Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Details of Windows 7 Emerge

CowboyNeal posted about 7 years ago | from the scantilly-clad-screenshots dept.

615

Some small but significant details of the next major release of Windows have emerged via a presentation at the University of Illinois by Microsoft engineer Eric Traut. His presentation focuses on an internal project called "MinWin," designed to optimize the Windows kernel to a minimum footprint, and for which will be the basis for the Windows 7 kernel.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

that sounds good but.. (2, Interesting)

Chris whatever (980992) | about 7 years ago | (#21030585)

But what about all that legacy crap in the Bios motherboard, when can we expect that some company will actual create a board without 15 year old technology or other obscure settings that is no longer used by anyone except maybe a 386.

The os might load fast with a bare minimum but what about the excess baggage of hardware?

has mac done this or is it just that the OS on a linux bas system is just plain faster.

now i know linux fans and mac fans will say that they already knew that but can someone provide hard facts

Re:that sounds good but.. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21032695)

OS X isn't linux based.

Re:that sounds good but.. (1, Informative)

Raineer (1002750) | about 7 years ago | (#21034943)

OS X isn't linux based.
Need a smaller knife to split those hairs? I don't see where anyone mentioned it was, regardless. Unix ~= Linux.

Re:that sounds good but.. (5, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | about 7 years ago | (#21035405)

"has mac done this or is it just that the OS on a linux bas system is just plain faster"

The implication that the Mac might have got rid of the BIOS (and hence gained speed) is tied to "a linux-based system is just plain faster". You could easily read that as suggesting the Mac is Linux-based.

FWIW, the Mac doesn't use a BIOS, it uses EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) these days. And it's not Linux-based either.

Simon.

Re:that sounds good but.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035461)

While the grandparent post is a non-sequitur, it is a true statement. Linux != UNIX != OS X, and that isn't splitting hairs. OS X has a UNIX-like layer on top of its kernel. The kernel, however, has nothing to do with (and is nothing like) Linux. OS X has attributes which resemble Linux, but it is definitely not based on Linux.

Re:that sounds good but.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035607)

Linux *MEANS* Linux Is Not UniX.

It's not UNIX.

Re:that sounds good but.. (1, Offtopic)

_merlin (160982) | about 7 years ago | (#21035109)

It's called EFI boot. The Intel-based Macs are all EFI based - no legacy BIOS necessary.

Re:that sounds good but.. (5, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | about 7 years ago | (#21035383)

One of Apples biggest wins with controlling the hardware AND the software is this very fact... they have phased out legacy equipment and software every so many years.

Re:that sounds good but.. (2, Informative)

CSMatt (1175471) | about 7 years ago | (#21035429)

Ditching the BIOS will only save a few seconds at best. In my experience most of the time spent waiting for Windows to be usable is not waiting for the drivers to load but waiting for all of those (mostly unnecessary) background processes to start up after logging in. And in any case those few seconds are vital if someone wants to boot from a CD. The American Megatrends BIOS in my built computer literally loads the OS almost immediately after being turned on when the quick test is used instead of a full POST. I found this so annoying that I had to actually enable the full POST along with a custom boot image to slow it down enough to be able to get those precious seconds back, which was not an easy task since I had pretty much a half-second to enter the BIOS setup.

Re:that sounds good but.. (3, Interesting)

Rolgar (556636) | about 7 years ago | (#21035639)

I know this is severely outdated, but once, when I needed to reinstall '98, I didn't install my sound driver, and I was getting a incredibly fast boot, something like 20 seconds on a 650 MHz system. When I later installed the driver, my boot time went up 50 seconds to around 70. I know that in the last 8 years, a lot of time has been spent reducing the amount of time it takes to boot Windows, but I'd be interested to see what happens if people disabled some of the non-critical hardware on their machines to see what it does do to their boot times.

Re:that sounds good but.. (5, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 years ago | (#21035457)

This is essentially exactly the same as Windows Vista except instead of removing features as they get close to the deadline, they've started out with all the features already removed. When you don't meet your expectations, lower the expectations.

Re:that sounds good but.. (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 7 years ago | (#21035559)

What about the on board software raid bios delays in to days motherboards?

System with real raid cards can also have HD spin up slow downs and you do not want to be spin up a lot of disks all at the same time.

Re:that sounds good but.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035653)

This is just a red herring astroturf intended to direct discussion away from Microsoft's shortcomings.

Completely offtopic and should be modded to oblivion.

Rinse, Repeat (5, Interesting)

orkysoft (93727) | about 7 years ago | (#21031087)

So Microsoft tells something about the next version of Windows not long after the people have noticed that their current version isn't all that it's made up to be?

Re:Rinse, Repeat (5, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 7 years ago | (#21035525)

Why is this modded troll?

Microsoft are the kings of targeted vapourware.

They spent most of the '90s poisoning the well [madisonavenuejournal.com] for their competitors with this tactic. What makes you think they're not doing the same thing again?

why troll parent (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#21035547)

This exactly coincides with the time major pc sellers started providing Xp again. please, use your mod points visely.

Size matters (5, Funny)

Skiron (735617) | about 7 years ago | (#21031333)

"Windows kernel to a minimum footprint"

It depends if you have size 24" feet (MS) or 8" feet like real normal OS's. No matter how big the foot, you can only reduce your footprint to the smallest size of the foot.

So that, as far as I am concerned, is a nebulous comment intended to fool the press and others that still believe every MS 'press release' they spew out.

Can I get a little insight, please? (1)

Jon.Laslow (809215) | about 7 years ago | (#21035263)

I'm a Windows user (no jokes, please), and have occasionally dipped in to a Linux distribution, but I've never looked at Kernel Memory Usage. What is the standard memory usage for a Linux Kernel, just so I have something to compare with the numbers mentioned in TFA?

Re:Can I get a little insight, please? (2, Interesting)

jlarocco (851450) | about 7 years ago | (#21035651)

At one point I had full XFCE desktop and latest (at the time) 2.6.xx kernel running in under 35 MB. That was a few months ago.

But I'll be the first to admit that it wasn't a typical install. I was going more for speed, but I compiled the kernel with exactly the set of drivers/modules I needed; and compiled X, XFCE, and most "important" system libraries myself. Base distro was Slackware.

I'm running a fairly standard Debian install right now, and with no apps running it'll use about 150 MB with X, Fluxbox, and some fairly "standard" background services.

I'll also point out that the 35 MB Slackware was running on a 32-bit Pentium 4, and this Debian install is running on AMD64. Doesn't make much difference, but enough that I thought I should point it out.

MicroSoft Mini-ME (1)

twitter (104583) | about 7 years ago | (#21035103)

Designed to minimize YOU!

Lesson in MS Counting (5, Funny)

Prien715 (251944) | about 7 years ago | (#21035113)

Apparently it goes:

2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7!

No wonder kids have so much trouble at math....

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

mblase (200735) | about 7 years ago | (#21035145)

Apparently it goes: 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7!
I'm assuming that Win98 and WinME are considered updates of Win95, rather than upgrades. I know that's how I thought of them.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (3, Informative)

Cowclops (630818) | about 7 years ago | (#21035161)

3 = 3 9x = 4 2k/xp = 5 vista = 6 7 = 7 Nuff said.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (5, Funny)

truthsearch (249536) | about 7 years ago | (#21035217)

3 = 3 9x = 4 2k/xp = 5 vista = 6 7 = 7

Nuff said.

No, not really. That equation actually makes sense to you? Are you one of the Microsoft Excel developers?

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035451)

No, not really. That equation actually makes sense to you? Are you one of the Microsoft Excel developers?

Actually, I think his job is to count and report Vista sales.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (3, Funny)

Repton (60818) | about 7 years ago | (#21035683)

Ok, it made sense to me, but I had to reread it 3 times. Let's try again, with formatting:

  1. Windows 1
  2. Windows 2
  3. Windows 3.x
  4. Windows 95, 98
  5. Windows 2000, Windows XP
  6. Windows Vista
  7. Windows 7

No mention of Windows ME, but perhaps that's as it should be...

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

Enlightenment (1073994) | about 7 years ago | (#21035301)

No, I'm pretty sure they're saying 1, 2, 3, NT, XP, Vista.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 7 years ago | (#21035333)

Close.

1 2 3 3.1 3.5 4 2000 XP (= 5.1) Vista 7

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

Enlightenment (1073994) | about 7 years ago | (#21035337)

That's what TFA says anyway. (Or rather the video embedded in TFA says that.)

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | about 7 years ago | (#21035419)

For those of you that dont understand the parent, Windows has kept a numerical version inside it the whole time
To see the number, you can type ver in a console

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035553)

To see the number, you can type ver in a console
True, someone with Vista please check to see if they are at version 6.66 yet.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (5, Informative)

hyeh (89792) | about 7 years ago | (#21035679)

Actually there are 2 Windows lines...

MS-DOS Based
1.x, 2.x (Windows/286, Windows/386), 3.x, 4.0 (95), 4.1 (98), 4.9 (Me)

NT Based
3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), 6.0 (Vista), 7

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035221)

Actually, the proper lineage is:
Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 (NT 5), Windows XP (NT 5.1), Vista (NT 6), 'Windows 7' (NT 7)

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (3, Interesting)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 years ago | (#21035367)

If you're going to mod one of these posts up, pick this one.

Also, notice that (with consumer releases), Windows seems to be following the even-odd rule? 3.1, meh. '95, good. '98, meh. '98SE, good. ME, ai f'thangan! 2k/XP, excellent. Vista? Pfft. Windows7? Good things to come. ;)

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | about 7 years ago | (#21035637)

I've actually found that 3.1 was more stable for me than 95, especially once I found out that the majority of my 3.1 headaches were actually caused by a faulty CD-ROM drive on the 3.1 machine. This machine also had 95 on it, and suffered from the same CD-ROM woes, but 95 on this machine also had trouble with programs that were strictly on the hard disk.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035231)

2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7!

more like

1 = 2

2 = 3

3 = 95

4 = 98

5 = ME

6 = 2000, XP and Vista! I New it!!!

7 = windows new

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

luchaugh (860384) | about 7 years ago | (#21035251)

Wasn't ME just 98 with a few cosmetic changes? Wouldn't Win2K be more appropriate between 98 and XP?

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 7 years ago | (#21035499)

Win2K was part of a different product line. It was Windows NT version 4. With XP, the product lines were merged.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035587)

No, NT4 was called NT4. Win2K was "NT 5." XP is effectively NT 5.1.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | about 7 years ago | (#21035617)

Nope. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, and Windows NT 4.0 was an earlier release made in 1996, and it actually replaced (not merged) with the legacy Windows 95/98/ME that really wasn't all that good.

Running a web server can help with identifying these version numbers. Or check out wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT [wikipedia.org]

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | about 7 years ago | (#21035513)

ME wasn't an OS, it was a virus.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (5, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | about 7 years ago | (#21035283)

2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7

Oh... it's worse in Excel 2007;

65533, 65534, 65535, 100000, 100000, 65538, 65539.. and so on!

Maybe there's some nice pattern too?

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

freakyfreak2 (613574) | about 7 years ago | (#21035297)

The current Consumer windows is built from the Windows NT line, not the original Windows line.
Since Windows 3.1 was all the rage at the time NT debuted as Windows NT 3.1. Then came 4, 2000(5), XP (6) and next will be 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases [wikipedia.org]

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 7 years ago | (#21035359)

XP was 5.1. Vista is 6.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

imemyself (757318) | about 7 years ago | (#21035299)

The first version of the Windows NT kernel was 3.1 (or 3.5, I don't remember). It started there instead of 1 because the non-NT OS's versions numbers were around there at the time (Windows 3.1). Windows NT 4 was the next major version of the NT kernel. Windows 2000 came with the NT 5.0 kernel. XP was 5.1, and Windows 2003 Server was 5.2. Windows Vista is 6.0 and I *think* that Windows Server 2008 is 6.1. So, other than starting it at 3.1 instead of 1, it is fairly straight-forward. They increment .1 for minor releases (as far as the actual kernel is concerned) and 1 for major releases/changes. Windows 1, 2, 3/3.11, and Windows 95/98/Me are an entirely separate line than the NT based OS's. They do not have the same kernel. Windows 95/98/Me had version numbers of four point something IIRC.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

dedazo (737510) | about 7 years ago | (#21035381)

The first version of the Windows NT kernel was 3.1

Technically 3.0 was "Windows OS/2 3.0" or whatever they were calling it back then, though the first proper "Windows NT" release was 3.1.

The first really usable version was 3.5.

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | about 7 years ago | (#21035345)

2->2
3->3
95->4
98->4.1
ME->4.9
2000->5
XP->5.1
2003->5.2
Vista->6

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (1)

Soiden (1029534) | about 7 years ago | (#21035603)

2->2 3->3 3.1->3.1 3.11->3.11 95->4 98->4.1 98SE->4.2 ME->4.9 2000->5 2000Pro->5.01 2000Server->5.02 2000AdvanceServer->5.021 2000DatacenterServer->5.22 XP->5.1 XPStarter->5.0999999999 XPPro->5.11 XPCorporate->5.12 XPMediaCenter->5.13 2003->5.2 VistaStarter->5.99999999 Vista->6 VistaHomePremium->6.01 VistaBusiness->6.02 VistaEnterprise->6.03 VistaUltimate->6.04 2008Server->6.5? 7->7

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (4, Funny)

magus_melchior (262681) | about 7 years ago | (#21035537)

Apologies to fans of a certain British comedy group...

"Me shalt thou not count, neither count thou 2, excepting that thou then proceed to 7. Vista is RIGHT OUT!"

Re:Lesson in MS Counting (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#21035673)

Apparently it goes:

2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7!


I'm more curious what will Apple name their next major release, if ever.

OSX, OSXI, OSXII, OSXIV...?

Of course, once they reach 10.9, they have the option of pissing in the face of basic number representation and call the next version 10.10, then 10.11 ...

Good intentions (5, Insightful)

_merlin (160982) | about 7 years ago | (#21035127)

I'm sure Microsoft developers have good intentions and big dreams for Windows 7. I'm sure they did for Vista at the beginning of the project. But they'll have to cut corners, meet dates, add legacy support, and all the things a behemoth like Microsoft always thinks they have to do. For all their failings, you've gotta give Apple credit for having guts to change things - the Mac has gone through three CPU architectures, and two completely different operating system kernels.

Re:Good intentions (4, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | about 7 years ago | (#21035183)

But they'll have to cut corners, meet dates, add legacy support, and all the things a behemoth like Microsoft always thinks they have to do.
Legacy support is important to many business Windows customers; some of them are still using 16-years-old custom software that needs to run on whatever desktop OS their employees are running.

Re:Good intentions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035343)

One word: virtualization.

There's no excuse for having a system bogged down with backwards compatibility. Run old stuff in a vm (like OS X does for OS 9) or pull a Wine.

Re:Good intentions (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 years ago | (#21035355)

Legacy support is important to many business Windows customers; some of them are still using 16-years-old custom software that needs to run on whatever desktop OS their employees are running.

True, but that what Virtual Machines are for. Run VMware with a Win 98 image for the next century if need be. Just let the Rest of Us move along...

Re:Good intentions (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 7 years ago | (#21035431)

Vm's add overhead and make more work for IT.

Re:Good intentions (3, Funny)

iocat (572367) | about 7 years ago | (#21035523)

And this is a problem for readers of slashdot how? More work = more work.

Re:Good intentions (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 7 years ago | (#21035575)

more work on top of the work need for a new windows system as well as the added hardware load.

Re:Good intentions (1)

fireslack (1039158) | about 7 years ago | (#21035659)

Then don't upgrade. Problem solved.

Re:Good intentions (3, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#21035241)

They did switch from the DOS-based (1, 2, 3, 95, 98, Me) to NT based kernel. And NT 3 was written for i860 and MIPS, then ported to x86, alpha, and powerpc.

Re:Good intentions (3, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#21035397)

For all their failings, you've gotta give Apple credit for having guts to change things - the Mac has gone through three CPU architectures, and two completely different operating system kernels.

Comparing the situation of Apple and Microsoft is dangerously wrong. Microsoft would most likely bankrupt if they did what Apple did with the three CPU architectures.

I agree with you MS have good intentions and think big. Where I don't agree is that having a product after 5 years of development is just some "things a behemoth like Microsoft always thinks they have to do".

What else are they supposed to do? Sit on it?

They made mistakes with Vista. First mistake was they started developing Vista on post-XP beta code. It created a huge mess, so they dropped it, took the more modular Windows 2003 codebase, further analyzed it, modularized it, and in the span of 2 years, ported their old code over to end with what's Vista.

They just thought they'd be done too soon. The vision of Vista is great, but they had to carry it out in 2-3 quicker releases, each with lesser more incremental upgrades.

What Microsoft learned from Vista is they need to get their code in order. The new kernel design is part of this effort. I think they're on a good track, I pray like hell they take their time with it, and finish it properly, versus rush it like Vista.

MS doesn't control the hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035493)

If they did control the hardware with Apple's rigidity, you'd be running a very stable and safe version of Windows right now. You'd be paying a little premium (as you do with Apple) for the hardware, and the experience would [likely] be similar.

The problem is that Microsoft puts out software that accommodates everything from generic video cards to 16-bit legacy programs. They try to please everyone, and succeed in pleasing very few people.

Virtualised Legacy (5, Insightful)

Kenshin (43036) | about 7 years ago | (#21035521)

Legacy support can easily be virtualised. That's how Apple managed the jump from OS9 to OSX (the "Classic" environment was launched on-demand), and that's how Windows 7 should be built.

Sure, legacy apps will run marginally slower, but new apps will be free of the built-up cruft.

Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035139)

Much more information will be available next Friday...

I wonder... (5, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#21035153)

I can't help but wonder if this is a reaction to OS X being used on iPhone and iTouch(mySelf). Maybe they're trying to consolidate windows/windows CE. Or maybe this is just another feature that will be cut in favor of demanding a DNA sample before allowing you to access the internet.

microkernel? (1)

nagashi (684628) | about 7 years ago | (#21035165)

Microsoft has 'invented' the Microkernel [wikipedia.org] ? Sounds good to me, but seriously. The major reason for going with a microkernel I've always read was protection from drivers with memory leaks and such. I use windows at work and linux at home, and I haven't blue-screened in about 6 years. Still, a simpler design may be safer as well, ne? Fewer exploits via buggy syscalls?

Re:microkernel? (1)

Sparky McGruff (747313) | about 7 years ago | (#21035527)

You haven't blue screened in 6 years? I'm impressed. I bought a windows Vista laptop about 6 months ago. It only gets light use, mostly web surfing and some microsoft word. I have a Mac at work that does most of the heavy lifting, and it works pretty flawlessly, even though it is several years old and way overworked.

I just went back and checked the "problem reports"; I've had 26 blue screens (Windows shut down unexpectedly) in the "windows" column. It has gotten better after a few updates here and there, but it is not by any stretch "crash free". I certainly have to reboot often, if I don't want it to crash.

Interesting (1)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | about 7 years ago | (#21035173)

I'm curious as to just how long Microsoft has had somebody trying to minimize the kernel footprint. It would seem, from mere observation, that their trend has been to make a kernel that's feature-oriented at the expense of performance. It's really sad that developers no longer seem to care much about optimization. After all, the end user can just slap another gig of memory or higher-spec video card right in, can't they?

Vista will be renamed to MaxWin (0)

z-j-y (1056250) | about 7 years ago | (#21035177)

too boost the sale

What about those fancy new effects/tech? (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | about 7 years ago | (#21035193)

I would think that might be kinda hard, since they *just* introduced Vista with all of its new GUI effects and background services. To pull those out would make it look like they made a mistake with Vista. On the other hand, he said "optimizing the *kernel*" not all the other crap that bogs it down. Even if they made a brand new kernel that could run everything a "modern" kernel/core OS is expected to have, they'd somehow find unnecessary system services to bog it down...

Seems to coincide with patents (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035269)

This seems to coincide directly with some recent patents filed by Microsoft. It seems what they're truly after is an al-la-carte style OS where DRM is used to control the subscription of such "base OS" additions. Read more on the patent here, http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060282899%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060282899&RS=DN/20060282899 [uspto.gov]

Basically, you purchase the base-system and tack-on additional subscription based modules. My concerns are how the subscription model will function, the subscription pricing, and the potential for removal of prior features such as 3D acceleration on the 'base' system.

It also appears that DRM will be used extensively in this model and will not be solely limited to music/video as previously thought.

Honesty, and I'm not trolling here, but this looks pretty scary. This reminds me of driver-signing gone awry. I don't see the potential for open-source/free modules due to item #3. Arbitrary application, memory, CPU, and process limits are also concerning.

The whole "add-on" 3D support as well as "don't limit my desktop to 5 open applications/processes" seems incredible. I imagine the base system will be usable to about 3% of the population and the subscription-based add-on modules may be pricey. I can't imagine a DRM style approach for 3D gaming/enthusiasts being acceptable. Imagine having to pay $20/mo for 3D + multiple core CPU + 2G RAM and the minute you stop paying all those modules expire and are no longer active until you resume payment; like Napster and other DRM based music models work.

-evilghost

Re:Seems to coincide with patents (1)

visgoth (613861) | about 7 years ago | (#21035627)

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. "

There's a limit to how much you can abuse the rectums of even the dumbest of customers, and I think Microsoft is headed squarely toward that limit.

Call me in 2012..... (4, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | about 7 years ago | (#21035281)

when its at least in beta.

Re:Call me in 2012..... (4, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about 7 years ago | (#21035605)

No thanks, I'll be waiting for Hurd [gnu.org] to be production-ready.

This time will be different! (4, Funny)

Wylfing (144940) | about 7 years ago | (#21035303)

It's going to have a database file system! It's going to be secure! No more rebooting! It will have a really good command line!

Re:This time will be different! (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | about 7 years ago | (#21035581)

Hmm funny! Database File System (which was announced for Vista months after Amiga Inc. announced the Ortogonal Persistence File System for AmigaOS5 = same thing) was pushed back so much because M$ had/has no idea on how to implementet and that's their reason for the first delays in shipping Vista (we know better now), then they announced that it would be part of a major upgrade (under payment) of Vista, now it's moving to the next edition? Yeah right! Luca

Re:This time will be different! (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 years ago | (#21035675)

Rethink the Registry? Please?

where are the details? (1)

networkzombie (921324) | about 7 years ago | (#21035307)

He is describing Windows v6. Where are the details of Windows 7? I've played with the beta of 2008 Core, and it is fun and all, but that's exactly what he seems to be talking about. As a matter of fact he does talk about it, yet he gives no details of Windows v7 past the ASCII boot screen. Did I miss something? Is that the big change? They save HDD space by using ASCII graphics?

So what? (4, Insightful)

foo fighter (151863) | about 7 years ago | (#21035331)

The kernel hasn't been Windows's problem since NT 4.

The real problem is the middle-management clusterfuck. The direct result of which is the bizarro world of Windows the platform and its zillion libraries and APIs that have subtle (and not so subtle, but probably undocumented) incompatibilities.

Microsoft's own devs can't figure that shit out and they've been trying since XP. It has only become worse since they shoved all the digital restrictions management into the system.

Ma83 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035351)

our caUse. Gay

ah! just in time (4, Insightful)

boxlight (928484) | about 7 years ago | (#21035373)

ah! news of a new version of windows -- just in time for the release of Leopard.


looks like Mistersoftie is up to their old hype the vaporware [wikipedia.org] tricks to dissuade buyers from going with attractive alternatives.

Windows 7 preview (5, Funny)

Kurt Gray (935) | about 7 years ago | (#21035385)

You turn on the computer. You are greeted by an angelic chime that gets progressively louder until your speakers shake. You attempt to adjust the volume but it only gets louder still. A full screen Window icon ripples across the screen then all goes black. The product activation screen prompts you to enter your activation keys, printed on 27 pages of holographic alloy glue to the inside of the aluminum DVD case. For the next 3 hours you enter the activation key, taking breaks to use the bathroom, eat, and make phone calls.

After entering the correct activation keys, a dialog appears prompting you to select your social login profile group. You have no idea what that is so you click "Other Networks" The next dialog says "Connecting to networks..." for the next 5 minutes. A message apears saying "New Hardware Found" but it can't find the driver. Another popup appears "No networks found". Then your desktop appears. The wallpaper is stunning. The Internet Explorer icon appears to majestically float above the screen. You click it. A message appears warning you that the Internet can harm your computer, do you want to continue? You click "Yes". You are prompted to enter your administrator key. This key is on the sticker on the inside of your PC case. You shutdown the PC, get a screwdriver, open the case, write down the 18 digit administrator code, put the case back together and reboot.

After rebooting, blocking your ears during the chime assault, and oggling the amazing wallpaper, ignoring the "live folders server not found" error, you try Internet Explorer again. You dutifully enter the administrator key. You are asked if you want to save this key to your "universal keyring" You click OK. You are warned that the universal keyring is encrypted and your sending encrypted information. You click OK. After 3 minutes you get an error saying "No key server found" ... and so on...

You never do get to see the Internet. But the wallpaper is amazing.

 

Re:Windows 7 preview (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 7 years ago | (#21035485)

well at least windows would be secure, and look there's clippy to great you at boot up :)

die !!! (0)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#21035495)

you bastard !!! knocked me off the chair in the dead of the night.

worth losing some karma

Re:Windows 7 preview (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035557)

You turn on the computer. You are greeted by an angelic chime that gets progressively louder until your speakers shake. You attempt to adjust the volume but it only gets louder still. A full screen Window icon ripples across the screen then all goes black. The product activation screen prompts you to enter your activation keys, printed on 27 pages of holographic alloy glue to the inside of the aluminum DVD case. For the next 3 hours you enter the activation key, taking breaks to use the bathroom, eat, and make phone calls. After entering the correct activation keys, a dialog appears prompting you to select your social login profile group. You have no idea what that is so you click "Other Networks" The next dialog says "Connecting to networks..." for the next 5 minutes. A message apears saying "New Hardware Found" but it can't find the driver. Another popup appears "No networks found". Then your desktop appears. The wallpaper is stunning. The Internet Explorer icon appears to majestically float above the screen. You click it. A message appears warning you that the Internet can harm your computer, do you want to continue? You click "Yes". You are prompted to enter your administrator key. This key is on the sticker on the inside of your PC case. You shutdown the PC, get a screwdriver, open the case, write down the 18 digit administrator code, put the case back together and reboot. After rebooting, blocking your ears during the chime assault, and oggling the amazing wallpaper, ignoring the "live folders server not found" error, you try Internet Explorer again. You dutifully enter the administrator key. You are asked if you want to save this key to your "universal keyring" You click OK. You are warned that the universal keyring is encrypted and your sending encrypted information. You click OK. After 3 minutes you get an error saying "No key server found" ... and so on... You never do get to see the Internet. But the wallpaper is amazing.
But good sir, these are all features not bugs or errors.

Re:Windows 7 preview (2, Interesting)

failedlogic (627314) | about 7 years ago | (#21035677)

This is modded funny, but how about 'Reality'?

I honestly wonder if some of these posts aren't printed and used internally at Microsoft as either: cubicle decorations, motivation to make better code or ammunition to convince managers to improve the development process.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21035401)

Why bother coming up with a new list when 75% of Vista's original feature list never got implemented?

Singularity Anyone? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | about 7 years ago | (#21035409)

I wonder how much (if anything) the Singularity (http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/) project will influence the next gen Wintendo. I was talking to an MS engineer today (to whom I gave a SUSE 10.2 DVD) who is installing AD at our location.

He showed me that they apparently already have a VM of Singularity internally. (Of course, I couldn't get a copy...)

Windows 7??? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 7 years ago | (#21035415)

Microsoft doesn't even have Windows Vista working yet.

Re:Windows 7??? (0)

Fourier404 (1129107) | about 7 years ago | (#21035477)

"Screw it, let's just cut our losses and move on."

What about the hardware vendors? (2, Insightful)

pilbender (925017) | about 7 years ago | (#21035423)

Hardware suppliers have always counted on Microsoft to force people into buying a new system. If they design something that's optimized and competitive, they will lose their advantage and preferrential treatment by those vendors.

In other words, they have backed themselves into a corner. They must either continue down the path of slowness for their "partners" benefit or they must respond to the newer, faster systems that Apple and Linux offer people. More bang for the buck is what customers will want.

They have a real uphill battle because their two main market drivers were the variety applications that were available and the control of hardware vendors, which includes drivers, discounts, or whatever other "agreements" they have.

With Vista, there are driver and application compatibility issues just like there are with Linux (which is *much* less of an issue today). They are trying to toss away XP ecosystem and it puts them on a level playing field with other competitors. Suddenly, all the reasons for choosing Windows over Mac or Linux have disappeared!

These are interesting times. Microsoft is having to compete with themselves as well as others :-D

That's just sooo not gonna fly (4, Interesting)

melted (227442) | about 7 years ago | (#21035441)

Take it from a former Microserf - this "internal project" will be taken to the nearest corner and shot (and maybe also mutilated and spat on). When you have a huge turd of a codebase dating back 15 years in some places, the last thing you want to do is dramatically rehash it. Projects like this are DOA at Microsoft after the WinFS fiasco.

This is step one. (3, Interesting)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 7 years ago | (#21035445)

Good. Small kernel is a good start. Now make it open source and let me install whatever the hell I want for a desktop manager and applications on top of it.

I've been saying it for years now. Windows should either be an open standard for operating systems to be built or be a desktop manager built on a Linux kernel. Of course, then what would the diehards bitch about on slashdot?

Re:This is step one. (2, Funny)

Joaz Banbeck (1105839) | about 7 years ago | (#21035681)

...then what would the diehards bitch about on slashdot?
The editors, of course.

Ouch. Don't do it. (3, Insightful)

russellh (547685) | about 7 years ago | (#21035501)

Until the next great advance in OS technology, the kernel, the core OS is a solved problem by modern standards. Microsoft should build windows around the linux kernel and be done with it. they could refocus their huge resources toward all the great stuff they have cut out in the past. Even the massive wealth of Microsoft can barely compete with their proprietary system against open source developers. Why waste so much time on security issues when the answer is just there for the taking? Of course, they will never do it without a massive shakeup. it's just too threatening. This is their downfall, eventually, at least insofar as platform domination goes. they still have shifting proprietary file formats and forced upgrades, though, at least. what a business.

Hmmm new Windows Hasta La Vista! (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | about 7 years ago | (#21035515)

I wonder what the new features are going to be... New GUI, more security (meaning asking user confirmation every time the user presses a key), Installation on 6 Blue-Ray Double Layer and an 8 core Processor 4Ghz, 16GB RAM minimum requirement... Microsoft should stick to making Xboxes only, that's the only thing they do right.

Small kernel, only for now (1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#21035535)

Its to be inflated with drm crap later. 2 years of Riaa lobbying should be able to get it to 5 Gb ram requirement level. Of course, it will need a cluster of 2 pcs for cpu power - for the new "On Live Demand DRM®" feature.

There's no bloat... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#21035569)

The demo shows the very kernel and command line of Windows is something like 25 MB, and takes 14 MB of RAM.

Can't help but thing this doesn't fair well to Linux and BSD which have mostly the same features (or alternative).

DamnSmallLinux is 50 MB but that goes together with the: graphics subsystem, deskop, media player, ftp client, email, spreadsheet, firefox, graphics editor... etc. etc.

The demoed MinWin here can't display a picture to save its life (except in ASCII) and contained just a very basic HTTP server that spews the task list back to a browser.

But those little things don't matter anymore on the desktop, and with Penryn and future advancements in the x86 platform, they won't matter on the mobile devices either. Just I hope they manage to componentize the entire Windows environment this way. It'll mean much higher quality code, easier back compat, and much more predictable behavior of future Windows releases.

Maybe... (2, Insightful)

noz (253073) | about 7 years ago | (#21035595)

Maybe then someone at Microsoft will know how their process scheduler works.

Other MinWin (1)

dhasenan (758719) | about 7 years ago | (#21035623)

I take it they're not referring to this MinWin [dsource.org] ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?