wtf happened to blackcomb/vienna? it's NOT windows 7

[redvamp128]

Speaking on NT4.0 anyone else ever get the installer error.... This requires Service Pack 5 in order to install.

The only Sp5 I could ever find for it was an update, but by extracting the files and looking at them was an update for the language display for Japanese.

Though now I see there is a SP6a available now. But back when I was running it ... It was no where to be found.

Edited July 1, 2008 by redvamp128

[spaceelf]

Oh I caught it, you just have no idea what you're talking about. The only "virtualization" in Vista is a bit of write re-direction so applications don't **** the bed when they suddenly can't write to certain parts of the FS/registry, what you want is a whole different beast entirely

It's pretty obvious you've never really used a virtualization solution. We had several deployed in my last workplace. Virtual PC/Virtual Server is pretty much what you see, but try explaining why your grandma needs to boot up ANOTHER OS to write an email or do some trivial task ala the classic enviornment in OSX. Don't forget to mention that she needs to shell out for another OS license, btw. I'm sure she'll be thrilled aobut that.

Virtualization is used in many different contexts, which can be grouped into two main types: platform virtualization, involving the simulation of whole computers, and resource virtualization, involving the simulation of combined, fragmented, or simplified resources.

Whether you agree with this decription or not I really don't give a ****, but it is valid either way. Vista may do a very small amount of virtualization, but it is still virtualization.

And yes, I've used Virtual PC and VirtualBox. And my grandma is long dead, so I really don't care what she thinks.

[y_notm]

Whether you agree with this decription or not I really don't give a ****, but it is valid either way. Vista may do a very small amount of virtualization, but it is still virtualization.

And yes, I've used Virtual PC and VirtualBox. And my grandma is long dead, so I really don't care what she thinks.

Even if you want to lump Vista in to that definition of virtualization (I wouldn't, but thats neither here nor there), it still comes down to the fact that its simply seeing that a program it knows is incompatible is trying to write to a protected area and redirects that write (and subsequent reads) to another place. It's not emulating hardware, API calls, or anything else. What your asking for is orders of magnitude more complex right now, and doesn't solve any of the issues I presented in the last post. Unless you want something like what I described above, in which case Windows does that already.

Give me a good reason the NT kernel should be scrapped. ONE. A real one, based on facts, not hyperbole the blogosphere likes to invent. Hell, give me a reason that Win32 should be scrapped. Because Windows is "bloated?" Take all the components in Vista, rewrite them in some new framework. I could almost guarantee they run slower than they do now because they won't have 20+ years of optimizations behind them. Look at what happened when Apple released OSX: It was slower than dirt and couldn't really do much at all (it couldn't even play a DVD. In 2001. Seriously.). It wasn't until 2 revisions later that it really started to become usable. And that's on a small, closed subset of hardware compared to what Windows supports.

You want to get rid of Win32? Why? Even if they went ahead and did that, and emulated everything as you want, there will be 0 programs available for a long time that take advantage of the new framework. In the mean time, all your old applications take a performance hit. Your games? Won't run, because as of right now GPU's aren't emulated (AFAIK). USB? No Microsoft-based virtualization product supports it. Congratulations, you just wiped out compatibility for all your old programs with 90% of peripherals out there. That means even your iPod wouldn't be able to sync with iTunes until it was rewritten for the new framework. And how long will that take? It took apple months just to get their **** working with Windows x64... with Microsoft's help.

A much, much better approach would be to introduce said new framework (it would be a subsystem, like Win32 or Services for Unix is today), and let a library of applications be created, all the while letting it run side-by-side with Win32. When it was time, simply decouple Win32 from the system. This is what MS did with Win16: it no longer exists in Windows x64 (XP or Vista). In the meantime your older programs won't have to take an unnecessary performance hit.

"Your grandma" represents 90% of the Windows user base, the people who want it to "just work" and can't be assed to install a VM or even check a box to determine what OS should be emulated. The fact that you represent a small minority of users by even being on this board is apparently lost on you.

many posts are regarding the question WHY recode it from scratch? i could think of MANY reasons.... like i'm tired of how some developers release software that sticks its stupid driver(s) right at the very native boot opportunity and risk preventing Windows from starting, or just slow down the boot!

Windows loads drivers at boot time so it can allocate resources appropriately and you can start using your hardware as soon as you sit down. The OS and your programs can't utilize any hardware until their loaded, so what you're asking is impossible, rewrite or not. To Windows, that Alcohol driver is no different than the driver that controls your actual DVD-ROM. But because one company wrote ****ty drivers, MS should scrap an entire system? That makes sense. Rewriting the system won't stop developers from writing ****ty code, in fact rewriting the OS will exacerbate your problem (at least temporarily) because it takes time for developers to learn and optimize for a new framework. See: ATI, Creative, or nVidia with Windows VIsta

(slightly offtopic: I recommend you try out Elaborate Byte's Virtual Clone Drive. It's been compatible with Vista since they early betas and doesn't slow down normal usage or boots. And it's free)

[redvamp128]

Most BSOD / or crashes are usually caused by bad drivers.-

That goes as much like people calling an OS slow-

A co-worker brought me his computer I will not name names but **** .

It had a boot time I kid you not of 4min 52 seconds. (a 5 minute boot). before he could use it.

This was a 2 gig with 1 gig of memory running Windows XP PRO.

I removed all the programs the OEM installed.

And he went into a 56 second boot - I could not slow it down any further because of his antivirus was the final slow down.

Now I will admit that some OS's are faulty.

Why would a rewrite work? What would the benefits be?

Didn't Microsoft do that with NT 3.1? And then again with Windows 2000?

If they do a "rewrite" some things would probably not work.

And there would be a gap of good drivers.

I mean it took a while for video drivers to get good under XP. (Though I am told they are getting better under Vista).

[+Warwagon MVC]

I just wouldn't mind if windows got rid of the registry. Yes I know people will say it will break things. But look how sandboxie works. It has a file it uses for registry entires. So i'm sure they could make something that old programs could still use, but new programs could be coded for the new way of life.

[redvamp128]

Question... Some opinions may vary... Some say the registry is the slow down. But does anyone really know- How many times windows references or accesses the registry and how fast or slow it parses it? Probably only someone who works on the Core (kernel) team. Or maybe even the Shell Team at Microsoft.

Plus just think about if Microsoft did get rid of the registry. Where would you be able to tweak your OS certainly not dabble into the kernel or the Windows Code.

Now I will grant it that back in the days when the 286 was in play it may have been a slow down. But now with processors well over the 133mhz processor that was in the 286. ( There may have been faster but that was the most common upgrade to them).

Edited July 2, 2008 by redvamp128

[Linkinfamous]

I just wouldn't mind if windows got rid of the registry. Yes I know people will say it will break things. But look how sandboxie works. It has a file it uses for registry entires. So i'm sure they could make something that old programs could still use, but new programs could be coded for the new way of life.

That's all well and good when you don't need to access it very often. But the registry can be accessed hundreds of times per second by various running applications. Explorer alone bombards it with tons of requests every moment. Your system would grind to a halt if they replaced the registry with config files. You'd need some kind of sophisticated system-wide caching mechanism, but then you'd probably want to make the file format a binary serialized format to boost performance even further -- And then you're back to the registry.

Question... Some opinions may vary... Some say the registry is the slow down. But does anyone really know- How many times windows references or accesses the registry and how fast or slow it parses it? Probably only someone who works on the Core (kernel) team. Or maybe even the Shell Team at Microsoft.

You can monitor the registry and benchmark it if you're so inclined. It's very fast, very resilient to 'bloat', and accessed a LOT. Windows is practically built on COM, and your system is instantiating and destroying COM objects all the time -- Which requires peeking in the registry. That, of course, isn't the only thing bombarding it with tons of requests.

It's certainly a lot faster than say, an XML file.

[+Warwagon MVC]

That's all well and good when you don't need to access it very often. But the registry can be accessed hundreds of times per second by various running applications. Explorer alone bombards it with tons of requests every moment. Your system would grind to a halt if they replaced the registry with config files. You'd need some kind of sophisticated system-wide caching mechanism, but then you'd probably want to make the file format a binary serialized format to boost performance even further -- And then you're back to the registry.

You can monitor the registry and benchmark it if you're so inclined. It's very fast, very resilient to 'bloat', and accessed a LOT. Windows is practically built on COM, and your system is instantiating and destroying COM objects all the time -- Which requires peeking in the registry. That, of course, isn't the only thing bombarding it with tons of requests.

It's certainly a lot faster than say, an XML file.

Well windows could keep its registry for settings. I'm talking about application settings.

[Linkinfamous]

Well windows could keep its registry for settings. I'm talking about application settings.

Nothing is forcing application developers to use the registry.

However, what's wrong with them doing so? If a developer plays by the rules, and stores their settings in the two places designated for their settings: HKLM\Software\MyApp and HKCU\Software\MyApp, the registry provides a very simple fast and lightweight solution for them. I see nothing wrong with tossing a few keys in there.

[spaceelf]

I haven't been saying they should replace Windows, in fact I said it'd be a very complicated thing to market to endusers and developers (especially when at the same time they're still marketing mainstream Windows.)

All I'm saying is that Windows 7 will probably do more with virtualization than Vista does. There are most likely quite a few things in Windows still done in less than efficient ways that could be silently replaced with the apps/users none the wiser.

Anyway, it seems like .NET has already superseded Win32. (Huh, I thought that word was supercede. Interesting.)

[+Warwagon MVC]

Nothing is forcing application developers to use the registry.

However, what's wrong with them doing so? If a developer plays by the rules, and stores their settings in the two places designated for their settings: HKLM\Software\MyApp and HKCU\Software\MyApp, the registry provides a very simple fast and lightweight solution for them. I see nothing wrong with tossing a few keys in there.

It would be nice though to just be able to delete a folder and have application be gone from your computer. Mac Style.

Now vista has AppData / Roaming and AppData / local

who comes up with those names.

[Linkinfamous]

It would be nice though to just be able to delete a folder and have application be gone from your computer. Mac Style.

Now vista has AppData / Roaming and AppData / local

who comes up with those names.

Put the machine on a network and that kind of separation between Roaming and Local profile data makes perfect sense.

[redvamp128]

What would also be nice... Applications that when you uninstall them actually get rid of themselves.

Aol I have noticed is notorious for that. Another Co-worker brought me his computer because he said he was running out of space. I found about 6 different Aol installers, Which he said he unistalled them. Would also be nice for example that when you upgrade the version it would let you know that there is older installers on them.

Also for it to ask if you want to get rid of those old installers.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Put the machine on a network and that kind of separation between Roaming and Local profile data makes perfect sense.

ok how about localLow

[Linkinfamous]

ok how about localLow

That's the low integrity appdata folder for things like Protected Mode IE.

The whole point of a "Low" integrity level process is to limit its access to the filesystem. Things like Protected Mode IE don't have access to the Local folder. If they did, that would defeat the purpose of giving them the "Low" integrity level!

So they need their own area set aside that is configured such that these processes have permission to actually write there.

[y_notm]

I haven't been saying they should replace Windows, in fact I said it'd be a very complicated thing to market to endusers and developers (especially when at the same time they're still marketing mainstream Windows.)

All I'm saying is that Windows 7 will probably do more with virtualization than Vista does. There are most likely quite a few things in Windows still done in less than efficient ways that could be silently replaced with the apps/users none the wiser.

Anyway, it seems like .NET has already superseded Win32. (Huh, I thought that word was supercede. Interesting.)

What exactly does it do bad inefficiently, that virtualization would somehow be more efficient? (Note that it takes much more resources to virtualize something than to run it natively.) I'm genuinely curious to know what you think would be improved.

.NET has definitely not superseded Win32. Name one major program (not including Visual Studio) that is built on the .NET framework. There's almost no components in Windows that use it, Office doesn't use it, Photoshop doesn't use it, neither does iTunes, Firefox, or AOL. Most of the new Vista features are exposed via native APIs, not .NET, etc (I'm talking about Vista specific, not WPF/WCF: Instant Search, the new Audio stack and so on). It is disappointing. Not only that, I'm pretty sure .NET runs on top of Win32 and is not it's own subsystem.

[spaceelf]

I can't name specific components, as I'm not a Windows developer. Just a well read enduser for the moment.

As for .NET apps, Stardock Impulse, Paint.NET, Zune Marketplace, many driver apps, a lot of MMO launchers... My point was not that Win32 is useless, but that it is no longer the platform MS is putting tons of effort into. .NET is definately starting to get a foothold in mainstream development which wasn't showing before. (I'm sure there are more examples of apps that I am not aware of as well.)

And .NET doesn't run on top of Win32, from anything I've read.

Edited July 2, 2008 by randomevent

[Linkinfamous]

And .NET doesn't run on top of Win32, from anything I've read.

Of course it runs on top of win32. But that's perfectly fine, as the implementation details of the API aren't supposed to matter to the developer.

win32 has run on both NT and 9x, but again: it didn't matter all that much to the developer. That's the point. Microsoft could change how .NET is implemented, or something, and a lot of stuff should continue to work.

The only problem with that is that a lot of .NET apps make native API calls...

[spaceelf]

Well I'm not trying to be a punk or anything, but you'd have to show me the implementation details. I wasted plenty of time trying to find out whether or not it was on top of win32 and found no info.

[alsheron]

Oh I caught it, you just have no idea what you're talking about. The only "virtualization" in Vista is a bit of write re-direction so applications don't **** the bed when they suddenly can't write to certain parts of the FS/registry, what you want is a whole different beast entirely

It's pretty obvious you've never really used a virtualization solution. We had several deployed in my last workplace. Virtual PC/Virtual Server is pretty much what you see, but try explaining why your grandma needs to boot up ANOTHER OS to write an email or do some trivial task ala the classic enviornment in OSX. Don't forget to mention that she needs to shell out for another OS license, btw. I'm sure she'll be thrilled aobut that.

SoftGrid... well, heck, softgrid needs a virtual machine itself (or at the very least a spare real machine) to do the capturing, then you have to repackage and deploy the software. Oh whats that? You needed to install something to the context menu or interact with just about any other component on your system? Tough ****, ain't happening.

I don't know anything about Kidaro but I'm sure it's not that much simpler. My point is this is all way too advanced for your average user. They simply won't do it just to write a document or balance their checkbook. Buying a mac or even installing Linux is much less hassle.

It would be a massive undertaking to overcome these problems. It's easy to say they should, its a whole nother thing to actually go and do it. And to what benefit? So you can toss Win32 out of the system? You can already do that; Win32 is just a subsystem that runs on top of the NT kernel, which has been proven by pretty much anyone who knows anything about OS kernels to be fast, reliable, and extremely well designed. And if the whole point of virtualization is to keep compatibility with Win32 apps, well, why the hell don't you just leave the subsystem in there until you don't need it anymore and not take the performance and complexity hit virtualization incurs?

And while you're throwing away compatibility for virtualization, don't forget that you'll need an entirely new set of drivers. Don't worry, its no big deal. It's not like anyone had any problems with drivers when Vista was released.

People are claiming the Vista is bloated and blaming all this "compatiblity code" for taking up all the resources in their systems. Guess what? There's about 4 MB of compat code on your hard disk, and none of it is loaded until its needed. And outside of one check call, it doesn't have anything to do with kernel. What's taking up all the resources in Vista (mainly sucking up your RAM) is the new features in Vista: desktop search, SuperFetch and even the DWM. Turn off those features and you wind up with something like... oh I don't know, Windows Server 2008 which has received pretty much nothing but praise.

Excellent, impressive post. Very well said! :D

[ItsMatt!]

I thought the same thing, looks pretty much like vista to me

[y_notm]

Well I'm not trying to be a punk or anything, but you'd have to show me the implementation details. I wasted plenty of time trying to find out whether or not it was on top of win32 and found no info.

From what I can gather it mostly runs "on top of" Win32. I've seen one (uncorroborated) claim that parts of the lowest level of .NET don't run through Win32, but most of the BCL and things like WinForms are wrappers for Win32 APIs, so scrapping Win32 for .NET would still take a hefty bit of rewriting. The advantage of the .NET implementation is that that (theoretically) can be done without breaking any existing .NET programs because of the abstraction, but its still a massive undertaking (look at Mono: 6 or 7 years of development and its still years behind MS's implementation).

WinFX was originally supposed to do that: It would become the main development platform in Longhorn and Win32 would essentially be deprecated: all new features would be exposed via .NET (Avalon, WinFS and Indigo back in those days). But with the reset, this vision got dramatically scaled back and I haven't seen anything that would indicate its coming back into the picture any time soon, which is a shame because .NET is such a wonderful platform to develop on. Granted, we don't really know anything about .NET4, but there have already been indications for new native (Win32) frameworks in Windows 7 so it definitely doesn't seem to be happening short term.

I will give you this though: it is extremely difficult to find implementation details of .NET

[spaceelf]

I hate not knowing. Mainly because I like to know what I'm talking about. (Shocking, I know. :) )

Yeah I'm trying to learn C# programming but it's slow going. I have a slow night job so if I had a laptop worth mentioning I'd be getting a lot more done in that respect, we'll see if I can acquire one within the next few months. :) Being mildly tired most of the time I'm awake really doesn't help. :/

Ah well, life's like that, someday I'll get out of the night crap.