Windows 10 build 14251 has Linux subsystem files, what could it mean?

Sorry if it is a dumb question but what Linux (or Android) application would you actually want to run under Windows rather than under Linux (or Android) direct?

why should Microsoft use a unix core?? it is much more stable for one and much faster. look how a 2.53 core 2 duo with 2 gb of ram laptop on os x competes with an i5 2.67 and 4gb of ram laptop running windows. the mac is much faster. I have a 2.4 c2d 2 gb mac mini desktop and a 2.67 i5 dell latitude e6410 laptop with windows 10 pro. my mini is just as fast if not faster then my laptop. not that I don't like windows 10 but it would be much better if it was built on a unix core

logicearth said:

Right because we can just swap out the Windows core with Linux and throw the Windows GUI on top of it without any problems. I'm sorry, but that is just...you should not talk about things you have no understanding of. Operating Systems are complex systems, there is nothing simple about them. How they function, how they prioritize hardware and schedule applications while providing a framework for applications to do their task. Swapping any part out or changing it can have major ramifications. Just look at Windows Vista, it broke backwards compatibility in several areas. Tell me, how did everyone react to that? Do I need to give you a hint?

"Under the hood" is just as important to everyone as the GUI, for those that depends on Windows. Changing it now would be suicide for Microsoft.

Hi there

I DO understand OS'es -- I worked at Hursley near Winchester in the UK for a while way way back with IBM on the mainframe MVS OS2 (MVS/370 or MVS/SP to distinguish it from the PC version !!) -- still recognized even today as a great example of how an OS should be written.

This OS from late 60's and 70's has everything a modern OS should have -- paging, swapping, task manager, security, TSO (time sharing option), file system, separate I/O channels for overlapping I/O with CPU etc etc.

To compile it we used a special language called PL/S which was a sort of mix between PL/I, IBM assembly language and "English pseudocode".

I'm sure ZILLIONS of satisfied users of that OS hadn't a clue with how it actually worked.

It still had a facility which we really need in modern OS'es too -- there was a difference between an application running in "User" mode and one running in Supervisor mode -- this was done via an SVC (supervisor call) in a program which if authourized would set a special key in hardware (known as the PSW - Program status word) to switch between application and supervisor (or privileged) state.

AFAIK the only people ever to break that system were probably internal "System Progrmmers". I don't think anyone ever succeeded in hacking from the outside --although of course these days with better Internet etc -- who knows.

Still the OS is a model of a classic OS --you can emulate it on even a modest PC using the Hercules emulator and a load of MVS/370 stuff is in public domain !!. Brings back memories seeing that OS running on a Laptop !!!!!! as an application program in Windows --no VM needed !!.

Be very careful in assuming people don't understand how OS'es work. !!!!! - Especially when they have worked on CREATING them !!!!!.

Cheers
jimbo

pitbullpup said:

why should Microsoft use a unix core?? it is much more stable for one and much faster. look how a 2.53 core 2 duo with 2 gb of ram laptop on os x competes with an i5 2.67 and 4gb of ram laptop running windows. the mac is much faster. I have a 2.4 c2d 2 gb mac mini desktop and a 2.67 i5 dell latitude e6410 laptop with windows 10 pro. my mini is just as fast if not faster then my laptop. not that I don't like windows 10 but it would be much better if it was built on a unix core

Depends on what you mean by fast...;) In 3d games using either d3d (not available on Mac) or OpenGL, for instance, Windows smokes OS X's OpenGL implementation , and the Windows OpenGL implementation is about 10 years ahead of OS X's...Apple is way behind in that category. There are all kinds of definitions of "fast"...;)

Also, Windows' strength is its backwards compatibility--far greater than OS X's, which is also why Windows supports so much more hardware than than OS X. Windows supports more hardware and software than any other OS on Earth. It isn't even close. Comparing OS X to Windows using OS X's apparent functionality is a very limited comparison--once you start looking at OS X in terms of what Windows has/does that OS X cannot do at all, the equation is heavily in Windows' favor. Number 1 of course after the far superior hardware and software compatibility of Windows is that Microsoft doesn't require you to buy a Microsoft-branded computer in order to run OS X...;) Apple won't let you run OS X unless you buy a *what*?--a Mac. Giant dongle, eh? That's horrible, and a major disadvantage, imo...;)

You have to understand that if Apple ever released OS X to compete with Windows in the same marketplaces people would be able to run OS X on the platform of their choice--and that is something Apple will not allow, imo--ever. That's why the Mac remains a niche box with an ~eternal 5-6% of the global PC marketplace. It has far too many "gotcha's..."

I've noticed you make a lot of glowing, pro-Mac posts while you somehow always seem to forget the many disadvantages of the Mac, which are Legion--in my humble opinion, of course...

waltc said:

Also, Windows' strength is its backwards compatibility--far greater than OS X's, which is also why Windows supports so much more hardware than than OS X...

Too true - even on Apple hardware. I run Windows 10 on my 2006 Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro. Can I run El Capitan? Nope.

Windows 10 runs faster on that machine than Snow Leopard which is the last version of OSX I could install (it is unsupported now of course).

This has to be the silliest thread I have read so far on the 10 forums. . .

apple has far more beautiful hardware with the nice lighted emblem on the lid so everyone knows what you have. very attention getting hardware unlike most windows hardware like my dell. no flashy lighted emblems not all shiny aluminum case etc

You got the wrong Dell: Try the XPS M1730 from 2007. Mobile Vista gaming at its flashiest at the time.

You also need to get a gym subscription for the muscles you will need to carry it and it's PSU (about the size of Springfield Nuclear Power station) around with you :) - It's a great anti theft device too, the opportunist thief is likely to rupture themselves trying to run off with this.

my dell has the back lit keyboard they copied from apple