Coffeehouse Thread

15 posts

windows 7 !=  MinWin

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    peterwillcn

    And there’s the real take-away from this presentation. The immediate goal isn’t to trim Windows 7 to something that will fit on the head of a pin. Just remove some optional components and make the whole thing smaller and more modular than Vista, just as Server 2008 is smaller and more modular than Server 2003. If Vista’s successor in Windows 7 can trim its core space (and memory) requirements by a third or half, giving you the option to choose which components you want to run on top of that relatively lean base, that will be impressive enough for all but the most vocal Vista critics.

    Update: For more on this subject, check out this excellent Channel 9 interview with Mark Russinovich. At about 14:40, he addresses the confusion over MinWin and the kernel: “The word ‘kernel’ is used loosely to mean a whole bunch of different things. … The NTOS kernel is the core of Windows that runs in kernel mode, and it’s got a lot of support components around it that also run in kernel mode. And then there’s layers of system level components that run in user mode but are still a part of the core OS.If I’ve used the word ‘kernel’ around MinWin, I’m really talking about the core of the system.”


    http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Mark-Russinovich-On-Working-at-Microsoft-Windows-Server-2008-Kernel-MinWin-vs-ServerCore-HyperV/

  • User profile image
    Charles

    True. MinWin is not a kernel. Glad you get this!


    BTW, here's the latest Mark Russinovich interview, Inside Windows 7.
    C

  • User profile image
    elmer

    I always thought it was rather obvious... Minimal Windows.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    I wonder why people thought that MinWin is a new kernel. Where did they pick that up. It was never mentioned that way in any of the presentation that I have seen on the web and that were given by Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    littleguru said:
    I wonder why people thought that MinWin is a new kernel. Where did they pick that up. It was never mentioned that way in any of the presentation that I have seen on the web and that were given by Microsoft.
    Because some dudette from MicrosoftWatch saw that presentation, wrote an article about it while inventing silly things that could be done with it. Other would-be journalists see this information as fact and make the wrong conclusions when they see Microsoft doesn't follow what MSWatch had invented.

  • User profile image
    Larry Osterman

    ZippyV said:
    littleguru said:
    *snip*
    Because some dudette from MicrosoftWatch saw that presentation, wrote an article about it while inventing silly things that could be done with it. Other would-be journalists see this information as fact and make the wrong conclusions when they see Microsoft doesn't follow what MSWatch had invented.
    I'm not sure it was that simple, but in general, you're right.

    I've been fascinated by this whole "minwin" thing, to be honest.  All it's been was refactoring code along architectural layering lines, and it's the natural extension of what we've been doing since the Longhorn Reset (so arguably Vista was the first "minwin" based operating system).

  • User profile image
    BHpaddock

    MinWin isn't a feature or a kernel or a product.  It's more like a set of guidelines and principles, kind of like how SDL (Secure Development Lifecycle) guides our development process toward more secure software, the MinWin effort guides Windows components to fit into a more clearly and well-defined layered architecture.

    No one asks if Vista or Win7 "has SDL in it."  And yet that's what it sounds like when someone says Win7 does or doesn't "have minwin."

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Still, I couldn't see where I can customize components during PDC Edition installation. Maybe I should try a fresh install instead of upgrade. Since Win7 is missing a number of Win Live Apps, it is at least 50MB less LOL.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    MinWin is Microsoft attempt to combat Linux in terms of virus resistance and kernel features.  The only problem being Windows NT, Cutlers NT, is not designed with security in mind and is based off of VMS.  If OS/2 or VMS lived they would be having the same problems as Windows.  You cant put a finger on a leak in a boat and make it back to shore.  Microsoft needs to hire better kernel developers and just redesign Windows.  Scrap it and start over using perhaps GNU/Linux or BSD as the basis.  These were designed with security in mind and are more prepared to weather the storm.   Also kudos to Microsoft for including Divx support in Windows 7, now if they put in ogg support I would be about 55% impressed.

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    corona_coder said:
    MinWin is Microsoft attempt to combat Linux in terms of virus resistance and kernel features.  The only problem being Windows NT, Cutlers NT, is not designed with security in mind and is based off of VMS.  If OS/2 or VMS lived they would be having the same problems as Windows.  You cant put a finger on a leak in a boat and make it back to shore.  Microsoft needs to hire better kernel developers and just redesign Windows.  Scrap it and start over using perhaps GNU/Linux or BSD as the basis.  These were designed with security in mind and are more prepared to weather the storm.   Also kudos to Microsoft for including Divx support in Windows 7, now if they put in ogg support I would be about 55% impressed.
    You must confusing things.  Are you talking about the simple one-hashes unix has used to "protect" passwords for years or the clear telnet logins that many still use?  NT 3.x had security built into it guts (object manager, ntfs, etc) from the start.  IIRC, that was the primary reason it was perceived slower  then 95/98 because of all the api call security checks going on.  Read a windows kernel book some time and post back. 

  • User profile image
    Dovella

    staceyw said:
    corona_coder said:
    *snip*
    You must confusing things.  Are you talking about the simple one-hashes unix has used to "protect" passwords for years or the clear telnet logins that many still use?  NT 3.x had security built into it guts (object manager, ntfs, etc) from the start.  IIRC, that was the primary reason it was perceived slower  then 95/98 because of all the api call security checks going on.  Read a windows kernel book some time and post back. 
    Form Oliver's Weblog

    To conclude about this renaming thing, do not be confused: Windows CE will NOT die! And neither will a modular version of the desktop OS (today based on XP and tomorrow based on Windows 7).

  • User profile image
    elmer

    corona_coder said:
    MinWin is Microsoft attempt to combat Linux in terms of virus resistance and kernel features.  The only problem being Windows NT, Cutlers NT, is not designed with security in mind and is based off of VMS.  If OS/2 or VMS lived they would be having the same problems as Windows.  You cant put a finger on a leak in a boat and make it back to shore.  Microsoft needs to hire better kernel developers and just redesign Windows.  Scrap it and start over using perhaps GNU/Linux or BSD as the basis.  These were designed with security in mind and are more prepared to weather the storm.   Also kudos to Microsoft for including Divx support in Windows 7, now if they put in ogg support I would be about 55% impressed.

    If VMS lived...  http://www.openvms.org/

    VMS not designed with security ??

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS

    By default openVMS has a NCSC C2 rating, and with the SEVMS module has a B1 rating.

    God, you do talk crap at times.

  • User profile image
    BHpaddock

    corona_coder said:
    MinWin is Microsoft attempt to combat Linux in terms of virus resistance and kernel features.  The only problem being Windows NT, Cutlers NT, is not designed with security in mind and is based off of VMS.  If OS/2 or VMS lived they would be having the same problems as Windows.  You cant put a finger on a leak in a boat and make it back to shore.  Microsoft needs to hire better kernel developers and just redesign Windows.  Scrap it and start over using perhaps GNU/Linux or BSD as the basis.  These were designed with security in mind and are more prepared to weather the storm.   Also kudos to Microsoft for including Divx support in Windows 7, now if they put in ogg support I would be about 55% impressed.
    Are you for real?

  • User profile image
    peterwillcn

    true

  • User profile image
    Larry Osterman

    magicalclick said:
    Still, I couldn't see where I can customize components during PDC Edition installation. Maybe I should try a fresh install instead of upgrade. Since Win7 is missing a number of Win Live Apps, it is at least 50MB less LOL.

    Win7 offers limited opportunities to customize the default install.  And once again, you're confusing what "minwin" is.

    As Mark Russinovich (and Brandon and I) have pointed out, "minwin" is about refactoring parts of the system to build a minimal foundation.  That in turn helps reduce architectural complexity and improve servicing.   But it's NOT about allowing end-users to pick and choose which windows features get installed.

    The reason for not allowing massive amounts of customization is simple:  Every possible option adds another vector that needs to be tested.  So if the OS had 0 configuration options at setup, each test pass has to be run once.  If the system has one configuration options at setup, each test pass has to be run twice (once with the option turned on, once with it turned off).  If there are two options, each test pass has to be run four times (once with each of the options turned on and off).  If there are 8 options, each test pass has to be run 256 times.  etc. 

    There are thousands of features built into Windows, some of which would have to be tested with the feature present and not present. 

    Now obviously it's not a purely exponential matrix - you probably wouldn't have to retest the sound subsystem if the printing subsystem wasn't present (but you might, you'd be surprised at how dependencies work).  But it IS an exponential curve - the more install options you have, you have exponentially more configurations to test.

    To me, the interesting thing about the Minwin effort is that as we move further down this path (and it is a path), we learn more and more about how the system dependencies work.  So we have a better idea of what depends on what.  And that in turn allows us to refine the dependency matrix I mentioned above, which means that we can do a better job at figuring out what has to be re-tested with each configuration option (and thus we'd be able to definitively answer the "does the printing subsystem depend on the  sound subsystem" question).

    There IS one version of Windows that does allow massive amounts of configuration (and has since Windows XP).  That's the Embedded Windows versions.  Those allow massive amounts of customization because Embedded Windows pushes the testing responsibilities on the customer.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.