Vista users: "You Already Have MinWin"

We have learnt quite a lot about Windows 7 this week, and one of the things was that Windows 7 would not get a new kernel. The call for a new kernel has been made a few times on the internet, but anyone with a bit more insight into Windows' kernel knows that there is absolutely no need to write a new kernel for Windows - the problems with Windows lie in userland, not kernelland. While the authenticity of the Shipping Seven blog is not undisputed, the blogger makes some very excellent points regarding the kernel matter.

I have written numerous times that there is nothing wrong with the Windows NT kernel currently powering about 90% of the world's desktops. It provides advanced security features, it's extremely stable, very portable, and supports just about any piece of hardware in the x86 desktop and server markets. "In conclusion, scrapping Windows NT would be a pointless exercise. It is a mature, stable, and, yes, secure system by design." I wrote a year ago, "Do not make the mistake of thinking that simply because Microsoft refused to enforce proper security policies from the get-go, that NT is an insecure system by design."

Link: Read More at OSNews

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Heaviest Virgin Media downloaders face new daytime go-slow

Next Story

Microsoft adds fresh new look to Live Search Club

63 Comments

View more comments

(ViperAFK said @ #10.5)

Vista is nothing Like ME. You are an idiot if you call it MEII and are being a troll. Go away.

No. You're an idiot for not understand why people relate it to Windows ME. No one is saying it's an upgrade of Windows ME. It's just a huge failure for many of the same reasons as Windows ME is.

And, again like they did with Windows ME, Microsoft more or less agrees. Hence offering to maintain support for Windows XP and already talking about how they're all about Windows 7 now. It's pretty damn close to how they responded when Windows ME flopped. The only difference is that they don't even need to come up with Windows XP.2 to tide over until 7 because XP is still a strong, well-supported, well-liked, and stable OS.

The tiny minority -- and yes, you're in that tiny minority, sorry to burst your bubble -- who think Vista is the bee's knees not withstanding.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10.8)

No. You're an idiot for not understand why people relate it to Windows ME. No one is saying it's an upgrade of Windows ME. It's just a huge failure for many of the same reasons as Windows ME is.

And, again like they did with Windows ME, Microsoft more or less agrees. Hence offering to maintain support for Windows XP and already talking about how they're all about Windows 7 now. It's pretty damn close to how they responded when Windows ME flopped. The only difference is that they don't even need to come up with Windows XP.2 to tide over until 7 because XP is still a strong, well-supported, well-liked, and stable OS.

The tiny minority -- and yes, you're in that tiny minority, sorry to burst your bubble -- who think Vista is the bee's knees not withstanding.


I cant remember how many times people have been comparing XP with ME when it came out. Same thing goes to 2000 and win 97

ME was just a marketing release, it wasn't even a major interim release. The marketing dept wanted to put something out for the year 2000, 'Millenium Edition' and most of the stuff they put in was just to 'fun things up' (as represented in "Me") although there were a few nice additions like System Restore. Its not even something Microsoft treated seriously.

Vista has a lot of work in it, people who say "its just XP+Aero" don't know what they're saying. The problems that Vista has, are problems Microsoft knew Vista would have, because the development schedule was rushed after the Longhorn Restart. Windows 7 in many ways is designed to 'complete the job' by building upon what's already in Vista but they didn't have the luxury of time to complete or refine. In many ways Vista is half-baked, and 'the baking needs to be finished', but otherwise its not bad at all and there is a lot of new stuff. It has as much improvements as XP had over 98 and as much as 98 had over 95. People get rightfully annoyed at the 'half-baked' stuff in the release, but "Vista sucks" is an exaggeration.

The last two paragraphs explains everything you ever will need to know about ME and Vista. And no, Vista is not another ME.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10.8)

No. You're an idiot for not understand why people relate it to Windows ME. No one is saying it's an upgrade of Windows ME. It's just a huge failure for many of the same reasons as Windows ME is.

And, again like they did with Windows ME, Microsoft more or less agrees. Hence offering to maintain support for Windows XP and already talking about how they're all about Windows 7 now. It's pretty damn close to how they responded when Windows ME flopped. The only difference is that they don't even need to come up with Windows XP.2 to tide over until 7 because XP is still a strong, well-supported, well-liked, and stable OS.

The tiny minority -- and yes, you're in that tiny minority, sorry to burst your bubble -- who think Vista is the bee's knees not withstanding.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Windows 7 is going to be nothing more than Vista Second Edition.

Microsoft already stated that every 2 years they will be doing a minor upgrade then every three years they will create a major upgrade.

That means Windows 7 = Vista Second Edition.

Sorry to break the news to you guys, but don't put your hopes on Windows Seven, it's going to be the 3rd "ME II" as soon as it's released. (I.E. No longer a Beta/RC and not cool to download anymore.)

I can already see the torrents of bloggers spouting off on topics they have absoulutely no clue about what-so-ever, bandwagon Vista fanboys will troll all the Windows 7 articles on this site and post links to aformentioned blog-pieces as "news", while those who have longer memories will simply roll thier eyes yet again.

Taking bets on what feature of 7 will be the most ragged on, i'm betting on the touch stuff currently.

(neo158 said @ #10.11)

Sorry to burst your bubble but Windows 7 is going to be nothing more than Vista Second Edition.

Microsoft already stated that every 2 years they will be doing a minor upgrade then every three years they will create a major upgrade.

That means Windows 7 = Vista Second Edition.


well win 98 is definately not win95 upgrade eh? you can say win98se or me is win98 second edition, since they do not have much change in their architecture. Win 7 as we see, so far, will have a lot of changes based on Vista.

(noPCtoday said @ #10.13)

well win 98 is definately not win95 upgrade eh? you can say win98se or me is win98 second edition, since they do not have much change in their architecture. Win 7 as we see, so far, will have a lot of changes based on Vista.

While I agree with you, all i'm saying is that win 7 won't be a major upgrade in terms of going from XP to Vista.

Think of it more as going from 98 to 98se, no major changes to the UI or kernel, just bug fixes, interface tweaks (display settings within personalisation) and additions to functionality.

Maybe the kernel is OK, but we don't have MinWin. That's a separate experimental project at Microsoft to in part demonstrate how it can run with a minimum set of services.

(Jugalator said @ #11)
Maybe the kernel is OK, but we don't have MinWin. That's a separate experimental project at Microsoft to in part demonstrate how it can run with a minimum set of services.

So essentially Safe Mode Extreme?

(z0phi3l said @ #11.1)
So essentially Safe Mode Extreme?

No with Minwin they striped it down even more, so there is no GUI and the only real thing of use was a very basic web server IIRC

Think Windows Server 2008 Core. In safe mode. Yes; it's that useless.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I appreciate having some services running like "Plug and Play Hardware", "Audio" and "GUI". Running MinWin would be like running a copy of Linux from kernel.org. Want Bash? That's extra.

MinWin is pointless for a desktop computer, and I fully expect more results of the MinWin experiment to go into Windows CE than Windows 7. For the desktop, if Microsoft can pump up the efficiency of the *enormous* heap of code that runs on the kernel, and do something good about the increasingly complex UI, then that's good enough for me. I want a version of Windows that is absolutely inarguably *better* than Windows XP, and feel value in upgrading the masses of older computers I work with.

Too funny, you complain about Windows and legacy support; "remove it" you say

Look what the user reaction was to Vista and removing some legacy drivers? The whole world blew up, people would blame MS for lack of support from 3rd party drivers.

The Windows OS with 90% desktop penetration is about 1000 time more sophisticated then most people here can grasp. The only way it can go forward is by evolution and not revolution. You're damed if you do and damed if you don't when you control this much market share.

I'm sure those that claim that Vista is 'hard to use' have much better suggestions about UI's; I assume you all ahve years of experience in UI design. I'll personally stick to my crashless Vista x64 thank you.

This person, like, knows stuff.
Stuff that SHOULD have been common sense if it hadn't been for the fact that ignorant people or Linux cultists creep out of the woodwork and spew their crap all over the web.

tntomek, thanks for being a faint light of sense in the darkness that is the interwebs.

(Belazor said @ #12.1)
This person, like, knows stuff.
Stuff that SHOULD have been common sense if it hadn't been for the fact that ignorant people or Linux cultists creep out of the woodwork and spew their crap all over the web.

tntomek, thanks for being a faint light of sense in the darkness that is the interwebs.

I couldn't believe it either - a commonsense comment on this, rather than mouth frothing, code name chanting or spewing crap on issue one knows nothing about - which normally occurs on this site.

When ever I hear people bitch about Windows, I ask them, "Name a single operatin gsystem that supports the depth and bredth of hardware which Windows does AND has all as much software as Windows has for it". There is a defeaning silence everytime I ask that quesiton.

(B0GiE said @ #14)
Windows 7 needs to be 64 bit only. Need to move away from x86 arcitechture.

Agreed, by the time Windows 7 is out I’m sure all pc’s capable of running it will have a 64bit processor.
However from what I have read Windows 7 will be the last Windows OS to have X86 and X64 Editions.

The first thing to go x64 only will be the Server versions. When you see those go 64bit only then the client will be next. But until that happens we'll still get both. And for many 32bit is enough, even into 2010.

Lots of people out there don't use their PCs as much as the people who visit this site and post.

For basic web surfing, email, watching video and playing audio, with some minor photo editing stuff, there is no need for 64bit, let alone more than 4GB of system memory.

It's the minority that will push 64bit, but it will stay a minority until there is a broader NEED for 64bit. And the first step is getting people to use more of their systems and see that they need more than 4GB to work with.

(InsaneNutter said @ #14.1)

Agreed, by the time Windows 7 is out I’m sure all pc’s capable of running it will have a 64bit processor.
However from what I have read Windows 7 will be the last Windows OS to have X86 and X64 Editions.

Like the Mobile Core Duos Intel only released about 2 years ago?

Oh wait! Those were 32-bit....

(GP007 said @ #14.2)
The first thing to go x64 only will be the Server versions. When you see those go 64bit only then the client will be next. But until that happens we'll still get both. And for many 32bit is enough, even into 2010.

Lots of people out there don't use their PCs as much as the people who visit this site and post.

For basic web surfing, email, watching video and playing audio, with some minor photo editing stuff, there is no need for 64bit, let alone more than 4GB of system memory.

It's the minority that will push 64bit, but it will stay a minority until there is a broader NEED for 64bit. And the first step is getting people to use more of their systems and see that they need more than 4GB to work with.


Excuse me, do you really think that OEM vendors choose components based on the minimum requirements for the customer? I switched on television last night and saw Dell pushing machines with 4 gigs of memory - you need to have a 64bit OS to address 64bits worth of memory - Windows 32bit can only address up to 3gigs currently.

This is the reality, whether the customer needs it or not is immaterial; OEM's are pushing bigger more powerful machines, heck, by Windows 7 roles around, a 4gig machine will be a common sight.

(kaiwai said @ #14.4)

Excuse me, do you really think that OEM vendors choose components based on the minimum requirements for the customer? I switched on television last night and saw Dell pushing machines with 4 gigs of memory - you need to have a 64bit OS to address 64bits worth of memory - Windows 32bit can only address up to 3gigs currently.

This is the reality, whether the customer needs it or not is immaterial; OEM's are pushing bigger more powerful machines, heck, by Windows 7 roles around, a 4gig machine will be a common sight.

Every time Dell sells a 32-bit machine with 4 gigs of memory, god kills a kitten.

Oh, and I laugh people's ability to spend money faster than oxygen. I once saw a person who bought a $6,000 laptop from Dell. The only difference was that it had pretty red lights, instead of the pretty blue lights on the $3,000 model(of which, sony/toshiba sells an even more powerful notebook for almost half the price).

Oh the humanity.

(Kojio said @ #14.5)


Every time Dell sells a 32-bit machine with 4 gigs of memory, god kills a kitten.

Oh, and I laugh people's ability to spend money faster than oxygen. I once saw a person who bought a $6,000 laptop from Dell. The only difference was that it had pretty red lights, instead of the pretty blue lights on the $3,000 model(of which, sony/toshiba sells an even more powerful notebook for almost half the price).

Oh the humanity.


Don't be surprised; I've seen people here spend THOUSANDS on getting an extra 1fps. It truly is that pathetic, and I wonder whether most of these people are the same people who claim 'hardship' economically.

As for $6000 for a laptop, I'm not surprised; there are people who spend $10,000 on televisions in New Zealand - I sh*t you not. I brings me to tears when in months time there is a sorry case on television of some family struggling and the first thing I observe in their lounge room is the big screen television.

Edit: the 4GB machines were cheap anyway; so it wasn't as though it was a high end machine; it was their low end desktop range.

At the end of the day, as long as the OS you choose does what you ask of it, does it really MATTER who thinks OS A is better than OS B?

I liked XP, I liked 98 before it and I liked 95 before that, and so on. I wasn't impressed with ME. I happen to like Vista so that's the OS I choose. That choice has no impact on anyone else, so what's the issue, really?

When Windows 7 comes out, I might like that and switch again; no biggy really. Why do people have to get so steamed up about it? Just use what you enjoy and cut out the fanboyism; it's childish.

Commenting is disabled on this article.