Microsoft Partners: MinWin Could Soothe Vista Headaches

In the year that has passed since Microsoft released Windows Vista to business users, the operating system has gained a reputation in the channel as a bloated memory hog that many companies are avoiding like a trip to the dentist. But Microsoft partners have a more positive opinion of Windows 7, the next generation of Windows that Microsoft expects to ship in the 2010 timeframe. That's because Windows 7 will be based on MinWin, a scaled down version of the Windows core that will also serve as the framework for Windows Server and Windows Media Center.

MinWin's source code base takes up about 25 megabytes on disk, compared to about 4 gigabytes for Vista. Solution providers see this as a sign that Microsoft has learned its lesson from trying to cram too much into the Windows OS, and some feel that Windows 7 will be a roaring success in the market. "There has definitely been a huge amount of resistance in the market to Vista, but I think Microsoft has learned a lot from the experience," said Todd Swank, director of marketing for system builder and solution provider Nor-Tech, Burnsville, Minn. "I also think they realize they waited too long between the release of Windows XP and Vista."

View: The full story @ CRN

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Websites sell secret bank data and PINs

Next Story

Samsung to produce faster graphics memory next year

31 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

exactly; one thing I learned from all this: no matter what MS does, it will not be able to satisfy every1 becasue of the huge audience it has. On the other hand, the handful of mac users (relatively throughout the world) Apple has are much easier to satisfy.

What features?

Vista is about the same as XP MCE with a few small apps, and some other things I'm not aware of (important or not)

Vista is a solid OS it's just going to work itself around time like its predecessor did.

Chrono951 said,
Won't people then complain that it doesn't have enough features? Compared to now where Vista has too many features.

This doesn't have anything to do with how many features Windows 7 will have. MinWin is just a more smaller and modular core OS. All the low level bits that work (kernel+services/dependancies) are going to be made more optimized and leaner so they boost performence and stability. Unlike in the past where all loads of stuff are in there that shouldn't be, now they'll be taking things out and so on. Moving them into user mode and so on. Vista taking a chunk of the video driver code outta kernel mode and into user mode is just a sign of it.

abulfares said,
exactly; one thing I learned from all this: no matter what MS does, it will not be able to satisfy every1 becasue of the huge audience it has. On the other hand, the handful of mac users (relatively throughout the world) Apple has are much easier to satisfy.

I prefer to think that Mac users are just more easily entertained - like a cat with a piece of string.

I doubt that. I bet after SP1 and maybe SP2, Vista will be more like XP 2.0 since Vista right now is going through same stages of rejection and acceptance as XP did in the past.

When you say "officially" you mean that's your own creative name for it, no one has "officially" dubbed it as such.

It sure is a clever and fitting name, thanks for sharing it!

C_Guy said,
When you say "officially" you mean that's your own creative name for it, no one has "officially" dubbed it as such.

It sure is a clever and fitting name, thanks for sharing it! :rolleyes:


I get it, you're being sarcastic aren't you? Bravo.

Absolute "Bovine Fecal Excrement"!

I've been using Vista since Beta 1 and have used nothing else on my system with the exception of XP X64 (dual-boot). I use the 32-bit version of Vista due to the simple fact that there are fewer drivers for 64-bit Vista.

With that said, 32-bit Vista *trounces* XP X64 and XP. I have fewer crashes with Vista than with either OS, and the crashes that I have experienced in Vista were caused by nothing more than my stupidity in pushing Vista to the point at which both XP and XP X64 would have easily crumbled under and fubar'ed themselves with half of the demand placed on them. My system is not a hot-rodded, water-cooled, tweaked and OC'ed system: It's a two-year-old AMD Athlon 64 4000+, 1GB of OCZ RAM & an nVidia 6800 GT on a DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-D motherboard runnin in pure-stock condition - it's a very "pedestrian" machine in comparison to all of the dual-core & quad-core systesm that many of you are using today, and I put a sizeable amount of stress on this system on a daily basis and it has only faltered under Vista when it was utterly my fault.

Saying that Vista is "WinME 2.0" is nothing more than being disingenuous and deceptive. I've pointed out in various other posts here (you're more than welcome to look-up all of my posts here) that if people would use some grey-matter and think about how they have implemented Vista on their systems that they would end-up with a rock-solid OS that would outperform XP & XP 64. Obviously, those that are having problems with Vista have either a few neurons mis-firing, haven't thought-through their Vista installation clearly enough, or are just your garden-variety Anti-Microsoft zealots.

MinWin's source code base takes up about 25 megabytes on disk, compared to about 4 gigabytes for Vista.

Jesus christ at the "news".

This is like saying "Well my Linux kernel takes 1.8MB on disk but my fully blown distribution uses 5GB".

Exactly. The WinMin kernel takes up 25mb, but the Vista kernel takes only a little more. They need to shrink it down a lot more to compete with the Linux kernel.

daPhoenix said,

Jesus christ at the "news".

This is like saying "Well my Linux kernel takes 1.8MB on disk but my fully blown distribution uses 5GB".

Glad I wasn't the only one to read that... No way the KERNAL of Vista has 4GB of Source Code! That would mean zillions if not sextillions lines of code!

Also, Manuroc the Windows Kernal does not need to compete with the Linux kernal on a space basis... Only on a functionality and performance basis...

Uhhh, When they talk about MinWin they're NOT talking just about the NT kernel. MinWin is the whole base OS, kernel+services/dependencies etc. On top of that they add the rest of the thngs that make up Windows as you know it, like explorer and the apps and other things.

GP007 said,
Uhhh, When they talk about MinWin they're NOT talking just about the NT kernel. MinWin is the whole base OS, kernel+services/dependencies etc. On top of that they add the rest of the thngs that make up Windows as you know it, like explorer and the apps and other things.

Even still it wouldn't be 4GB of source cod... That is more than I'm suremakes up everything in Vista + MS Office + Exchange lol

GP007 said,
Uhhh, When they talk about MinWin they're NOT talking just about the NT kernel. MinWin is the whole base OS, kernel+services/dependencies etc.

There's no way on earth that you can claim that Vista consumes 4GB of space to get the basic explorer+kernel+basic deps up and running. If you rip out all the unnecessary software you can get it up and running in a few hundred megs.

The whole comparison of "25MB and 4GB" is completely devoid of any sense in the first place.

daPhoenix said,

There's no way on earth that you can claim that Vista consumes 4GB of space to get the basic explorer+kernel+basic deps up and running. If you rip out all the unnecessary software you can get it up and running in a few hundred megs.

The whole comparison of "25MB and 4GB" is completely devoid of any sense in the first place.

Hold on guys, I wasn't talking about the 4GB Vista comment in the article. What I was replying to is the previous post comparing MinWin to the Linux Kernel and how one takes 25MB and then linux does 1.8MB or w/e.

That's why I was pointing out that MinWin isn't just the NT kernel. The NT kernel on it's own is small, though I don't know exactly how much.

GP007 said,
Hold on guys, I wasn't talking about the 4GB Vista comment in the article. What I was replying to is the previous post comparing MinWin to the Linux Kernel and how one takes 25MB and then linux does 1.8MB or w/e.

That's why I was pointing out that MinWin isn't just the NT kernel. The NT kernel on it's own is small, though I don't know exactly how much.


The article says the MinWin's source takes up 25 megs on disk. For comparison, I downloaded and untarred the linux 2.6.23.9 source. It decompresses to 286 megs. I'd say 25 megs is pretty reasonable for just the kernel. Anywho, these number mean crap. I wanna know what the in-memory footprint is and how well it performs.

GP007 said,
Uhhh, When they talk about MinWin they're NOT talking just about the NT kernel. MinWin is the whole base OS, kernel+services/dependencies etc. On top of that they add the rest of the thngs that make up Windows as you know it, like explorer and the apps and other things.

Definitely. And anyone who says that Vista's equivalent to that doesn't take up 4 GB of source code doesn't know what they're talking about. This is likely not the best analogy, but think of it like this: Mac OS X vs. Mac OS 9. Mac OS 9's source contains traces of System Software 1.0 still, and Vista's contains traces of Windows 1.0 still. MinWin is (to the best of my knowledge) a complete rewrite of Windows and just what's needed.

But has Microsoft even tried to fix Vista? As far as I see they could care less about games on Vista and no attempt to fix OS performance.

dbuske said,
But has Microsoft even tried to fix Vista? As far as I see they could care less about games on Vista and no attempt to fix OS performance.

well, thats a monopoly for ya.

dbuske said,
But has Microsoft even tried to fix Vista? As far as I see they could care less about games on Vista and no attempt to fix OS performance.

I suppose all of those performance related patches don't count?