What's in store for Windows?

well, you have to learn much about memory management.

the os can push itself out of the memory till down to i think 50MB or so which are the actual kernel that has to exist somewhere in the ram. everything else is just in ram for making the system faster. EVERYTHING.

what you don't get as well is the "xp accomplishing similar performance and tasks". that's just massively wrong. it might look that way for the typical ordinary user. but if you know a bit more about systems, you would know how wrong this is. massively wrong.

well, xp is at around 500MB ram usage here after doing all updates.

anyways, they're very close. 100MB on a 4gb system is 2.5% difference. who cares about that?`nobody.

xp stable enough? yes, after years of patching maybe. and still it has much more attack points and chances of failure than win7. one thing is the new driver model. the other thing is the way processes are isolated. win7 has much less places where it can fail. much less. but you would know all of that if you would be interested in the advancements of win7.

 

It can only free up so much RAM. This is where the Free and Available stats come into play. Sure, the Free stat is going to read rather low. It can become as big as the Available stat, but not any bigger. If you try ignoring that then the constant paging activity will render the OS so horribly slow it'll be unusable. More free RAM is better for everyone. The less the OS takes then the more people have for running the countless number of applications they want to (I'm always disguted by the dozens of icons in the average home user's task bar). Sure, memory in general is cheap, but when you're constrained by ridiculous limits Intel and Microsoft have put on certain types of computers then all the memory in the world won't help. When you start kicking things out of RAM to increase the amount available, then you lose the ability to run things like antivirus with any sort of decent performance.

Wow, just wow. Hold on a minute...I need to collect myself here. I am LMAO!

Ok ok...I would expect nothing less from someone that works tech support. Go ahead and try to make the OS do that. It's never going to happen with any sort of usable performance. The OS is going to kick out portions of the program you're trying to run way before it shrinks itself down anywhere near to that level! The OS doesn't dynamically resize itself on demand because you told it to run some memory-intensive app. Sure, it'll kick some of the background applications (like antivirus) out of memory, but it's not going to shrink itself in the way you suggest. I think you need to take some courses on operating systems or go build some kernels from source. Every bit of RAM the OS takes up is one less bit for your applications to use. Optimization is essential. Microsoft was going to do that with an initial design of Vista, but they bailed on it part way through, unfortunately. I do hope they revisit the issue for 8. That would get me excited. I can do without replicating the Mac experience in Windows.

No, it's massively right. If you knew more about the codebase running the various tasks you want to work on then you'd realize the bloat and completely unnecessary layers atop of layers atop of layers of function calls and libraries utilized just to do something simple like plug in an external device, access a Direct3D program, or watch a movie. There is nothing 7 can do that XP can't do. Until Microsoft comes up with some new big thing it will not be able to put XP behind itself. A new GUI, UAC, and a partially implemented kernel architecture is not going to be enough. 8 needs to offer something that XP cannot do. At the moment you can run nearly any important app in either XP or 7 and derive a similar experience. You can connect nearly any consumer device you want and derive a similar experience. You can start or run any program on your machine and experience nearly identical performance between 7 and XP. You can go to any website and have the same experience. XP and 7 do accomplish similar tasks with similar performance. Keep an open mind, take a step back, and objectively evaluate the differences.

500MB RAM usage? Sounds like you need to turn off some of the extra crap that's running. In XP it's as simple as disabling services, startup apps, and unused features. It's rather easy to cut that number in half. That 1201N netbook I have with a fully updated copy of XP SP3 is using right around 260MB after everything has loaded up including protective software. You need to work on your optimization skills and stop expecting someone else to configure the system for your particular set of usage goals.

First, the new driver model still has some drivers running at the kernel level for ease of compatibility and performance issues. The drivers in which are most likely to cause problems are still running in a manner that allows them to do what they want. To use 7's new driver architecture as an example of improvement over XP is to be ignorant of the way it was truely implemented. How Microsoft markets this feature is not how it actually works in all cases. For example, video drivers in 7 are executed in a very similar fashion as what they were in XP. These drivers are a common point of failure. 7 is not going to protect you from something going wrong. It will do a better job of recovering on the fly thanks to Microsoft working closely with manufacturers.

Second, the number of attacks against XP has been steadily dwindling towards none at all. The number of attacks against 7 are escalating. It is entirely possible to easily fortify XP and run it in a manner that eliminates nearly every security threat. Sure, making the initial user an unleashed administrator by default enabled security vulnerabilities most average Joe home users didn't understand. However, I'm of the opinion that I don't want to save people from themselves. You want Microsoft to hold everyone's hand and configure things for them. I'd much rather see users become educated enough to create their own limited accounts or, better yet, use the policy management tools. It doesn't take very long to learn.

 

1) if you are constantly at the limit of ram usage, you get more ram. normal rule that existed since pc's exist. 100MB ram by now are 2.5% of the default ram you have in a system. if you have to bother about that, pay the 5$ for a new gig of ram, and you never have to bother about it.

2) the os can pull out everything except the kernel to disk. and it does. and yes, it will be slow reacting at that moment when you switch back from f.e. a game to the os, when it got completely pulled to disk. captain obvious to the resque.

3) xp can do anything win7 does? well, no. you talk about the massive amount of layers. interestingly, win7 stripped and has rewritten quite some of those layers. gdi/gdi+ f.e. got massively optimized, and got layers stripped. dx10 and dx11 allow much more direct hw programming than dx9, which had layers between (again) that don't exist anymore. network drivers got rewritten to strip out all sort of layers that existed to make it more efficient.

4) well, if you castrate your xp, then it's not at it's default state. if your needs are so low, then castrate it. i like my system fully functional. and then, win7 delivers better, more dynamic adaption to my needs. unlike xp, where you really have to manually disable stuff. thankfully, win7 handles this on it's own

5) the new driver model has 10% of the gpu driver running in kernel mode. 90% is now user mode (that includes anything that interacts with an application). in xp, 100% of the gpu driver is in kernel mode. everything including stuff that never needs to be in there, but, when it has a bug, would result in a bluescreen. shader compilers f.e. are something complex to get right. they should not be in there (but are, in case of opengl)

6) get a mac. if you believe "number of attacks" have anything to do with security, then you're very wrong, but a mac would serve you well. hint: it's a popularity thing. xp got patched now for 9 years, and still isn't as secure as win7 by default. should tell you something (or try to go with the default xp onto the internet. have fun )

 

Most business laptop can be configured with 16GB ram and intel SSD now. I don't see 500MB free ram will make a huge difference.

 

it would be around 100, max 200MB. xp does not use 0 memory..

he's just pissed to have just a crappy netbook like people where pissed at vista back in the days where manufacturers sold "ready for vista" systems that where clearly not ready for vista.

 

My only wish is that they chance everything and start a complete new OS from scratch. I am happy with Windows 7 but the last couple of years they have just been upgrading existing plattforms instead of taking a different approach.

I just finished my "own" OS a year ago, although really small and with nearly no functions and a lot of bugs you can do pretty amazing things with 6 people in a few months. Now imagaine what would happen if MS takes one of their top development teams to start something new instead of upgrading existing codes and making compromises to retain backwards compatibility and what not.

 

actually, with vista, they changed the os under the hood massively. and they have quite some other os' in the work.

but would you buy a windows that could not run any of your apps? no. they have to change slowly, and validate compatibility.

(btw congrats to your os. developing something like this on your own is fun )

 

Well you obviously can't change everything with the next OS. My idea would be to release it parallel to existing versions and slowly let people move on. Basicly it is like the move from 32 to 64 bit, in a way the move from Win9x to a NT based kernel. Always carrying your past code is a really bad habit - sometimes there has to be a big breach to make room for something new.

I know it is utopic but the changes from XP to 7 are really not that much - yes there has been a lot of cosmetic and comfort improvements and some stuff behind the "scenes" has changed. But where are the big things - the visions? Not even a knew file system...

It is like with hardware ... CPUs don't innovate their dies get smaller, the frequency goes up - this will go on until getting smaller is not an option or the heat can't be controlled anymore.

 

XP to Vista was a huge change for device drivers, which fueled the negative publicity against Vista.

When people advocate a complete OS rewrite, they forget this. Vista broke so much legacy software and it pissed people off. Think about the backlash a new OS will create, not to mention it is an incredibly risky investment that may or may not become adopted thanks to the public's lack of computer background.

It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


And whoever said XP can do whatever 7 can do has his head screwed on loose. XP cannot recover from display driver errors. Nor can it properly utilize today's graphic's cards. Nor is it invulnerable to a large percentage of malware out there. Again, much of the device driver model was changed from XP to Vista. Hit up Technet to learn more.

edit:

A new file system is rash, considering NTFS only became mandatory 7 years ago.

 

interestingly, the change from xp to win7 is nearly as drastic as the change from win9x to nt based kernels. they just didn't rewrote it from scratch, but from the knowledge they gained.

a new file system would bring you nothing, which is why they dropped it. their driver model got completely remade to pull out nearly all drivers into user mode. their graphics driver model, completely redone. their application compatibility model, completely redone. their network stack, completely redone. their complete ui, redone.

there's one thing that makes us forget all that: it's still mostly compatible to what was before. they haven't replaced any API. but most of the internals. you can find much more info about what changed internally in nice documents from microsoft.

 

I am happy what MS has done with Windows so far. I noticed every step from Windows 3.11 to Windows 7 and there have a always been improvement in stability, security and usability.

My main complaint is that I want something radically new - which is probably not the best way to satisfy the majority of users and therfor might be a big risk to lose a lot of money. MS is already working on a vast amount of projects - including Barrelfish and this is exactly something I wish for sooner than later. Just emulate prior operating systems to offer compatiblity - yes there will be problems and outcrys of hate but that is life...

 

well, you can't do that. i know it's not like you wan tit, but hey, that's life

no, seriously. if it could be considered, microsoft would have done it. it's not like they don't consider their options well.

 

Yes, but this is Microsoft we are talking about, not Apple. This means that we are talking about a company that tends to show some concern for their customers, rather than one that couldn't care less if their customers have to go out and buy a complete set of new software applications. Of course, there are only about two applications available for Mac OS anyway, so it's not such a big deal.
If you have huge corporations relying on being able to run their legacy software even on future versions of Windows, the outlook is different. While I agree with your sentiment, if Microsoft actually did change their OS radically, even their retail customers would be up in arms. Just imagine all those kids not being able to play their games anymore.

 

Your custom OS is a great example for where MS needs to take Windows 8. I doubt your OS had layers atop of layers of library references, repeated nested function calls, and general bloated functions that do more than their core purpose. Windows features that. It has gotten progressively worse over the past several years. The big problem is that the codebase has become so big and bulky that nobody over there at MS has an idea of what everything does at a low level. People specialize in particular components of the OS and then come together through various interfaces. The result is that compartmentalized teams cannot create code in such a way that it takes the fewest number of commands to achieve a goal. There is a severe lack of optimization. What we have are patches on top of patches on top of other various layers of quick fixes.

Furthermore, the OS is set up from the standpoint of working on an arbitrary number of arbitarily complex configurations and environments without easy ways of slimming things down for a particular use. Your custom OS would serve a very specific function in a limited number of environments. Essentially, it is a master of its trade. Windows is a jack of all trades, master of none. There is plenty of room for improvement in 8 with this regard. More attention needs to be paid for tailoring the OS to the needs of the user rather than a one-size-fits-all approach where the only difference between versions is the inclusion of a handful of features.

In order to see Windows evolve I don't think MS will accomplish that until Google gets serious about competing with them. MS going to support their legacy codebase because that's where the money is. When OS developers get serious about tapping into the cloud we may see the system evolve. At the moment it works in MS's favor to lock things down to their clients, their formats, and their legacy codebase. It's a shame the original vision for Vista and WinMin got canned because that was a step in the right direction.

I was introduced to the concept of display driver errors by Vista. I can't recall a single instance of experiencing a display driver error under XP (except in an instance where I fudged some values when editing a driver). Vista would normally recover, but there were times it failed to do so before SP1. I much prefer the way XP handles critical drivers because it doesn't make them jump through hoops to do their job. As for the OS utilizing the GPU, I don't see why that's necessary. You're drawing windows. That's not exactly intense. 3rd party programs were able to draw Aero-like transparency effects in XP without GPU acceleration. MS just needs to optimize their theme handling code better. There's a lot of ridiculous little animations MS added to Explorer winows that really have no purpose being there. Finally, you can hit up Technet for help making XP invulernable to many threats out there. It's not hard to make the OS-level changes. The hard part is making the user aware of good practices.

Those systems are pretty pricey. Throwing hardware at the problem is a solution, but I'm much more fond of doing more with what already exists.

 

any cheap hw by now has 4gb by default. talk about pricy if 1gb costs around 2-5$.

oh. you didn't have problems with your display driver in xp => xp is best? well, think again: microsoft has all the error logs of all the reported crashes of all the 100s of millions of windows xps out there. and crashing gpu drivers is one of the MAIN reasons for bluescreens. i personally am glad they changed that, to help those 100s of millions of users. sadly, it doesn't help you, as 100% stability can't get "fixed".

edit: and i was in the gamedev scene. we had quite a big project in the works. i would definitely liked to have vista by then. why? if you try out new stuff (back then: pixel shaders), and the drivers crash, on xp it ment bluesreen. on vista, it ment crashing your app, and you can continue to work.

and yes, there where times where i had a bluescreen all 5 minutes. restart, searching for possible bug, maybe fixing it, testing it, BAM, and again.

 

You are talking about changing their project management system and not the OS itself. It is one thing to say the OS is fundamentally flawed, it is another thing to say their project management system is flawed.

Well, if everyone would quit suing Microsoft, then Microsoft could steer the whole industry. Remember back before Microsoft Office? Importing and exporting data between applications was teh suck.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Microsoft supports legacy code because that's what the ecosystem wants.

MinWin, not WinMin, is not an actual OS, but a project to understand the dependencies between different components of Windows and its kernel. The MinWin project is alive and well. That is how we have Server 2008 Core. As the project get farther along, we will get an even smaller and more independent core.

On another note, Server Core will never fly in the consumer market. Consumers don't need more complexity without functionality.

You weren't running XP when it first came out....

New kernel meant all new drivers. Think Vista, except 100 time worse. Which is why most of us here stuck with 98SE until XP SP2, nearly two years later.

Since they run at the kernel level, they actually jump through less hoops. And errors are unrecoverable. The XP drivers you are looking at right are a product of almost a decade of tinkering and testing.

XP still is fundamentally vulnerable to many many attacks.

It is interesting how you advocate a rewrite of the OS. That is what Microsoft did to beef up Windows's security, rather than releasing security path after security patch for an old OS.

Yet it is the mentality of users like you that force Microsoft to support legacy codebase, legacy components, legacy standards, and legacy concepts. Microsoft has programmers with years, even decades of programming experience. Their development tools are unmatched by any other company. I think their track record shows that they want to move forward and improve the industry as a whole.

 

I didn't bother reading the entire thread since its just the same people bickering with each other

But what I want from Windows is some love for netbooks. So yes, despite a world filled with C2D's, C2Q's, and I7's with 4-8gb of ram, I would still want some amazing performance improvements for the little crappy pc with 1gb ram.

 

But why, and more importantly, why would anybody else care? Two years from now, nobody will even remember that passing fad of those dinky little netbooks. You will not be able to buy anything with less than 4GB of memory, and the equivalent of at least a C2D processor, even at the price point of current netbooks.

 

I think netbooks are going to stay for awhile. It definitely was in it's fad stage where they were selling like hotcakes and now the sales have decreased dramatically and I believe they are never going to sell incredibly well again, but I can see them staying around because they do have a market.

A netbook/nettop Windows seems like an interesting concept... Instead of just taking the full version of Windows and crippling it (Like Windows 7 Starter), why not make a Windows version that is based off of the full version but modified to run better and easier on devices such as netbooks?

 

I extremely doubt in 2 years that netbooks/umpc/mid will have 4gb ram and a cpu similar to a c2d. Technology moves fast, but not that fast. Netbooks/umpc/mid were released a few years ago and they really haven't improved that much at all. If there's a large enough market (which there is), then Microsoft should do it.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, other than semantics, what's the real difference between (1) a full version of windows that's been "crippled" and (2) a full version of windows that's been "modified to run better and easier on devices such as netbooks"?

 

Well...'crippled' would suggest that certain functionalities that already exist in the full version of the software are made not available for use on a particular configuration of machines (netbooks in this example). 'Modified' on the other hand would mean configuring the software to operate specifically with a certain class of machines (again, netbooks in this example).

In other words, 'crippled' is to reduce functionality and 'modified' is to redesign the functionalities to exploit the hardware capabilities and to work within the limitations imposed by the hardware....

 

Both remove functionality that exists in the so-called "full version" and are, therefore, indistinguishable. All else is mere semantics.

 

Not really, but I don't think this is the time or the place to argue the point.

 

Yes, really; but I'm just as happy to avoid a pointless argument as you are!

 

There have been rumblings all over Engadget about Microsoft needing to add a netbook/tablet friendly version of Windows.

 

Yeah, all they keep complaining about is how "Windows 7 isn't designed for touch..." Rinse and Repeat....

The thing is though, it IS designed for touch. It's so frustrating to hear them describe how awful it is, how "things aren't sized for touch" and such when it's pretty untrue. The new taskbar, the way everything in the OS automatically enlarges on touch capable hardware, the way the onscreen keyboard is sized and how one uses a *gasp* finger swipe to bring it up..i could go on...

Too bad Microsoft will probably never get credit for it, as people see the iPad's "giant ipod touch" UI and praise it to high heaven, as it's stupidly simplistic.

 

One feature I'm dying to have integrated into Windows is the ability for multiple desktops, like the Spaces feature on OS X or workspaces on Ubuntu.

Also I wanna try WinFS

 

Yeah spaces would be nice too, when I had a Mac it was one of the more used features.

I kind of wish they would slim Windows down a bit too. Right now a fresh Windows 7 install with all the drivers and stuff is about ~20 GBs whereas Mac OS X Snow Leopard is ~9 GBs.

 

Some rumours:

•Fast startup (Huzzah!): A new feature combining Logoff and Hibernate to result will give the look and feel of boot/shutdown be faster
•Slates mentioned specifically as a target form factor: It will be interesting to see how Microsoft distinguishes between slates running Windows Embedded Compact and slates running Windows 8
•Push-button reset: A button “that will essentially reinstall Windows while maintaining all of your personal files, applications, settings, etc. without the need for the user to back all of that stuff up,” as Stephen Chapman of Microsoft Kitchen describes it
•Support for facial recognition as one of the ways identity management/log in will be handled
•IE 9 (no surprise there): With another confirmation of August as being the target for the first beta (though I could see this possibly slipping a bit)
•More thorough help and support, enabling users to do more fixing of issues on their own
•A Windows App Store (mentioned in the section on push-button reset)

Microsoft starts sharing Windows 8 plans with PC partners | ZDNet

Windows 8 Plans Leaked: Numerous Details Revealed | Windows 8, Windows Phone 8, Office 15 | Stephen Chapman @ MSFTKitchen