User talk:A. S. Castanza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Windows 7

I read the CNet article, and I encourage you to do the same. it doesn't discuss Minwin at all, other than in the context of a question that went unanswered. Did you choose to ignore this? Did you choose to ignore the part of the interview where Sinofsky refused to answer questions about Minwin? Perhaps this needs to be made clear to you -- Minwin is not a new kernel. It is a refactoring of the existing kernel; this work is a continuation of componentization efforts that have been underway for years. -/- Warren 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. You don't understand this, do you? YOU'RE WRONG. Okay?

Again, I have to be very clear about this because you can't be bothered to understand what you're talking about before dumping untrue information on my talk page: Sinofsky did not state that Minwin is not included in Windows 7, nor did he say the two things are separate. I repeat: At no point does the article state that Minwin is not included in Windows 7.

It's a simple matter of disproving your completely incorrect opinions on what Minwin is and is not. You are going to need to provide reliable sources for your claims, which you haven't. Here's what you have to do if you want to prove to me (and indeed, yourself) that you have any idea of what the hell you're talking about:

1) Find a non-anonymous quote from a Microsoft developer that has stated that Minwin is a "microkernel". (good luck with that; I've reviewed every publicly-published piece about Minwin, and none of them say this)

2) Watch this Channel9 video with Mark Russinovich, who is a kernel developer with Windows. Advance to about 13 minutes in; he says, "The MinWin we're talking about today is what (we've) done to analyze dependencies, carve out the lowest, smallest component of Windows that would be a stand-alone, testable slice of Windows. And that is analyzing the dependencies and cutting the cycles to higher-level components. Really, making sure that MinWin doesn't depend on anything else, that is completely self-contained." Keep watching, and you'll learn more about what MinWin really is. It really is the real Windows kernel that comes with Server 2008 (and Vista SP1, too; same kernel, really), but it's the next stage in their componentization efforts. If you want to prove me wrong, disprove what Russinovich, a kernel developer at Microsoft, has said.

3) Watch this Channel9 video with Rob Short, who was one of the lead architecture people. It's lengthy, and a couple of years old, but they talk at length about their plans to componentize and more properly engineer the Windows kernel. They have a long-term plan that spans multiple versions. Vista & Server 2008 are the first stage in that; Windows 7 is the second stage. At no point has anybody talked about a "new kernel" (Singularity aside, but that isn't even Windows)... what they have been talking about all along is untangling the mess of dependencies in Windows. If you want to prove me wrong, disprove what Rob Short and the rest of the kernel architecture team has said.

4) Read Paul Thurrott's description of MinWin. He says, "Microsoft identified that bottom chunk, called MinWin, by performing an automated analysis of all of Windows and figuring out what the dependencies were between the binaries. Any binaries that were considered part of MinWin, were refactored (or split) to remove those upward dependencies." .... yes, he said refactoring, which you insisted on my talk page MinWin is not. If you want to prove me wrong, disprove what Paul Thurrott has said.

There is a lot of mis-reporting on what Sinofsky said floating around the Internet. It's all wrong. There is nothing implicit in the notion that "evolution from Server 2008" is fundamentally different from "a kernel with fewer upward dependencies". Software developers understand this, but most news reporters and a lot of observers aren't going to quite get it. You've fallen into that trap of misunderstanding; I suggest you review the above material, and read Sinofsky's words much more slowly, and much more carefully than you have so far. -/- Warren 04:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking your own userpage

Please do not delete other's comments from your userpage. Especially in the midst of a discussion. It is considered rude and disruptive to the process of collaborative editing. Comments are to be moved into an archive, but only when the topic being discussed has been resolved. --soum ^talk 06:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)