General > General Technical Chat
When will MS replace the NT-kernel in windows?
tom66:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 20, 2024, 09:14:33 pm ---The Windows NT kernel is actually rather decent, and certainly the last thing that should be changed in Windows IMO. The idea doesn't make any sense.
--- End quote ---
I'm not so sure about that. The Windows kernel still has the unfortunate limitation where a SMB network drive locking up kills the entire filesystem driver until the SMB times out. That shouldn't be possible. There are a few single threaded locks in Windows that seem to be there more for simplicity than proper design. It also doesn't handle high CPU counts as well as Linux, with multithreading being distinctly less efficient than Linux, and interprocess communication is a lot harder and less efficient too.
In terms of raw stability, Windows and Linux are probably about matched, but if I could I'd definitely run a Linux-kernel Windows OS - provided it still ran normal Windows apps - which is probably not ever going to happen but we're discussing hypotheticals so...
radar_macgyver:
@gnif thanks for the insights on that - my observations come from using an AMD GPU in a non-VM mode for home use (light gaming at most). The refreshing bit relative to NVIDIA was not requiring akmod for the display driver, which made kernel updates somewhat fraught since if the driver didn't build, I would have to spend a while rolling back to an older kernel and trying again. Haven't had to think about it since I switched to AMD.
I have seen my work computer (Win10, with an A2000 GPU) recover from a device driver crash - now I know how! Also, I do remember Level1 Techs covering Looking Glass a couple of years ago and wishing I could use it (work IT folks wouldn't let me). Amazing work!
DimitriP:
--- Quote ---Since Microsoft is now a services business, and don't rely heavily on Windows for revenue,
--- End quote ---
without "windows".... (other than Dell, HP , lenovo and a few others getting out of the business of selling "computers"), a lot fewer customers would have an "entry point" into the microsoft jungle "ecosystem".
"windows" is not what brings in the most revenue ...but it is what makes making money possible :)
Nominal Animal:
As we all know, Apple replaced its original kernel(s) with XNU (for Mac OS X). It has an interesting history, but the key point regarding the discussion at hand is that they still had to revamp the userspace-kernel interface completely. For a number of reasons, I do not think that is possible for Microsoft to do something like that, at all. Their historical baggage is too great, and investment in rejecting other approaches too high: it would be like trying to stop and redirect a juggernaut. It would have to become a new, completely different company first.
Android and iOS have shown that new operating systems are commercially viable, but getting large existing software houses to port their software requires "subsidies" (incentives, support, et cetera); otherwise it will not happen. On the server side, free/open source software like Linux and BSDs have already made it nearly impossible for traditional-proprietary-approach operating systems to compete –– all top 500 largest supercomputers and about 41.5% of all websites run Linux; about 84% of websites run an Unix-like OS –– so the ones left really get paid for maintenance, quality assurance, and support, instead of the binaries. The fact that MS has these software houses already on board means any action that risks them leaving en masse could be a deathstroke for Microsoft the company; but also that keeping to status quo as much as possible, gives the company a big edge over any possible competitors.
Even though I don't want to touch Windows at all myself, I am happy that there are options and completely different development approaches.
Expecting Microsoft to replace their kernel with something completely different –– no matter what the perceived/assumed/believed technological or monetary or other benefits it would involve –– is unrealistic, I believe, based on the above.
tooki:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 21, 2024, 03:01:38 am ---As we all know, Apple replaced its original kernel(s) with XNU (for Mac OS X). It has an interesting history, but the key point regarding the discussion at hand is that they still had to revamp the userspace-kernel interface completely.
--- End quote ---
Are you referring to replacing the Mach kernel in NeXTStep with XNU for Mac OS X (which is directly descended from NeXTStep), or replacing the classic Mac OS kernel with XNU? In the first case it was replacing one thing with a derivative of the same thing; in the latter, the kernel was replaced by replacing the entire operating system. I don’t think either of those is really comparable to replacing the NT kernel with the Linux kernel.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version