XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11
From: nobody@haph.org
Paul news:10k41t8$2oq6h$1@dont-email.me Mon, 12
Jan 2026 23:59:37 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:
> On Mon, 1/12/2026 4:47 PM, Gremlin wrote:
>> Paul news:10jjl3p$22go$1@dont-email.me Tue, 06
>> Jan 2026 18:43:04 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:
>>
>>> Vista was fine after SP2 was installed. It was then pretty close
>>> to being a Win7 candidate release (same quality level). A few small
>>> touches in Vista, were nice -- such as the Search option that when
>>> the Search did not find your item, there was a "Try Harder" button :-)
>>>
>>> Windows is a rolling release, that started from the Vista rewrite.
>>
>>
>> Please elaborate further on this rewrite? I'm unaware of vista being a
>> rewrite.
>
> It is. It's a rewrite. it took five years to do.
> it was released before the testing was finished.
> If it takes you five years and you can't even be bothered
> to test it properly, something is very very wrong there.
A from scratch rewrite? I'm asking for clarification here. It's not what I
observed under the hood back when I was actively reverse engineering various
aspects to develop cracks and patches for software that wasn't comfortable
running under it but managed to run just fine on XP. Especially annoying
when you have custom hardware that depended on proprietary software. Think,
CNC machines that cost the owner a considerable sum. Or, in one specific
case, a pill dispensing robot for a pharmacy.
> The kernel is substantially different. I do not
> know the terminology for this, but we could start
> with the Wiki for Vista to see. There is very little
> information about kernel details that I know of,
> so we can have a substantive discussion.
It's different in some regards, but, I'm not too sure about a from the
ground up rewrite here. Which is why I asked you to clarify your statement.
I don't think I would have missed a from scratch rewrite with all the time I
spent looking at IDA pro screens...
> I know you will argue "I was a beta tester" etc.
You really shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know. I didn't
beta test Winshit vista. :) I did have the option to do so, but, lacked the
time and interest.
> But the thing is, it's a matter of degree rather than substance.
> I too, worked in the computer industry, and I worked the cradle
> to grave of the hardware and software. We wrote two versions
> of our OS. I know how much that cost, and how much calendar
> that took.
I understand. I've been in the computer industry on the front lines for
awhile myself. I did write one OS from scratch for a very old by todays
standards machine. Although mine was a from scratch job, I did base alot of
the functionality on OS-9.
> Vista took way way too long. That's the first starting note,
> that practically speaking, there cannot be anything left under
> the hood that hasn't been fucked with.
I don't disagree with you, but, again, I am asking you to clarify what you
mean by a rewrite. Are you claiming that vista is from the ground up a total
rewrite and doesn't have any of the old code from XP still present within?
As that doesn't match what I observed or what others who worked on the same
team as I did...IDA pro doesn't leave things out of reach as I'm sure? you
know.
I'm assuming that some of your background is that of a coder? Based on what
you wrote above.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista
>
> "May 2001... and continued until November 8, 2006"
>
> "The same post also described Windows Vista as having approximately
> 50 million lines of code, with about 2,000 developers working on the
> product.
>
> OK, five years and 2000 developers. We wrote an OS in two years with 100
> developers. You can also write OSes with fewer developers than that,
> such as TempleOS with one developer.
>
> With such a substantial difference in development path, how can
> there be anything left in there ?
Hmm...Surely that's not what you're basing the rewrite claim on?
> The only way we can have a good argument over this, would be
> to see details of the kernel progression.
I wasn't looking for an argument? I was looking for clarification on what
you meant by a rewrite...
> I have no interest in Vista. I did not buy a copy. I did not
> join the Vista news group.
I had to provide technical support over the phone and onsite in person for
vista when it was 'new' so to say that I despise it would be a bit of an
understatement. It was very much like WindowsME compared to 98se. 98se was a
decent shell (yes, a shell, it was still dependent on DOS under the hood)
and ME was just a horrible thing that shouldn't have ever been forced on joe
public. Or the techs (like myself) who had to support the damn thing.
> What differences are there, between the WinXP kernel design and the
> Vista kernel design ?
>
> Was the Vista kernel designed from scratch with all new code, or was
> it merely an evolution of some WinXP code ?
>
> ********************** Copilot Answer *******************
>
> **Windows Vista did *not* use a new kernel written from scratch. It was
> an evolutionary continuation of the Windows NT lineage, including
> Windows XP, but with major architectural changes - especially in
> security, driver isolation, memory management, and graphics.** The Vista
> kernel is still NT-based (NT 6.0), while XP is NT 5.1.
That's what I suspected and understood based on various reverse engineering
I participated in. So, not a complete rewrite. Which is what I was asking
you to clarify.
> ### **No - Vista was not a clean-room rewrite.**
I didn't think it was. Which is why I asked you what you meant by rewrite.
> Think of it as **a new generation of the NT kernel**, not a new kernel.
I think of it as a horrible rework personally. Mostly from a support aspect
though, not that of an end user.
> XP services ran with far more privileges and could not restart cleanly
Some wouldn't restart cleanly. The majority of them infact, but, not all.
> - **Vista was not a rewrite**, but a **major evolution** of the NT
> kernel.
That's how I've understood it to be, yes. Which is why I asked you what you
meant by the rewrite claim.
> If we give the AI one more swing at bat...
Must we?
> The kernel at one time, had ticks set by the hardware timer (8253?).
> At some point, it may have had a 1 millisecond tick. And
> at another time, it may have switched to tickless. I could easily
> be confusing this with Linux, but I believe Microsoft toyed with
> some of these ideas too.
I believe you're correct.
> Microsoft also claims that it has not changed NTFS and this
> is why it refuses to change the NTFS release number. However, they
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
