Starting Windows 8

[Ci7]

XP is NT5.1, Vista is NT6.0.

Software version number convention 101: Major changes are denoted by a change in the first number in the version number.

If Vista was not based on XP, they would not be able to call it NT6.0

And the 'new everything' you are talking about was Longhorn, which got so buggy and badly coded they had to strip it out and incorporate the working bits onto an existing kernel (XP).

Server 2003 is based on the same kernel as XP, as it's NT5.2. Which means same basic kernel as XP, but developed along a server platform design. The thing that has happened is that Microsoft have found out that people want the same stability in their home computers as corporations want from their servers, which is why XP and Server 2003 are just 1 minor version number different. They are essentially the same engine, but with different components tacked onto the outside to accomodate the different environment it is used in.

What microsoft have done with regards to Vista and Server 2008 (similar to XP and Server 2003, but not to the same degree) is they have the same foundation, but the part where they start to change into home computers and server computers is the only difference. This is a very good thing, as it means all of the developers are focussing on improving the same thing.

So yes, Vista was based on the 2003 kernel...but the 2003 kernel is the same as the XP kernel.

I haven't had a chance to play around with server 2008 properly, but I would guess that server 2008 R2 has been changed around to be the Windows 7 kernel to provide improved performance.

haha ! by that logic , you actually fail'ed

Vista(6.0) is based on Windows 2000(NT5.0) since XP use the same kernel as 2000 's :huh:

[Aldur82]

haha ! by that logic , you actually fail'ed

Vista(6.0) is based on Windows 2000(NT5.0) since XP use the same kernel as 2000 's :huh:

What's your point? There was nothing wrong with the 2000 Kernel, which is why it was only a minor version update to XP as XP was mainly a cosmetic update to 2000 with some tweaks and improvements. The reason I said it was based on the XP kernel is because it was. Those minor tweaks and improvements were actually quite significant in regards to stability and performance, so they built from that instead of directly from the 5.0 version.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

Don't criticise someone else's spelling or grammar if you can't get it right yourself.

You missed the apostrophe in API's.

No, I didn't miss it. You only use apostrophes for such a word if it is possessive. Did everyone on the planet suddenly forget this simple rule? When you are just pluralizing it, there is no apostrophe. Where did you learn English? For example, 1) This is John's coat. (you use an apostrophe "s" in that case. But here: 2) There were two Johns in the classroom. That John has no apostrophe, since it's in the plural form.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

No need to make it personal, devHead. We're not here on this forum for a spelling competition..

Ah, you're right. I don't know why I whaled on him like that... :|

[lee31]

No, I didn't miss it. You only use apostrophes for such a word if it is possessive. Did everyone on the this planet suddenly forget this simple rule? When you are just pluralizing pluralising it, there is no apostrophe. Where did you learn English? For example, 1) This is John's coat. (you use an apostrophe "s" in that case. But here: 2) There were two Johns in the classroom. That John has no apostrophe, since it's in the plural form.

Firstly, I'll fix your comment for you.

Secondly, You also use apostrophes to show a missing letter in contracting words like don't, didn't, weren't, I'm, he's, she's, etc.

[Ran Sagy]

Exactly. I think this "rewrite" focus is all wrong though. Old APIs should be complemented or replaced with brand new APIs that are designed for the modern age. I wouldn't really call this "rewrite", because you end up with something new rather than just something modified.

If Microsoft were to make a new OS from scratch, they wouldn't be "rewriting Windows", they would be creating a new OS.

Well, I stand corrected, I suppose. the usual definition of rewrite would be to do the same thing in a different way (or really, over again even in the same way).

So yes, What most people are referring to is a new way of doing things in the Windows world, namely the graphics API, Win32 API functions dating back a century and so on.

Like what people said, That's probably what's going on with Singularity/Midori and such projects.

Oh, And lets stop with the spelling drama, please? We aren't all perfectly native English speakers, And frankly, as long as someone doesn't "rite liek dis" i could care less if he spelled words in their dictionary-correct forms and so on.

[KeeperOfThePizza]

Who knows? they could be rewriting right nao! Either way I think we can expect nothing more but more goodness from Microsoft. With the release of Windows 7, I think Microsoft has seen the light!

[+KibosJ Subscriber²]

Firstly, I'll fix your comment for you.

Secondly, You also use apostrophes to show a missing letter in contracting words like don't, didn't, weren't, I'm, he's, she's, etc.

What's the point in correcting grammar like this on a forum, the whole thing is perfectly readable. If it weren't readable then I see the point, but it is.

Secondly, just because everyone else finds it fun, APIs does NOT require an apostrophe. When describing an "item" an apostrophe isn't required.

[lee31]

What's the point in correcting grammar like this on a forum, the whole thing is perfectly readable. If it weren't readable then I see the point, but it is.

Secondly, just because everyone else finds it fun, APIs does NOT require an apostrophe. When describing an "item" an apostrophe isn't required.

Don't start on me.

I can't stand those that try to correct others spelling or grammar when they get it wrong themselves.

I'm in my own way sticking up for the user he had a pop at, who simply made a few typing errors (typo's to most people) which I normally let go.

I only usually point out obvious deliberate mistakes like those that type looser instead of loser, for example.

[Ran Sagy]

All in all, Consider the fact Microsoft Research has at least 4 experimental OS-like projects going, As some people here mentioned as well (Singularity, Midori, Barrelfish, Helios).

Just shows you they are really thinking about where Windows, or any Microsoft OS, is going.

[+KibosJ Subscriber²]

Don't start on me.

I can't stand those that try to correct others spelling or grammar when they get it wrong themselves.

I'm in my own way sticking up for the user he had a pop at, who simply made a few typing errors (typo's to most people) which I normally let go.

I only usually point out obvious deliberate mistakes like those that type looser instead of loser, for example.

What's the point in correcting grammar like this on a forum, the whole thing is perfectly readable. If it weren't readable then I see the point, but it is.

Sorry, that bit wasn't at you, I should have made that more clear, it was just in general. It's just that, in my opinion, grammar may be important, but only if it makes a post completely unreadable.

[soonerproud]

Well, you can consider Singularity as a rewrite (it is) but it is still far from entering the Windows realm. In the long term, I think that Windows will be replaced with whatever comes from the combination of Barrelfish, Helios and Midori but until then you've gotta be patient. So yeah, Windows is being rewritten right now but you'll have to wait at least Windows 10 to actually see this released to the public.

+1

This

[+devHead Subscriber²]

Firstly, I'll fix your comment for you.

Secondly, You also use apostrophes to show a missing letter in contracting words like don't, didn't, weren't, I'm, he's, she's, etc.

Bro, first off, I said for such a word, not all words. Of course words such as don't didn't, etc. get apostrophes.

Secondly, I'm not from Britain, I'm from America, where we aren't scared to death of the letter Z. So, in American English, the word pluralizing has a z, not an s.

Finally, I can say the planet, since it's the only planet we know of such where there exist grammar errors. I don't have to specify this planet as though on other planets they don't make such spelling and/or grammar mistakes. Isn't that just a little nitpicky? Maybe?

Wow, I've really gone off topic here. It would be cool if in a few years down the road some elements of Singularity were used for a new Windows Platform. But that would also mean that all other software developers would need to see its code in order start creating programs for it, especially if it uses completely different application programming interfaces.

Edited September 29, 2009 by devHead

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I think the main thing that needs to be re-done now, is GDI, but MS have handled that nicely. You can create or get a GDI surface (like from a native control) then draw into it using Direct2D, that have provided the ability to completely stop using GDI drawing code while providing hardware acceleration for anti-aliased vector graphics.

...

You're pretty much at the place where you can just pick out problematic/outdated components and rewrite them alone.

What IS likely is simply throwing out old components that are not needed - 16bit went that way, And perhaps 32bit support systems (and the entire WOW64 system, hopefully) will get removed by the next OS' revision.

32bit support won't be removed for a long long time, like a decade or more.

[yeoo_andy_ni]

Here's one to add to the debate, when do you think we'll start getting the dripping pipe? You know leaks! lol

No seriously, when do you think the first alpha builds will start to become available (obviously through less than legitimate sources mind you)? I'd be curious to know what changes they are going to make to the next Windows, I'm thinking WinFS should make a comeback..... no, okay then!

As much as I like Vista and 7 for it's UI and the fact that they are trying to make the OS as idiot proof as possible, I liked the fact that XP was very easy to navigate round and find things. Not that the search functionality in Vista/7 isn't great, but I don't like the fact that to do sharing, change permissions at security level, configure NIC properties are all behind at least 2 new application windows/interfaces.

It's a shame that there couldn't be a more advanced setup implemented from the initial install to allow more advanced users to configure the way they would like to experience Windows from the off, rather than having to go through the install process and then skin & customise the look and feel so that their happy with it. I know that's a big ask, so don't expect it to be a realistic expectation.

[hdood]

I think the main thing that needs to be re-done now, is GDI, but MS have handled that nicely. You can create or get a GDI surface (like from a native control) then draw into it using Direct2D, that have provided the ability to completely stop using GDI drawing code while providing hardware acceleration for anti-aliased vector graphics.

But where is the user interface framework to go with D2D? Until the entire framework is there and Microsoft shows that it's serious about it (ie starts using it), D2D is just going to remain a curiosity.

[iamwhoiam]

Should they build off of previous OS releases and their code, or should they start from ABSOLUTE scratch and build everything from the registery to the calculator from nothing?

You do realize that it's not feasible for them to "start from ABSOLUTE scratch". The only thing I think they need to do for 8 is to trim some of the fat from the system, fix the glitches that were introduced in 7 (which probably won't get fixed for another 10 years) and do further optimization of the code base.

[iamwhoiam]

And NT3.5 was based on?

OS/2

Windows NT was originally intended to be OS/2 3.0, the third version of the operating system developed jointly by Microsoft and IBM. When Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, it was so successful that Microsoft decided to change the primary application programming interface for the still-unreleased NT OS/2 (as it was then known) from an extended OS/2 API to an extended Windows API This decision caused tension between Microsoft and IBM, and the collaboration ultimately fell apart. IBM continued OS/2 development alone, while Microsoft continued work on the newly-renamed Windows NT.

It was the first version of Windows NT

NT 3.1 was the first version of NT, not 3.5.

[Malisk]

Windows is too big to be re-written now, MS will just base it off the previous release as they have been doing for a long time.

Definitely agreed. The day Microsoft rewrites their OS, they could run the former version in a virtual machine, but I honestly don't see a reason for them to do that at this point. The headaches would be enormous, so the advantages would have to be even greater. :s Another idea might be to do it like Apple and use a compatibility layer, so no VM is necessary. But this also has its fair share of disadvantages.

[hdood]

OS/2

That's misleading though. It wasn't just an upgraded version of OS/2, it was a brand new portable OS which would then run OS/2, Windows, and POSIX as separate environments in what's known as subsystems. Things didn't work out with IBM, and Microsoft shifted focus to Windows resulting in POSIX and OS/2 eventually being removed, and the Windows part restructured so that most of it ran as a kernel-mode driver and not a subsystem.

[iamwhoiam]

That's misleading though. It wasn't just an upgraded version of OS/2, it was a brand new portable OS which would then run OS/2, Windows, and POSIX as separate environments in what's known as subsystems. Things didn't work out with IBM, and Microsoft shifted focus to Windows resulting in POSIX and OS/2 eventually being removed, and the Windows part restructured so that most of it ran as a kernel-mode driver and not a subsystem.

It's not misleading as OS/2 was the basis for NT. NT may not be able to run OS/2 PM apps any more but there's still quite a bit of OS/2 code (that was licensed perpetually from IBM at the time) still floating around in Windows. OLE (Object Linking and Embedding), being one example, which was renamed to ActiveX is not a native Microsoft technology.

Maybe you missed this part?

Windows NT was originally intended to be OS/2 3.0

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

But where is the user interface framework to go with D2D? Until the entire framework is there and Microsoft shows that it's serious about it (ie starts using it), D2D is just going to remain a curiosity.

Why do they have to rebuild the user interface components to make the API matter? They didn't do it with GDI+ and that got lots of use.

[REM2000]

It's not misleading as OS/2 was the basis for NT. NT may not be able to run OS/2 PM apps any more but there's still quite a bit of OS/2 code (that was licensed perpetually from IBM at the time) still floating around in Windows. OLE (Object Linking and Embedding), being one example, which was renamed to ActiveX is not a native Microsoft technology.

Maybe you missed this part?

hdood is correct, NT wasn't based on OS/2 it was to be compatible with OS/2 and in turn become the next version of OS/2.

NT was written from the ground up based on mostly dave cutler from the VMS team. IBM and Microsoft had a falling out so they released NT seperately, however it was designed to be very portable and compatible to OS/2 which is why the code was in there, in the same way the many of the NT editions supported Alpha processors.

[hdood]

It's not misleading as OS/2 was the basis for NT.

I didn't miss anything. Saying that OS/2 was the basis for NT is plain out wrong. They are entirely different operating systems. It was only called NT OS/2 in name. An important goal, however, was like I said to implement existing APIs in the various subsystems.

NT may not be able to run OS/2 PM apps any more but there's still quite a bit of OS/2 code (that was licensed perpetually from IBM at the time) still floating around in Windows. OLE (Object Linking and Embedding), being one example, which was renamed to ActiveX is not a native Microsoft technology.

OLE did not come from OS/2, and was certainly never renamed ActiveX (it still exists and is still used).

Also, don't confuse technology with code. While NT implements revised APIs from older 16-bit OSes, the implementations were new (heck, much of the original APIs were implemented in assembly and not portable).

Why do they have to rebuild the user interface components to make the API matter? They didn't do it with GDI+ and that got lots of use.

GDI+ is a software library that offers certain software-based features that sit on top of GDI and a few other APIs. This is entirely different from D2D which is Direct3D.

[meriam]

There will be a re-write at some point. MS is working with other vendors within the TC group. It's still a research group, but promises radical changes.