The truth about MinWin: the heart of Windows 7
-
The truth about MinWin: the heart of Windows 7[^] 'Yes, MinWin is in Windows 7 (and Windows Server 2008 R2). No it's not a new kernel. Instead, it's an attempt to rewrite the most basic foundation of Windows – not just the kernel, but also the basics of the file system and network connection, with drivers and services – as a self-contained and logically separate system. With a clean division instead of complex interconnections, it will be much easier to improve and add to Windows – without causing compatibility problems. "Windows has grown up organically over time and it consists of thousands of EXEs, DLLs and APIs," explains Russinovich; "Everything depends on everything. We've got 600 binaries; if we took one of them you'd break stuff and we can't even tell you what would break. When we go and change Windows, we end up changing the behaviours of those interconnects at deep levels."'
Kevin
Yeah, the previous version of "MinWin" was just taking a chainsaw acrossed Windows to get it down to the essentials and hoping for the best. There were unresolved imports and exports that weren't used all over the place.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008 -
The truth about MinWin: the heart of Windows 7[^] 'Yes, MinWin is in Windows 7 (and Windows Server 2008 R2). No it's not a new kernel. Instead, it's an attempt to rewrite the most basic foundation of Windows – not just the kernel, but also the basics of the file system and network connection, with drivers and services – as a self-contained and logically separate system. With a clean division instead of complex interconnections, it will be much easier to improve and add to Windows – without causing compatibility problems. "Windows has grown up organically over time and it consists of thousands of EXEs, DLLs and APIs," explains Russinovich; "Everything depends on everything. We've got 600 binaries; if we took one of them you'd break stuff and we can't even tell you what would break. When we go and change Windows, we end up changing the behaviours of those interconnects at deep levels."'
Kevin
I thought that Vista is an attempt to rewrite everything from a scratch?
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
The truth about MinWin: the heart of Windows 7[^] 'Yes, MinWin is in Windows 7 (and Windows Server 2008 R2). No it's not a new kernel. Instead, it's an attempt to rewrite the most basic foundation of Windows – not just the kernel, but also the basics of the file system and network connection, with drivers and services – as a self-contained and logically separate system. With a clean division instead of complex interconnections, it will be much easier to improve and add to Windows – without causing compatibility problems. "Windows has grown up organically over time and it consists of thousands of EXEs, DLLs and APIs," explains Russinovich; "Everything depends on everything. We've got 600 binaries; if we took one of them you'd break stuff and we can't even tell you what would break. When we go and change Windows, we end up changing the behaviours of those interconnects at deep levels."'
Kevin
I love the concept but the one thing that worries me about this effort is that every time you add a layer of interfaces between segments of a system you do the following: 1) You increase the attack surface of the system. 2) You increase the complexity and thus the chance for bugs (logic and security related ones) to slip in. 3) You increase the possibility for performance issues between layers because of decoupling and trying to address the first 2 points. It's all about achieving a balance.
-
I thought that Vista is an attempt to rewrite everything from a scratch?
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Nope is was built from Windows 2003 Server code, used as the base.
Software Kinetics (requires SL3 beta) - Moving software
-
Nope is was built from Windows 2003 Server code, used as the base.
Software Kinetics (requires SL3 beta) - Moving software
This probably means that Weven is also 2003 srv derivate.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
The truth about MinWin: the heart of Windows 7[^] 'Yes, MinWin is in Windows 7 (and Windows Server 2008 R2). No it's not a new kernel. Instead, it's an attempt to rewrite the most basic foundation of Windows – not just the kernel, but also the basics of the file system and network connection, with drivers and services – as a self-contained and logically separate system. With a clean division instead of complex interconnections, it will be much easier to improve and add to Windows – without causing compatibility problems. "Windows has grown up organically over time and it consists of thousands of EXEs, DLLs and APIs," explains Russinovich; "Everything depends on everything. We've got 600 binaries; if we took one of them you'd break stuff and we can't even tell you what would break. When we go and change Windows, we end up changing the behaviours of those interconnects at deep levels."'
Kevin
Well, OK, but can I have Win7 boot to the command line?
-
Well, OK, but can I have Win7 boot to the command line?
If you want that get Windows Server Core instead. ;P
Kevin
-
The truth about MinWin: the heart of Windows 7[^] 'Yes, MinWin is in Windows 7 (and Windows Server 2008 R2). No it's not a new kernel. Instead, it's an attempt to rewrite the most basic foundation of Windows – not just the kernel, but also the basics of the file system and network connection, with drivers and services – as a self-contained and logically separate system. With a clean division instead of complex interconnections, it will be much easier to improve and add to Windows – without causing compatibility problems. "Windows has grown up organically over time and it consists of thousands of EXEs, DLLs and APIs," explains Russinovich; "Everything depends on everything. We've got 600 binaries; if we took one of them you'd break stuff and we can't even tell you what would break. When we go and change Windows, we end up changing the behaviours of those interconnects at deep levels."'
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
"Windows has grown up organically over time ...
And you can tell by all the traces of organic manure left behind ...
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
I thought that Vista is an attempt to rewrite everything from a scratch?
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I thought that Vista is an attempt to rewrite everything from a scratch?
Vista was an attempt to break everything from scratch. They succeeded btw.
Todd Smith
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I thought that Vista is an attempt to rewrite everything from a scratch?
Vista was an attempt to break everything from scratch. They succeeded btw.
Todd Smith
Everything is marketing trick. Vista is created to makes Weven looks good.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
I love the concept but the one thing that worries me about this effort is that every time you add a layer of interfaces between segments of a system you do the following: 1) You increase the attack surface of the system. 2) You increase the complexity and thus the chance for bugs (logic and security related ones) to slip in. 3) You increase the possibility for performance issues between layers because of decoupling and trying to address the first 2 points. It's all about achieving a balance.
If it's being executed well, the goal would be to eliminate duplication of interfaces: for example, removing cases where two distinct functions unnecessarily achieve the same things in different ways, or cases of functions acting as a forwarder (or facade) for another. That sort of thing would reduce both the complexity and attack surface. As to performance issues: there are plenty of cases where a cleanly designed and decoupled system will outperform an organic system with high coupling. Organic systems tend to have interconnects between parts that don't need to exist and such interconnection can introduce performance hits. One hallmark of mature system designs is that they have little unnecessary complexity - in other words, they are usually simpler than less mature designs. Unnecessary complexity tends to increase sensitivity of the system to change(eg adding new applications or components), making it harder to maximise performance and increasing chances of something breaking.