Microsoft agrees: Windows is a "really large bloated operating system"

David Flynn19 October 2007, 6:03 AM

Yes, they really did say that! The reason? Redmond is finally sending Windows to Jenny Craig, and will build the next generation of Windows around a stripped-back 'microkernel' named MinWin with a 25MB footprint.


While newly minted Windows head Steven Sinofsky continues to play his cards close to his chest, we're seeing signs that Microsoft is rethinking its monolithic approach to not only the mass-market Windows operating system but the entire family of Windows products from servers down to CE-based embedded devices.

First up is a streamlined microkernel codenamed MinWin, around which a re-engineered Windows line will be built. Described as "the Windows 7 source-code base", in reference to the successor to Windows Vista which is slated for a 2010 release, MinWin strips back the current NT-based kernel to the barest of bare metal.

"We'll be using this internally to build all the products based on Windows" said Microsoft engineer Eric Traut, when he slipped the first public glimpse of MinWin into a demonstration of Microsoft's virtualisation technology at the University of Illinois last week.

After loading multiple versions of Windows from the original 1.0 release through to NT 4 - including Windows ‘Bob' which earned a few chuckles from the audience and which Traut described as "not necessarily Microsoft's proudest moment!" - Traut fired up an additional VM session to load MinWin, which he called "the core of Windows 7, the Windows 7 source-code base".

Eye candy, begone: MinWin is so lean that even the Windows flag on the splash screen is rendered using ASCII Eye candy, begone: MinWin is so lean that even the Windows flag on the splash screen is rendered using ASCII
You can forget about eye candy - the prototype microkernel doesn't even contain a graphics subsystem in its current build, so the startup screen flashed a Windows flag created with ASCII characters.

You can also forget about almost every other other creature comfort of a modern operating system. Microsoft has ditched the lot in orde to get MinWin down to the point where it takes up 25MB of hard disk space and runs in 40MB of RAM.

"A lot of people think of Windows as this really large bloated operating system, and that may be a fair characterisation, I have to admit" Taut said. "It is large, it contains a lot of stuff, but at its core, the kernel and the components that make up the very core of the operating system are pretty streamlined."

"It's still bigger than I'd like it to be, but we've taken a shot at really stripping out all of the layers above and making sure that we had a clean architectural layer there, and we created what we call MinWin. About 100 files make up the system in total, compared to the 5,000 files that make up all of Windows."

While Taut stressed that MinWin was an internal-only project which "you won't see us productising, but you could imagine this being used as the basis for products in the future." He later elaborated that "we'll be using (MinWin) internally to build all the products based on Windows. It's not just the OS that's running on many laptops in this room, it's also the OS used for media centres, for servers, for small embedded devices. It's used in a lot of different ways, and this will provide the opportunity to move into a lot of different areas."


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

tin:

Finally...
I could have told them it was bloated about 10 years ago when I realised that Win98 really did nothing more than Win3.11 but took up over 5 times the space.

It sounds like they're starting from scratch, so I guess that means another round of nothing old running anymore.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous1:

DOS Reborn and still bloated!
Ms Dos 6.2 and Windows 3.1 took up about 15 meg of HD space in Bloated form and 8 meg in clean form
By the time you added a web browser TCPIP Stack and a Office package like Corell Perfect office you'd use up about 40 meg of HD space in bloated form and Guess what 25 meg in clean form and it all worked in 4 meg of ram!
it is now about tweenty years later and we are not quite back to the future!

A linux system the equivalent of what MinWin seems to be will just about fit on a 1.44 floppy or two.
Traut should get out his hacksaw and do a lot more trimming if he thinks they've removed all the fat.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Who cares:

Windows bloated? Who cares! It's funny but this
is what normally happens when you add more to any
good product over time. Any other OS will eventually
end up the same, (if it survives), no matter what it
is called because people demand more and more each
time an OS is upgraded. To take everything out just
to make it smaller in byte size is sometimes not
practical because in the end most of us will have
to go out and buy what is missing anyway. I for one
have enough storage and memory to handle any
software that is out there, bloated or not!
People really - let's just get on and use what we
have and be grateful. Stop being petty about who has
the smallest OS of them all!
Size does count sometimes!


29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Reghart:

Well said, thank you...I'm very tired, especially after my weekend of arguing about Windows with friends, of people bashing Microsoft or Vista, just because they can. In this day and age, storage and memory are cheap, and nobody uses floppies anymore unless you're working with some ancient legacy equipment. If you are, I feel sorry for you, unless you're doing it for fun, then you shouldn't even think of the latest OS. So quit griping about Vista's footprint and comparing it to Linux and OS X. If you don't like it, don't use it. Contrary to popular belief, you are not locked into Windows. I use Windows because I like it, and it does what I want it to. I don't have to justify my not using other OS's. Jeez...I applaud Microsoft for any improvement they make...Why be a hater?

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

dragonmeister:

Totally agree !!!
With 500 gig hard drives and 2 gig RAM costing a pittance, who cares if the OS takes 5 gig to install !!!
I wish those retro nuts that want a text OS that fit onto a 1.44 Mb floppy would join the future.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tim:

Perhaps you've never written code, perhaps you have, but in my experience there comes a time when you have to take a pair of secateurs to the hideously hybridised mutation of a program with its myriad grafted-in little bug fixes and start again from basic principles. Its what gardeners do when they prune the roses. Chop it all back to the root and come next spring the new growth will yield a garden of beautiful blooms. It's that or a tangle of vines not even Prince Charming can hack his way through.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

MH:

You sound like those dinosaurs from the big 3 automakers in 1972 just as OPEC was about to put the screws to the world. They insisted American drivers truly wanted really big cars that felt like you were riding on a cloud--never mind that they got 10 MPG, handled like an ocean liner and were hard to park in tight spots. Yeah, that turned out really well for THEM didn't it?

I for one DO care about Windows being bloated. MSFT has been striving for total market domination and has nearly succeeded. However with that leadership position comes some moral obligation to maintain an adequate level of quality control. I don't care if you could get a gig of RAM for 10 cents and quad core 3 GHz processors for a dollar--for what Windows actually DOES it is horribly inefficient (to the point of reckless irresponsibility on the part of MSFT). The ability to run on old underpowered hardware is merely a side issue. The main point is that you could literally do EVERY SINGLE THING that Vista Ultimate does on less than half the hardware, USING HALF THE ENERGY, with an OS that was PROPERLY designed and coded from the ground up. That's millions of MWh's of electricity wasted per year and could have a noticeable impact on CO2 and pollution emissions. Isn't that important to people too?

Other OSes (notably Linux) can already do everything Vista does with half the horsepower (I personally own a 512MB system with a graphics card that is incapable of doing the Aero desktop that easily does all the same 3-D stuff with Linux for example, and it performs just as well as a 1Gb Vista box running at almost twice the clock speed), and even most Linux distros are far from fully-optimal. The fact that MSFT, as a market leader with many $billions in cash reserves, cannot make a Vista Ultimate that runs ALL its features smoothly and reliably on a sub-$500 machine is absolutely shameful and pathetic.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

CN:

I completely agree with your perspective. MSFT should be paying major carbon taxes for all the wasted energy that their bloated inefficient products consume. The problem is even worse when you consider the energy that is wasted by the inefficient systems and the wasted energy that is consumed by air conditioning systems that must remove this excess heat from buildings.

29 February 2008, 8:49 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

OS+hackguru (New user):

Windows is unbeliavably bloated, size-wise and speed-wise. Not only does this result in slower installs, more waste of hard-drive space and worse performance, but also increased number of bugs and exploits available. If you guys did not know this GET UP-TO-DATE. More code=more possible bugs + more possible exploits. By rebuilding windows Microsoft is taking a smart approach to not only fixing performance and space issues but also the overall security of the OS as a whole without the assumed 'protection' programs people will install.
One more thing don't go bagging OSes like Windows, just if you are an exception using UNIX or any form of *NIX (like me). ALL, yes ALL OSes (including Mac and Linux) have their downsides, be it security, program availability, exploits, speed, appearance, just to mention a few.
Microsoft is rebuilding it from ground up to improve MAINLY the SECURITY, not what most of you observe as speed and size.
Though I must agree Windows has not had a significant core make-over since Windows ME and it is about time.

05 November 2008, 11:17 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anon:

The first step to a reformed Microsoft is Microsoft is admitting they have a problem. Now that that first step has been taken, it will be interesting to see if Microsoft gets the next few steps correct.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

tom b:

This is astounding. Ballmer has failed to comprehend that the rest of the computing world has upgraded to various flavors of UNIX (Mac OS X; LINUX). He's still trying to make Windows' 3rd-rate proprietary kernel work? How does he hope to achieve stability? Solid multitasking? Security? Unbelievable.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Todd:

If by "rest of the computing world has upgraded to various flavours" you mean a total of what 10%? is that generous? You linux tards annoy me, anything that MS have done is bad blah blah anything to come from Unix or Linus is good.... You critise MS when they release anything bloated or buggy, but you also critise them when they cut Windows down to a small small size and say linux can go from a floppy or 2, wow, who cares, hows that going to help in the real world? Is a general person going to go hey dudes come look at myspace but hang on a tick I just gotta load my second floppy...... Now Tom B, I would like to see you do what MS have, not only the marketing but also the creation of OS and software. So what people have done similar stuff with Linux, but is it as common and straight forward to the common person? NO, will it run the majority of software out there, NO. Linux is good but at the moment its only good for server rooms as a web server. give it maybe 10 more yrs and maybe it will be ready for the people

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

CptDondo:

Well, *nix owns the embedded market. MS has a real-world penetration of maybe 20% and falling.

And the embedded market is larger than the desktop market.

Do the math.

So... WinCE needs about 15 MB to get a severely limited system. I can put out a fully functional system in 4 MB that runs in 8MB RAM.

MS ain't dumb; they see the writing. More embedded stuff; less electricity-guzzling stuff. We've reached the 1960s vehicular opulence stage, with huge, inefficient bloated 5,000 lb monsters getting 6 MPG. Now it's time to start paring that down to get the Prius. And when MS gets there, they'll find *nix owns that whole market.



29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

OS+hackguru (New user):

Windows is unbeliavably bloated, size-wise and speed-wise. Not only does this result in slower installs, more waste of hard-drive space and worse performance, but also increased number of bugs and exploits available. If you guys did not know this GET UP-TO-DATE. More code=more possible bugs + more possible exploits. By rebuilding windows Microsoft is taking a smart approach to not only fixing performance and space issues but also the overall security of the OS as a whole without the assumed 'protection' programs people will install.
One more thing don't go bagging OSes like Windows, just if you are an exception using UNIX or any form of *NIX (like me). ALL, yes ALL OSes (including Mac and Linux) have their downsides, be it security, program availability, exploits, speed, appearance, just to mention a few.
Microsoft is rebuilding it from ground up to improve MAINLY the SECURITY, not what most of you observe as speed and size.
Though I must agree Windows has not had a significant core make-over since Windows ME and it is about time.

05 November 2008, 11:21 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

narewa:

Great news. Can hardly wait.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

booger butter:

"productising" is not a word, my dear WinGeek... apparently Eric Traut's ability to create words is equal to Microsoft's ability to create decent software.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Krabappel:

really? it's a very cromulent word. windows has embiggened the computering wordacular.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

ricegf:

MinWin needs a new userland? Hmmm... I believe a really good one with very little bloat is in late beta that would work wonderfully! And it's even compatible with Compiz Fusion! :-)

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

EyeAm:

exokernel.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Wesley Parish:

I am amused. After telling us that such-and-such is an essential part of the kernel, they then go on to strip such-and-such out? Next thing they'll be separating the web browser and server from the kernel! Will own goals - oops, wonders - never cease?

It's quite transparent what Microsoft is up to, of course - Vista's an example of "The Mythical Man-Month"'s "Mythical Man-Month", and I used to think Win2k was the shining example of the Second System Effect. So now they're playing catch-up; better, I suppose, that they play catch-up football than continue their disastrous run of voluntary spear tackles.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Len:

Myself I don't think the size of the OS is the problem too much. It is if it runs the programs that I have bought. I know that I have the choice of upgrading my OS or not but surely they should make it compatible with most of the programs, otherwise what is the point!

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

acs:

The problem is not the "size" of the OS, is the "structure". A good software can have a lot of features, but a bloated has this features mixed. A restructuraction is not eliminate things, is structure this things in a coherent layer model

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

guideX:

Great. All these VB6 programs I'm re-writting in Visual Studio 2005 for Windows Vista type systems is a complete waste of time by 2010?!

So I suppose they'll come out with another source code converter for whatever new horrible Visual Studio that comes out for Windows 7 which leave yet another myriad of TODO's and syntax errors.

- Limping programmer

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

jake dixon:

i don't like the idea. i mean who would whant a computer that doesn't have any software for hardware on it. who realy cares about the space it takes up on your hdd thte new hdds are like 100times bigger than the space vista takes up so you don't need to worry about space. graphic sound and speed are the key elements in computing today also space, micro soft should keep making massive os like vista. there heavy loaded and easy to use and look good

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Kutulu:

I think most ppl are reading this wrong. They are restructuring their source code. That is not going to be the final OS with less features. Those will be added on top. The idea is to get into the smaller, mobile device market, which is why size is important.

Funny how most of these posts are from people who dont understand/have misinterpreted the topic.

29 February 2008, 8:49 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dataland:

Performance Reset!

I certainly hope Windows 7 is based on WinMin. As I have said in some of my previous blogs, I think software in general, and Microsoft software in particular, is getting slower at faster rate than hardware is getting faster. And this problem acutely affects Vista ...

CrossTalk: http://dataland.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/performance-reset/


29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Xaphan:

The Operating System's aren't getting faster. The computers required to run the OS's are getting faster. Try running Win2000 on your Quad Core, and see the difference.

For those whinging gits that are complaining that Linux can't run your software? - Try Winblows emulators. Wine is a reasonable one. But, if you're running Linux, why would you want to run Winblows software in the first place? You do realize you can download Solitaire and install it on your Linux Desktop...don't you?

It's good that M$ has finally realized that their software is heavily bloated. It's good that M$ are trying to do something about it.

Linux systems can do more than just host a chat room or a webserver. If you spend the time to sit down and actually read and use a Linux operating system, you'll find that it's more versatile than your ignorant mind is able to comprehend.

/Xaphan.

29 February 2008, 8:49 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

francesco:

Microsoft agrees: Windows is a "really large bloated operating system":strange , so i hope that Windows 7 will have costumitation of services , 120 services or 80 active are eccessive !

29 February 2008, 8:49 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

bob:

The Whole size argument is irrelevant.

But i don't think Microsoft has much choice other then a complete remake to move into the future releasing new products. Windows would have such a huge source, that has probably been warped, and forgotten about and poorly tagged.

The whole thing would be so bloated that any new programmers wouldn't even be able to say what a llot of the scripts are for.

29 February 2008, 8:33 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

stan:

it will give them a chance to make a new product with out the problems that the old programmers wrote in. new people, new ideas, new approaches to problems. if you have a problem with windows go work at microsoft and fix it. they have just cleaned the slate for you. its something small to add to. not something huge, and if you add something you may cover something else.

they started with a,b,c
and that became a,b,c,d,e,f
and then a.3,b.2,cc3,d23,f9,h,3m
and then a34,b234xd,ccw43,d87,f10,h7,4m,x4x,zz,rd,4575df,ccggb,78575,666,gfnow

and they want to come back to a,b,c,d so they can make a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o
not 2asdas,asdf234,bsdfg,teqaa,gareg,45624, ect...

just adding all the features that are needed neatly instead of piling it on top



29 February 2008, 8:50 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags