So much for no kernel change - "Windows 7 *is* Minwin

[Owen W Veteran]

A lot of people assume that MinWin is a Microsoft effort to completely rewrite the Windows Kernel from scratch. That may be based on earlier (limited) explanations about what it does, or it may have a lot to do with people assuming, due to people's efforts with open source software, that rewriting the kernel will solve all of Windows problems. Well, Mark Russinovich, Microsoft Technical Fellow and guru of all things NT Kernel, attempts to set the record straight in a 45 minute video from Channel 9. Microsoft also explains that "it *is* indeed in Windows 7."

This excited me, and I wanted to ask you guys, what you thought?! Hurrah for parralell processing! :)

Neowin Article

[chrisj1968]

I heard about minwin back in it's conception. MS wanted to trim the fat off the kernel. at the time I read the article, it was a very small footprint. I'm glad to see MS has warmed up to a leaner OS

[Owen W Veteran]

I heard about minwin back in it's conception. MS wanted to trim the fat off the kernel. at the time I read the article, it was a very small footprint. I'm glad to see MS has warmed up to a leaner OS

Agreed, it sounds like it was a bit of a jumbled mess of code that no-one realyl had been keeping an eye on. I'm glad that lower level operations have been seperated from the higher ones, as higher level programs getting access to lower level processes can really mash things up!

[_neutrino Veteran]

in the original tech demo of minwin they were able to run the whole OS useing no more than 17mb of ram and 25 Mb of HDD space. however when the other parts of the OS running now windows 7 in its current form (albeit not finished yet) uses the same if not MORE system resources than windows Vista does.

[HawkMan]

this thread exist allready...

[Owen W Veteran]

in the original tech demo of minwin they were able to run the whole OS useing no more than 17mb of ram and 25 Mb of HDD space. however when the other parts of the OS running now windows 7 in its current form (albeit not finished yet) uses the same if not MORE system resources than windows Vista does.

Well no, that's a common misconception, Windows 7 appears to be using most RAM alot of the time as rather than wasting RAM by leaving it Idle, it sends it to where it's needed. The same goes for the CPU.

So rather than having ram that's doing nothing 50% of the time, it's busy most of the time.

If you're referring to the amount of threads, thats a good thing, as more threads are better for Parralell processing, which is also a new part of Windows 7

Also, if you want no GUI on your OS, then so be it. A GUI is going to use resources.

[ToneKnee]

MinWin is NT isn't it? They are fine tuning the kernel when they add more lines of code.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

Would be a good change for the operating system to get away from the aging NT... but don't fix something that isn't broken

[Panda X]

It's NT. Wow MinWin really has been blown out of proportion. This MinWin is totally different than the super stripped NT OS we saw. Get over it. It's NT. End of.

[chrisj1968]

minwin/7 explained this might help a bit

[majortom1981]

Minwin is NT . Nothing new all they are doing was stripping things out to see howsmall they could get everything. It was more of an exercise in how to make windows more efficient.

So technically vista has minwin also since its just the same stuff just with some things stripped out and made seperately.

[Owen W Veteran]

Minwin is NT . Nothing new all they are doing was stripping things out to see howsmall they could get everything. It was more of an exercise in how to make windows more efficient.

So technically vista has minwin also since its just the same stuff just with some things stripped out and made seperately.

Well...no. As explained in the article things have been rearranged so higher process levels no longer directly interact with low level processes. This is a recipe for disaster (BSODs etc)..

So essentially Win7 has the same Kernel, but sorted properly into levels of processes.

[HawkMan]

Would be a good change for the operating system to get away from the aging NT... but don't fix something that isn't broken

Why?

NT 6 isn't the same as NT 3.5 , they share a few basic principles but other than that they're hardly comparable.

It's like saying Linux would do good to change to a new kernel since the Linux kernel is getting old... but then.. it's not linux anymore.

And the NT kernel is still one if not the best kernel out there with functions superior to the comptition. Untill we get a brand new oputer architecture, it doesn't make sense to change to a bran new groun up rewrote generation of kernels. heck een MacOS chose to stick to what was allready out there rather than do their own for OSX.

[Sethos]

And just to noobify the thread, what the hell is Minwin :p

[Owen W Veteran]

Why?

NT 6 isn't the same as NT 3.5 , they share a few basic principles but other than that they're hardly comparable.

It's like saying Linux would do good to change to a new kernel since the Linux kernel is getting old... but then.. it's not linux anymore.

And the NT kernel is still one if not the best kernel out there with functions superior to the comptition. Untill we get a brand new oputer architecture, it doesn't make sense to change to a bran new groun up rewrote generation of kernels. heck een MacOS chose to stick to what was allready out there rather than do their own for OSX.

Agreed - NT is quite the revolutionary kernel, and it evolves with every version change, essentially giving a "new" kernel. I'm happy with it already, and can't wait to see what Windows 7 brings to build on the fantastic job they did in Vista

[majortom1981]

Well...no. As explained in the article things have been rearranged so higher process levels no longer directly interact with low level processes. This is a recipe for disaster (BSODs etc)..

So essentially Win7 has the same Kernel, but sorted properly into levels of processes.

Exactly its really still the same. Its not radically changed . Just made so the lower level stuff doesnt need to call the higher level things.

[Owen W Veteran]

And just to noobify the thread, what the hell is Minwin :p

Long Zheng posted a good article about it here last year. Check it out :)

[Sethos]

Long Zheng posted a good article about it here last year. Check it out :)

Thanks (Y)

[y_notm]

Well...no. As explained in the article things have been rearranged so higher process levels no longer directly interact with low level processes. This is a recipe for disaster (BSODs etc)..

Not really. It's mainly to speed and ease development and testing of the OS. THey aren't changing things that make it inherently more stable.

[Owen W Veteran]

Not really. It's mainly to speed and ease development and testing of the OS. THey aren't changing things that make it inherently more stable.

Theoratically it does - well according to the Windows Server example.

What I mean by this is the reason its not reccomended to install regular applications on servers is because they generally have default low level access, which can mash things up. Once a virus gets in there, it can do whatever the hell it likes with low level stuff.

[Windows7even]

i think they succeeded in making 7 more efficient. lets just hope it stays that way through rtm

[AltecXP]

Well its kernel 6.1 so yes, its not identical to Vista(6.0) but we already knew that for years now. Plus from what I hear most the changes are Optimizations then changes in how it functions.

Someone said an example of when ONLY planing a DVD on a laptop, Win7 gets almost another Hr out of the battery then Vista does with identical laptops.

[Owen W Veteran]

Well its kernel 6.1 so yes, its not identical to Vista(6.0) but we already knew that for years now. Plus from what I hear most the changes are Optimizations then changes in how it functions.

Someone said an example of when ONLY planing a DVD on a laptop, Win7 gets almost another Hr out of the battery then Vista does with identical laptops.

It's pretty sweet eh. What really annoys me is people flaming MS because 7 is built on Vista, but in reality, XP was built on Windows 2000 as well. It's the same thing, yet people are going on about how it should never be done

[Brandon Live Veteran]

MinWin isn't a feature or a product or a kernel. It's more an effort and set of guidelines and such.

[andrew_f]

Thanks for clearing it up. I personally couldn't care less how Windows is made more functional, stable and fast as long as in time it does.