Neowin.net

The BSOD only occurs when some component running in the kernel crashes. It doesn't matter how modular your OS is, if something crashes at that level, it's going to take the system down with it, and normally that thing causing the crashing was not written by Microsoft.

Pushing things into user-mode helps system stability more than modularizing everything does.

True,but pushing things into user-mode isn't a way of modularization?,of course the BSOD issues affecting Windows,including Vista,is made by faulty drivers made by manufacturers,somehow by that time a strategy has to be made,give the ability for recovering from a malfunction in code,however not at the kernel level.Since Windows Vista has taken huge steps to make the kernel almost untouchable.This is a clar proof that windows Vista isnt a completely modularized OS.and cause for BSOD.

For example if the sound system crashes,it will be nice that only this module could get isolated from everything,and prompt the user to to reboot or something.

Also a system hardware check module is needed,to work synchronized with other modules in the new hypothetical OS,we are talking about,helping usrers to distinguish OS malfunction caused by falulty hardware.

That would be marvelous

Last edited by EduardValencia on 24 Mar 2008 - 00:12

Except of course that Linux will still offer a similar experience, with that same modularization, but will still be free whereas Windows will cost. It'll always have that against it!

And the old saying remains true.

You get what you pay for.

Not quite right,seems that Windows has lowered the price of their products,i mean in the OS they sell worldwide,there will be a time when linux wont distinguish anymore from windows,for many companies the price isn't an important factor to choose what to deploy.

If modularity is implemented at full scale in the next version of windows (A.k.A Windows 7),it will automatically give users more power for customozing their needs in the operating system,also,Microsoft will releazse a single version of Windows capable to adjust to the whole range of posibilities that are the the computing industry.

I can only dream about that day

I like modularization. You remove software that is not needed. It simplifies things; it doesn't make them more complex.

But, as a Linux user, I might be a bit biased toward being able to set up your OS just the way you want.

Perhaps if Windows 7 implements Modularization,maybe just maybe,you'll start using Windows for home duties instead of Linux

Just keep XP and don't cry.

While other operating systems advance you want them to keep it like XP?
Lets move forward.

Just shove everything into the kernel and make it difficult to remove things you don't need? Because that's how XP is set up....

You have never used XP embedded then ? 26MB with the default set or drivers
EPIC FAIL

Have your ever seen a legal Windows Embedded for the home-endusers?

Yup especially after trying to use it.
Sorry, windows embedded wasn't build for home usage, if your gave it to an end user they would probably be confused as hell and in the end have to throw in about every single component (yay for dependencies).

And it doesn't change a thing to the architecture of XP it's just all the bits of XP separated.

Vista's failure was because Microsoft tried too hard to make a product similar to Mac OSX (Aero) and Linux (UAC), but worth didn't worked out well. Aero is a memory hog (compared to OSX, KDE4's composing and Compiz Fusion), UAC doesn't remmebers that the Administrator just made the same action 5 seconds ago (unlike a bunch of other OS).

And now looks like Microsoft (apparently) learned and is trying to make a modular OS, but instead fixing it, they're going to make the modules available by subscription. BIG MISTAKE.

Taken from digg:
"You have selected 'Log in'. This feature is available for $3.95 per month. To enter your credit card details, click here."

Where are your numbers?

I'd like to see the numbers on this to please.

I'd like you to check the video please.

In case you're wondering what's that, it's a EEEPC. (The 4G Model, according to the video author)

* Integrated Intel GMA 900 graphics processor (Shared Memory Architecture), additional VGA port (up to 1600×1280 pixels)
* 900 MHz Intel Celeron-M ULV 353, clocked at 630 MHz (70 MHz x 9)
* 512 MB DDR2-533/667
* 4 GB SSD

What is Aero's min. requirements?

# a 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
# 1 GB of system memory
# a Direct3D 9 compatible graphics processor with a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver, Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware, and a minimum of 128 MB of Video RAM
# 40 GB hard drive with 15 GB free space

There's your numbers.

Last edited by Azmodan on 25 Mar 2008 - 01:14

Nahhh,the modularity itself is a security and stability advantage,seen in any perspective you want.

Don't allucinate

I believe that's one of the goals of the Minwin project.

We already have that today. A lot of software out there depends on certain runtimes, the latest version of DirectX, the .Net Framework, etc. yet it's not really a major problem for most people.
It's bad practice for a programmer to assume ANYTHING about the system he's programming for, including the availability of certain files or programs so providing developers don't get too lazy, it shouldn't be a major problem and most programs should install everything they need (and ONLY the missing components while they're at it).

I doubt that anything in the "core" system of Windows won't be installed, things that are used by many other programs like you said (DirectX, .NET etc). Those things would be part of the base or core OS module. Another thing with Windows 7 is that they want people to get off of the old Win32 APIs once and for all. This will help things even more in the future but will take time.

Anyways, imo things that will be modular will be individual programs and or systems that are today installed from the start.

Things like Media Center and so on are an example, you could say IE and WMP also, but those two things have grown into something that is now NEEDED and or expected to be installed on a PC from the start. Many here probably don't use those but a vast majority of the average user base does, and they would be lost if those weren't there. On the other hand, not installing those could mess with other apps that use apis etc. It's a tricky situation and one MS has to think about hard.

I don't think space is the issue here. Supposedly this Windows 7 will be much lighter in memory (faster booting, better performance for applications). I'm crossing my fingers for them to allow us to not install their programs if we want 3rd party solutions instead, without having to use nLite or something. Chances of that might be pretty slim though, I mean could you imagine them allowing us to remove IE?

And to add: One thing that causes problems even these days are the files that many programs share. Lots of the developers think that we don't have those files, so they put them in their software's setups.

For example: I have an up-to-date PC with all the versions of .Net Framework installed, and when I try to install MicroStation (for my father) it installs .Net Framework 2.0 again, even though I already have that one installed plus all the updates. This can cause problems if developers are not carefully enough.

Another example: I have the latest Flash Player installed, and when I install Adobe CS3, it automatically installs an older version. So I need to delete that one, and again install the newest version. Again, problems could arise.

That is very, very poor development indeed. A good program should check for required components and ONLY install them if an older version is detected, or none at all.

Heh. From the article:



Sound like iLife to anyone?

Anyway it's pretty clear that Apple and MS copy from each other a lot. And it seems like all computer software does that. Even web sites. Come to think of it, Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie were also out around the same time. I think Letterman and Jay Leno have pretty similar formats. Also MadTV and SNL. And recently all those superhero movies started coming out. The world is a pretty grimy place, yo.

Ironically OS X (and Linux ) is already heavily modularized so it would be a case of Microsoft FINALLY coming around and making an OS that is a lot more customizable (as far as software goes) and could be potentially less bloated. Ie. Even if Microsoft included a ton of crap you could just trash it without leaving a bunch of registry, dll crap behind.

Actually people will still pirate it, even if it costs 50c (look at all the people who bitched about how MS charged a tiny fee to download the Office 2007 B2TR and then attempted to get it for free elsewhere a while ago..) even if it was free, people would still probably pirate it for goodness sake and their reason would probably be just to "stick it" to MS.

I'm actually surprised MS would even consider doing a subscription system again, they tried that with Office XP wasn't it? and that failed horribly if I'm not mistaken.

Linux has been doing it for quite some time now

Vista SP1 has hotpatching - no reboots needed for a lot of updates.

The only time I kinda need to reboot a Linux pc is when there's a kernel update, evrything else can be updated and ran on the spot

It can even be updated while running the software... the next time you close and then open the app you're using it will be the new version. There are also patches in development which let you boot into a new kernel right away from an old one.

Are you sure? Because I SWEAR I just saw the shutdown button with the install updates ****. Oh yes, it installs while shutting it down, which is absolutely not like a reboot.

You moron... that button is just there to make sure that the updates are installed, not to force you to do a reboot. Just go to the updates section in your control panel, update your pc, and there is a very large chance you don't need a reboot..

Oh, so the "SHUT DOWN AND INSTALL UPDATES" button just checks that the updates are installed, they're ABSOLUTELY NOT installed while shutting down.

Yeah I'm such a moron, I'm sorry.

That's fine with me, unless they try extorting users into subscribing, like charging a monthly fee for DirectX 11 or something. There's not a single thing that MS does better than the competition and MS' built-in Windows bloat will not be missed. I don't use ANY of MS's built-in bloat right now, not even Explorer. Windows without all that bloat would be great.

That's how I used it, and I knew a lot of others that ran Win2k as their desktop as well, even well into when XP came out. They sold it at the stores and a lot of people got Win2k Pro for their desktop just because it ran better and faster, especially pre-XP w/SP2.

you know that nlite casues system unstability? unknows errors in general,usually the fault is for MS

hate nlite and vlite

sucks

i agree, iv been using an nlite install of xp since october
it hasent given me trouble that i know of, but i can see why i would need alot of the things i removed now

so when sp3 comes out (tomorrow) ill be slipstreaming and redoing it again in full this time

Sometimes nuhni screws up a version, and removing certain components can cause compatibility problems with certain programs. It takes a good couple of days and a virtual machine to get an nLited WinXP or vLited Vista disk just right. However, what you get back is improved system performance. People who like to tweak and overclock their hardware to get a speedboost will definitely want to invest some time in these programs.

I think you mis-understand. The OS isn't subscription based just some services (components) like anti-virus. This is something that has always been subscription-based and in a "modular" system, you could choose to subscribe to Microsoft's services or not install this service and choose a third-party like Kaspersky.

Making Windows a "subscription" software would backfire tremendously.