Jump to content



Photo

Singularity Possible Still?

vista win7 win8

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 winrez

winrez

    Chronic Master Debater

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-March 07
  • Location: Manitowoc, WI
  • OS: Windows 7 Enterprise 64-Bit, Windows 8 64-Bit, Windows RT 8.1 (Surface)
  • Phone: Samsung Focus WP7.8/ Nokia Lumina 520

Posted 04 September 2014 - 22:34

Since Windows Vista, Microsoft has been separating different areas of Windows this has continued with Windows 7, Windows 8 along with their Server Line. Each area has grown isolated as in nowhere near as dependent on other parts of the OS. Do you think we could be headed to removal of the NT kernel (except for virtualization) and moving to a more developed version of Singularity which was developed by Microsoft Research?

More info on codeplex.com

http://singularity.codeplex.com/


#2 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:01

Since Windows Vista, Microsoft has been separating different areas of Windows this has continued with Windows 7, Windows 8 along with their Server Line. Each area has grown isolated as in nowhere near as dependent on other parts of the OS. Do you think we could be headed to removal of the NT kernel (except for virtualization) and moving to a more developed version of Singularity which was developed by Microsoft Research?

More info on codeplex.com

http://singularity.codeplex.com/

Unfortunately, not as long as the backward-compatibility boat-anchor hangs around the neck of Windows as a platform.

 

For all too many developers (let alone users) backward-compatibility means all the way back to XP - resistance to anything that isn't backward-compatible to XP, and especially in enterprises, has gotten more and more vociferous.



#3 Max Norris

Max Norris

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 20-February 11
  • OS: Windows 7/8.1, BSD Unix, Arch Linux
  • Phone: HTC One (Home) Lumia 1020 (Work)

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:07

For all too many developers (let alone users) backward-compatibility means all the way back to XP

XP? I still occasionally play a few games from the 95 era ;)

#4 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:08

Comments from the link:

 

Microsoft, when are you going to support another processor instead of x86 every time. No wonder devs are switching to Linux and away from managed code development. Being able to build this for an ARM 6 or 7 core would make this project actually worthwhile, instead it's a mess just the same as .net micro framework!! The only support you can get for .netmf is to pay someone stupid amounts of cash!!!
by DanRiches on May 23, 2013 at 6:06 AM
     
还没试呢,不知道是什么情况 
by yaucyj on Jan 14, 2013 at 1:37 AM
     
I think that any continued development and "out of the box" thinking (Windows, UNIX, etc,) is good and can only improve future OS development.
by DanteLA on Nov 26, 2010 at 5:58 PM
     
Too bad I dont see any development on it. 10-26-2010. would be nice for small systems that don't need windows. If you like this idea, please check out Cosmos. Just google it, er i mean Bing it.
by stratemeyerjw on Oct 26, 2010 at 1:45 PM
     
I think this is Lame. All Microsoft is doing is an another opensource kernel & I doubt the sincerity of Microsoft. The fact it's written completely in C# and runs on Microsoft's proprietary CIL is no more an advantage then just utilizing the proprietary .Net platform. In essence this could be done with Windows, just that Microsoft wants to make a good show. Rember MS Cairo & Windows 2k/XP source ?
by barterpc on Jun 17, 2010 at 12:30 AM
     
Jeszcze nie wiem czy podołam temu systemowi więc zaczynam szukać bo sam Windows już mnie męczy i ciągle udoskonalać go cza bo ma dziury szkoda iż nie wiele jest napisane o tym systemie 
by bronekb on Dec 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
     
It is great initiative to build a managed OS> But it needs TFTP serevrs which means it cannot be used by everyone on Virtual PC and it is not that easily booted up.
by Borgdylan on Nov 29, 2009 at 3:49 AM
     
I really like this project.Have fun.
by nbby on Nov 6, 2009 at 12:04 AM
     
Is the project staing alive? I don't see any new release from 2007 and we are now in 2009 :(
by AresSieran on Oct 10, 2009 at 5:52 PM
     
We must evolve the OS as well of hardware.
by inhesm01 on Sep 22, 2009 at 7:03 AM
     
a fundamentally new approach to operating systems
by idamlaj on Apr 15, 2009 at 6:22 PM
     
Very cool project... i think is very good for those who want to see how an OS is made of from C# :) GJ 
by TheKimi on Mar 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
     
this is so important to me
by dedunumax on Mar 17, 2009 at 12:38 AM
     
I just stumbled upon this release of Singularity. Thus far, I have liked what I have seen. The things that I like about this project is that it is well documented and offers a chance for new advances in Operating System design.
by eight190 on Jan 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM

     
most awaited
by nikopol on Nov 14, 2008 at 7:33 AM


#5 Ian W

Ian W

    Physical presence asserted.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 01-March 13
  • OS: Windows Vista

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:12

Do you think we could be headed to removal of the NT kernel (except for virtualization) and moving to a more developed version of Singularity which was developed by Microsoft Research?

Perhaps you are thinking of Microsoft's Midori?



#6 George P

George P

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-February 07
  • Location: Greece
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit
  • Phone: HTC Windows Phone 8X

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:15

Last I heard they're still working on this, some small team is. 



#7 OP winrez

winrez

    Chronic Master Debater

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-March 07
  • Location: Manitowoc, WI
  • OS: Windows 7 Enterprise 64-Bit, Windows 8 64-Bit, Windows RT 8.1 (Surface)
  • Phone: Samsung Focus WP7.8/ Nokia Lumina 520

Posted 06 September 2014 - 09:32

Perhaps you are thinking of Microsoft's Midori?

 

Great article



#8 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 06 September 2014 - 10:55

Short answer, no. Longer answer, no, there's no point.

Singularity was a research experiment first and foremost, NT does everything they need and isn't in need of replacing (Considering 99% of what makes Windows "Windows" is in a layer above the kernel, all switching the kernel would do is break drivers and some apps)

#9 Riva

Riva

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-February 07

Posted 06 September 2014 - 11:05

Microsoft is better off with an OS that works under .NET from a stability and security point of view. Unfortunately .NET still needs some work to perform as good as native (see .NET Native).

Microsoft can run more than one kernel on the same hardware (see XB1). What if you had the managed kernel and the native windows kernel side by side? Say switch between them when you run a native app?

I suspect even Microsoft Office will be managed code soon.



#10 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 06 September 2014 - 13:53

When we're talking about something like a kernel, the only thing .NET would really offer is memory safety, you don't have the sandbox or anything like normal apps.

And what would be the benefit of running different kernels for different apps? (Calling into native code from managed code is fast, it's the opposite that's slower)

#11 +ChuckFinley

ChuckFinley

    member_id=28229

  • Joined: 14-May 03

Posted 06 September 2014 - 15:34

To the OP - How do you mean (NT kernel (except for virtualization) ) As in the NT Kernel would only be virtualized? 



#12 Riva

Riva

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-February 07

Posted 07 September 2014 - 23:04

When we're talking about something like a kernel, the only thing .NET would really offer is memory safety, you don't have the sandbox or anything like normal apps.

And what would be the benefit of running different kernels for different apps? (Calling into native code from managed code is fast, it's the opposite that's slower)

 

That is not true, code safety is very high in .NET.

The two kernels will run in parallel not within each other. The benefit is a smooth transition from a messy windows implementation. Security became an issue shortly after Windows XP came out and there is a lot of code to refactor for maintainability, security and modularity.



#13 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 07 September 2014 - 23:23

That's pretty much what I said, memory safety is "code safety", that stops stuff like buffer overflows and prevents stuff like use after free (Which they'd have disabled in the kernel anyway, that stuff is slow), when we're talking about a desktop app you've got stuff like sandboxing thrown in, which wouldn't be involved with a kernel.

Also, 99% or so of the OS you're running is code that lives outside of your kernel, using a managed kernel wouldn't stop exploits in your shell, etc. (Could even make it easier, MSIL is quite easy to decompile to investigate)