Anyone for Vista?

[Tyler]

I see vista as the start of end for microsoft. They are clearly interested on making profit, but they do not care anything about what do users get in exchange.

I actually believed the Vista was a practical joke when i first saw it. After the hundreth UAC message i decided they must have enough money already and think this will be funny... unfortunately they are serious.

[JAAman]

Your criticism aims at the wrong spot. I would be more interested in whether I would still be able to downgrade to XP on the same computer if Vista is seriously broken, because that's what I am able to do with commercial / shareware upgrades...

i havent seen the vista EULA yet, but i hear its exactly the same as XPs -- and MS software (including OSs) have always been valid for all previous versions -- what your buying is a license to use any version of the product up to the latest at the time of your purchase -- meaning i can use my XP license to install win95B, or 98, or ME (ya, like anyone would want to do that one...), etc

but your right -- that cannot install on another computer is only for the upgrade -- if you buy OEM or FULL, then you are welcome to install your XP on any computer you want (and OEM is cheaper than upgrade anyway)

[Alboin]

Although it is arguably a money fueled os in implementation, I think Vista is ironic. I am talking about the microkernel-monolithic kernel debate that occurred sometime ago by Tanenbaum and Trovalds. We can see now that many, if not most of the world's most popular operating systems are slowly converting to a microkernel based structure, whether they realize it or not.

For instance, Windows was a monolithic kernel. (Until XP.) Now, it's a hybrid type system, which is, slowly becoming more of a microkernel. (In Vista, I believe that they've separated the GUI from the kernel...Or was this in XP?) Mac OS X is a microkernel, and Linux is a monolithic kernel with strong microkernel aspects to it. (Like Kernel loadable modules.)

Apparently, Tanenbaum was right about microkernels being the future. (Or not, depending on how accurate my information is...)

Just a thought....

Postscript: Does anyone know if there is a way to have animated desktop wallpapers in Linux? I read that Vista can use them on Wikipedia.

[JAAman]

actually, the GUI hasnt been part of the kernel since at least win95 (not sure about win3.1 and earlier)

the GUI is a separate program usually loaded on startup (in ring3 btw), though not necessarily -- it isnt loaded if you tell windows to boot to command line either by pressing 'restart in MSdos mode' or using the boot menu's 'command line' option, or editing the boot script to boot to the CLI -- and can easily be replaced by any window manager by simply editing a line in the windows boot script

[Brynet-Inc]

actually, the GUI hasnt been part of the kernel since at least win95 (not sure about win3.1 and earlier)

Windows 1x/2x/3x/95/98/ME run on top of DOS.. (DOS was technically the kernel).

If you want to learn more about how NT works, Try looking up ReactOS or TinyKRNL for information learnt from reverse engineering NT.

@Alboin, Loading modules doesn't automatically classify a kernel as a Microkernel, FreeBSD as an example can load kernel modules, But is is still apparently monolithic, Just simply a Modular monolithic kernel.

The following are example Hybrid kernel's..

Code: Select all

    * BeOS kernel
          o Haiku kernel
    * BSD-based
          o DragonFly BSD (first non-Mach BSD OS to use a hybrid kernel)
          o XNU kernel (core of Darwin, used in Mac OS X)
    * NetWare kernel
    * Plan 9 kernel
          o Inferno kernel
    * NT kernel (used in Windows NT, 2000, 2003; XP, Vista)
          o ReactOS kernel

Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel

[Alboin]

@Alboin, Loading modules doesn't automatically classify a kernel as a Microkernel, FreeBSD as an example can load kernel modules, But is still apparently monolithic.

I didn't say that Linux was a microkernel. Nor did I say it was a hybrid. I said it was a monolithic kernel with microkernel influences. Nothing more, nothing less. This is far from saying that it is a microkernel.

[Tyler]

actually, the GUI hasnt been part of the kernel since at least win95 (not sure about win3.1 and earlier)

Windows 1x/2x/3x/95/98/ME run on top of DOS.. (DOS was technically the kernel).

If you want to learn more about how NT works, Try looking up ReactOS or TinyKRNL for information learnt from reverse engineering NT.

@Alboin, Loading modules doesn't automatically classify a kernel as a Microkernel, FreeBSD as an example can load kernel modules, But is still apparently monolithic.

The following are example Hybrid kernel's..

Code: Select all

    * BeOS kernel
          o Haiku kernel
    * BSD-based
          o DragonFly BSD (first non-Mach BSD OS to use a hybrid kernel)
          o XNU kernel (core of Darwin, used in Mac OS X)
    * NetWare kernel
    * Plan 9 kernel
          o Inferno kernel
    * NT kernel (used in Windows NT, 2000, 2003; XP, Vista)
          o ReactOS kernel

Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel

If you think ReactIOS is a good example of Windows code, no wonder you don;t like windows lol.

I don't beleive the Hybrid Kernel **** about Windows.. mostly because it is rubbish. The kernel is not even modular... it is one big file whose code they seperate into idealic components in text but not in reality.

[Brynet-Inc]

If you think ReactIOS is a good example of Windows code, no wonder you don;t like windows lol.

I don't beleive the Hybrid Kernel **** about Windows.. mostly because it is rubbish. The kernel is not even modular... it is one big file whose code they seperate into idealic components in text but not in reality.

Wow that's a lot of spelling errors..

ReactOS is a perfect example of a open source implementation of NT, It's already implemented a great deal of the NT API from what information has been made available.

TinyKRNL will eventually help out with not code, But documentation learnt from their non-clean room investigations.

I simply state the fact that I don't like the NT design, Is that wrong? I've done my research.. It's perfectly valid.. So I'm free to voice my opinions why I think UNIX-like designs are superior, If you don't like it.. You're all welcome to ignore my posts freely.

Back to the subject at hand, If you actually read the Hybrid Kernel article you'll see why it's classified as a Hybrid.

[Tyler]

If you think ReactIOS is a good example of Windows code, no wonder you don;t like windows lol.

I don't beleive the Hybrid Kernel **** about Windows.. mostly because it is rubbish. The kernel is not even modular... it is one big file whose code they seperate into idealic components in text but not in reality.

Wow that's a lot of spelling errors..

ReactOS is a perfect example of a open source implementation of NT, It's already implemented a great deal of the NT API from what information has been made available.

TinyKRNL will eventually help out with not code, But documentation learnt from their non-clean room investigations.

I simply state the fact that I don't like the NT design, Is that wrong? I've done my research.. It's perfectly valid.. So I'm free to voice my opinions why I think UNIX-like designs are superior, If you don't like it.. You're all welcome to ignore my posts freely.

Back to the subject at hand, If you actually read the Hybrid Kernel article you'll see why it's classified as a Hybrid.

Well i apologise for my two spelling mistakes and misplaced semicolon. As i do not believe it redces readability or adds to the conversation i see not reason to bring it up...

I could easily rewrite Linux with the same Native API as windows... so i do not think it shows for the quality of the system. As for the article, i have read it, and still believe it to be incorrect. Each to there own, instead of seding me of to other peoples arguments, i would be interested to hear you own reasoning.

[Brynet-Inc]

I've stated my reasoning on many occasions, I'm starting to get annoyed "edumacating" the masses.

And I don't care that you claim to be able to build onto their poorly designed kernel.

NT is crap.. JFGI

Justing ******* Google It!!

Learn it.. Learn it soon..

[Alboin]

I've stated my reasoning on many occasions, I'm starting to get annoyed "edumacating" the masses.

And I don't care that you claim to be able to build onto their poorly designed kernel.

NT is crap.. JFGI

Justing ******* Google It!!

Learn it.. Learn it soon..

Nice; so we've gone from not suggesting any Microsoft products, to downright screaming that his opinion is wrong and yours is absolute truth. Awesome, truly awesome.

[Brynet-Inc]

Hey, Everyone has a limit Alboin.. One can take only so much.

[Colonel Kernel]

It always annoys me how woefully misinformed people are about the architecture of Windows. Love it or hate it (or merely tolerate it), it's the most widely deployed OS in history... you'd think more technical folks would get the story straight.

Here it is, so that you guys can argue over real facts for a change.

A Brief History of Windows Architecture

Windows 1, 2, 3.0: Real-mode. These could accurately be called shells on top of DOS.

Windows 3.1 (and some editions of 2 and 3): 16-bit protected mode. This was when Win16 applications first appeared. DOS was used for file I/O and whatnot, but I believe it was run in V8086 mode (was this available on the 286? I'm not sure), so there was a rudimentary 16-bit "kernel" of sorts. MS called this "standard mode".

Windows 3.11 (and some editions of 3.1, 3, and maybe 2): 32-bit protected mode. This was when Win32S (the stopgap between Win16 and Win32) first appeared. This had a true protected-mode kernel (called the Virtual Machine Manager), but still ran 16-bit protected mode applications and ran DOS apps and drivers in V8086 mode. MS called this "386 enhanced mode".

Windows 95, 98, and ME: These all have the same 32-bit protected mode VMM kernel, but starting with Windows 95 protected-mode drivers (VXDs) were used wherever possible. Win32 became the dominant API, although Win16 was still supported by these OSes natively. The wacky address-space requirements of Win16 apps is what led to the instability of these Windows versions -- because parts of each address space (the part containing Win16 code) shared the same memory. Ick.

Windows NT, 2000, XP, Vista: These all run on the NT kernel, the design of which is influenced very heavily by VMS (both were designed by Dave Cutler). Win32 was first introduced here as a layer on top of the "native" NT system call API. Win16 apps were run via emulation in a host process called wowexec (Windows On Windows), while DOS apps were run via emulation by NTVDM.EXE. V8086 mode was not used at all.

When things moved in and out of user space in NT:

1. The GUI was entirely in user-space in NT 3.1, 3.5, and 3.51, but the graphics drivers were in kernel-space (as were pretty much all the drivers).
2. The GUI was moved into the kernel in NT 4.0 for performance reasons (it is a "special" kernel-mode driver called win32k.sys).
3. Parts of the graphics drivers, USB drivers, and other classes of drivers (excluding storage and networking) have been moved out into user-space in Vista via "I/O redirection". Basically, DeviceIoControl() calls get redirected by the kernel to services (Windows equivalent of daemons) running in user-space. I believe (but am not 100% sure) that the GUI itself still runs in kernel-mode, but I could be wrong. It's not clear to me where the boundary between GDI and USER was as of NT4, and now with Vista's new 3D UI, I'm not sure how these APIs work anymore.

Vista is arguably becoming more like a microkernel, if only in the sense that more and more drivers are running in user-space. However, this was hacked on, not designed into the system from day one. The NT kernel is still a very large and complex beast.

I would consider NT and Linux to both be hybrids in the sense that they allow for "kernel modules" or their equivalent, but NT still sort of has the notion of user-space "environment subsystem servers" that, in theory at least, can put different API "personalities" on top of the NT system call API (e.g. -- the OS/2 and POSIX sub-systems of yore, as well as legacy support for Win16 and DOS, and legacy support for Win32 on 64-bit systems).

On another note, Mac OS X is not a microkernel-based OS. Mach was a microkernel, but slowly accrued stuff over the years. The Mac OS X kernel, xnu, is actually Mach plus its BSD subsystem server plus its driver framework all running in kernel-mode. It's sort of a hybrid as well.

Really, most mainstream OS architectures are very similar (and therefore very boring, at least from a research perspective). Also, I would argue that they are all fundamentally equally insecure by design.

The difference comes in implementation. MS made a lot of bad decisions about how to organize things in user-space that have led to security problems over the years (not making executables read-only by default, letting users run as administrator by default, ActiveX, etc.). So, Brynet, I'm wondering why you think it's the NT architecture, as opposed to the steaming pile called "Windows" put on top of NT, that is the source of the security problems.

[Candy]

Hey, Everyone has a limit Alboin.. One can take only so much.

We don't care what your limit is. We only care what you do with it - scream, shout & kick or just plain walk away & keep your respect toward the other people here that have to scroll over the nonsense you blurt otherwise.

If you can't even keep order after warning, I think we're better off with this thread locked.