ThunderingQuiet
In Your Mind
Senior Member
Joined: 12/20/2007
View Profile
 Offline
|
Y-Guy wrote:Thunder I think that has helped without a doubt, but I don't think that would drive businesses to make a change. I think what did it was the switch to the Intel chip, and the ability for the Mac to run other OS's. No longer are you locked into just one OS, you can run all 3 on the same system.
Good point - I had forgotten about that. But Apple still had their spin doctors make it sound like it was the best thing since sliced bread. Even though they never had anything good to say about Intel before that.
|
pulsar
Lewisville, NC
Moderator
Joined: 12/30/2001
View Profile
|
For those of you who called my "NT will have to go" statment into question, I think you were right to do so. Although I think I can argue for and against microkernel implementations of operating systems, I didn't express what I really wanted to.
When the micorkernel philosophy was introduced (I think Next popularized it, but am not really sure) it held out a great promise of stability, shortened development time, and easier maintenace.
A major disadvantage of micorkernel technology is that it CAN lead to bloat and complexity. That is what has happened to the Windows operating system, in my opinion.
Tom
|
waroads
WA
Full Member
Joined: 02/28/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
pulsar wrote:For those of you who called my "NT will have to go" statment into question, I think you were right to do so. Although I think I can argue for and against microkernel implementations of operating systems, I didn't express what I really wanted to.
When the micorkernel philosophy was introduced (I think Next popularized it, but am not really sure) it held out a great promise of stability, shortened development time, and easier maintenace.
A major disadvantage of micorkernel technology is that it CAN lead to bloat and complexity. That is what has happened to the Windows operating system, in my opinion.
Tom
Is there something particular about the microkernel architecture that makes it more prone to bloat and complexity than a different architecture? Is windows a microkernel?
|
pulsar
Lewisville, NC
Moderator
Joined: 12/30/2001
View Profile
|
waroads wrote:Is there something particular about the microkernel architecture that makes it more prone to bloat and complexity than a different architecture? Is windows a microkernel?
I'm sure there are others much more knowledgeable about this than I am, but here are some comments.
Microkernel technology introduces the need for components of the extended OS to use formal message-passing mechanisms for communication. Instead of informally using system memory for passing information between conponents, code has to be written to use the formal mechanisms. In addition, because the extended OS is now in separate comments, a whole new set of error conditions can arise that can't arise in a monolithic kernel.
"Is windows a microkernel?"
Actually that is an interesting question. Microsoft will tell you that "Windows NT has always had a modified microkernel architecture." You will find other sources that will tell you "Windows NT kernel no longer meets many of the criteria of a microkernel."
Tom
|
keyhole51walleye
Wyoming
Senior Member
Joined: 12/02/2006
View Profile
 Online
|
We have had vista for over a year wih no problems, on a toshiba laptop.
|
|
|
waroads
WA
Full Member
Joined: 02/28/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
pulsar wrote:
I'm sure there are others much more knowledgeable about this than I am, but here are some comments.
Microkernel technology introduces the need for components of the extended OS to use formal message-passing mechanisms for communication. Instead of informally using system memory for passing information between conponents, code has to be written to use the formal mechanisms. In addition, because the extended OS is now in separate comments, a whole new set of error conditions can arise that can't arise in a monolithic kernel.
Is this the reason for the complexity or the bloat or both? Which aspects of the microkernel choice (if that is what it is) resulted in Windows having bloat and complexity?
pulsar wrote:
"Is windows a microkernel?"
Actually that is an interesting question. Microsoft will tell you that "Windows NT has always had a modified microkernel architecture." You will find other sources that will tell you "Windows NT kernel no longer meets many of the criteria of a microkernel."
Tom
If it is isn't a microkernel architecture, what are the advantages/disadvantages of other architectures?
|
pulsar
Lewisville, NC
Moderator
Joined: 12/30/2001
View Profile
|
waroads,
I'm involved in a seminar from 10 AM to 9 PM today and tomorrow and competing in a 4 day agility trial Thursday through Monday. Along with that I have to read every post in 4 forums. If you want to wait that long then maybe we can discuss it. But if you really want to know, I am sure that you know how to use Google. Besides, your questions don't seem so innocent.
Tom
2002 Adventurer 32V - Workhorse chassis
1998 CRV toad - manual transmission
Have you seen the RV.Net Blogs? You can subscribe at Blog.RV.Net
|
magicbus
LBI, NJ
Senior Member
Joined: 06/16/2002
View Profile
Offline
|
waroads wrote:If it is isn't a microkernel architecture, what are the advantages/disadvantages of other architectures? We don't call it "microkernel" but I've been developing software for 25 years for a true message-based operating system in the "mainframe" world (now we call them servers). Messaging and non-shared memory offers incredible protection between applications and users and yet also offers incredible flexibility in software development. There can be a penalty to pay for using messaging - the system I work on solved did a pretty good job of solving that problem and today's hardware has pretty much eliminated any additional overhead cost. I did a year worth of NT development in the mid-90's and recall it did not offer a lot of memory protection.
Dave
Life doesn't come with a safety fence around it... enjoy it anyway.
|
Stagecoach
Decker Prairie, Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 04/22/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
johnleveritt wrote:My wifes cousin, and her husband both work for IBM, and IBM doesn't allow Vista on their corporate computers. And I went to my doctors office the other day, and they are still using XP Professional on their network.
I know of doctors offices that are still using MS word 4.something so what bearing does that have. Lots of folks are still on Windows 2000 and other operating systems. If what you have works then why change for change's sake.
I have Vista and love it. I also have Win98, 2000 and XP. I have a Mac that doesn't get used that much cause most of what I do is Business work and MAC's just don't play well with alot of our stuff.
Dave & Beth
2003 F-350 PSD CC 4.10 DRW 6.0L , Prodigy
2004 Mobile Suites 36 RE3 #1188
2005 PartiKraft Admiral PKA240 RE-4 Gate
2005 Lance 915
2007 Jeep Wrangler (Sahara) 2-Door Soft Top
LoneStarRVing | My Blog
|
hermant
Varies
Senior Member
Joined: 07/05/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
Another HUGE advantage of the message based software architecture is scalability. By slicing and dicing your software (even operating systems are software) into small components, you can allocate them much more flexibly onto your hardware. For example, you can initially link all of the components together and run them on a single computer. When dual cpu computers come along, you can more easily allocate them across the two cpus as needed. If you need more computing power for your software, you can lay the components out across a quad core computer. This can even be extended to multi-node computing where the same set of software components are spread across an entire network of separate computer nodes (this is how SETI does its distributed processing of space signals). So message based software architecture is far more than a kernel protection scheme, it wil be the "big picture" approach to software architecture for many, many years to come. Enjoy...
2008 Winnebago View
|
|
|
