Windows 10: Windows 10: 'Aero Glass' theme coming soon via simple mod

You seem to assume that all computers work off of a battery. If I was running a machine off a battery, I would want to turn Aero off. But I am on a PC with an 850 watt power supply and a quad core video card. I don't need to conserve battery power or video power, so I want my SHINEY!*Wink

 

Fondleslap! Snort, choke. *Roflmao2

 

*Ditto If M$ wants one OS that fits all (didn't work for clothing sizes but M$ didn't learn from that), they could make it modular and people (and manufacturers) could install only the features they want (or the hardware can support). Otherwise, I feel it is doomed to failure.

I personally do not like AeroGlass and have it turned off. But I was able to make that choice instead of having one rammed down my throat. My only objections to Win 10 right now are the necessity to use tiles in the Start Menu for items that appeared as a simple list on the right side of the Win 7 Start Menu and the flat appearance of windows due to the lack of color shading and window shadowing. The latter may seem like a cosmetic issue but, for me, color shading and window shadowing makes reading items on a screen much easier on my eyes and brain; otherwise, everything blurs together. It's like going back to my Commodore C64c. This is progress?

 

I thought that was the whole concept of having a "micro kernel" with NT design way back when? How soon they forget. *Smile

 

NT isn't a true Microkernel, but it's Microkernel-inspired *Wink

What we know as Windows is not the true NT OS, that's the ntoskrnl, which doesn't have any real user interface. That's why WinRT (ie Metro) could just as easily become the primary OS at some point, leaving Win32 (what we know as Windows or the Desktop) to be a windowed subsystem.

 

I don't think IBM got there either with OS/2. But I;m not sure. Last v I used was 3.0.

The idea being "one OS for all platforms" isn't stupid if you install the modular components needed for the platform. It's lazy and lame just to have clumps of spaghetti code for every possible platform, install it all, and just call the clump needed at run time.

The micro kernel comment was referring to the former approach.

Edit: Speaking of alternative shells and such, just for grins I'm going to try one on a W7 VM.Just to see what happens. *Smile

 

OS/2 was never a Microkernel at all. It was very monolithic

 

I guess it never got off the starting block. Everyone talks about how stuff shold be designed. Then they face deadlines. Neat idea meet recycle bin.

In any case the relationship of all this stuff to MS's decision how to implement Windows seems to keep getting ignored. All this is just tangential.

 

A true Microkernel is one in which only the core OS functionality is in the kernel and everything else is moved to user mode services. The Windows kernel somewhat resembles this but it is far from being a true Microkernel. As would be expected it has advantages and disadvantages over a monolithic kernel and is not inherently superior.

Making major changes in the Windows kernel would have enormous compatibility implications, particularly for device drivers. Even seemingly trivial changes can cause compatibility problems and this change would be anything but trivial. A great deal more basic research would need to be done before Microsoft would commit to such a kernel.

Large companies are usually conservative in nature. They have too much to loose to be otherwise.

But this has little relevance to Windows 10.

 

The point of having a microkernel is to avoid kitchen sink OS design. One size fits all is just what we're talking about. I don't see that quoting textbook definitions adds any value.