No Completely New Kernel In Windows 7, Microsoft Says
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: Microsoft, Windows, 7 | Themes: Software
San Francisco (CA) - Microsoft squashed hopes that the next version of Windows will come with a completely new kernel - a new kernel that had been discussed and presented as "micro kernel". The foundation new operating system, apparently due for launch in early 2010, will be an evolutionary step over the Windows Server 2008 kernel, which is based on the Windows Vista kernel, an executive said in an interview.
Depending on your perspective, the interview published by News.com, reveals too much or too little information about the next-generation Windows operating system release. In any case, many may find it a bit sobering, what changes we can expect and how little Microsoft is actually willing to reveal about the ideas it has with the new software.
Steven Sinofsky, senior vice president of Microsoft’s Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, went into further detail especially on the kernel of the operating system, 32-bit and 64-bit support as well as the release date. Answering a question about the much discussed micro-kernel of a demonstrated software, Sinofsky said that the Windows 7 kernel will be related to today’s Vista kernel: Windows 7 will be based on the kernel of Windows Server 2008 kernel, which is an evolution of the Windows Vista kernel. The executive highlighted driver compatibility, saying that Windows 7 will not come with a new driver model. "We’re very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they’ll work the same," he told News.com.
To some, this statement may come as a surprise, as it was widely expected that Microsoft would use this new release of Windows to come up with a new technology foundation that is based on a micro kernel. What we know now is that "MinWin" won’t make it into Windows 7. The executive did not reveal much about the feature set of the software, but indicated that Windows 7 will be a "major release".
Sinofsky confirmed that Windows 7 will be available in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, at its debut in 2010 - which will be nearly seven years after the first release of 64-bit capable processors. The executive described the "64-bit ecosystem" as still catching up" and a market that is determined by enthusiasts in particular. However, the company has still concerns over available drivers and Sinofsky noted that "a lot of drivers haven’t been written yet, and we expect that they’re available now with new hardware, and we expect that that library will be built up over time."
The launch date remains at "three years after the general availability of Windows Vista", which would be January 2010, if we count in all the delays that impacted Windows Vista. However, our industry sources still suggest that Windows 7 could see the light early enough to make the Christmas 2009 season - which sounds reasonable to us: There is no doubt that the Windows Vista Express Upgrade program has worked well for Microsoft, but not so well for consumers who purchased a new PC with Windows XP and an upgrade coupon OS early, but ended up with an inconvenient upgrade process and a delivery of the operating system several months after launch.
-
Previous News Article
Notebook Vendors To Take More... -
Next News Article
Warner Takes New Steps To Rescue...
Micro kernels are where its at. I'm surprised that Windows is still using a monolithic kernel.
.. WHY WHY WHY. There is no more need to support a 32bit OS your going to make angry customers.. WHY.
Yeah thanks to you. Stop developing the 32bit OS and development of the 64bit OS will go quicker.. Of course maybe this doesn't make sense to you...
Lets not forget there is a year and a half to go before you guys release this.. I wonder if Sinofsky thought of this when he said this... Most computers(desktop) today even cheap new ones ($300) come with a Gig of ram in a year and a half that could be 2Gigs with the midline likely having 4Gigs or more.. 32bit OS's can't completely support systems with 4Gigs (few KB lost if using Integrated Graphics) or more..
So, why are they writing a whole new OS then? Being that Vista is "a work in progress", and it took OEMs a while to get their drivers right for it (ATI and Nvidia still working on theirs), why write a new one at all?
Windows is a Hybrid kernel, not Monolithic. Unix/Linux is Monolithic. Also, have to agree on the 64 bit thing, why the hell are they still making 32 bit OSes? it's silly. Microsoft is full of people who live in caves, otherwise they would see that 4GB of RAM is becoming pretty common, since it's so cheap now. $70 for 4GB of nice Corsair 6400 XMS RAM, yea, 32 bit is worthless anymore.
From what I understand, it seems like Microsoft gives different projects to different groups, and has them go off to their own little corner and write what they want... after everyone has their part done, they then try to cram them all together and "make it work". That in its self could/is why their OS seems so flake all the time.
As for the 64-bitness, I agree too. They say they are doing 32bit to make people happy, but people wont ever write their programs in 64bit until one of two things happen. First, their program gets so bloated that they need the extra ram grabbing power of 64bit or Second they are forced to update at some point. Now I'm not saying that they should cut off all support for 32bit, and I also don't want to see what they did in XP Pro 64bit(running two systems at the same time). They should have a system that can run 32bit programs when needed and then phase it out later on.
I for one have decided that if they mess up like they did with vista, I'm going to leave Microsoft and go to Linux/Unix to save me form all the headache. But who knows, maybe, just maybe there will be a time when someone comes into power over there and decides that "hey we should make a product that people like and not change it over and over making it into a product people arn't too happy with." Maybe that day they will have consumers buy their product more for the liking of it and not because its the product of "well we are used to it and everyone has it".
From what I understand, it seems like Microsoft gives different projects to different groups, and has them go off to their own little corner and write what they want... after everyone has their part done, they then try to cram them all together and "make it work". That in its self could/is why their OS seems so flake all the time.
As for the 64-bitness, I agree too. They say they are doing 32bit to make people happy, but people wont ever write their programs in 64bit until one of two things happen. First, their program gets so bloated that they need the extra ram grabbing power of 64bit or Second they are forced to update at some point. Now I'm not saying that they should cut off all support for 32bit, and I also don't want to see what they did in XP Pro 64bit(running two systems at the same time). They should have a system that can run 32bit programs when needed and then phase it out later on.
I for one have decided that if they mess up like they did with vista, I'm going to leave Microsoft and go to Linux/Unix to save me form all the headache. But who knows, maybe, just maybe there will be a time when someone comes into power over there and decides that "hey we should make a product that people like and not change it over and over making it into a product people arn't too happy with." Maybe that day they will have consumers buy their product more for the liking of it and not because its the product of "well we are used to it and everyone has it".
Sorry, Clicked twice
32-bit for 2010?!! They can't be serious! This way, they're never going to persuade Windows driver developers into some serious 64-bit development.
Well, but all the better for Linux (which already rocks at 64 bits), they're digging their own grave, encouraging Windows developers in laziness.
I think they should really allow users to take advantage of the "modular" nature of Windows' core by letting users control the kind of setup they want/need.
Instead of shoving/forcing us their idea of what we want/need (read: Home, Business, Ultimate, etc), they should tweak Windows' core to allow a more barebone setup to function. By doing so, they can accommodate alot more users, from the uber/cash-strapped to the budget-concious users, in terms of the kind of hardware the users have/can afford.
Let's take a look at Vista's services. Let's face it, alot of these services just don't provide enough, tangible benefit to the common users, more so when one considers the cost in terms of performance drain. These services should be easily customized before installation. But how do you control the experience of the user w/o forcing them these services? Simple, you already have two ways of doing so: 1) Default Settings: if you truly understand your typical user, you'd know that they would hardly tweak things, leaving things as it is; 2) Simple warning messages/pop-up message boxes: these should give them some idea as to what is being traded-off.
Again, give the users control of what they want to install. DRM-infected components? I'm happy w/ DVD. Indexing? I don't need it so why force it to me in the first place.
Sorry for the long message.