ie8 fix

Microsoft confirms MinWin is in Windows 7, after all

By | November 3, 2008, 5:24am PST

Summary: MinWin — the core of the Windows operating system — is, indeed, in Windows 7. It’s just not part of it in the way many people (including yours truly) initially assumed.

MinWin — the core of the Windows operating system — is, indeed, in Windows 7. It’s just not part of it in the way many people (including yours truly) initially assumed.

Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich, who detailed via a Channel 9 Webcast last week how Windows 7 would  run on up to 256 processors, tackled yet again the MinWin bugaboo during that same episode.

(I say “bugaboo” because ever since Microsoft officials first discussed MinWin, there’s been confusion over whether it would be part of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. Nervous about setting off customers’ alarm bells around more low-level changes to Windows, like happened with Vista, the Microsoft brass have been repeating that Windows 7’s kernel won’t deviate from Vista’s, so all drivers and apps that work on Vista should work on 7.)

What, exactly, is MinWin? That’s been another thorny issue that Microsoft execs have been reticent to detangle. After listening to Russinovich, here’s my best attempt at explaining the concept:

MinWin is the core of Windows, but it is not the same as Windows Server Core. If you could “cut” Windows and shuffle around some application programming interfaces (APIs) so that it would be a standalone, bootable, testable mini OS, MinWin is what it would look like. It’s the heart of Windows, organized in a way so that none of the included parts has any dependencies on anything outside of MinWin.

As Russinovich noted, MinWin includes some kernel interfaces, but it is not simply the Windows kernel. Some part of the kernel32 implementation didn’t belong in MinWin, he said. After tinkering with what did/didn’t belong, the team ended up layering kernel32 on top of the Windows kernel base, he said.

Russinovich described MinWin as the bottom-most part of Windows. He also called it “Cutler’s NT,” meaning the core Windows operating system as developed by Microsoft Technical Fellow Dave Cutler. MinWin is about 25 MB on disk,  he said. It includes the executive subsystem, networking components and possibly file-system drivers (which sound like they are optional).

In the October 28 Webcast, Russinovich makes no bones about it: MinWin is part of the Windows 7 source code tree. He said that MinWin had just been loaded into the Windows 7 build tree.

What I’m still not 100 percent clear on: Will MinWin ship to customers as part of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008? (Could it be “in” the bits, but not turned on — kind of like the “Superbar” that is actually in the M3 pre-beta that Professional Developer Conference attendees got and blogger Rafael Rivera found a way to expose?) Or is MinWin simply an internal tool for Microsoft’s developers to use in designing future versions of Windows, which Microsoft is hoping to make more streamlined and less onerous to build?

“Now we can innovate in MinWin,” Russinovich said during the aforementioned Webcast, with no further explanation of how/when/where.

By “cleaning up” Windows by making the “layers” of the operating system more distinct and less interdependent, Microsoft is paving the way for being able to switch out parts of the operating system. Remember: RedHawk/MinSafe (a project in which Russinovich is involved) is about decoupling Win32 from Windows and replacing it with managed code.

Readers: Anyone have new observations or insights on MinWin to share, given the latest brain dump by Russinovich?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

67
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft confirms MinWin is in Windows 7, after all
dfwekrdfe4401-24353680881665828107376873441262 11th Nov
ngzqbp,good post!
0 Votes
+ -
Geee ......
Linux_4u! 3rd Nov 2008
Sounds like the stole ... errr "emulated" a page right out of the *NIX playbook ....
0 Votes
+ -
Hey, you're turning green....with envy.
transposeIT 3rd Nov 2008
Better elaborate on your claims or its nothing but lies. As any Linux fanboy is wont to do everytime Windows comes up with something new. It's FUD time.
0 Votes
+ -
QDOS under the hood?
jefmud 4th Nov 2008
I don't think MinWin bears that much resemblance to the *NIX kernel. MinWin is not exactly a clean start, but should have quite a bit of backward compatibility to allow operation with existing networking and file-systems. It's a step in the right direction, for sure.

It's strange to think how Gates original purchase of QDOS from Tim Patterson in 1981 is still lurking in the Windows evolved DNA -- maybe not any actual code, but certainly conceptual design.
0 Votes
+ -
Dave Cutler's NT
daengbo 4th Nov 2008
The comment that this is Dave Cutler's NT is telling. Cutler was one of the VAX/VMS guys that was brought over to MS from DEC to make the original NT microkernel -- you know, the one that ran on Alpha and MIPS. It was Unix-like and extremely portable.

Cutler's NT implies the kernel will be more Unix-like than you think.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler_(software_engineer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Dave Cutler's NT
steve.deller@... 13th Nov 2008
Dave Cutler developed RSX-11A long before VAX/VMS -- that was back in the early 1970's.

RSX-11A was a minimalist "Real Time System Executive". I remember working with it -- it took a while to understand how the drivers "registered" themselves rather than being built in. Truly innovative at the time.

I used it with one of my projects on a PDP-11.

In spite of its name, RSX-11A had no relationship to RSX-11B,C,D, or M.

I have a vague recollection that Dave also worked on RSX-11D, but forget in what role (the leader on RSX-11D was Hank Krejci).

When I saw (back in the 90's) that Dave was the senior architect on NT, I actually started to think MS would be a good system to work on. I switched after NT came out from Solaris/Ultrix systems and have been satisfied since (though the layers on top of NT have been, at times IMO, corrupted).

Regards,
Steve Deller
0 Votes
+ -
Mary Jo,

After watching the video last week as well, my take away was that the current incarnation of MinWin IS in the kernel plans for Windows 7.

That said, I took Mark's discussion to be that MinWin is as much a process as it is a thing. He refers many times to the fact that the NT kernel and all it's internal dependencies has gotten messy. Kernel's hate to be messy, it makes them hard to manage.

So I take Mark's discussion to mean that the kernel group has spent a LOT of time mapping and understanding how all of the different kernel parts reference one another and getting them layerd in an appropriate way so that they aren't constantly referring back to themselves in ways that might be unexpected or unanticipated.

In that respect it isn't all that different from Apple's OS X Darwin core: you can boot it and do several low level type things with it, but to anybody other than a kernel developer it's pretty worthless from a functionality standpoint. That's not to trivialize it, there is a LOT of technology baked into a kernel, it just takes other things higher in the stack to make it go.

Server Core on the other hand I took to not mess with the kernel very little if at all. Instead they wacked services and other behind the scenes bits to see if they could reduce the surface area of the OS and a set of specific applications. If you want to run a web server do you need Aero for instance? Clearly no (this is a trivial example of course), so they remove it from the build entirely. I take this to be a response on two fronts: one is defense in depth (i.e. smaller attack area = fewer attack vectors) as well as a response to Linux which has ALWAYS had a composable OS stack.
0 Votes
+ -
You're right
Kaiwai 3rd Nov 2008
There is also the benefit that maintenance should be alot
easier for the programmers are Microsoft which should
result in more robust updates, better compatibility, faster
updates and upgrades given that the fear of all hell
breaking lose somewhere else won't occur.

It is great that Microsoft have been willing to admit there is
a problem - and they've spent time to actually fix the
problem. If Windows 7 turns out to be as good as they
promised - its going to be a temptation to upgrade my
iMac and MacBook to a Thinkpad/ThinkCentre at the end
of next year/beginning of the following year.
MinWin is in Windows Vista as well in Windows 7 (same core of Vista)
There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of what MinWin actually is. MinWin is more of a software engineering project than a tangible user-level feature.

Anyone who has worked with a large software project knows how complicated the interedependencies between modules can become. Windows is as big and as complicated as any. After a while, the original modularization of the code-base becomes so riddled with these complications that it's impossible to rebuild one module without also rebuilding many other seemingly unrelated modules. This becomes a huge burden both on compile times and also on isolating bugs.

What MinWin appears to be, from the interviews I've read, is a methodical attempt to refactor the modules in Windows from the ground up to have as few interdependencies as possible. It's not a major redesign of the kernel from a functional perspective, because it isn't changing how the code actually works. Rather, it's a major change in the way that the code is organized, such that the developers have a more logically stratified and quicker building code base to work with.

This isn't the sort of feature that one could enable with a registry hack. In fact, it's highly unlikely that even the most knowledgable end-user could identify whether or not they were running on a MinWin kernel or the old disorganized one. The impact is on the productivity of Microsoft's Windows developers and on the precision and universality that updates can be targeted to multiple platforms.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Defining MinWin
Mary Jo Foley 3rd Nov 2008
Yes, based on Russinovich's latest explanation, MinWin does sound like it's both a project and an actual "thing."

He also said it is now in the Windows 7 build tree. He didn't say whether it would ship to customers in some form when Win7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 ship.

My guess is that it might ship with Windows 7 but fail to be the core upon which Windows 7 is built. I wouldn't be surprised to see Windows 8 built on top of the MinWin core, however.... But that's just a pure guess on my part, given how far along Windows 7 is to being done....

Thanks for responding. mj
0 Votes
+ -
MinWin is not an edition of Windows, nor a product
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 3rd Nov 2008
MinWin should really have been called MinKernel.

Think about the various layers of Windows:

Your Apps
|
Win32
|
-----------
|
Kernel
|
Executive
|
HAL

The executive + HAL + a few select parts of the Kernel (i.e. networking, storage IO) essentially form the core of the OS' kernel.

MinWin is an engineering effort to remove dependencies from the minimal core of the OS to outerlying components.

Whilst dicing up the OS to make this OS core "elemental" and "indivisible", existing kernel components will still be able to find functionality that they depend upon in the same libraries (because the functionality still resides there or because they are forwarded to newly re-factored libraries).

MinWin, as it stands today as a refactoring of the core kernel, is not much use right now for anything outside of the core OS executive and kernel. However, it's likely that the MinWin effort will continue to slice and dice the OS up into more granular, well-defined, well-tested "chunks" that can be combined to create smaller, more efficient versions of the OS.
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely Spot on
AuzzieBob 5th Nov 2008
Sounds like a lot of people are confused here. The last post was generally spot on.

Minwin is actually a project, not a salable product. This is why Microsoft execs are reticent to make a big deal out of it. It is not something your can can put in a brochure otherwise it would go something like this:

"Windows 7 now includes Minwin where we have refactored the libraries, and removed some code duplication and interdependence on library code. The kernel has been reshaped so recommend you upgrade to Windows 7 as soon as possible"

What is going to sell them, is the statements"

"Windows 7 is now slimmer, faster, quicker to boot, and capable of running on any hardware that you are running Vista on now, and many late model machines running XP. Try our compatability centre and test your PC now"

No mention of MinWin, but based on information gleaned from various sources regarding speed and capability to run on devices that you may not have considered running Vista on, the Windows 7 product, does appear to have some of the changes/improvements contributed by the MinWin. It may not have all of the contributions from the MinWin project, which probably means more to come.

We can only wait and see, but I honestly believe that it is not a product but a project/baseline that they can build from. It had to be done, the current Windows design is unsustainable.
0 Votes
+ -
No use trying to explain
Kaiwai 3rd Nov 2008
Mary and Co seem to think that MinWin is actually a physical
product that is going to ship. When the guy said that it is in
the Windows 7 tree, it means that the changes made re-
factoring it have been merged into the tree already. I don't
know why people here are jumping around doing high kicks
with pom-poms when it is pretty obvious that MinWin isn't
an actual product (nor will it ever be).
0 Votes
+ -
That's now obvious.
Skalecki 4th Nov 2008
I wrote my original reply prior to listening to the actual interview. Now that I have heard the Channel 9 interview (which I greatly enjoyed), I'm completely astounded that this article was written. It could not have been more clear on what MinWin is and isn't, why it's cool/useful (from a development perspective NOT an end-user perspective), and how it's being used in Windows 7 and beyond (future Server Core releases, etc.).
0 Votes
+ -
What's more interesting
Kaiwai Updated - 5th Nov 2008
Is the movement to separate it even more; its logical; you
shouldn't have parts of the bottom layer dependent on
things at the top - its completely illogical and counter
intuitive having parts at the bottom dependent on layers at
the top.

Hopefully once the movement is that each layer is only
dependent on the layer below then it should mean greater
flexibility to make changes without all hell breaking loose
somewhere else.
0 Votes
+ -
Hmm ...
Yagotta B. Kidding 3rd Nov 2008
Sounds like something between Tom's Root/Boot and single-user repair mode.
0 Votes
+ -
Just joking.

It brings back old school memories though. if I remember, that was the mac OS release that was supposed to include multitasking, although we had to wait for X for the "real thing".
0 Votes
+ -
Its there in the 6801 build
PB_z 3rd Nov 2008
The DLL that Mark mentions, kernelbase.dll and described as "Windows NT BASE API Mini Client DLL", is there in build 6801 and is in use by all applications. Using Dependency Viewer, you can see that kernel32.dll has had numerous functions forwarded to kernelbase.dll as Mark mentioned.

There are also several other new DLLs like secbase.dll, which appear to have come from a breakdown of advapi32.dll.

So MinWin is there, and I highly doubt there's any going back at this point.
0 Votes
+ -
Could the stripped down kernel be what is required to make the "instant on" feature work? It would make sense that something stripped down would be required to make that feature work. Min-win would seem to fit that.
0 Votes
+ -
Instant what on?
Yagotta B. Kidding 3rd Nov 2008
Could the stripped down kernel be what is required to make the "instant on" feature work?

That depends on what you want to be "on." Enough to run a graphical web browser (read: MSIE) and e-mail client (read: MSOutlook) is going to be a lot of "min."
0 Votes
+ -
MinOut and MinInt anyone?
SamCPP 3rd Nov 2008
Yes well outlook is a large overhead for any sized kernel to load. They would have to complement MinWin with less bloated versions of their apps! *gasp*
0 Votes
+ -
Windows already does "Instant On"
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 4th Nov 2008
The several Vista machines I own and operate are set to go to sleep when they're idle for long enough. Sleep takes 7 seconds on average.

When I want to wake one up, I touch a key on the attached keyboard and with 2-3 seconds, the machine is on.

Last weekend, I raced my desktop and my DVD player. I was astonished to see that Vista was up and running faster than my DVD player was able to begin outputting to the screen.
0 Votes
+ -
Instant on?
martian@... 5th Nov 2008
You call that instant on?
The generally accepted definition involves a "cold boot".
I'd be amazed if that took less than 30 seconds with Vista...
0 Votes
+ -
MinWin
FiOS-Dave 3rd Nov 2008
And how will this improve the user experience???
0 Votes
+ -
Heard this days ago already...
Kromaethius 3rd Nov 2008
NT
0 Votes
+ -
And it matters how?
No_Ax_to_Grind 3rd Nov 2008
Seriously, how does this matter at all to users?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
How this matters to users
Mary Jo Foley 3rd Nov 2008
If you believe that a slimmer, less bloated, lighter-weight Windows might ultimately be the result of the work Microsoft is doing around MinWin, I'd say it might matter to you.

It will matter to developers first, however, given they're the ones who write to the Windows interfaces....

mj
0 Votes
+ -
Slimmer, less bloated *not* the aim
blu_vg@... 3rd Nov 2008
When Eric Traut talked about MinWin, I think he created quite a bit of confusion by the way he phrased things. When referring to Windows as a "bloated OS," he was referring to the *entire* OS. He then went on to refer to the NT kernel as relatively streamlined. There is a misunderstanding created here--that MinWin is somehow an attempt to reduce the bloat of the kernel... but no one claimed the kernel itself was "bloated." MinWin doesn't *reduce* anything--it merely redraws the lines around the core parts of the *existing* OS.

Hopefully this analogy will help: think of Windows like a picture of a human in a coloring book. Previously, the heart (the kernel) had some coloring outside the lines into other organs. With MinWin, the coloring of the heart is now clean. The picture has not changed at all--it's still the same human, the same size, the same organs. Now, if they want to change the coloring of the heart, it will simply be easier, since the coloring doesn't extend into the lungs, the stomach, and who knows where else.
0 Votes
+ -
Nice summary...
zkiwi 3rd Nov 2008
Here's hoping third parties can actually develop for it without too much angst over changing "their old ways."
0 Votes
+ -
I think thats a far stretch
No_Ax_to_Grind 4th Nov 2008
Win 7 is not going to be smaller because of this.
0 Votes
+ -
so misguided...
gav135 12th Nov 2008
No, it really should not matter to developers either. How can it matter to them when NOTHING will change in the way they write applications as a direct result of MinWin?

Microsoft's goal is clearly to reduce the engineering complexity for MICROSOFT engineers by moving dependencies around inside the system, such that low levels no longer rely on higher levels.

The concept is simply that level 0 should NOT rely on level 1 through level x in any way, and level 2 should not rely on level 3 through x. But, it's okay/expected for higher levels to rely on lower levels.

Whilst the internal workings of the system may change at a low level, Microsoft can NOT change how they system presents itself to developers through this refactoring, because it would introduce compatability issues. If you look at the Windows API like a walled garden you can see that the wall (almost) never changes in appearance to those on the outside (except when API's are added), but the garden is free to change.

MinWin will only matter to outsiders (even those outside the core OS team) by what it allows Microsoft to do with the core OS. Most of the gains are simply in improved ability to test the core, thus allowing faster development, because the core is isolated from the outside world, like it should be!

You could think of it as the same as what was done to produce Server Core, but for the kernel team at the lowest levels. Note I said the kernel team - NOT the outside world - it is not a standalone product.

You should stop thinking of MinWin as a product or tool, it's not really either. It's more of a ring on an architecture diagram, so a conceptual tool at best, but not in the 'we wrote this cool new tool' sense. The effect of 'turning it on' is thus a non sequitur - it has no on/off state, it just 'is'.
0 Votes
+ -
Normally speaking the people that use the OS don't need to know jack about it any more than the people that live in an apartment normally notice much about the foundation.

As long as it's there and doing its job what's to know?

If there's a problem the landlord is going to have to fix it anyway.
0 Votes
+ -
"Will MinWin ship to customers as part of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008? (Could it be ???in??? the bits, but not turned on ??? kind of like the ???Superbar??? that is actually in the M3 pre-beta that Professional Developer Conference attendees got and blogger Rafael Rivera found a way to expose?)"

Unlike the "Superbar," how would it be possible to turn on/off the kernel? As Russinovich describes, MinWin is the same as the existing kernel--it's just that the lines have been redrawn and things have been shuffled slightly. Since it is in Win7, Win7 cannot run without it in the same way Win7 cannot run without a CPU.
0 Votes
+ -
You might be able to set it up as a boot option? Safe mode disables loading of certain drivers etc... so MinWin could load up windows in a very "basic" state?
0 Votes
+ -
MinWin still required
blu_vg@... 3rd Nov 2008
MinWin is the foundation for everything in Win7. For it, without MinWin, there is nothing--no safe mode, not even command-prompt only safe mode. It starts with MinWin. "Turning it off" would be like ripping the foundation out from underneath your house.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Once upon a time
Eeem 3rd Nov 2008
Microsoft had used the word MinWin over four years earlier in a public discussion about Longhorn (which became Vista and Windows Server 2008)...

It can be in practice anything...
0 Votes
+ -
Yep
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 4th Nov 2008
MinWin is a long-running project. The kinds of changes that Microsoft is planning are pretty impactful, so it's important to make damn sure that stuff doesn't break when stuff is moved around !

It's a program of activities that are starting to deliver great results now and will only increase in terms of deliverables and value over time.
Forced Unionization at Microsoft and huge penalties for outsourcing jobs should put all this to rest soon enough.

The Messiah is coming!
0 Votes
+ -
cool possibilities
nstuff 3rd Nov 2008
Glad to hear they've included it in Windows 7. The smaller they make the base kernel , the better. We already enjoy the fact that when an app crashes, it doesn't take out the OS with it right now with the current NT kernel. That's because most apps run in user mode vs kernel mode. What if more low-level things could crash and just restart automatically without tripping a bsod. Or, what if you could make more low-level system changes (security updates, driver installs, etc) without restarting the whole computer, but just the component in question.

Thanks to the changes already taken place in Vista, ATI's driver updates are able to be installed without rebooting. This is simply amazing and, I think, is a sign of things to come.
0 Votes
+ -
MinWin is not about changing the kernel. Not at all. It is about refactoring the libraries sitting around the kernel to reduce interdependencies, especially avoiding circular and mutual dependencies.

MS will do this as a continuing effort. They will supply "proxy" libraries so that when they move a function out of kernel.dll and into user.dll they will still allow existing programs to link using merely the kernel.lib.

Cue the difficulties MS has experienced with Windows Core (in Windows Server 2008). If there was ever a place where a potent scripting environment would be warranted, a "core" installation without a GUI would be it. However, MS new PowerShell depends on .NET which builds upon Win32. Because of the many interdependencies they could not (at first) cut out the pieces nessecary only for PowerShell. Consequently, core installations did not support PowerShell. MinWin aims to refactor the core libraries to avoid such problems in the future.

For an analogy look towards how MS refactored IIS in IIS7. It has gone completely modular, even more fine grained than Apache. That's only possible if you have a perfectly layered stack where each function does not sit at a lower level than what is absolutely nessecary and where the upper layers are not aware of/dependant on eachother.
0 Votes
+ -
Just restated what I did, but...
nstuff 4th Nov 2008
...from a developer standpoint. The more you move out of kernel mode, the fewer things can crash the whole OS (baring hardware failure).

Your IIS example is a good choice showing how modular design helps. One website with buggy code won't affect another. Back in IIS5, a single website could potentially take out all other web sites hosted on the same IIS server, but not in IIS 6 and especially not in IIS7.
0 Votes
+ -
FAIL!
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 4th Nov 2008
Go watch the video and then come back and re-read this article and posted comments.

Microsoft often re-factors apps and user-mode OS components, services etc. IIS as you've stated is a good example. But that's NOT MinWin.

MinWin absolutely IS about re-factoring the OS' kernel and executive to break dependencies between the kernel core and external components ... without breaking non-core kernel components dependencies on the core executive.

MinWin will eventually reach up into re-factoring of user-mode code, but they're dealing with the harder problems of componentizing the kernel first.
0 Votes
+ -
No Suprise!
1g2j 3rd Nov 2008
Ed already covered this on March 31, 2008.
0 Votes
+ -
This exposes you
iravgupta 3rd Nov 2008
Your golden words - "Can Minwin be switched ON". Dear you really shouldnt dabble in stuff you dont know anything about. Its not an add-on, its not a seperate piece of software, IT IS the heart of Windows. You really need to go through Schaum`s Outlines for Operating Systems. Also, i know you have a total non-technical background, so just learn some basic stuff before posting such childish nonsense.
0 Votes
+ -
7 Deadly
jabailo1 3rd Nov 2008
Was Windows Seven named after that movie with Kevin Spacey as a psychopath who victimizes people to the theme of the seven deadly sins?

Because if so, it's a good name for it...
0 Votes
+ -
Oh MS being innovative ?
Alan Smithie 4th Nov 2008
Welcome to the world of Linux, rather than a horrible plate of MS spaghetti !
Sounds Like a "High tek" version of WinPE ..

Perhase to assist the OEM Specialist Out there ..
i.e. Deployments
0 Votes
+ -
silk purse
cmosentine@... 4th Nov 2008
No matter what MS does, they are still trying to make a silk purse out of pigs ears. They need to dump backwards compatibility and use a vm for old software. Similar to Apple. They moved from an arcane OS, MS certainly can too. Until then, Windows will still be pigs ears.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple ...
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 4th Nov 2008
... had such a small software ecosystem (basically Office and Adobe's suite) that they could dump backwards compatability when moving to OSX.

Microsoft's ecosystem on the other hand would not be well served by dumping backwards compatability. It's Microsoft's intense efforts to maintain backward compat that has resulted in the enormous Windows ecosystem.
0 Votes
+ -
...repeat the past
cmosentine@... 5th Nov 2008
Granted, you have a valid point. But this will doom MS to repeat the past. As Steve Jobs said about Blu-ray, "... is a bag of hurt".
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Microsoft confirms MinWin is in Windows 7, after all
dfwekrdfe4401-24353680881665828107376873441262 11th Nov
ngzqbp,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix