I hope that this time software and hardware companies will take testing more serious with Windows 7
not like they did with windows vista

you can blame microsoft all day (for not testing ALL vendors)
but beta version of vista was out a year before the launch
and even one year after, some companies still do not verify their product is compatible with vista

when it come to windows 7
it will be based on the mini windows core (MiniWin which is edit: significant change to the XP kernel code)
add to the fact that windows 7 is focused on 64-bit architecture and much more secure
you will find many applications and drivers incompatible

it's funny how people put up dreams, and although realistically Microsoft providing it's roadmap.
people tend to take what they want and close their eyes to what actually going to happened

Remember today, early 2008.
The Good:
Windows 7, will be much more secure
have significant change to the kernel
and 64-bit oriented

The Bad:
people who will migrate directly from XP, will suffer the most!
(just like people who migrated from Win95/98 to XP)

Conclusion:
users: upgrade to windows vista, verify your software and hardware are vista ready
vendors: verify your software and hardware are vista compatible, register to windows 7 beta testing. and start testing for compatibility ASAP.

Again and again, Windows 7 will not ship with a new kernel!

Windows 7, will be based on Windows Mini core
Mini Win is Windows Vista/Windows Server 2008 based kernel
it will have significant change from Windows vista/Server 2008
and will have almost nothing to do with the kernel code of XP

Okay, so why you said:

- MiniWin which is totally *deferent* from the XP kernel code?
- Windows 7 [...] based on a *new* kernel?

Of course kernel changes with every new version of Windows. It did change a lot with Vista, but it is not *new* nor *totally different*

What's the point of getting a newer OS? Are there things XP or Vista can't do? What do you need Windows 7 for?

Do you want a more flexible OS? Faster? Better looking?

I'm happy, because I can run all the software I want to run. I don't need more than that.

Irregardless, I fear the issues with Vista will flow into 7 unless drastic steps are taken.

Kind of like when the Mac OS codebase was getting old and it was finally jettisoned for the BSD based OSX.

with Microsoft bringing out the Hyper-V code, it could be a great time to dump the older code, get something NEW written abandoning the legacy code that is dragging things down and include a "Classic" mode ala Apple.

Code written for this generation of hardware alone mmmmm goodness.

I am happy you agree on the concept
and I agree, *totally different* is too strong sentence, I would rephrase it is significant change to XP kernel

the reason for my post, is for software and hardware companies
as well as for users and organization
not to do the same mistake some users/ companies did with Windows vista
and in one hand start adopting Windows vista
and in the other prepare much better they you did to windows 7
or else, again they will find themselves not ready, and blame Microsoft.....

I completelly agree with the point of your post 100%!

Amen, brother

Ok, no, no, and again no...

Windows 7 will be just like Vista, XP, Win2k, NT4, NT3.51, NT3.5, NT 3.1..... It will be the same NT architecture and same kernel technology. PERIOD.

Like all versions of the NT platform, there will be minor changes and optimizations in the kernel, but nothing major, or nothing that would make it viably different than Vista.

There are two MinWin concepts running around. Let's explain it out, because people like Mary Jo and even Paul that are devoted Windows journalists don't have the tech background to fully understand the info they are given and bring it out accurately in their articles.

MinWin 1: This is a minimal core NT kernel with limited subsystem interfaces that was originally both the starting point for part of the WinCE project (split from NT years and years ago), and is also part of the Embedded project for WindowsXP embedded and Windows Vista embedded. This is the one you will see Paul talking about on supersite, as it has been around a while and has been used in various internal testing and forking for NT concepts. For example WinCE used concepts from the MinWin NT kernel, but is not the same code exact code, as WinCE was designed as an appliance OS and hence many modifications and reductions were made to it, striping levels of security the layering, etc.


MinWin 2: This is the minimal corel NT kernel that was presented at a lecture by a Microsoft employee. It was referred to Windows 7 by the press BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS DIFFERENT OR NEW, but if you watch the presentation/lecture you will understand that it is nothing more than the a fork of the Vista/Win2008 kernel with all subsystem interfaces removed and a simple HTTP host subsystem in place for I/O. It is no where near Windows 7, being almost exactly the same NT core that is in Vista instead.

What seems to have mislead journalists, is the size of the MinWin that was being demonstrated was under 40mb, and they thought, wow this is so tiny compared to Vista; however, if you strip the APIs and subsystem interfaces from the Vista NT Kernel and compile it, it would also be under 40mb.

NT is inherently a very well designed and compact kernel architecture. People forget that it was designed by the BEST VMS and UNIX people in the industry back in 1990-1992, and they had full permission to make it however they wanted. They inherently didn't want to work around the baggage of how Unix is designed. It was also designed to be tight, portable, and very extensible. Instead of textual messaging and pipe concepts it is a full object oriented based OS design that treats all I/O and internal process as Objects, and also uses token passing for security and processes.

It is also a hybrid client/server kernel architecture with a multi-layered OS design. For example Windows as we know it is really Win32 or Win64 and runs in its own subsystem that sits on top of the NT kernel, this is also how you can run BSD Unix on NT as it runs in its own subsystem as well. (Go look up Unix Subsystem for Vista - it is included as an optiional install on the Ultimate DVD.)

So the NT kernel and architecture is very robust - technically beyond Linux, OpenBSD, & OSX in terms of kernel technology and OS architecture.



Back to MinWin. It is tiny in Vista, as well, but people don't realize that Win32 sits on a fairly small NT kernel technology. If people remember NT (that hasn't changed much) ran great on a 486/33 with 16-32mb of RAM, and this up to the NT 4.0 days.

When they designed NT the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) was under 64KB and today the NT HAL in Vista is still under 256KB, and in XP it is under 150KB. In terms of OSes and kernels - both are still VERY tiny in comparison to other HALs constructs, and very tiny when compared to the massive that is Windows Vista as a whole.


So Windows 7 will be an update version of the same NT kernel that has always been around, just like Vista is, as the NT design is STILL very extensible for many years to come.

Also regarding 64bit, MS has been pretty clear that unless the market has a massive change, there will still be a 32bit version of Windows 7, even though they will try to push the 64bit as the default install for OEMs and Users. With Vista 64bit Microsoft has already made it virtually identical to Vista 32bit, where XP 64bit wasn't quite a full featured or complete. Microsoft has also pushed hard for all hardware MFRs to provide 64bit drivers and ensure their applications are compatible on 64bit in addition to start writing 64bit versions of their applications.

However, by the time Windows 7 comes around, Vista 64bit will probably be the default OS installed for the majority of users, as 4GB is becoming the new 'minimum' RAM configuration for a lot of MFRs, and this means more and more systems will support 16-128gb and also beconfigured with 16gb or 32gb of RAM in high end system in just a couple of years, thus requiring Vista 64bit to use all the RAM.

Even now for users with 2gb or more Vista 64bit is a better choice, as it is faster than Vista 32bit, just due to the 64bit optimizations and the extra 64bit registers and the fact the OS is pushing data around in bigger chunks even if the applications themselves are not, which still makes the OS running under the applications faster and thus provides more speed to the applications.


I really do hope people get the MinWin thing cleared up and stop thinking it is something new, or that Windows 7 is any tighter than Vista, because by falling for that line of thinking you don't get that Vista's NT kernel is already very small, fast and tight, the 'big' comes from Win32/Win64, etc.

Irregardless is not a word

Let's see Windows 7 before we decide how good it is.

Until a new OS can offer something that will make my life better, I'm sticking with what I've got. (XP)

Someday NT will be replaced, but what you don't seem to realize is that the architecture and kernel technology are very extensible and rather new in terms of OS theory and OS engineering. So even if MS comes up with a better design, it will probably be several years before it is introduced as the consumer level of Windows.

NT really isn't dragging around legacy code in the way you are thinking, and also you really don't get how NT is designed if you think Apple moving to BSD was moving to the future.

Tehcnically NT is newer and based on newer OS kernel and OS architecture designs than BSD. In fact, when compared to ALL OSes on the market, NT is the newest design since Linux is a modified microkernel version of Minux and OSX is BSD based which goes back beyond before most of us were born.

I suggest anyone interested in NT, pick up a copy of Inside NT or a variation of the book. As it describes the process, and the team that designed NT and what they were working with and working for and how it relates to *nix, VMS and even OS/2 OS architectures and kernel designs.

NT was truly designed by some of the best VMS and UNIX people of the time to be a 'better' OS technology than *nix and a better kernel technology than the standard Mach and microkernel technologies.

As for legacy code, the legacy code in Vista or XP is in the Win32 subsystem, as it is what people think of when they think Windows. NT is strange in that Win32 runs on top of, but separately from the NT kernel underneath it, and NT and the NT kernel APIs handle creating the subsystem environment for Win32 or Win64 to run. Microsoft could throw out Win32 completely and put a BSD compatible subsystem on NT, load X11 and KDE and it would still be Windows NT, but with a *nix Subsystem interface instead of a Win32 subsystem interface as the default subsystem. (In fact Vista ships with a BSD compatible Unix subsystem already, if you have the Ultimate DVD, it is included as Optional Components in the Control Panel and installs a FULL and real BSD compatible subsystem that runs INDEPENDANTLY of Win32. -You can also download the Unix subsystem for Voista for free from microsoft.com)

So ya, the Win32 API is aging, and carries some legacy code, but it is not obsolete and certainly the NT kernel under Win32 is not obsolete nor carrying any baggage or legacy code. If you look at Vista, notice there is the new WPF and other new API sets in the OS that could be split away from Win32, so in theory future applications could run in a separate Win32 API free subsystem as well.

Also back to Apple and their move to BSD. It was a regression, as they were UNABLE to create their own OS kernel and architecture from scratch as they had attempted to do several times in the 90s, and even with IBM's help. So when Jobs came back to Apple, he went with what he had been working with, and that was NeXT and they cleaned up NeXT added in Mac code and dropped it on Darwin which is a BSD based kernel interface to a MACH kernel. Both BSD and MACH are 'old' technologies dating back to the 70s and 80s, and by using them, Apple saved a lot of time and development, but also gave up creating a 'new' OS construct for Mac, and instead is patch up BSD and the *nix model and tyring to put Mac lipstick on it.

BSD and even Linux concepts are already starting to become outdated, and as for moving to a new architecture, Apple is in danger of having to make a giant leap long before Microsoft ever has to leave NT.

Here is a quick example. NT moved the Video driver to kernel mode in 4.0, and back to a hybrid user kernel mode in Vista, and then added in a GPU scheduling driver model that handles Video and games several magnitude above what OS X does and what OS X sitting on BSD will EVER be capable of doing without a major rewrite of many core kernel aspects. With Vista, MS just tacked on the new technologies to NT, and they work without rewriting NT, and they also kept the XPWM (XP Driver Video Model) as well, so Vista can still use XP based video drivers for compatibility even though the two video systems work ENTIRELY different and normally would need to be emulated or a different OS if it wasn't for NT.

Congrats, very nice posts!

Moved from BPN
This is not news.

Wow...the operating system is 3 years off.

We're doing this discussion a little pre-mature don't you think?

No!!! Screw this! We don't need a new version of Windows. Windows Vista has not even reached its full functionality, most people are still using XP because Vista is unusable in some cases.

The existence of Windows 7 never changed my philosophy of operating system upgrades, especially when it comes to Windows. Upgrades are always inevitable, it drives the industry, it drives consumers and businesses to spend money while also benefiting in the process by making things easier to do or offering new functionality. Also, innovation is a big reason for upgrades and from innovation comes breakthroughs from this we get something thats easier to use. DOS (CLI) > Windows (GUI) 'Breakthrough'

I personally have been aware of Windows 7 since 2000 when it was once known as Blackcomb so, it was definitely expected. Personally, I am an enthusiast so I am always yearning to be on the cutting edge, anticipating the 'what next'. For the average consumer their perspective might be a whole lot different, maybe not, but this does not change the fact that Microsoft is always working on the next version.

lol yeah irregardless isn't a word. it reminds my of an episode of family guy when stewie takes over the world and says "Anyone who uses the terms irregardless, a whole nother or all of the sudden shall be sent to a work camp."

Who said that they will use mini core? That's just experimental, last time I checked

How many threads about Windows 7 do we really need. It's not due this year, or next year, and possibly not even the year after that. Why prepare for it now making threads about "ohh i should wait for Windows 7".

Windows 7 is about putting ideas together to get ready for the next operating system, so people don't complain about it's delays, and unfinished code, and blah blah blah, all the stuff Vista was bashed for.

Give it up people, there are no pre-alphas, or testing going on, wait until the alpha before discussing Windows 7.

It's pointless to discuss this until around Beta 1 so we can see how good of hardware we need to run the OS, how stable it is, how I like the new UI, etc.

I disagree.

Everything is slowly moving to 64-bit, but alot of people just don't wan't to. For people who use computers just for general home use, probably wont want to spend alot of money going to a 64bit system as of yet, and if M$ are going to push OS updates onto users, then they will be forced to upgrade to 64bit, and won't be offered a 32 bit alt. When I say forced, I mean, as the OS moves on, older 32bit OS's (2000/XP/Vista) support/updates will be unsupported.

And I don't think there will be a 'significant' change to the kernel at this point.

And Secure? Lets hope. Vistas security system is a joke.

I don't nessisarily agree that people who migrate from XP to Win7 will suffer the most, simply because, there wasn't a 'world' of difference between Vista and XP, so there is going to be ALOT of change in 7 to make the migration all that bit harder.

Thats my opinion anyways.

It took almost 10 years to migrate from 16 bit legacy to 32 bit true OS (and hardware), the same could be said about 64 bit migration, it won't be widely adopted until at least 2012 which will be exactly 10 years after it was made widely available with Windows XP 64bit, not counting Windows 2000 Itanium

What a waste of time Itanium 64 was....if only they could get back all that money they invested in that thing.

No, its not a waste of time, its used in different markets such as Database, OLTP and other intensive server based task. The Windows XP for Itanium based systems simply failed to catch on because it was: Incompatible with x86 based software, expensive and was not widely adopted by the developer community, not to mention the introduction of the x86-x64 processor from AMD and Intels eventual adoption of the instruction added to their class of x86 based CPUs which pretty much made Windows XP for Itanium based systems irrelevant.

Itanium on the server remains a viable solution for businesses who want cheap RISC based computing compared to traditional competitors such as SUNs Sparc or IBM's Power.

Dont make of yourself such a coward.

@topic Hmm, I don't see the point of such hype about Windows 7. You say it like if it was going to be launched tomorrow. Concerning technology, a whole bunch of things WILL change between now and 2010. We have barely started the year and already got super thin/small chips (Macbook Air and Intel rumour of selling retail chips). Of course, researches might have started by 2007, but by 2006 it was most likely not even thought yet. You guys are in slow-motion, and that sucks.

Now, looking after Windows 7 right now is really, really useless. We don't know what will happen, nor do Microsoft. Not to mention that a company that wants to make money and be successful will always be making new improvements for their products. I wouldn't actually be surprised if Windows 7 research had started before Vista was released.

I'm 14 and you look so much inexperienced =O


And that is the catch of technology and reason why 64bit will be adapted, prices get lower.

Just because an operating system is old measured by its age of creation, doesn't mean it's old in regards to technology used and implemented. The WinNT kernel is "object" based? Big whoop! Some other operating systems, which you would deem prehistoric, are also. I'm using Solaris and the current version I'm running is using "objects" all over the kernel, in a similar style.

And seriously, whether applications are using Unix sockets or RPC calls to communicate, where's the difference? It's just semantics. Your mentioned pipes and text messages however only apply to shell scripting.

(--edit: PS, "objects" is just an fancy term for data structures, just like Gnome isn't object oriented.)

Or let's judge Windows 7 by a pre beta, Milestone 1 build. j/k

You're not ready..

Go buy another PC..

I'm still mad nobody gave windows ME a chance, it hadn't even reached full functionality!!! Why do we need to do the same to Vista?

Because Vista isn't crap..

Yer kidding me right??

People didn't give Windows ME a chance because it was a dying breed. Microsoft is going back to their normal release schedule with Windows 7. It will be released 3-4 years after Vista, same thing happened with Windows 95 to 98 and 98 to XP. ME was just a throw in to try and make some extra money, IMO.

It was a gag post, i had to see the replies but yeah... Vista's pretty good. I have a system rating of 1.0 due to my graphics card on 2 of my boxes but they're very productive. Don't believe the rating system is all that accurage anyway. I'm fine with using it right now.

I think if Windows 7 comes out that it should require high specs and refuse to install on legacy hardware! For those who want to push on and leave legacy users with Vista and XP they can move to Windows 7. That way both OS' will sell. People who want something new can go with 7, while people still using XP and old hardware can decide if they want to up it to Vista once they feel ready for such a move, as they claim they cannot afford high end gizmos.

That's it! That's it! Vista is for legacy users while 7 can be for the high end hardware only crowd! It's perfect!

Not another version of Windows please. We have enough with Vista already. MS needs to focus on fixing Vista instead of thinking about another OS.