Recommended Posts

LOL...This guy is so full of it. Windows 7 is still in diapers and this guy is already talking about Windows 8 and 9!....LOL

Don't you think Microsoft already has enough problems as it is with Vista?

Windows 8 won't be around for another 6 or 7 years so chill out.

Yeah it's littearly impossible, because at some point you need a machine code level interperter... which almost always has a machine level kernel... even MS's internal demo managed kernel has a native code kernel under it

Well, to be fair, C# and F# are not interpreted languages. They are compiled languages just like C++. They compile at build time to MSIL, which is then just-in-time compiled to native code at run time.

Using just-in-time compilation for an OS may not be ideal, though, so as I recall the Singularity project compiled their C# code into native binaries.

So no, there's nothing impossible about writing an OS in C#. Now, why you would go and do that is another question entirely.

BS. It is not possible to build an O/S kernel using interpreted code in a language such as C# or F#. Complete and utter fake.

Microsoft Singularity

JNode

These are two operating systems that use a small amount of assembly to boot and wire up their kernels, but the kernels are written in C# and Java.

This should be a great joke for Comedy Central's shows, like Jeff Foxworthy, Lisa Lampanelli, and Larry the Cable Guy.

The forum rules should be ammended to stop this sort of crap. Posting BS as fact adds nothing to neowin.

As for "Do they have to be near Redmond". Well, Fiji isn't. Isn't the theme "mountains"?

codenames are out. we're back to straight version numbers when referring to yet-to-be-branded versions of Windows.

Don't Microsoft codenames have to be taken from towns near Redmond?

No. Whistler and Blackcomb are both mountains in the British Columbia. Longhorn is the bar in between the two. To get from Whistler (XP) to Blackcomb (7) you have to go through Longhorn (Vista) first! ;)

Then you've also got Chicago, Memphis, Janus, Cairo, Nashville, Neptune and Oddyssey. And that's just Windows :p

Even if this were true, what is the point of posting about something whose release would be several years away? Even the infamous "leak builds" would be years away. Someone should start a thread about "bizarre Windows rumors I've heard over the years." lol

Whistler and Blackcomb are both mountains in the British Columbia. Longhorn is the bar in between the two. To get from Whistler (XP) to Blackcomb (7) you have to go through Longhorn (Vista) first!

:p

will windows 8 and 9 both sucks cuz

fanatic , xp fanboys , ABMers , Linux geeks , apple fanboys after few years they will says ;

windows 9 = windows 8 R2

windows 8 = windows 7 R2

windows vista = windows ME R2

"so they will come up with result that windows 9 is windows super duper me bsod edtion and that they are dumbs lol"

window 8 is memory hog

windows 9 copyed MacOSXII

windows 9 send have Super DRM and send bla bla bla to M$

windows 8 sucks back to vista !

[/scarism]

i wouldnt be suprised to see all those bashing in upcoming years :rolleyes:

LOL...This guy is so full of it. Windows 7 is still in diapers and this guy is already talking about Windows 8 and 9!....LOL

Don't you think Microsoft already has enough problems as it is with Vista?

Windows 8 won't be around for another 6 or 7 years so chill out.

Didnt that happen with XP? XP wasn't even released and the names Longhorn and Blackcomb were already there. All they're doing is chosing the code-name anyway.

Even if it's not real (which is likely), it's not like it's critical information, the codename of a OS, lol. A full rewrite, now that's unlikely. Even if they did, it would take years to iron it out, so they would have to start doing it today if they wanted it to be "complete" by windows9

I'm loling so hard right now.... building an os kernel in C#? ROFL IRL. not to mention the fact that C# can't directly control hardware, good luck writing a bootloader. You can't even write a bootloader in C (next best thing to assembly), that has to be done in assembly, so how the hell can you do it in C# LOL.

tell that to osdev.net

I'm loling so hard right now.... building an os kernel in C#? ROFL IRL. not to mention the fact that C# can't directly control hardware, good luck writing a bootloader. You can't even write a bootloader in C (next best thing to assembly), that has to be done in assembly, so how the hell can you do it in C# LOL.

tell that to osdev.net

yes the kernel in singularity is in C#, C# can be compiled to a native binary too. The kernel is not 100% C# (95% C# and 5% C)

I'm loling so hard right now.... building an os kernel in C#? ROFL IRL. not to mention the fact that C# can't directly control hardware, good luck writing a bootloader. You can't even write a bootloader in C (next best thing to assembly), that has to be done in assembly, so how the hell can you do it in C# LOL.

tell that to osdev.net

http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/

Not that I'm saying I believe the drivel in the first post, just that its possible (to a point)

Ya totally fake.

Even now companies are holding off on developing for vista for windows 7. But then if in the distance they say... well in Windows 8 uh good by NT, wouldn't you think they would rather wait for that.

If, and I do stress 'if', Microsoft is planning on rewriting thier OS from the ground up and have it ready for Windows 8 or 9, don't you think they'd start now and not wait the 2-3 years for Windows 7 to come out? Some truth to it maybe but as it's only a rumor well...

Ya totally fake.

Even now companies are holding off on developing for vista for windows 7. But then if in the distance they say... well in Windows 8 uh good by NT, wouldn't you think they would rather wait for that.

Yeah totally. But if Windows 8 comes much later then I think they will develop for Windows 7 as it is similar to Vista.

  • 2 weeks later...
I'm loling so hard right now.... building an os kernel in C#? ROFL IRL. not to mention the fact that C# can't directly control hardware, good luck writing a bootloader. You can't even write a bootloader in C (next best thing to assembly), that has to be done in assembly, so how the hell can you do it in C# LOL.

tell that to osdev.net

This is not true, C# has built in support for unsafe code via a compiler keyword which allows pointers to be used (important for access directly to regions of memory).

At the end of the day, most kernels consist of high level language + assembly. C# can do everything C/C++ can do, and it is still backed by assembly stubs (Or even inline assembly via crafty delegates) to execute the ring 0 instructions.

The C# code is directly compiled to x86 instructions, as opposed to JITed and cached.

Now, you may ask why this has an advantage over C/C++? Well C# code (assuming you minimize unsafe code usage, which is possible for 90% of the kernel) can be "proofed" or guaranteed to be safe (it wont be vulnerable to buffer overflows or memory corruption of any kind).

Why is this important? Well, when you can make inherent assumptions about the status of a piece of code in software, you can remove the hardware restrictions on it. So instead of having applications and services run in Ring3, they can all run in Ring0 since they are guaranteed to never touch each others address spaces -- or more importantly the kernel's address space.

This essentially means that message passing IPC is zero-copy, making it much better than shared memory mapping while negating the performance hit. This results in an extremely resilient kernel, which has the advantages of a microkernel without the inherent performance hit.

You see, in a normal situation (Monolithic, like the NT Kernel) applications run in a different processor privilege level called Ring3. However, this means that there are heavy performance hits in frequent context switches, to alleviate the issue most systems share mapped memory -- but that's also prone to corruption.

For more information, you can read some papers on Software Isolation and Channel-based Communication. Another interesting read, is the ability to selectively use hardware sandboxing to enforce virtual-machine'd native code. (Useful for example, for win32 backwards compatability).

I guess the point I'm getting at, is that all of this is very feasible from an engineering standpoint. Singularity paved the road for a lot of exciting changes in how Operating Systems are approached. Everything in Singularity is a good idea, and one can only pray that even one of the features in Singularity make it to any iteration of Windows.

Cheers.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!