Coffeehouse Thread

25 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Successor to Windows?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    "San Jose, Calif. - A successor to the Microsoft Windows operating system, while still very much in the theoretical stage, is expected to better leverage multicore processors, for starters, a Microsoft official said on Wednesday afternoon."

    http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/28/HNwinsuccessor_1.html


    Does this mean that Microsoft is planning to build an entirely new operating system from scratch that wont be known as Windows?


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Its going to be called Lindows and utilize a Linux Kernel.

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:
    "San Jose, Calif. - A successor to the Microsoft Windows operating system, while still very much in the theoretical stage, is expected to better leverage multicore processors, for starters, a Microsoft official said on Wednesday afternoon."

    http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/28/HNwinsuccessor_1.html


    Does this mean that Microsoft is planning to build an entirely new operating system from scratch that wont be known as Windows?


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    j0217995

    Sure it won't be based on *BSD Tongue Out:P:P:P

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    rjdohnert wrote:
    Its going to be called Lindows and utilize a Linux Kernel.


    Oh yeah I must of forgotten. Wink

    Somehow I doubt Microsoft want to downgrade back to a monolithic kernel that is hacked together by hundreds of people and subject to nearly every Unix-based advisory each year. The "beauty" of Linux has almost nothing to do with its dilapidated kernel.


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    Interesting.

  • User profile image
    Charles

    No. Of course it will retain the Windows brand... Think about it for a moment.

    In terms of succession, he means the successor of the core Windows architecture that exists today, which is well under reconstruction in Vista, by the way...

    Future versions of Windows will be designed to be much more natively in tune with the world of multi-core processor architectures so that both system and application level components are capable of leveraging the power of multi-core chipsets, representing extreme benefit to the legion of software engineers writing code to run on Windows++ that readily and effectively harnesses the power of multi core without having to have advanced kernel developer programming skills.

    C

  • User profile image
    Wil

    BeowulfVista ?

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Singularity, anyone? Wink

  • User profile image
    spoofnozzle

    littleguru wrote:
    Interesting.


    LOL... you should have waited until AFTER charles posted.

  • User profile image
    Charles

    Sven Groot wrote:
    Singularity, anyone?


    It might be time to talk to the Singularity People again... Wonder how they've advanced...Time for a demo, I'd say.

    I don't think Singularity will evolve into a future version of Windows, but I bet  some of the lessons learned will find their way into the system's construction helping to form a new, improved Windows architecture. Can only speculate, of course...

    C

  • User profile image
    reinux

    Aye, would love another Singularity video.

    Can you ask them if there's any prospect in commercializing it for embedded systems?

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    Charles wrote:
    No. Of course it will retain the Windows brand... Think about it for a moment.

    In terms of succession, he means the successor of the core Windows architecture that exists today, which is well under reconstruction in Vista, by the way...

    Future versions of Windows will be designed to be much more natively in tune with the world of multi-core processor architectures so that both system and application level components are capable of leveraging the power of multi-core chipsets, representing extreme benefit to the legion of software engineers writing code to run on Windows++ that readily and effectively harnesses the power of multi core without having to have advanced kernel developer programming skills.

    C


    Oh I see now... thanks Charles.

    Ofcourse once Windows adopts these advanced SMP support, most other operating systems would soon follow with their own implementations.

    Do you suspect the next generation of Windows to offer support for Cell processors like Linux? I figure Cell architecture will become significant in not-so-distant future.


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:
    
    Charles wrote: No. Of course it will retain the Windows brand... Think about it for a moment.

    In terms of succession, he means the successor of the core Windows architecture that exists today, which is well under reconstruction in Vista, by the way...

    Future versions of Windows will be designed to be much more natively in tune with the world of multi-core processor architectures so that both system and application level components are capable of leveraging the power of multi-core chipsets, representing extreme benefit to the legion of software engineers writing code to run on Windows++ that readily and effectively harnesses the power of multi core without having to have advanced kernel developer programming skills.

    C


    Oh I see now... thanks Charles.

    Ofcourse once Windows adopts these advanced SMP support, most other operating systems would soon follow with their own implementations.

    Do you suspect the next generation of Windows to offer support for Cell processors like Linux? I figure Cell architecture will become significant in not-so-distant future.


    Regards,
    Vincent

    I don't see Cell chips as moving into the PC realm, as much as Sony would want you to believe. Last time someone tried a new instruction set/architecture shift, it got shot to hell (Itanium)

  • User profile image
    reinux

    I don't think it'd be too hard to port Windows to Cell, would it? There's been a PowerPC port of it in the past.

    But I don't think Cell is a very good PC CPU. The quad core x86/x64 CPUs would make a bit more sense.

    What exactly is it that Windows has trouble with with multiple processors?

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    spoofnozzle wrote:
    
    littleguru wrote: Interesting.


    LOL... you should have waited until AFTER charles posted.


    Remains interesting. Also AFTER Charles' postings.

  • User profile image
    Wil

    reinux wrote:
    What exactly is it that Windows has trouble with with multiple processors?


    Windows can of course be overhauled to run adequately in a multi-processor environment - that's an important feature of the current release of Windows 2003 server, and much active work is being done on a version of Windows for the High Performance Computing environment, which involves very large clusters of CPUs.  The problem isn't doing it, it's doing it really, really well.  After all, in a HPC platform, inefficiency is a huge no-no.  I'd like to see more Channel 9 videos about the progress that is being made in this important area, including the new compilers that are being developed for these demanding parallel-processing jobs.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    They should really do what Apple did with MacOSX and write a completely new OS. Backwards compatibility is what is restricting what Microsoft can do with Windows. It could perhaps run an emulator for old Windows 9x apps, but still have native support for .NET

    Why does Windows still need backwards compatibility with DOS and Windows 95 software? Surely if the software is important there would have been upgrades since then. You could always run a PC with Windows 98 on it for those users that need to run those old applications. Just because it is old doesn't mean it no longer works.

    If Vista was written just to support applications that used only documented/undeprecated API's and those that run on VB or .NET maybe it would have been finished a while ago.

  • User profile image
    reinux

    Wil wrote:
    
    The problem isn't doing it, it's doing it really, really well.  After all, in a HPC platform, inefficiency is a huge no-no.  I'd like to see more Channel 9 videos about the progress that is being made in this important area, including the new compilers that are being developed for these demanding parallel-processing jobs.

    Hmm... any particular technical reason? Smiley Just out of curiosity.

    sbc wrote:
    They should really do what Apple did with MacOSX and write a completely new OS. Backwards compatibility is what is restricting what Microsoft can do with Windows. It could perhaps run an emulator for old Windows 9x apps, but still have native support for .NET

    That'd be cool. They could certainly throw out the registry and make that a legacy feature.

    I guess most of the backwards compatibility stuff would come from a Win32 API layer, maybe like Wine. I guess it'd be like the 16 bit subsystem that they have in Windows right now.

    Though I guess when it comes to Windows, it's more the ~15 years of experience people have accumulated using it that would become incompatible with a new OS.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.