In addition to the information provided by #5, what people also seemed to have completely missed about the presentation of the MinWin demonstration is that it is essentially the Vista kernel as it exists today, it is just a slightly newer build forked after the Windows 2008 server NT build. It is nothing special or new whatsoever except it was compiled with an HTTP server interface at the core layer.
So the whole demostration wasn't about something new, it was about what is when you strip the upper layers of the OS away. MinWin is Vista's core OS, and it is shocking that people didn't understand that from the demonstration as this was specifically talked about that MinWin was just the NT OS but a slightly newer fork from Vista and moddifed to only have the HTTP interface API instead of a full subsystem like Win32 as the NT client/server kernel is designed to have and work with higher level OS level API sets.
NT is and always has been a well designed kernel and OS underlying architecture, and this was nothing more than a demostration of this.
Vista only gets big when you add on the subsystems. Take the NT HAL originally it was designed to be under 64K, around Win2k/XP days it grew to around 120-150K, in Vista it is still only 250K, and it has to deal with all the new core hardware technologies in addition to all the legacy hardware and x86 as well.
Vista gets big especially when you consider the Win32/Win64 subsystems and the legacy and complexity that exist in just the Win32 subsystem as it goes back to code from the late 80s because it still has Win16 compatibility layer, and all the NT Win32 work from 1990 to the current date.
Another thing that gets missed in the contrast of bloat in size from Vista to XP is that Vista revamped the Video, Audio, Display, Internal Com, Network Stack, Printing subystem, and added a new API set that is a dual 2D/3D managed XML based UI API.
The added 'new' alone is large, but also then remember that Vista will STILL work with XP based audio drivers, XP based Video drivers, XP based printer drivers, XP based network drivers; and in doing so, many of these old drivers run beside the new Vista systems, as then run in the old context and on legacy code that was 'kept' specifically so XP technology could easily move to Vista. So when printing to a EMF/GDI based printer driver, Vista has to convert it from XPS/XAML to EMF or when printing from an old application that sends the information to the printer in GDI/EMF format and the printer is new and use a XPS based driver, it has to convert this to XPS. And it does all of this flawlessly, to the point where people don't see that Vista is much different than XP because all of the compatibility and duality of the new and old systems in Vista do work so well.
Also look at the complexity of handling to Video driver constructs and two Video subsystems. Using old drivers, it has to work like XP did, let it run in kernel mode and also convert new application constructs to work on the old model. Then there is the new WDDM/LDDM driver model of Vista, and in addition to working well, running in a hybrid kernel/user mode, it also has to work flawlessly when running old applications and supporting the new APIs and constructs of the WDDM/LDDM video system that adds in GPU scheduling, GPU virtualization, a Composer, etc.
MinWin is great, but it is nothing special, new or nothing that doesn't already exist on every Vista based computer in the world, it is just NT at the core with no subsystem layers.
Mary Jo and others keep confusing this issue and trying to build MinWin to be a new direction or Windows 7 and it is not. Everyone here needs to write the authors of stories like this and let them know that they should acutally watch the MinWin presentation fully and stop calling it new, and instead realize it is just a different look at Windows of today - barebones.
|