One of the “big” features discussed in early speculation of Windows Vista SP1 was the kernel upgrade, which was supposed to bring the operating system into line with the Longhorn kernel used in Windows Server 2008. And yet with Vista SP1 going RTM, there hasn't been so much as a peep from Microsoft about the mooted kernel update. Has it happened? Well the answer is yes it has, and presumably the main reason for Microsoft’s silence on the subject is that as they’re keen to promote the improvements and enhancements to Vista, rather than placing emphasis on a kernel upgrade, which some people might see as a risk of newly-introduced instability.
Screenshots: Windows Server 2008 Winver | Build info - Windows Vista SP1 & Server 2008 RTM
View: Full Article @ APC Mag
It helps if you can get the first sentance correctly
havn't you heard yet? they are going to take over the world with help from their alien friends! If you want to know what changed read the changelog, that's what it is there for.
I wonder what improvements the new kernel brings
Maybe they've finally updated Notepad! =)
Maybe they've finally updated Notepad! =)
I am hoping they updated Paint and Calculator
As far as "Windows Server 2008" versus "Windows 6.0" designations, those are just marketing/naming conventions, and don't necessarily detail any particular code base changes.
As far as I know XP's kernel was never replaced when windows server 2003 came out... which a lot of people wished they would of
The code base of the two is similar but not identical. Starting around 10 years ago, Microsoft finally realized that Windows Server should be it's own product and not simply another version of the desktop OS. As a result, the kernel for Server is a bit different (separate development team). But in order to maintain compatibility, there is common code between them. The common code is likely what was updated in Server 2008 and changed in Vista SP1.
Windows Server 2003 is an excellent product... If the server team was given the task of cleaning up Vista code (which would be a smart move) then you can be sure that it'll be good... If the desktop team cleaned up the code it'll be a different story.
The code base of the two is similar but not identical. Starting around 10 years ago, Microsoft finally realized that Windows Server should be it's own product and not simply another version of the desktop OS. As a result, the kernel for Server is a bit different (separate development team). But in order to maintain compatibility, there is common code between them. The common code is likely what was updated in Server 2008 and changed in Vista SP1.
Windows Server 2003 is an excellent product... If the server team was given the task of cleaning up Vista code (which would be a smart move) then you can be sure that it'll be good... If the desktop team cleaned up the code it'll be a different story.
You all have a very skewed view of Windows development. There is no "server kernel" there's just the Windows kernel. The people who own the kernel own it completely.
They would share updates that are related to the common ground being the kernel.
as such windows home server when launhed came with service pack 2 already installed
also windows windows xp 64bit version came with service pack 1 from day one it was identical to windows server 2003 sp1
so in other words xp 64bit can be upgraded using the service pack 2 you can download from microsoft for server 2003
Um, the Kernel size went up by 1.27Mb between XP and Vista. That's not double - it's not even double from Win2k!
Win2000: 1.61Mb
WinXP: 2.03Mb
WinVista: 3.30
So from Kernel 5.0 to Kernel 5.1 Microsoft wrote an extra 0.42Mb of code for the Kernel. However a major upgrade from version 5.1 to 6.0 Microsoft wrote an extra 1.27Mb.
When you consider the boot times people have got with Vista, Xbox360, WinMobile6 it's hard to argue against the fact that the NT Kernel is reasonably quick (Note: This is the KERNEL, not Windows as a whole)
Um, the Kernel size went up by 1.27Mb between XP and Vista. That's not double - it's not even double from Win2k!
Win2000: 1.61Mb
WinXP: 2.03Mb
WinVista: 3.30
So from Kernel 5.0 to Kernel 5.1 Microsoft wrote an extra 0.42Mb of code for the Kernel. However a major upgrade from version 5.1 to 6.0 Microsoft wrote an extra 1.27Mb.
When you consider the boot times people have got with Vista, Xbox360, WinMobile6 it's hard to argue against the fact that the NT Kernel is reasonably quick (Note: This is the KERNEL, not Windows as a whole)
Well actually with your numbers it did double from 2k to Vista... just a minor thing.. but 1.61 times 2 is 3.22 which is less then 3.30
Hahaha, now I've heard it all.
Hahaha, now I've heard it all.
you mean read
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.