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

[jjrambo]

I use Amiga OS 4. :yes: . love it.

[Linkinfamous]

Oh god. It's back. The last time this thread popped up (A couple of weeks ago), it was mostly post after post of people showing off just how much they don't know what they're talking about...

Edited December 4, 2008 by MioTheGreat

[Owen W Veteran]

Oh god. It's back. The last time this thread popped up (A couple of weeks ago), it was mostly post after post of people showing off just how much they don't know what they're talking about...

And of course you do, right?

[mad_onion]

And of course you do, right?

yes, him and brandon are the people you should listen to to actually get accurate information on a topic.

[XerXis]

And of course you do, right?

well, both him and brandon live are working in redmond, so yes, i guess he does ;)

[Linkinfamous]

well, both him and brandon live are working in redmond, so yes, i guess he does ;)

Not I.

Edited December 4, 2008 by MioTheGreat

[Glowstick]

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

Kernel is fine. Userland is not.

[jjrambo]

NT Kernel still suffers from BSOD mostly caused from overclocking and some bad drivers. I think MS can do something about bad drivers. Don't let non WHQL to be installed. In case of hardware failure, try to shut it off and notify user unless it's mobo or memory related.

[HawkMan]

And exactly how is the microsoft SOFTWARE supposed to fix hardware level error crashing your computer because you overclocked it ? magic ?

as for bad drivers, they allready did most of what hey coudl here by moving graphcis driving to user level. and requiring certification. frankly without causing severe performance loss you'll never be able to make a system where a hardware driver can't EVER crash the system. but if you stick to old reliable drivers instead of allways jumping on the latest ones, you're pretty safe anyway.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

NT Kernel still suffers from BSOD mostly caused from overclocking and some bad drivers. I think MS can do something about bad drivers. Don't let non WHQL to be installed. In case of hardware failure, try to shut it off and notify user unless it's mobo or memory related.

Don't allow non-WHQL drivers? That's unlikely. There are enough complaints about the code signing requirement for kernel-mode drivers on x64. If they were required to go through WHQL it'd be even worse. Besides, WHQL doesn't prevent a driver from crashing. It helps, but most of the time the big companies like Nvidia find ways around the requirements by having a "normal" and "performance" mode, where only the normal mode is tested by WHQL.

If bad hardware results in corrupted memory or calls something from the wrong IRQ level it's too late. You can't just turn that piece of hardware off, because the damage is already done.

[jjrambo]

Don't allow non-WHQL drivers? That's unlikely. There are enough complaints about the code signing requirement for kernel-mode drivers on x64. If they were required to go through WHQL it'd be even worse. Besides, WHQL doesn't prevent a driver from crashing. It helps, but most of the time the big companies like Nvidia find ways around the requirements by having a "normal" and "performance" mode, where only the normal mode is tested by WHQL.

If bad hardware results in corrupted memory or calls something from the wrong IRQ level it's too late. You can't just turn that piece of hardware off, because the damage is already done.

If company can't get WHQL drives through the doors, well it's probably utter garbage. This way at least MS can reduce the problems. As far as IRQ i agree, still i think there are certain situations where it could OS find its way out. I think original IBM PC concept is the worst IT industry could come up with, but it's too late now...that's for another discussion.

And exactly how is the microsoft SOFTWARE supposed to fix hardware level error crashing your computer because you overclocked it ? magic ?

as for bad drivers, they allready did most of what hey coudl here by moving graphcis driving to user level. and requiring certification. frankly without causing severe performance loss you'll never be able to make a system where a hardware driver can't EVER crash the system. but if you stick to old reliable drivers instead of allways jumping on the latest ones, you're pretty safe anyway.

They can't fix overclocked systems. I didn't say they could. I just said what was one of the reasons, but again people who overclock are advanced users and so BSOD is not problem for them...it's something to expect. In other words i said that NT Kernel matured and it's very stable.

[Kirkburn]

If company can't get WHQL drives through the doors, well it's probably utter garbage.

Or, they are small and cannot afford it.

[Denis W. Veteran]

NT Kernel still suffers from BSOD mostly caused from overclocking and some bad drivers. I think MS can do something about bad drivers. Don't let non WHQL to be installed. In case of hardware failure, try to shut it off and notify user unless it's mobo or memory related.

You're kidding, right? Say goodbye to beta Forceware drivers and tweaked sets if everything MUST be WHQL'ed. There's also plenty of drivers on my system that do not induce any BSODs whatsoever, yet they aren't WHQL'ed. (i.e. drivers written by freeware authors)

[Owen W Veteran]

You're kidding, right? Say goodbye to beta Forceware drivers and tweaked sets if everything MUST be WHQL'ed. There's also plenty of drivers on my system that do not induce any BSODs whatsoever, yet they aren't WHQL'ed. (i.e. drivers written by freeware authors)

True, but you do gotta remember that most of (like at least half) of the problems reported about windows involve some sort of 'tweaked' driver or setting...which isn't MS's fault is it?

[Denis W. Veteran]

True, but you do gotta remember that most of (like at least half) of the problems reported about windows involve some sort of 'tweaked' driver or setting...which isn't MS's fault is it?

Not necessarily. Where did you pick that up from?

Tweaked sets are nothing more than simple ini/inf/cfg changes, no binary code is patched at all. Sometimes the authors of tweaked sets do mix and match binaries from older driver sets.

What this guy is suggesting (well, most of said suggestions are terribly outlandish but meh) is even worse than MS blocking out non-signed drivers in 64-bit Windows.

[Owen W Veteran]

Not necessarily. Where did you pick that up from?

Tweaked sets are nothing more than simple ini/inf/cfg changes, no binary code is patched at all. Sometimes the authors of tweaked sets do mix and match binaries from older driver sets.

What this guy is suggesting (well, most of said suggestions are terribly outlandish but meh) is even worse than MS blocking out non-signed drivers in 64-bit Windows.

Sorry, I actually left out 3rd parties (I.e nVidia, ATI, anyone else who makes drivers)

Lol, so MS is suggestign that anyone without WHQL is denied driver access? does it cost to get this?

[PGHammer]

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

Also, lest anyone forget, Windows NT 3.1 had similar requirements to Windows 3.x enhanced mode, except that you couldn't run NT on a 386SX, and it required 8 MB of RAM, rather than four. (At one point I dual-booted Windows 95 SR2 and NT 3.51 on a 386DX-40 (AMD) with 16 MB of RAM.

It was NT 4 that dropped support for the 386 (only because the Pentium had become mainstream).

As far as the major changes in kernels over NT's lifetime, it's actually comparable to the changes in the Linux kernel from 2.2 to today (2.6.27.x). 2.2 is comparable to NT4, 2.4 to NT 5, and 2.6 (today) would be the equivalent to NT 6. However, look at the changes *just in 2.6* and you get an idea of the changemap between Vista and 7.

[Quillz]

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

The people who do such flaming generally don't understand the first thing about operating system. These are the kind of people who judged Vista solely by its GUI, not understanding all the major changes that occurred under the hood.

Vista was a much better kernel model than XP, but it also ushered in a new method of building operating systems for Microsoft: build the kernel, then cut the cloth and stitch it over each client and server release. Whereas XP was built on top of Windows Server 2000, Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 are virtually identical, except the latter has certain server functionality. This is more similar to how Apple builds its client and server releases. And Windows 7 will continue this trend, also being almost an "off-the-shelf" version of Windows Server 2008, except with end-user features being added, instead.

[DGMurdockIII]

Reactos FTW Windows 7 for the lose http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

[Denis W. Veteran]

Reactos FTW Windows 7 for the lose http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

Joke of the week. :laugh: