Talk:Windows 7/Archive 5

is vs. was

I vote we change it to was. The act of scheduling is over, therefore it should be past tense. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not known whether M2 was indeed released, so the was coming due to the event having happened does not arise. Plus May 2008 is not yet history. --soum ^talk 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with soum. Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "as of January 2008" belongs in the sentence? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate "as of"s. The article is always kept up-to-date, we don't need any other temporal reference point. --soum ^talk 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

needs updating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.94.249 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Whistler"

it says that server 2003 was codenamed Whistler but, no, whistler was windows me...not sure whether or not to fix it myself so im putting it on here ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.163.155 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Whistler was the codename for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. [1] Windows Me was codenamed Millennium. [2] - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Picture"

Is it me or is the image EXACTLY the same as windows vista? --Ashleyfagan (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.179.50 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the image caption. hat lists the differences. --soum ^talk 01:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article needs Updating

Has the name changed from Windows 7 to Windows fiji? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltadom (talk • contribs) 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Fiji is a made-up version falsely rumored to come between Windows Vista and Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fiji is the upcoming update to Media Center that replaces the remaining XP-style interface parts with the new Vista-style interfaces. As far as I know, we do not know when it is coming out, but it will at some point. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any references on this? Otherwise it is really just idle speculation and rumour. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Thurrott has said this several times. His latest mention is here. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody at Microsoft has ever, -ever- used the name Fiji to describe an operating system release in a public sense. It's the result of unsubstantiated rumours + the Internet echo chamber. -/- Warren 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fiji is just the next update for Media Center, which (except for last year) has had an update every year since its original release. The Windows Weekly podcast talks about Fiji some -- Episode 60 at 27:20. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I said name is blogger speculation. -/- Warren 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots

Someone just removed the screenshots from the article, claiming they're "not reliable" because they "are depicting a product still in dev." Well, that's exactly what Windows 7 is right now. Its a product still in development. Hence, the screenshots are appropriate for the time being. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Reverted. Althepal (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sinofsky interview and MinWin

The Sinofsky interview does not confirm anything about MinWin, either way. MinWin never was a "new" kernel (it was bloggers who hyped it to be so); it was the plain old NTOS kernel (see the Russinovich interview) packaged in an extremely modular way. Compare that with what Sinofsky said: "Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista". It seems both are stating pretty much the same thing. Interpreting Sinfosky's comments to mean that MinWin doesn't feature in Windows 7 is pretty much bloggers' and tech journalists' spin on it. We need better sources that that to authoritatively claim that there is no MinWin in Windows 7. At best we can say that due to MS not being "transparent" enough, there is still a lot of confusion whether MinWin is a part of Windows 7 or not. With that, we can also avaoid taking an authoritative stance on either side of the fence. --soum ^talk 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

About the only interesting detail from the Sinofsky interview was that they are planning on full compatibility with Vista drivers, and are targetting the same system requirements. The rest of it was... boring... -/- Warren 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This entire controversy stems from a misunderstanding of what exactly they were trying to prove with MinWin... that underneath all the Windows bloat there was actually a fairly lightweight core. It has nothing to do with compartmentalization or modularization in Windows 7. Therefore, according to the people who demoed it themselves, MinWin is a proof-of-concept that has nothing to actually do with real Windows development except to show what is underneath it all and has no plans for productization. In reality the Windows 7 kernel is going to be exactly what Steven was talking about, taking the Windows Server 2008 kernel (not the striped down MinWin microkernel) and compartmentalizing and streamlining it further but making few enough changes to preserve full backwards compatibility, or adding a revamped compatibility/emulation layer in the vein of an enhanced WinSxS that uses some form of emulation of older Operating systems through an integrated Hyper-V like system (which is a planned feature). A. S. Castanza 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats totally the way you understand it. And you are not a reliable source, sorry.

• "That underneath all the Windows bloat there was actually a fairly lightweight core" - NTOS kernel has always has been pretty lightweight (its less than 5 megs). The MinWin effort is to manage and streamline code dependencies, not streamline functionality.
• "It has nothing to do with compartmentalization or modularization in Windows 7" - you are saying that despite Eric Traut's comment in the demo that what he was demoing is the heart of Windows 7 (or something like that, I do not remember the exact wording). Unless you have a reliable source claiming that MinWin has nothing to do with Windows 7 (with specific references to the term MinWin), Eric Traut will always trump you.
• "Therefore, according to the people who demoed it themselves ... has no plans for productization" - the article doesn't ever claim that MinWin was going to be a stand-alone product. And unless you can provide a very specific reference that it is not even going to be in Windows 7, it is just your interpretation and original and unverifiable research.
• "In reality the Windows 7 kernel is going to be exactly what Steven was talking about, taking the Windows Server 2008 kernel (not the striped down MinWin microkernel)" - Like I said, MinWin was never a new kernel, it was just an evolution of the NOTS kernel, the latest public version of which is in Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista SP1. And it has always been a microkernel (though later it gained parts of the graphics stack to become a hybrid kernel, but that technically was a separate driver that ran in kernel mode, and not something intrinsic to the NTOS kernel.
• "and compartmentalizing and streamlining it further" - isn't that what the MinWin effort is all about - streamlining dependencies to make it compartmentalized?
• "or adding a revamped compatibility/emulation layer in the vein of an enhanced WinSxS that uses some form of emulation of older Operating systems through an integrated Hyper-V like system (which is a planned feature)" - you have a source for anything you said here? Unless you do, its your original research, and OR/personal interpretation has no room in Wikipedia. --soum ^talk 05:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"This is the core of Windows 7.", about 3:31 into [3] - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason he said that is because they built MinWin OUT OF the core of Windows 7, which he clearly states in the video. The kernel section of this article infers that its the other way around, which is not true. Hence the change i want to make to clear that misconception up (See my above comment). A. S. Castanza 15:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved my comment (and your response to it) back where I left it, in order to show what I was responding to. Please don't move other people's comments with no explanation. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you are a what, mind reader, now? Just by seeing a demo you know the reason why the presenter said something? <end sarcasm> Coming back to the article, "The reason he said that is because they built MinWin OUT OF the core of Windows 7, which he clearly states in the video" - no it is NOT clearly stated in it. He says "This is the core of Windows 7" (this was the quote I was referring to earlier, thanks Josh for pointing it out). The "this" is ambiguous. "The kernel section of this article infers that its the other way around, which is not true" - may I point you to WP:TRUTH, which in a nutshell says that Wikipedia does not give a damn abouth truth. Only that what it says MUST be verifiable by means of citations to reliable sources. You have not provided a single reliable citation backing up your claims that "it is not true" and failing that it is just the way you interpret it and as such it is of no consequence to Wikipedia. On the other hand, it is verifiable by means of the citations provided that MinWin is the kernel in Windows 7. And that verifiability does (and will always) trump any of your own interpretations. Provide reliable sources that say unambiguously that MinWin isn't the Windows 7 kernel (and no, it must not put words to the sources' mouth, like what may analyses did with the Sinofsky interview: he never mentioned MinWin, but the reporters assumed it was). Nothing short of such a source will work. No amount of analyses, argumnets or whatever you provide will be regarded unless you provide a source. --soum ^talk 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

MinWin/Win7 Secn break

What Eric said is that "[MinWin] is a set of components that they had taken out of Windows 7". All this is, the incorrect assumption of a few journalists that they were building Windows 7 off of this, in reality its the other way around, they took early work on Windows 7, pulled these components out of it and isolated it. Thats all it is. A. S. Castanza 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So you don;t remember exactly what he said? Here are some direct quotes from the Eric Trout demo: "... Making sure we had a clear architectural layer there" read it again for emphasis, thats all they are doing with MinWin "And created what we call MinWin. This is internal only, we WONT be productizing this" Therefore it WILL NOT be productized as Windows 7. Quote from the very end "Thats kinda proof that there is a pretty nice little core inside Windows" ie: its a proof of concept. Hows that for proof. A. S. Castanza 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also he said at the very end again "we don't have any productization plans for this, but we will be using this internally to build the other products biased off of windows... We build a lot of products biased off this kernel" So as you can clearly see, Windows 7 is not biased of of MinWin, it is in fact the other way around. A. S. Castanza 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If building Windows 7 on MinWin would be productizing MinWin, then so would building any other products on MinWin, and your above quote would be a clear self contradiction. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

maybe I should have made it more clear that Eric said that it would "Be along time before we see any development biased of this kernel" as for now they have no immediate productization plans, and considering they are developing Windows 7 right now, his quotes do not contradict themselves in reference to the immediate and current development on Windows 7. Also the only dispute i have with the kernel section of the Windows 7 article is this "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7." line should be changed to "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, was developed from the codebase of Windows 7 in order to demonstrate ongoing development efforts and to aid development on future projects." which is a perfectly reasonable change in line with all known facts and fully fits with Eric's presentation. A. S. Castanza 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "Microsoft developed a minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, from the codebase of Windows 7, in order to make sure it had a 'clean architectural layer.'", sticking with what they say it was made for? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be perfect, it doesn't specifically say that MinWin is the Windows 7 kernel but that it was developed from it, which is inline with Eric Trout's presentation and all the other reliable sources on the subject. If we can agree to replace: "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7." with your suggestion: "Microsoft developed a minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, from the codebase of Windows 7, in order to make sure it had a 'clean architectural layer." my objections would be completely satisfied. A. S. Castanza 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)@Castanza "In reality its the other way around, they took early work on Windows 7, pulled these components out of it and isolated it" - I am saying it again for the billionth time now - REALITY DOES NOT MATTER HERE, VERIFIABILITY DOES. A lot of citations have been provided to verify that Win 7 is based on MinWin. But that it is "the other way round" is based only on your interpretation. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. All we are asking for is a reliable source that says the same. May be what is currently in the article isn't correct, or may be it is. But it is verifiable - the Paul Thurott article specifically links MinWin and Windows 7 - and that is what Wikipedia requires. Provide a better citation that refutes the same and it can be included.

@Josh, no it would create even more problems. Specifically, it would take out its relation with Windows 7 and make it lacking any context whatsoever. --soum ^talk 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Eric Trout SPECIFICALLY says MULTIPLE TIMES that MinWin was pulled OUT of Windows 7, Eric Trout trumps Paul Thurott. Also Josh's alternative sentence cements MinWins place in this article by clarifying that it is in fact a derivative of Windows 7. A. S. Castanza 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)

Besides, Josh's alternate fits with what you said at the very top of this discussion "At best we can say that due to MS not being "transparent" enough, there is still a lot of confusion whether MinWin is a part of Windows 7 or not. With that, we can also avoid taking an authoritative stance on either side of the fence." His sentence fits with that goal. ~removed part of my comment that was out of line~ A. S. Castanza 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thats your point of argument. Sure go ahead. No one is objecting to that.

The objection here is stating that MinWin isn't the kernel of Windows 7. Just because the MinWin developers started off with the Windows 7 source (the way it existed at that time) does not mean the modifications were not made in the Windows tree itself or that the changes haven't been merged into the Windows 7 tree.

This is my point of objection. MinWin may have been developed independently, based off the Windows 7 source. But saying that Windows 7 IS NOT BASED ON MinWin is controversial enough to require a pretty canonical source. I guess all your confusion stems from a misuderstanding of my use of the word "based on" (I wrote the section under discussion here). Based on wasn't used to convey that MinWin source was morphed into Windows 7 kernel, but that Windows 7 uses MinWin as the most important component that makes Windows 7 an OS. In other words, MinWin provides the "base" functionality on which Windows 7 builds the user space.

"Also Josh's alternative sentence cements MinWins place in this article by clarifying that it is in fact a derivative of Windows 7" - that makes it only tangentially related to Windows 7. An article talks about things that are (a part of) the subject (in this case, Windows 7). Things tangentially related belong in other articles - maybe their own. That was what I was referring to here. --soum ^talk 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"...and Eric trout clearly states that it was pulled FROM the Windows 7 code base" - I hope you are not interpreting "pulled from" to mean "removed from". It could very well mean "derived from". --soum ^talk 17:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Minwin is in Server 2008

Well, now this is interesting. It's an interview with a PM on the Server Core team from a few months ago, who is very explicit in saying that Minwin is actually in Windows Server 2008. Go to about 2 minutes in to the video. -/- Warren 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Which MinWin is he talking about? The Server Core MinWin or the Eric Traut MinWin? Russinovich did say they are different. Or is there a third MinWin now? --soum ^talk 17:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He's pretty clear about MinWin being the kernel of Server Core. Between all the sources we have, it sounds to me like MinWin is name of the ongoing effort at Microsoft to separate out the dependencies in Windows, and that's it. We already know that some of this work is in Vista, and now we know that the name is being applied to work that was done for Server 2008. -/- Warren 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

@Castanza, this pretty much invalidates your claim ""A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, was developed from the codebase of Windows 7 in order to demonstrate ongoing development efforts and to aid development on future projects." --soum ^talk 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)