Windows 7

[CORed]

The semi-opaque objects like the title bar and the task bar sometimes flicker on and off at irregular intervals.

Is Windows 7 trying to tell me something?

Does anyone know Morse code?

Don't try to decode the message. It's from the devil.

 

[uruk]

I just dl it yesterday. I initially had problem on one computer because it was locked down by our sysadmin. The computer did not allow the activex or java downloder to install. I moved to a different computer and dl'ed like a charm. No problems at all.

I just installed it on my ancient Gateway Solo Pro 9300 laptop. 512M RAM, 18 gig HD, and a Pentium 3, and it is running pretty well for being installed on a system that Vista would have laughed at.

Windows 7 is taking up roughly 7 gigs of my hard drive.

The interface is not sluggish at all considering the systems resources. In fact it's kinda snappy for a Pentium3.

I could not run any of the games because I haven't yet installed directX.

And I don't seem to be hitting the virtual RAM on the hard drive too bad considering the limited amount of RAM I have installed on my laptop.

I'm running the "windows experiance index" rating system right now. It took just over 10 minuets to run and it says I have a rating of 1.0. No surprise there.

In all I am surprised that windows 7 installed at all on my ancient laptop. I can't wait for the official release.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I just installed it on my ancient Gateway Solo Pro 9300 laptop. 512M RAM, 18 gig HD, and a Pentium 3, and it is running pretty well for being installed on a system that Vista would have laughed at.

I didn't try to install it on an old convertible I have with 512M of ram because the specs say minimum 1G of ram. Now I think I'll try it to see how it works. Thanks!

 

[GreNME]

They have found that selling something with a 2000 year date on it in 2003 isn't an easy job.

They have also found that people can resist a system that actually works OK (finally) because of a name associated with early problems, but that its easy to put out a dot-version and have people accept that its a different product.

I love this claim. It happens at almost every new Windows release. It's even more funny since there isn't a commercial OS out there who has done the same thing. Apple-- unless you're arguing that Leopard (10.5) is the same as Jaguar (10.2), it seems Apple has been doing it for years. Linux distros-- whether SuSe or Red Hat or others, you're going to be hard-pressed to name why the kernel decimal is still 2.*, and to call distros shipping with the 2.0 kernel and the 2.6 kernel the same version would be pretty damned ludicrous.

Quick! Move the goalpost to make it about how Win 7 is just Vista again!

 

[GreNME]

Oh, and I got RC1 installed last night on my MacBook Pro. The nicest part so far is the lack of the feedback links in the upper right of every window. I haven't gone too deep into it yet outside of that. I'll be installing VPC this weekend and testing out XP Mode. I may even be installing this version of the OS onto my desktop, to see how it runs with the slightly-beefier hardware on it. The other reason to install it on the desktop is to finally get a 64-bit OS version on it (yeah, yeah, MS gave me the Vista version I have now, so I didn't bother to change it) in order to install some 64-bit host OSes.

 

[uruk]

I love this claim. It happens at almost every new Windows release. It's even more funny since there isn't a commercial OS out there who has done the same thing. Apple-- unless you're arguing that Leopard (10.5) is the same as Jaguar (10.2), it seems Apple has been doing it for years. Linux distros-- whether SuSe or Red Hat or others, you're going to be hard-pressed to name why the kernel decimal is still 2.*, and to call distros shipping with the 2.0 kernel and the 2.6 kernel the same version would be pretty damned ludicrous.

Quick! Move the goalpost to make it about how Win 7 is just Vista again!

Yea, I think the whole point of Windows 7 is that it is a complete rewrite of the kernel code.

I think the fact that win7 only has a footprint of 7gigs while Vista's is 20gigs and Win7's interface interaction is much, much, much faster than Vista bears this out.

Win7 is still using the Vista GUI, but the GUI interface is just code running over the Kernel.

I plan to give up my XPsp2 for Win7.

 

[jsiv]

Yea, I think the whole point of Windows 7 is that it is a complete rewrite of the kernel code.

It isn't. Not even close. It's just the Vista kernel with incremental changes, just like Vista was just the XP kernel. If one wanted to be silly one could claim that Windows 7 is just service pack 32 of the original NT OS/2. Rewriting things just for the sake of rewriting them tends to be pointless, and will almost always get you a much buggier product. You can't replicate two decades of work in a couple of years.

I think the fact that win7 only has a footprint of 7gigs while Vista's is 20gigs and Win7's interface interaction is much, much, much faster than Vista bears this out.

Windows 7 isn't much smaller than Vista. Even when the OS itself is only 7GB, you still have to make room for things like system restore, shadow copy, backups, page files, and hibernation. On a system with 4GB RAM these will easily exceed 10GB on their own, and grow further with time.

Win7 is still using the Vista GUI, but the GUI interface is just code running over the Kernel.

In Windows it's actually the things running on top of the kernel that are getting old and are in desperate need of replacing.

If you take the graphics API for instance (which actually is part of the kernel, but never mind), it hails from Windows 1.0 and is probably in the top three list of things that need replacing in Windows. What you think of as "the kernel" doesn't even make it into the top 50 list.

 

[GreNME]

It isn't. Not even close. It's just the Vista kernel with incremental changes, just like Vista was just the XP kernel. If one wanted to be silly one could claim that Windows 7 is just service pack 32 of the original NT OS/2. Rewriting things just for the sake of rewriting them tends to be pointless, and will almost always get you a much buggier product. You can't replicate two decades of work in a couple of years.

Erm, close but not quite. Win 7 was built on the Server 2008 codebase, which is from a similar core code that Vista was built on but a different fork. Also, a great deal of the kernel code was rewritten in Windows 7. The OS that is Windows 7 was built not from scratch, but from the model they started with known as 'MinWin', which is the core components of Windows that doesn't do much other than boot up and take up a few dozen MB of space. While a lot of the code from previous versions might be reused, they are often reworked or rewritten before going into the build. Different in Windows 7 from Vista on a core level will include handling of multiple CPU core cycles, memory usage, changes (again) to the network stack, among other things. Mark Russinovich goes into a little bit of the detail in the linked video.

So, to be fair, the real answer is that no, it was not completely rewritten, but it also has quite a lot of it that has been rewritten, and not just to rebuild the mousetrap. Some of the code was old and needed to be updated to a newer language. Some of the code was inefficient and needed optimization. Some of the code was tossed and rewritten from scratch.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I love this claim. It happens at almost every new Windows release. It's even more funny since there isn't a commercial OS out there who has done the same thing. Apple-- unless you're arguing that Leopard (10.5) is the same as Jaguar (10.2), it seems Apple has been doing it for years. Linux distros-- whether SuSe or Red Hat or others, you're going to be hard-pressed to name why the kernel decimal is still 2.*, and to call distros shipping with the 2.0 kernel and the 2.6 kernel the same version would be pretty damned ludicrous.

In other insanity: .Net 3.0 was just .Net 2.0 with a few bells and whistles added on; while .Net 3.5 was a completely new framework.

 

[jsiv]

Erm, close but not quite. Win 7 was built on the Server 2008 codebase, which is from a similar core code that Vista was built on but a different fork.

Server 2008 and Vista SP1 are identical, but that's not really relevant. The point is that some people (not necessarily in this thread) have this idea in their head that the NT kernel is completely broken and that throwing it out and starting over with blank sheets would somehow yield a better product than one that has been refined for 20 years and isn't even responsible for the fairly major problems Windows has.

Less focus on the kernel and more focus on the graphics and GUI framework, I say. That is one of the parts that actually needs to be both completely redesigned and rewritten. None of it is salvageable, it all has to go. It's not 1985 anymore.

 

[jeremyp]

If you take the graphics API for instance (which actually is part of the kernel, but never mind), it hails from Windows 1.0 and is probably in the top three list of things that need replacing in Windows. What you think of as "the kernel" doesn't even make it into the top 50 list.

There's no code in Windows 7 that is related to the Windows 1.0 code base. Windows 7's origins are in Windows NT which was a completely new operating system. In particular Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95 and 98 where mostly written in assembler. The GDI to which you refer was a 16 bit subsystem that hails from the days of Windows 3.0. You don't think that woulfd be up to modern graphics demands do you?

The last operating system in the Windows 1.0 line was Windows Me. It's dead.

 

[jsiv]

There's no code in Windows 7 that is related to the Windows 1.0 code base. Windows 7's origins are in Windows NT which was a completely new operating system.

NT was not a "completely new operating system." It was designed to be a high-end workstation and server OS based around 32-bit Windows APIs (also known as Win32, and based on the earlier 16-bit APIs), with emulation for OS/2 and 16-bit DOS/Windows, and a POSIX environment. This even went as far as full binary compatibility (on the x86 platform).

Win32, OS/2 and POSIX were originally intended as subsystems running on top of the kernel, however much of Win32 was moved into the kernel to improve performance.

In particular Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95 and 98 where mostly written in assembler. The GDI to which you refer was a 16 bit subsystem that hails from the days of Windows 3.0.

You might think so, but no, GDI is part of Win32 and still forms the basis of everything graphical on Windows (with the exception of things running on Direct3D).

You don't think that woulfd be up to modern graphics demands do you?

It isn't, and that's the problem. It is clearly showing its age, as is User (which implements windowing and GUI stuff, and also comes from the 16-bit world).

The last operating system in the Windows 1.0 line was Windows Me. It's dead.

The OS is dead, but its APIs and limitations live on in Windows 7.

 

[Gangularis]

Win7 is still using the Vista GUI, but the GUI interface is just code running over the Kernel. .

Actually, there are rumors that they're going to release a new GUI for it before it's final release.

 

[SezMe]

Will you Vista users move to 7 when it is released? Why or why not?

 

[GreNME]

Server 2008 and Vista SP1 are identical, but that's not really relevant. The point is that some people (not necessarily in this thread) have this idea in their head that the NT kernel is completely broken and that throwing it out and starting over with blank sheets would somehow yield a better product than one that has been refined for 20 years and isn't even responsible for the fairly major problems Windows has.

Less focus on the kernel and more focus on the graphics and GUI framework, I say. That is one of the parts that actually needs to be both completely redesigned and rewritten. None of it is salvageable, it all has to go. It's not 1985 anymore.

I agree with this, for the most part. It does seem that more and more of the stuff from the older days is being rewritten, but up until the last two versions of Windows (Vista & Win 7) not much redesign was taking place. Now it looks like they're attempting to do more in the realm of redesigning, but it looks like they're now taking small steps instead of a complete framework redesign. Considering the resounding (lack of) success Vista had, it's not unrealistic to see why they're not eager to change too much at a time.

-----

There's no code in Windows 7 that is related to the Windows 1.0 code base. Windows 7's origins are in Windows NT which was a completely new operating system. In particular Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95 and 98 where mostly written in assembler. The GDI to which you refer was a 16 bit subsystem that hails from the days of Windows 3.0. You don't think that woulfd be up to modern graphics demands do you?

While jsiv addressed the specifics of what you're saying, I should also point out that a lot of those things were ported over to the NT line, which is what makes up the Windows family today. The ports consisted of rewrites in newer (and higher-level) languages, but the "way it worked" stayed pretty static over time.

Considering the current (and upcoming) version of Windows are from the NT line, jsiv makes a good point that it's high time for a redesign and rewrite.

-----

The Windows 1.0 codebase came from the 1980's, and the NT line was from the 1990's.

The OS is dead, but its APIs and limitations live on in Windows 7.

And some of the design flaws as well.

 

[Wowbagger]

Will you Vista users move to 7 when it is released? Why or why not?

Most of us software developers, and software addicts probably will.

Business and home users who had specific problems with Vista, that they think are resolved in 7 probably will, as well.

Other than that, who knows?!


ETA: I do think more XP users will switch to this one, if it does, indeed garner a better reputation than Vista.

 

[GreNME]

Will you Vista users move to 7 when it is released? Why or why not?

I'm already using it on my laptop (when I'm not using OS X), and I'll probably dual-boot it soon with my desktop until I get the install disks from Microsoft in my subscription. When I get the full release copy, I'll definitely be switching over.

Why? The GUI workflow is better suited to the way I work with the operating system. I'll be able to better handle the way I launch (and manage) the programs I run on the operating system compared to the way Vista/XP allows me to. Since it will include the same underlying capabilities for Group Policy and system management that Vista will have, I'll include it in my work systems as they get replaced. The inclusion of XP Mode for Win 7 essentially helps me at work with regard to getting software transitioned with less hassle than with Vista, making it easier to leapfrog Vista in the office than it would be to transition incrementally. All in all, I'll be switching over to Windows 7 because it'll better suit my home computing habits and because it's a viable upgrade to the systems I manage at work.

 

[uruk]

It isn't. Not even close. It's just the Vista kernel with incremental changes, just like Vista was just the XP kernel. If one wanted to be silly one could claim that Windows 7 is just service pack 32 of the original NT OS/2. Rewriting things just for the sake of rewriting them tends to be pointless, and will almost always get you a much buggier product. You can't replicate two decades of work in a couple of years.


Windows 7 isn't much smaller than Vista. Even when the OS itself is only 7GB, you still have to make room for things like system restore, shadow copy, backups, page files, and hibernation. On a system with 4GB RAM these will easily exceed 10GB on their own, and grow further with time.


In Windows it's actually the things running on top of the kernel that are getting old and are in desperate need of replacing.

If you take the graphics API for instance (which actually is part of the kernel, but never mind), it hails from Windows 1.0 and is probably in the top three list of things that need replacing in Windows. What you think of as "the kernel" doesn't even make it into the top 50 list.

All this may be so, All I know is that I am running Win7, and very well I might add, on a system that Vista won't even install on.

 

[uruk]

Will you Vista users move to 7 when it is released? Why or why not?

I'm an old XP stalwart. I'm planning to migrate to Win7. It seems to a bit quicker than Vista.

I'm also picking up a tablet PC and Win7 seems to have some neat touch features.

 

[PhreePhly]

NT was not a "completely new operating system." It was designed to be a high-end workstation and server OS based around 32-bit Windows APIs (also known as Win32, and based on the earlier 16-bit APIs), with emulation for OS/2 and 16-bit DOS/Windows, and a POSIX environment. This even went as far as full binary compatibility (on the x86 platform).

NT is absolutely written from the ground up. MS brought Dave Cutler, the father of VMS from Digital and he was the architect of this Brand New operating system. Windows NT was written new from scratch. The Win32 API was being developed at the same time for use in OS/2, which MS and IBM were writing jointly. When MS saw how well Window 3.1 was doing, they decided not to move forward with their part of OS/2. Gates wanted the new NT to be able to run Windows 3.1 programs. Win32 was a rather poor extention of Win16 and that was blamed on time constraints. The development of Windows NT is detailed quite well in the book Showstopper! The breakneck race to create Windows NT and the Next Generation at Microsoft by G. Pascal Zachary

Win32, OS/2 and POSIX were originally intended as subsystems running on top of the kernel, however much of Win32 was moved into the kernel to improve performance.

Most of Win32 still resides in User land, not the kernel.

You might think so, but no, GDI is part of Win32 and still forms the basis of everything graphical on Windows (with the exception of things running on Direct3D).

It isn't, and that's the problem. It is clearly showing its age, as is User (which implements windowing and GUI stuff, and also comes from the 16-bit world).

Not in Vista and Win 7. The DWM, which is the new compositing engine is the base graphical engine. If you are not running Aero, then you revert to GDI+, however that is no longer a hardware driven process, but emulated in software. The DWM makes use of the hardware, which is why Vista and Win 7 require a DirectX 9 capable video card.

The OS is dead, but its APIs and limitations live on in Windows 7.

Also, there were significant kernel changes in Vista. That is why the Vista kernel jumped a version. Win 7 is basically the XP to Windows 2000. I also think the concept of a total rewrite is crazy. There is absolutely no need. The NT kernel base is as modern as any other out there.

PhreePhly