunately, the way he says it on the video, it seems like its only a placeholder. Hopefully someone from M$ comes one here and reads this.
Larry Osterman
Grrrgg…
Windows 1.0 didn’t support arrow keys because they weren’t on the keyboard? Umm.. No. The IBM PC 1.0 had arrow keys.
Windows 1.0 didn’t support mice because they weren’t available? Um… No. Microsoft and several others (including Logitech) sold mice for PCs available at the time.
It’s more likely that the virtual machine application he’s running (whatever it is) doesn’t support serial or bus mice, and that it doesn’t support PC/AT style keyboards, NOT that Windows doesn’t support it.
And yeah, Windows 1.0 boots really quickly on a 2gHz processor. But on a 4mHz processor it’s a tad slower.
It really pisses me off when people get simple stuff like this wrong.
tino
@bluvg: Yes, Dave Cutler, there are some really great videos with him on Channel9. It’s interesting to listen to him and he is a big Unix hater btw
James
First release of Windows NT: NT 3.1. It used the NT 3.1 kernel. It was named Windows NT 3.1 to coincide with Windows 3.1, which was its DOS-based counterpart. Despite similar names and interfaces, they were very different OSes on the inside, because the Windows NT kernel is not and never was based on DOS, and has been 32-bit since the start (with the exception of newer 64-bit versions).
The next releases came as NT 4. There were several products under the NT 4 kernel - Windows NT 4 Workstation, Windows NT 4 Server and more. If I recall, there was also a Windows NT 4.1
Windows 2000 followed Windows NT 4. It was technically Windows NT 5.0. Again, there were multiple releases - Win2K Professional and several server versions.
Windows XP was the next NT release. It still used the NT 5 kernel, based on Windows 2000, but was upped to Windows NT 5.1. This was the first consumer version of the Windows NT line. There was no more DOS-based windows after XP.
Windows Server 2003 in its various forms was again built on the same kernel as Windows 2000 and XP. It has NT kernel 5.2, as does Server 2003 R2 and Windows Home Server.
Windows Vista was the next major release for the NT kernel. It is Windows NT 6.0. Windows Server 2008 will be Windows NT 6.1, and some sources say that Windows Vista SP1 will upgrade to the 6.1 kernel as well.
Windows Blackcomb/Vienna/Seven will have another major kernel update. Maybe it will be from scratch, or just changed a lot. Who knows. But the fact remains that it will be Windows NT 7.0. Thus its name, Windows Seven.
Uwe Dippel
What a rather crap. The first half is about the history of ‘Windows’. And Eric says there had been no cursor keys then. BS. There were.
And I liked his apologetic remarks w.r.t. to the non-acceptance of Windows 1 and 2: people needed time to acquaint themselves with a new paradigm. Haha. Windows 1 and Windows 2 were simply utter crap, Windows 3 became usable.
(Maybe Microsoft can remember the paradigm argument for the future, when the slow uptake of Vista needs explanation to the shareholders ?
)
Barius
Wow, that’s incredible, 20 years and their kernel has almost caught up with Unix!
/sarcasm
Anonymours coward 2
1.0 had bug with keyboard. Was not publicly released.
1.01 worked fine. Was publicly released.
Who is right? Yes.
Mitchel Tyrell
Cool stuff, looks like they are going even farther with modularizing Windows than just Windows Server Core.
Jasper Bellentree
Come on guys, the size of the kernel isn’t really all that important, and who cares what name of version number they call it. An operating system (in the kernel sense) is a program for managing hardware resources. Period.
In my books, the qualify of a kernel is measured by the average and worst-case performance (and the reliability and security) of the algorithms implementing thread and process time-slicing, memory allocation and paging, i/o buffering, access permissions, and at a higher level, file system layout, permission schemes, network stacks…
Viewed from this angle, Microsoft has *never* delivered an industry leading operating system. The Windows NT kernel did lead in these respects in the consumer market for quite a few years, but never surpassed Unix systems and has today fallen painfully behind.
Distilling down, or modularizing the Windows kernel may not be a bad thing to do architecturally if it shakes things up, but in and of itself what does it accomplish?
I’ve never been an Apple fan-boy, and after my Apple ][ didn’t touch one until Tiger was released. As a professional programmer, though, building, running, and generally torturing both programs and operating systems daily, I have learned to respect Unix kernels. It’s illuminating having a Mac Pro machine with boot camp on it. 8GB RAM, 4 3GHz cores, 1TB disk. Under XP (SP2) a full build of the software I’m working on takes about 40 minutes. Running OS X it takes 13. No, it’s not Symmantec, or a backup, or even NTFS fragmentation. It’s better algorithms for processor scheduling and memory management, and a more modern file system.
Kelly Clowers
tino Oct 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
@bluvg: Yes, Dave Cutler, there are some really great videos with him on Channel9. It’s interesting to listen to him and he is a big Unix hater btw
Of course Dave Cutler hates Unix, he was a was involved in creating VMS, and the VMS-Unix rivalry goes back a very long ways. If only Windows could be as good as its rock-solid VMS ancestry suggests.
anon
33meg of ram and 20-something meg on disk, and it doesn’t even have a shell, or from the looks of it a keyboard driver.
I have minimal linux on my cell phone that can do what that does and more with 1.3mb total. It even has a telnet server and framebuffer graphical capabilities.
I have a lot of junk in my kernel and a pretty comfortable command line unix style userland via busybox.
They should be ashamed.
Just for fun I started looking for smallest linux kernel and I found some old posts of people trying to fit a kernel into 256k and being upset that it came out to 450k. 900k with a minimal userland.
900k vs 33,000k — Hmm, yea. Windows is huge.
But aside from that Jasper Bellentree has a good point. Unless you are developing for some tiny embedded device size nowadays isn’t that important. The real issue that they’re not addressing is that the kernel design is just braindead.
Userland applications and the kernel running on the same thread? If you mash your stack in userland the wrong way you can crash the OS? I had a friend today explaining how the windows kernel works inside and it’s just amazing. “In theory, communism works”, and so does windows kernel design. In practice both are just horrid.
Patrick Draper
“All I’ll say is that if you think Windows at its core is bloated, think again.”
40 Megs (7 megs free means 33 megs used) of memory to run a character mode interface and a stripped down webserver? OK, I’ve thought again, and Windows at its core is definitely bloated.
Brandon Live
Note: MinWin is more than the kernel. In fact, you might say it’s to Windows as Darwin is to OS X.
Jasper - those things you listed as being important for measuring the quality of a kernel are exactly the things that NT accels at. Threading, process scheduling, etc - these are all areas where NT blows away your common kernels on Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, etc. Linux in particular had laughable threading and scheduling until 2.6, and even now is still in need of work. And don’t even get me started on OS X.
NT is really the only one of those built with multi-threading in mind. And calling HFS+ “modern” is pretty hilarious.
Seriously though, you’re doing something wrong if doing a full build of your software takes 40 minutes on that machine. My dev machine at work isn’t that fast (quad 2.4Ghz core, 4GB) and it builds our branch in half that time. And I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt your project is as big as mine =)
Jasper Bellentree
For me, this bit of history (the architect of Windows NT writing in 1993) sheds a lot of light on the weakness of Windows today; something which was a strength in the marketplace fifteen years ago.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/Windows-NT_is_VMS_re-implemented .html#forward
Consider also this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
JB
Anthony
Any news to come out of Redmond about improving their Windows product and the kernel is a good thing. After all a somewhat 85% of PC users using Windows should in this day and age finally should be using the most modern OS programmers can code!
Brandon Live
Anon - you must have a very strange perception of how the NT kernel works. It’s pretty straightforward. You should read up on some of Mark Russinovich’s detailing of the NT architecture. Your comment about userland applications and the kernel running in the same thread is confusing. Ultimately, every useful instruction has to end up being executed via the kernel. However, on Windows, user-mode applications are very clearly isolated from the kernel, and must pass through a Windows subsystem (Win32, POSIX, OS/2, etc) to reach the kernel’s native API (which is equivalent to System Calls in Unix).
It’s a pretty clear, simple seperation. Only drivers (including virtual ones, like some Anti-Virus software, rootkits, etc) actually run in kernel-mode, which is why they are responsible for 99% of system crashes on Windows. In Vista, many drivers (including a big chunk of WDDM video drivers) have been pushed out of kernel mode to protect against this. That’s why a failure in the video driver in Vista will most often be seen as a screen flicker followed by the pop-up balloon in the system tray telling you that the driver crashed and was restarted by the system.
Anyway, if you’re interested in the basics of the NT architecture, it looks like a decent overview is here: http://www.freewebs.com/four-f/KmdTut/kmd01.html
Plenty of other good places to read up around the web.
Brandon Live
Anon - here’s more detail about how user-mode apps call into the kernel on NT platforms:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=22442&rl=1
Clearly, you can see that kernel-mode code is never running inside a user-mode process / thread.
hatchetman82
not very impressive.
not only does linux manage to do a lot more with a lot less (your average router has 4 MBs of flash for “hard drive” and 16 MBs of RAM and is a lot more useful than the demo while running a full-featured 2.6 kernel), but there are leaner win32 implementations as well. take a look at reactOS:
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
Jasper Bellentree
Okay Brandon, your program builds in half the time that it takes my program to build. From this you infer what exactly? That I’m doing something wrong?
How on earth can you begin to suppose anything about the amount of code being compiled and linked in our respective projects?? What utter bullshit.
I’ve been a Windows developer since ‘94. Maybe you’ve been at it longer, it doesn’t matter. In any case, long enough to have some idea about how to squeeze more or less the best possible performance out of the system.
On identical hardware, a Windows build is taking 40 minutes, and a Mac build 13 minutes.
Process creation time and file system performance are the areas I suspect.
JB
John
Not really impressed either, that thing still uses a lots of RAM for basicly doing nothing.
By “lots of RAM”, I mean a lot more than what could fit in CPU cache, and as others validly noticed, there are whole kernels+applications that run with a lot less RAM and do useful stuff.
As for the latest MS techs, stuff like .Net is definitely in the the bloatware-spaghetti-code land… just consider that a XP install fully patched is half the size of an XP with .Net frameworks installed…
A 20kb .Net app may look cute, until you realize its execution can literally depend on gigabytes of code, which will be pulled in due to the spaghetti nature of dependencies in .Net libraries. No wonder the effective performance isn’t top notch and glitches/bugs abound. ’nuff said.
dabreaka
can we get the video from somewhere? this is running extremely slow and keeps getting stuck.. thx
Homer
Ummmmmmmm kernals arrrrghhhh, lightly roasted and salted.
Fikru
I would suggest a name for the new windows 7: Windows Addis!
Addis means new, clean, small, easy and accomodating in Ethiopian language. The only thing one can ask microsoft is this, and I don’t know what they do after. Can’t wait really!!!
Chris
Did they mention that the bootscreen is infact the windows serial number that will appear on the COA
Raiker
Hi! Can anybody reupload the full video to rapidshare? Cant download it from source, very bad speed from this server
Bepp
He is basically admitting that what Microsoft has been pushing through until now was unnecessarily bloated… Go for Linux NOW!
dabreaka
i managed to download the whole video and see the stuff about minwin that i wanted to..
John
1) Maybe someone could make X-Windows run on this kernel.
2) reactOS is NOT windows. It’s Linux.
3) Remember when DOS would run in 640K?
4) Remember Apple //’s that ran with 64K of RAM?
4) Remember Atari’s running with just 4k of RAM?
Microsoft has a LONG way to go to return to a truly lean and mean OS.
Brian
Sorry but did anyone else notice the similarity between MinWin and Windows 2.0.
Seems to me that we have indeed, gone full circle.
Adereth
Excuse me, John, ReactOS is a clone of Windows, from kernel to API to included userspace programs. I think you’re confusing it with WINE, which shares a lot of its code with ReactOS, and is designed to run on top of Linux and other Unix-like systems providing API-level compatibility (and incldued userspace programs.)
HImanshu Jain
Dude, this is you fifteen seconds of fame.. You are on Slashdot, Microsoft Watch and what else, enjoy the Page3 status
Cheers
Bill Gates
You are all wrong.Windows ME was and is the best OS
AloyNiresh
Kinda Awesome.Hastala Vista.
WPF/E
Good!
THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK
Pretty Sure its still 32 bit Kernel, it is characterized byethier |_-| or |-_| with _ or- 16 bit compnets of 32 bit string, where Ultimate is |_-| only & wastes time needless placing all highs as first 16 bit part of entire 32 bit string, yet mechanically it is almost impossible to change as well as being choppie, while ethier allows intial string to start with - or _ & exercises resistances in small 45 NM wires much better. So HOT spots in Wire are less & Variation more prevalent, not LOCKED in & just becoming too fast, thereforemore crash prone.YES,YES?
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
Peter
Well my windows kernel in my PDA is much more smaller.
And he doesnt even mention MS effeorts in PDA’s their kernels…
If they like to go real small… then put windows mobile on a server.
Hmm bummer
Bob Manders
Yes this Win 7 will be nice when it finally arrives. I am perfectly content with vista in the time being.
Opera
windows 7 download link here
http://www.microsoft.com/_private/project/windows7/live32.45.11.iso
THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK
Also this happens due to two seperate 16 bit feeds, that is first is twisted or its “PACKET” Shape is much differnt or even entire seperate channel from second 16 bit, perhaps modulation of address slightly differnt in first 16 sting compared to where +/or How second is created & run. two differnt channels made with NT7 to RUN MORE SMOOTHLY, THEREFORE FASTER POTENTIAL, MAYBE LESS POTENTIAL TIME IN CREATION OF EACH STRING means at any rate more solid & smooth operation of tranistors & software. Also as posted some hardware dosn’t RUN 32 Bit, it will actually be runing XP Morphed from Vista & where thare is only one channel of 16 bit info.
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
HImanshu Jain
Consider yourself lucky.. Has it been something from Apple, you would have been sued and forced to remove the video by now..
P.S. Change your Hosting Provider. It is not able to cope up with the Slashdot effect.
Seth Eheart
Yeah UIUC, but perfectly content with Vista? Are you running any non MS apps? Full circle? Is that “schmooz” for …we’re starting over and doing it right this time? 20 years and you’re now seeing the adv of the cathedral & the bazaar.
hoopskier
Windows Server 2008 is not NT 6.1. It’s NT 6.0, just like Vista. Actually it’s NT 6.0 SP1 — there is no server version of NT 6.0 SP0.
nagi
Let’s see… the linux on my router uses about 14 megs of RAM, and does way more on a way underpowered CPU. Yes, Windows is still bloated like hell.
Xepol
Anyone else remember Win95 able to boot in 4mb of ram *AND* still be able to do useful things? Even memory intensive things like program and debug?
40mb of ram and there isn’t even a GUI. That still sounds like a boatload of bloat to me.
Maybe the core they should have build forward off of is actually Win95…
brian
John,
I don’t see evidence that you understand that Microsoft people realize .NET demands more performance, but think its a worthwhile tradeoff for features like type safety and managed code, which will encourage the creation of better programs that less compromise security, take advantage of things like threading, while still being part of a common interface and platform. I know people who use Linux don’t think they need this type of thing since Linux can achieve security in a different way (by compromising a lot that Windows offers), but Microsoft could easily recreate Linux if they wanted to. The reason Microsoft isn’t recreating Linux is because Windows is a different type of platform.
Brandon,
I think Windows should be modular in that it should piece together and that people should be able to remove components and introduce new ones as they wish—but I think Windows should always be packaged and marketed and installed as a whole OS, and not ask every user during installation what they want in it. That should be up to expert users to deal with after installation if they want.
DigiGato
Brian:
But of course Microsoft could recreate Linux or even do as Apple did: use a BSD kernel, after Microsoft used to “mimic” tons of what, not only Windows, but must of its software does or by just stealing it and then “pay” for their “innovation”.
They do have the man -and- money power to create something bright and new, they have a better understanding fo what user experience (referring to non-computer literate/trained users) and they could’ve done this years before Vista, unfortunately, Microsoft is no longer a company that innovates, it is in fact a money machine that must “produce” something that sells in order to fulfill shareholder expectations so; even though MS COULD create they WON’T, because create something useful could provide a negative balance against shareholders since it’d take years (*real* years not Service Pack years) before they’d deliver something as incredible innovative and overwhelming that could sell like bread and butter, and shareholders like their money as in NOW, so, yeah, Windows Seven seems to be a new face with old techniques, but, and I am accepting that you hit the jackpot *windows and mac and linux and UNIX* are different platforms; Windows is NEVER going to be a GREAT platform until Microsoft decides it’s time to *REALLY* innovate, not just change a GUI, refract a kernel with old blue prints selling them as new, and adding more and more layers of complex APIs.
Mac is good, hell Linux is good, because without too much hassle they do what they are supposed to, that’s why they are good, Microsoft would be great if only it work as it was sold to us; If MS sold Windows for 60 dollars,, hell I’d not complain, I’d be paying for what I got, but, it doesn’t cost 60 USD and it behaves like a $5 USD piece of crap.
My 0.02
Digigato
whiskey
So you people don’t seem to know the whole story right? Yes it’s seven… but let’s see the numbers shall we? Build numbers please check.
So ok about Win 1.0… I do remember the arrowless keybs… it just so happens that they were later introduced. Also, just to point it out, yes (to whoever said it) Windows 1.0 and such boot up fast but because of the PC he is using, you had to fire up your old 286 (check the wikipedia for mhz so i won’t lie to you) and insert the 5 1/4 disk with the needed files (this is pre HD times)…
To those of you who might have missed it (please get some glasses) he uses Virtual PC 2007, which is a tad slow at times but if you have a “5.3 OMFZG Vista Advisor” Ultimate running Vista PC then you will get it to load as fast as it did.
I just wonder how is it that DSL gets to work on almost any pc and has graphical enviroment, web browsing, pdf reader, etc. in such a small portion (yes i know it is not 50 mb, it decompresses to something bigger, but when JUST the core of this Seven gets done so little… sigh).
whashhh
Damn Small Linux “full sistem and GUI” = 50 mb Live CD. Full GUI. It starts slower but it checks everything. Old machines only (2.4 kernel)
If you want to be extreme try embeded linux, load from a floppy, and so on.
Some people are thinking in flash the bios with the Linux Kernel (2MB)
Total: Linux will boot in the half of time.
Windows7 : kernel without GUI 40 Mb. I can’t imagine that monster.
Total: ¿still waiting a total?
¿can my router with linux support a hard drive?
If it can i will use it for bittorent
IT_Retired
40 Meg is bloody huge for what functionality that was presented. 64K and I would be impressed.
It is for the most part, a moot point. Let’s say, for example, you purchase VISTA, XP, Media Center, or win3.1 for that matter. Surprise, you merely purchased a *right* to use the software, or an *entitlement* to use it. The best part is it is not designed or warranted “For a particular purpose…” Go figure!
The consumer public wants Bakery-Ware: put in bread and out comes toast. I personally vote for a return of the day when RTFM was the law of the land. 800 numbers and tech support didn’t exist.
Misguided geeks weren’t competing with Anti-virus and software companies to compromise a users system, they were focusing on the war of copy protection.
The goal was to have the largest collection of cool software. The purpose of user groups was to “share” or “trade” parts of that collection with others. The really odd part about it is, back in that day, I spent much more per month on *legitmate* software *purchases* than I do today!
Oisin
After looking at this video, I must say Oh My God. There was some controversy over the previous Windows 95 installer because it attempted to connect to the internet if available. Later, spyware, DRM and malware became ubiquitous to the Windows name. They are loading a HTTP server into the kernel? So Microsoft can log into any Windows user’s computer.. and we are supposed to trust their totalitarian digital hegemony ? After websites like xp-antispy.org I guess they want their malware so embedded that noone, except a hacker with a source code can turn it off.
IT_Retired
Forgot to ask -
What do you get when cross
Microsoft windows:
CE+ME+NT ?
oneofmany
HWHAAAT? 40mb of ram for a bare kernel and a crappy http server? Are you insane? This is ridiculously LARGE. If this is the best that MS can come up we are in some deep s@#**. And then Microsoft wonders why so many admins still prefer to work with *nix servers… RAM might be cheap but this is really no excuse to create bloated software.
What is really interesting to see is that some of the older versions of the OS load the kernel + graphical environment faster than WinMin loads just a kernel an a cannibalized web server. MS you really need to find the guys that were working on those older project and get them to teach those new recruits a thing or two about efficient code. Oh and WinMin … come on you really couldn’t come up with anything better? REALLY?
I am totally convinced that the execs and project managers at MS have lost their minds. There seems to be no real innovation coming from the company and their OS strategy is really starting to stink. I am almost convinced that they are completely incapable of providing a fast and truly usable OS regardless of what type of a computer it is designed for. Not only that but apparently researchers at MS are being put under tremendous pressure and they have forgotten that the basic principle in science is disproving theories and starting over from scratch. If the R&D dept can’t start from scratch on the kernel project then Windows will really reach the point where it gets replaced as the dominant OS in the world.
MrX_TLO
BSD = smaller, faster, free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems
QNX has also been shipping for years and stomps ‘doze into dust on features, performance and price. It’s used in medical equipment, 911 systems and other critical systems where failure is not an option.
It’s an open source, real-time, message passing, POSIX compliant, SMP system and runs from HD, ROM/flash or even floppy. It also has development support from people who wrote it - not from some clown with a flowchart telling you to reinstall. Did I mention it’s a free download?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qnx
multi_io
@Brandon
“Threading, process scheduling, etc - these are all areas where NT blows away your common kernels on Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, etc.”
Really? My experience was more like just one or two single fully CPU-bound processes on Windows making the GUI crawl (jumping mouse pointer, anyone?). But maybe with your Quad-Core machine, you always have a core left to run your mouse pointer on. OK, the O(1) scheduler on Linux came with 2.6 only, so with dozens of runnable processes on Linux 2.4 you’d come to a point where many of the CPU cycles are spent in the scheduler, but for somewhat more real-world scenarios, especially on desktop machines, I’ll prefer Linux, thanks much. The process creation time and thread creation time are something like 5 times longer on Windows, and don’t get me started on NTFS performance issues when dealing with somewhat larger files or directories…
FiFi
Looks nice. I would love to have it…
And Windows Seven = NT 7.0 he was a little wrong on the presentation showing us dos-based Windowses.
Its like that:
NT 3.5/3.51
NT 4.0/4.5
2000 = NT 5.0
XP = NT 5.1
2003 = NT 5.2
Vista = NT 6.0
Seven = NT 7.0
And the NT series started with 3.x because it looked like DOS-Windows 3.x (yeah, lol)
Alex Ionescu
Actually, Eric forgot to mention NT -did- start at versions 1.0 and 2.0, when it was originally called NT OS/2, but those versions were never released.
oiaohm
Reactos is a clone of windows NT currently targeting 2003. And yes its core takes a hell of a lot less than but is only a alpha. Graphical up under 32 megs. 64 megs to run installer. Still a alpha.
No way its Linux. Its driver model is even NT.
So yes 2007 kernel looks heavy. Might be comparing to a alpha.
Raiker
Long, sombody else, please, reupload the full wmv! It`s impossible download it with 1 kbs! Rapidshare!
drnothing
Dude!!!!
You can do that and a lot more under 2mb of memory! See my website.
Brandon Live
Please stop acting like MinWin is just the NT kernel. The NT kernel is about 4MB in size, not 40. This system is running far more than that. It has a userland. Plus, size on disk and size in memory during execution are entirely different things.
As I said, this is more like the Windows equilvalent of Apple’s “Darwin.” How big is Darwin when executing?
multi_io - You said “making the GUI crawl” - are you referring to the shell? Window Manager? Or some poorly coded app that blocks its own UI thread?
Jumpy mouse pointer is virtually impossible, so don’t make things up and expect people to buy it as an argument.
DigiGato - why on earth would Microsoft want to use a BSD kernel? NT is far, far more modern and streamlined and a great deal more optimized for today’s world of multi-core / multi-proc machines. BSD would be a huge step backward.
Plus, Apple didn’t really take a BSD kernel and build their OS on it. They took Mach (similar to NT, in fact they’re cousins) and made it work kind of like the NT Executive does in Windows, while duct-taping part of a FreeBSD kernel and userland interface on top of it. It was really a pretty ugly integration in the beginning, and the OS still suffers a great deal from it.
Before 10.4 the OS X kernel was essentially single-threaded. Their “split funnel” idea really crippled multi-tasking on pre-Tiger versions of the OS, and their kernel-mode concurrency story is still in need of work.
Of course, it’s easy to say “Microsoft should do this,” or “Microsoft should do that” when you don’t really know what you’re talking about to begin with. Believe me, MinWin is a really great step forward in refactoring the Windows codebase. Overdue, perhaps, but that’s another discussion.
Brandon Live
Oh yeah - look at the Task List he shows. Csrss.exe is there. That’s the entire Win32 subsystem =)
drnothing
Ok, will we finally see true protected pre-emptive multitasking?
I hope MS won’t pump in some code to artificially restrict the OS from running on a 80386.
Will Microsoft ever come out with an OS that performs better than OS/2 2.1?
Or is Microsoft going to rely on faster hardware or cheating by skipping the cooling cycle of the processor?
When is Microsoft going to stop artificially making demand by cornering their market?
For example, when I buy the laptop in read “Windows XP preferred or Windows Vista preferred…” as if people really have a choice.
It’s is real simple. All the top execs in big companies are requesting Macs. Microsoft is loosing their hold in the big business market, so they have no choice now but to do what businesses have been asking MS to do for the past 15 years: Make us a REAL OS.
If it was not for people recognizing a better alternative, Microsoft would never have considered this project. I still would not trust their evil marketing. I don’t care if they even open their architecture to accept things like installable file system.
Microsoft is no idiot. They too, can produce an operating system that “smells like a rose.” But they ask themselves, “is it profitable to invest in the perfect operating system?”
Preacher
It has been just over(10-4-05)3 years since I began using and learning about computers. Of course Windows 98 per my wife and daughter were the first intro I experienced. I became interested and when one of the guys at the studio was tossing out a server(NT)I took it on as a learning project. Then another fellow gave me an old win 95 thing that I totally dismantled. Then there was my first build, a 98 and it was fun. That led to two complete(starting with empty case and new mother)builds, first with XP and then Vista. I am enthralled with the inherent potential of computers. I like Linux, and have traveled so many roads now in etherworld that I cannot imagine life without a ‘puter. Regardless of how some folks state their case, we all have a few things in common and one of those is the fascination mutually enjoyed in learning. Thanks for all of the great input. God bless, Preacher.
Julzz
Love MinWin
Windows Seven Will Blow Apple away.
Windows Seven said they wont have any spywere and virus’ that mean no more Virus protection !
Anonymous Freak
This Microsoft guy doesn’t know much about the history of Windows. Contrary to what this guy says, Windows 1.0 DOES support a mouse. Plus, arrow keys were on PC keyboards all the way back to the IBM PC/XT. Windows 1.0 not supporting arrow keys was an MS screw-up, not due to “not having arrow keys”.
Yes, this is version 7 of NT, not of “Windows”, since NT is a completely separate kernel line than Windows 1.0-Me.
And OS/2 1.x WAS released, by both IBM and Microsoft. (Microsoft-labeled copies of OS/2 1.3 are extremely rare, as Microsoft had already pulled out of the OS/2 project by that point.)
The history of it is that Windows was meant to be just a basic graphical “shell” for DOS programs. OS/2 was meant to be the “real” replacement for DOS (and Windows, for that matter.) OS/2 1.x was co-developed by IBM and Microsoft (with most of the work on Microsoft’s end.) OS/2 1.x was meant to be the “native” OS for 286 and above processors, OS/2 2.x for 386 processors, and OS/2 3.x a portable, multi-architecture OS.
When Windows 3.0 became such a big hit, Microsoft pulled out of the OS/2 program, and IBM took sole responsibility for OS/2 2.x. Microsoft kept development of OS/2 3.x, and renamed it “Windows NT”. The rest, as they say, is history. (IBM’s OS/2 3.0 and above are descendants of OS/2 2.0, they are *NOT* the same thing that IBM and Microsoft had planned to be “OS/2 3.0″.)
As for why the first version of Windows NT was named “3.1″, stems partly from the fact that it was meant to be “OS/2 3.0″, and partly because Windows was at version 3.0, so they didn’t want the “New Technology” version of Windows to have a lower version number.
For comparison, Windows 95 was actually version “4.00.950″, Windows 98 was version “4.10.1998″, and Windows Me was “4.90.3000″. Windows 2000 was “Windows NT 5.0″ (the early betas were called just that.) Windows XP was “NT 5.1″, and Vista is “NT 6.0″ The numbers after the second decimal in each version change with the various “Service Packs” and “Service Releases”. For example, Windows 98 Second Edition was 4.10.2222; and in NT versions, the second-decimal four number series is the build number, which increases directly independently of the “larger” versions, so Windows 2000 Professional’s original release was build 2195 (5.00.2195,) XP Professional’s original release was build 2600 (5.1.2600,) and Vista Ultimate’s original release was 6000 (6.0.6000.) (I’m pretty sure the build numbers hold true among separate “versions”, so Vista Home Basic is probably also build 6000, but I don’t have a copy of that to check.)
I’ve got Virtual Machines of all major versions of Windows, too. And I also have the various OS/2’s as virtual machines. (Plus an old 486 lying around with OS/2 2.1 and PC-DOS 6.1/Windows 3.11, just for kicks.)
Here is my current list of Virtual Machines: PC-DOS 3.3, MS-DOS 5.0, PC-DOS 6.1, MS-DOS 6.22, PC-DOS 7.0, Windows 1.0 (on PC-DOS 3.3), Windows/286 2.11 (on PC-DOS 3.3), Windows 3.0 (on MS-DOS 5.0), Windows 3.1 (on MS-DOS 6.22), Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (on PC-DOS 7.0), Windows 95, Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Vista Ultimate, OS/2 2.0, OS/2 2.1, OS/2 3.0 “Warp” (I had this list each on a separate line, but that made my post insanely long.)
Anonymous Freak
Clarification: While the IBM PC/XT’s stock keyboard didn’t have arrow keys, third-party keyb