From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire- 202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux. Terminology changed in subtle ways.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-01-06, anonymous <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire- 202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux. Terminology changed in subtle ways.

And that's before you even get into WSL (Windows Subsyystem for Linux).
The default is Ubuntu, but on my PC, it's Fedora.

From PowerShell
wsl --install Fedora
.. and reboot. Next time you open the command window terminal,
your Linux system is an option in the pulldown (down arrow to the right
of the + in the top bar of the window).
--
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-01-06, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:

On 2026-01-06, anonymous <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-
202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some
news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux. Terminology changed in subtle ways.

And that's before you even get into WSL (Windows Subsyystem for Linux).
The default is Ubuntu, but on my PC, it's Fedora.

From PowerShell
wsl --install Fedora
.. and reboot. Next time you open the command window terminal,
your Linux system is an option in the pulldown (down arrow to the right
of the + in the top bar of the window).

Well, that is how it worked in Windows-10.
At this point, it is
wsl --install FedoraLinux-43

And I don't see it in the pulldown, but you get a command shell from
default distribution you selected by typing "wsl" in the command shell
(cmd or PS).

The file system view is a little different in WSL. The windows file
systems are mounted under /mnt/c etc
You can install GUI file manager - f.ex. dolphin
sudo dnf install dolphin -y
then at the shell prompt
dolphin >&/dev/null &
--
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 6/01/2026 11:20 am, anonymous wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire- 202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux. Terminology changed in subtle ways.

"Windows Vista 11"?? Wasn't Vista about Windows 5 or so??
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 06/01/2026 08:03, Daniel70 wrote:

On 6/01/2026 11:20 am, anonymous wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-
202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some
news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

-a Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux.-a Terminology changed in subtle ways.

"Windows Vista 11"?? Wasn't Vista about Windows 5 or so??

I think he's using the Vista name as an supposed insult to Windows 11.
Windows Vista did seem to have a bad reputation, but actually it was
very like Windows 7 and as far as I'm concerned, was fine to use if you
just accepted that you got lots of User Account Control (UAC) prompts.
To this day I always run with UAC prompts set to maximum like in Vista.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 1/6/26 3:03 AM, Daniel70 wrote:

On 6/01/2026 11:20 am, anonymous wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-
202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some
news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

-a Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux.-a Terminology changed in subtle ways.

"Windows Vista 11"?? Wasn't Vista about Windows 5 or so??

2000 and XP were 5, Vista 6, 7 and later aren't Vista though the basic codebase hasn't been radically changed since Vista (which is why it was
so delayed and buggy on its release).
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Tue, 1/6/2026 11:15 AM, Brian Gregory wrote:

On 06/01/2026 08:03, Daniel70 wrote:

On 6/01/2026 11:20 am, anonymous wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-
202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some
news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

-a Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux.-a Terminology changed in subtle ways. >>>

"Windows Vista 11"?? Wasn't Vista about Windows 5 or so??

I think he's using the Vista name as an supposed insult to Windows 11. Windows Vista did
seem to have a bad reputation, but actually it was very like Windows 7 and as far as I'm
concerned, was fine to use if you just accepted that you got lots of
User Account Control (UAC) prompts.

To this day I always run with UAC prompts set to maximum like in Vista.

Vista was fine after SP2 was installed. It was then pretty close
to being a Win7 candidate release (same quality level). A few small
touches in Vista, were nice -- such as the Search option that when
the Search did not find your item, there was a "Try Harder" button :-)

Windows is a rolling release, that started from the Vista rewrite.
This means the approach to doing things, the philosophy, may be
traceable to Vista. It's not like every OS since then was a Clean Slate
and everything was re-written from first principles.

The WSUSSCN2.cab file, traces updates from WinXP era or so.
The release control system predates Vista. The WSUSSCN2.cab file
was used by the "Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer", to work out
what security updates (or optionally Office Updates) were missing.
But it did not include Optional Updates in its list. Once the .cab
was protected with SHA2 hashes, MBSA could no longer read it (and
its signatures or whatever). Changing the signing on patches, was
a convenient way to "stick a fork" in a few things. Today, if you
install Vista, it is no longer possible to patch it up to date.

Later handling of updates via "Cumulatives", are still likely to be
tracking individual packages via WSUSSCN2.cab . But when patching,
smaller chunks of that CAB file can be fed to the update engine.

Overall, the OS you use today, has a lot of legacy "smell" in some
layers, and hidden by creamy Ranch Dressing on top. To protect
the innocent, no doubt.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 19:03:37 +1100, Daniel70 wrote:

On 6/01/2026 11:20 am, anonymous wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-
202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some
news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux. Terminology changed in subtle ways.

"Windows Vista 11"?? Wasn't Vista about Windows 5 or so??

IIRC:

5.0 Win 2000
5.1 Win XP
6.0 Win Vista
6.1 Win 7
6.2 Win 8
6.3 Win 8.1
6.4 some early prerelease Win 10 (before they changed to calling it
version 10)
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Useful Phrases to Know when Traveling in The Middle East: Akbar
khali-kili haftir loftan - Thank you for showing me your marvelous gun"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> news:ms4qo9Fp402U1@mid.individual.net Tue, 06 Jan 2026 16:15:04 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On 06/01/2026 08:03, Daniel70 wrote:

On 6/01/2026 11:20 am, anonymous wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-
202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some
news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

- Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux.- Terminology changed in subtle ways. >>>

"Windows Vista 11"?? Wasn't Vista about Windows 5 or so??

I think he's using the Vista name as an supposed insult to Windows 11. Windows Vista did seem to have a bad reputation, but actually it was
very like Windows 7 and as far as I'm concerned, was fine to use if you
just accepted that you got lots of User Account Control (UAC) prompts.
To this day I always run with UAC prompts set to maximum like in Vista.

Vista earned that bad reputation. It was the equ of WindowsME. Windows 7 was quite stable on stand alone systems as well as workstations. Vista was just
a pain in the ass. Esp when it was first released to the public with it's rather shitty driver support. If you only use one computer for personal use where you didn't own any say, HP printers or scanners, I can see why you
might not have had any noticeable issues with it. In a workstation environment, it wasn't so much fun. Having to replace a working printer or flatbed scanner because Vista didn't support it and the manufacturers didn't have drivers available (yet if ever) that wasn't so good. Didn't run into
this issue when Windows 7 was released though. It supported 'older hardware' for the most part just fine. Vista also ran like dog shit on the same
hardware as XP. XP was a solid OS. Windows 2000 basically with the end user eye candy. Windows 7 was the 'fix' for Vista. It was a decent OS as well.

MS wasn't happy with that, of course, so we got Winshit 8 and winshit 8.1 - lets turn your desktop/laptop into a tablet. Yea! Brilliant move on their part. /sarcasm.
--
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> news:10jjl3p$22go$1@dont-email.me Tue, 06 Jan
2026 18:43:04 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

Vista was fine after SP2 was installed. It was then pretty close
to being a Win7 candidate release (same quality level). A few small
touches in Vista, were nice -- such as the Search option that when
the Search did not find your item, there was a "Try Harder" button :-)

Windows is a rolling release, that started from the Vista rewrite.

Please elaborate further on this rewrite? I'm unaware of vista being a rewrite.

Overall, the OS you use today, has a lot of legacy "smell" in some
layers, and hidden by creamy Ranch Dressing on top. To protect
the innocent, no doubt.

Backwards compatibility for the most part. It's something MS was at one point taking seriously.
--
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Mon, 1/12/2026 4:47 PM, Gremlin wrote:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> news:10jjl3p$22go$1@dont-email.me Tue, 06 Jan 2026 18:43:04 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

Vista was fine after SP2 was installed. It was then pretty close
to being a Win7 candidate release (same quality level). A few small
touches in Vista, were nice -- such as the Search option that when
the Search did not find your item, there was a "Try Harder" button :-)

Windows is a rolling release, that started from the Vista rewrite.

Please elaborate further on this rewrite? I'm unaware of vista being a rewrite.

It is. It's a rewrite. it took five years to do.
it was released before the testing was finished.
If it takes you five years and you can't even be bothered
to test it properly, something is very very wrong there.

The kernel is substantially different. I do not
know the terminology for this, but we could start
with the Wiki for Vista to see. There is very little
information about kernel details that I know of,
so we can have a substantive discussion.

I know you will argue "I was a beta tester" etc.

But the thing is, it's a matter of degree rather than substance.
I too, worked in the computer industry, and I worked the cradle
to grave of the hardware and software. We wrote two versions
of our OS. I know how much that cost, and how much calendar
that took.

Vista took way way too long. That's the first starting note,
that practically speaking, there cannot be anything left under
the hood that hasn't been fucked with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista

"May 2001... and continued until November 8, 2006"

"The same post also described Windows Vista as having approximately
50 million lines of code, with about 2,000 developers working on the product.

OK, five years and 2000 developers. We wrote an OS in two years with 100 developers.
You can also write OSes with fewer developers than that, such as TempleOS with one developer.

With such a substantial difference in development path, how can
there be anything left in there ? Sure, they copied the routines
that "must be copied" for guaranteed compatibility. Some of those
same routines, for drawing menus and the like, exist in more
modern versions of Windows and allow Classic Shell and similar
things to be written, by calling into old code that was just sitting there.

The only way we can have a good argument over this, would be
to see details of the kernel progression. And I do not recollect
any good discussions of how that went. Many lies have been told
of technical improvements to the kernel, that just were not true,
so I don't know if anyone has written a history about it or not.
Maybe more of the kernel improvements are visible in Server versions.

I have no interest in Vista. I did not buy a copy. I did not
join the Vista news group. I have tried on three occasions, to
develop a patching method so a poor Vista user could reinstall
and patch up to date. And it took an accidental discovery that
WSUSOffline had figured this out, that I finally got some
traction. And that no longer works today, and Vista as an artifact
is a total writeoff. Sure, you can install it, but you cannot
expect the spinning Windows Update thing will every come back.
If you use the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer, it cannot
download the WSUSSCN2.cab file and parse it, because the
signing was changed.

********************** Copilot Question *******************

What differences are there, between the WinXP kernel design and the Vista kernel design ?

Was the Vista kernel designed from scratch with all new code, or was
it merely an evolution of some WinXP code ?

********************** Copilot Answer *******************

**Windows Vista did *not* use a new kernel written from scratch. It was an evolutionary continuation of the Windows NT lineage, including Windows XP, but with
major architectural changes - especially in security, driver isolation, memory management,
and graphics.** The Vista kernel is still NT-based (NT 6.0), while XP is NT 5.1.

Below is a clear breakdown of what changed and what stayed the same, grounded in what is known from MicrosoftrCOs documentation and technical analyses.

---

# HighrCaLevel Summary

| Aspect | Windows XP Kernel (NT 5.1) | Windows Vista Kernel (NT 6.0) |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Lineage** | Mature NT 5.x branch | New NT 6.x branch (evolution, not rewrite) |
| **Security Model** | Limited isolation, weaker defaults | Mandatory Integrity Control, UAC, ASLR, stronger driver signing |
| **Driver Model** | XPDM (older, less isolated) | WDDM (new GPU driver model), improved stability |
| **Memory Manager** | Older algorithms, less scalable | Rewritten memory manager with better NUMA, I/O, caching |
| **Networking Stack** | Legacy TCP/IP stack | Fully rewritten TCP/IP stack |
| **Graphics** | GDI in kernel mode | GDI moved out of kernel; GPU scheduling added |
| **Audio Stack** | Kernel mode audio | User mode audio engine (more stable) |
| **Reliability** | Drivers could easily crash the system | Driver isolation, service hardening, restartable services |

---

# Was Vista a Rewrite?

### **No - Vista was not a clean-room rewrite.**
It was a **major architectural overhaul built on the existing NT codebase**, but many subsystems *were* rewritten or heavily redesigned.

Microsoft has repeatedly stated that:

- Vista is **NT 6.0**, not a new kernel.
- It retains NTrCOs core architecture: object manager, scheduler, executive, HAL, etc.
- But many subsystems were replaced or deeply modernized.

Think of it as **a new generation of the NT kernel**, not a new kernel.

---

# Major Kernel-Level Differences

## 1. **Security Architecture Overhaul**
Vista introduced the largest security redesign since NT 4.0.

### New in Vista:
- **Mandatory Integrity Control (MIC)**
Processes get integrity levels (Low/Medium/High/System).
Prevents low trust processes from modifying higher trust ones.
- **User Account Control (UAC)**
Admins run as standard users by default.
- **Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR)**
Makes exploitation harder.
- **Kernel Patch Protection (PatchGuard)** on x64
Prevents kernel tampering.
- **Driver signing requirements** (x64)

XP had none of these.

---

## 2. **New Graphics Driver Model (WDDM)**
This is one of the biggest changes.

### XP:
- XPDM (Windows XP Display Driver Model)
- GPU drivers ran largely in kernel mode
- No GPU scheduling
- No virtualization of GPU memory

### Vista:
- **WDDM 1.0** introduced:
- GPU memory virtualization
- GPU preemption and scheduling
- User-mode display drivers
- Desktop Window Manager (DWM) compositing

This was a foundational change that enabled Aero, DirectX 10, and modern GPU multitasking.

---

## 3. **Memory Manager Improvements**
Vista's memory manager was significantly redesigned:

- Better support for **NUMA** systems
- Improved **I/O caching**
- Better **address space layout**
- More scalable **heap and pool management**
- Enhanced **copy-on-write** behavior

XPrCOs memory manager was simpler and less scalable.

---

## 4. **Networking Stack Rewritten**
Vista introduced a **completely new TCP/IP stack**:

- Dual IPv4/IPv6 stack
- Better congestion control
- Receive Window Auto-Tuning
- Improved firewall integration
- Better QoS

XP used a legacy stack dating back to NT 4.0.

---

## 5. **Audio Stack Moved to User Mode**
XP:
- Audio drivers ran in kernel mode -> frequent BSODs

Vista:
- **User-mode audio engine**
- Kernel only handles low-level mixing

This dramatically improved stability.

---

## 6. **Service Hardening & Restartable Services**
Vista introduced:

- **Service isolation**
- **Per-service SIDs**
- **Restricted tokens**
- **Restartable services** (e.g., audio service)

XP services ran with far more privileges and could not restart cleanly.

---

## 7. **Kernel Transaction Manager (KTM)**
Vista added a new subsystem:

- Enables transactional NTFS (TxF)
- Enables transactional registry (TxR)

XP had no such feature.

---

# So Was Vista rCLJust XP With a New UIrCY?

**Absolutely not.**
VistarCOs kernel and subsystems were significantly more advanced, even if the NT lineage remained.

If XP is NT 5.1, Vista is the beginning of the NT 6.x family that continues through:

- Windows 7 (NT 6.1)
- Windows 8 (NT 6.2)
- Windows 8.1 (NT 6.3)
- Windows 10 (NT 10.0)
- Windows 11 (NT 10.0+)

Vista laid the groundwork for all modern Windows versions.

---

# Bottom Line

- **Vista was not a rewrite**, but a **major evolution** of the NT kernel.
- Many subsystems were **rewritten**, including networking, audio, graphics, and parts of the memory manager.
- Vista introduced the **NT 6.x architecture**, which is still the basis of Windows today.
- XP and Vista kernels differ dramatically in security, driver model, reliability, and system architecture.

---

If you want, I can also break down **specific kernel components** (scheduler, object manager, I/O manager, etc.) and compare them one by one.

********************** End Copilot Answer *******************

If we give the AI one more swing at bat...

********************** Copilot Question *******************

Yes please, break down specific kernel components (scheduler, object manager, I/O manager, etc.) and compare them one by one.

********************** Copilot Answer *******************

Absolutely rCo letrCOs go subsystemrCabyrCasubsystem and compare **Windows XP (NT 5.1)** and
**Windows Vista (NT 6.0)** at the kernelrCaarchitecture level.
This is the kind of deep, structured breakdown that exposes how
radically Vista changed the NT internals despite not being a cleanrCaroom rewrite.

---

# **1. Scheduler (Process & Thread Scheduling)**

## **Windows XP (NT 5.1)**
- Classic NT scheduler with:
- Priority-driven, preemptive scheduling
- 32 priority levels (0-31)
- Quantum-based round-robin for threads at same priority
- Limited awareness of:
- NUMA
- Hyperthreading
- Multi-core scaling (XP was designed when dual-core was new)
- Priority boosts used aggressively (foreground apps, I/O completion)

## **Windows Vista (NT 6.0)**
- Scheduler redesigned for:
- Multi-core CPUs
- Hyperthreading
- NUMA topologies
- Improvements:
- Better load balancing across cores
- More accurate CPU accounting
- Reduced priority boosting (to avoid "thrashing")
- Fairer quantum distribution
- Added **thread ideal processor** improvements for better affinity decisions

### **Impact**
Vista's scheduler is far more scalable and predictable under load.

---

# **2. Object Manager**

## **XP**
- Mature NT object namespace
- Handles kernel objects: processes, threads, events, mutexes, files, registry keys, etc.
- Security descriptors applied but no integrity levels

## **Vista**
- Same fundamental architecture, but extended with:
- **Mandatory Integrity Control (MIC)**
Every securable object now has an integrity label.
- **Stronger handle auditing**
- **Service hardening** (services get restricted object access)
- More robust namespace isolation for low-integrity processes (e.g., IE Protected Mode)

### **Impact**
Vista's Object Manager enforces a *strictly more granular* security model.

---

# **3. I/O Manager**

## **XP**
- Classic NT I/O stack
- Synchronous/asynchronous I/O
- IRPs (I/O Request Packets)
- Limited cancellation support (cancelling I/O was messy)
- Filter drivers common source of instability

## **Vista**
- Major improvements:
- **New I/O cancellation model** (more reliable IRP cancellation)
- **Transactional I/O** via Kernel Transaction Manager (KTM)
- **Improved PlugrCaandrCaPlay and power management**
- **Better driver isolation** (especially with user-mode drivers for audio & graphics)
- More robust error propagation and recovery

### **Impact**
VistarCOs I/O manager is more reliable, especially under heavy driver activity.

---

# **4. Memory Manager**

## **XP**
- Solid but aging design
- Limited:
- NUMA support
- Large memory systems
- Address space randomization
- Kernel pools prone to fragmentation

## **Vista**
- Substantial redesign:
- Better **NUMA** awareness
- Improved **page replacement algorithms**
- **ASLR** for system binaries
- More efficient **copyrCaonrCawrite**
- Better **heap and pool allocation** strategies
- Improved **superfetch** integration (kernelrCalevel caching heuristics)

### **Impact**
Vista's memory manager is more scalable and secure.

---

# Efo- **5. Networking Stack**

## **XP**
- Legacy TCP/IP stack dating back to NT 4.0
- Limited IPv6 support (addrCaon)
- No auto-tuning
- Less efficient under high throughput

## **Vista**
- **Completely rewritten TCP/IP stack**
- Dual IPv4/IPv6 stack
- Receive Window AutorCaTuning
- Better congestion control
- Integrated firewall hooks
- Improved QoS

### **Impact**
Vista's networking stack is modern, faster, and more robust.

---

# **6. Graphics Subsystem (GDI, DirectX, Driver Model)**

## **XP**
- **XPDM** (Windows XP Display Driver Model)
- GDI runs in kernel mode
- GPU drivers can easily crash the system
- No GPU scheduling

## **Vista**
- **WDDM 1.0** (massive architectural shift)
- GDI moved out of kernel mode
- GPU memory virtualization
- GPU scheduling and preemption
- Desktop Window Manager (DWM) compositing

### **Impact**
VistarCOs graphics model is the foundation of all modern Windows versions.

---

# **7. Audio Stack**

## **XP**
- KernelrCamode audio drivers
- Frequent BSODs from buggy audio drivers

## **Vista**
- **User-mode audio engine**
- Per-application volume control
- More stable and isolated

### **Impact**
Huge reliability improvement.

---

# **8. Kernel Transaction Manager (KTM)**

## **XP**
- No transactional filesystem or registry

## **Vista**
- Introduced **KTM**, enabling:
- Transactional NTFS (TxF)
- Transactional Registry (TxR)
- Transactional I/O

### **Impact**
Rarely used by developers, but architecturally significant.

---

# **9. Service Control Manager & Service Hardening**

## **XP**
- Services often run as SYSTEM
- No per-service SIDs
- No restricted tokens

## **Vista**
- **Per-service SIDs**
- **Restricted tokens**
- **Write-restricted services**
- **Restartable services**

### **Impact**
Services are far less capable of compromising the system.

---

# **10. Kernel Security (PatchGuard, ASLR, UAC)**

## **XP**
- No ASLR
- No PatchGuard
- No integrity levels
- Admins run with full privileges

## **Vista**
- **ASLR**
- **Kernel Patch Protection (x64)**
- **Mandatory Integrity Control**
- **UAC**
- **Driver signing requirements (x64)**

### **Impact**
Vista introduced the modern Windows security model.

---

# **11. Boot & Startup Architecture**

## **XP**
- NTLDR
- Boot.ini
- Limited recovery options

## **Vista**
- **Boot Configuration Data (BCD)**
- **Windows Boot Manager**
- Better crash recovery
- Improved startup/shutdown sequencing

### **Impact**
Vista's boot architecture is still used today.

---

# **12. Reliability Infrastructure**

## **XP**
- Limited error reporting
- No restartable services
- Drivers frequently caused BSODs

## **Vista**
- **Windows Error Reporting 2.0**
- **Service restart policies**
- **Driver isolation**
- **Improved kernel crash analysis**

### **Impact**
Vista dramatically reduced systemrCawide crashes from drivers.

---

# **Bottom Line**

Windows Vista was **not** a rewrite, but it *was* the largest architectural overhaul of the NT kernel since NT 4.0.
XP (NT 5.1) and Vista (NT 6.0) share the same lineage, but Vista modernized nearly every subsystem:

- New networking stack
- New graphics driver model
- New audio stack
- New security model
- Improved scheduler
- Improved memory manager
- Transactional kernel
- Service hardening
- Better I/O cancellation
- Better NUMA and multirCacore support

Vista is the foundation of **Windows 7, 8, 10, and 11**.

********************** End Copilot Answer *******************

Even with an LLM-AI seemingly scraping the Internet,
the answer still fits a narrative (like a P.R. written post).
And portions of the answer don't really have as much meat as you would like.

I bet there are CS University Professors who have
a suitable slide deck for this.

The kernel at one time, had ticks set by the hardware timer (8253?).
At some point, it may have had a 1 millisecond tick. And
at another time, it may have switched to tickless. I could easily
be confusing this with Linux, but I believe Microsoft toyed with
some of these ideas too.

Microsoft also claims that it has not changed NTFS and this
is why it refuses to change the NTFS release number. However, they
overstepped their bounds, when they (for no reason) added large clusters
(up to 2MB clusters) to NTFS on W10/W11. This means, if a user is sloppy
and is suckered into such a choice, their NTFS partition won't mount
on Windows7. But this does not prevent Microsoft P.R. from
pretending it's perfectly compatible.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> news:10k41t8$2oq6h$1@dont-email.me Mon, 12
Jan 2026 23:59:37 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On Mon, 1/12/2026 4:47 PM, Gremlin wrote:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> news:10jjl3p$22go$1@dont-email.me Tue, 06
Jan 2026 18:43:04 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

Vista was fine after SP2 was installed. It was then pretty close
to being a Win7 candidate release (same quality level). A few small
touches in Vista, were nice -- such as the Search option that when
the Search did not find your item, there was a "Try Harder" button :-)

Windows is a rolling release, that started from the Vista rewrite.

Please elaborate further on this rewrite? I'm unaware of vista being a
rewrite.

It is. It's a rewrite. it took five years to do.
it was released before the testing was finished.
If it takes you five years and you can't even be bothered
to test it properly, something is very very wrong there.

A from scratch rewrite? I'm asking for clarification here. It's not what I observed under the hood back when I was actively reverse engineering various aspects to develop cracks and patches for software that wasn't comfortable running under it but managed to run just fine on XP. Especially annoying
when you have custom hardware that depended on proprietary software. Think, CNC machines that cost the owner a considerable sum. Or, in one specific
case, a pill dispensing robot for a pharmacy.

The kernel is substantially different. I do not
know the terminology for this, but we could start
with the Wiki for Vista to see. There is very little
information about kernel details that I know of,
so we can have a substantive discussion.

It's different in some regards, but, I'm not too sure about a from the
ground up rewrite here. Which is why I asked you to clarify your statement.
I don't think I would have missed a from scratch rewrite with all the time I spent looking at IDA pro screens...

I know you will argue "I was a beta tester" etc.

You really shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know. I didn't beta test Winshit vista. :) I did have the option to do so, but, lacked the time and interest.

But the thing is, it's a matter of degree rather than substance.
I too, worked in the computer industry, and I worked the cradle
to grave of the hardware and software. We wrote two versions
of our OS. I know how much that cost, and how much calendar
that took.

I understand. I've been in the computer industry on the front lines for
awhile myself. I did write one OS from scratch for a very old by todays standards machine. Although mine was a from scratch job, I did base alot of the functionality on OS-9.

Vista took way way too long. That's the first starting note,
that practically speaking, there cannot be anything left under
the hood that hasn't been fucked with.

I don't disagree with you, but, again, I am asking you to clarify what you mean by a rewrite. Are you claiming that vista is from the ground up a total rewrite and doesn't have any of the old code from XP still present within?
As that doesn't match what I observed or what others who worked on the same team as I did...IDA pro doesn't leave things out of reach as I'm sure? you know.

I'm assuming that some of your background is that of a coder? Based on what you wrote above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista

"May 2001... and continued until November 8, 2006"

"The same post also described Windows Vista as having approximately
50 million lines of code, with about 2,000 developers working on the
product.

OK, five years and 2000 developers. We wrote an OS in two years with 100 developers. You can also write OSes with fewer developers than that,
such as TempleOS with one developer.

With such a substantial difference in development path, how can
there be anything left in there ?

Hmm...Surely that's not what you're basing the rewrite claim on?

The only way we can have a good argument over this, would be
to see details of the kernel progression.

I wasn't looking for an argument? I was looking for clarification on what
you meant by a rewrite...

I have no interest in Vista. I did not buy a copy. I did not
join the Vista news group.

I had to provide technical support over the phone and onsite in person for vista when it was 'new' so to say that I despise it would be a bit of an understatement. It was very much like WindowsME compared to 98se. 98se was a decent shell (yes, a shell, it was still dependent on DOS under the hood)
and ME was just a horrible thing that shouldn't have ever been forced on joe public. Or the techs (like myself) who had to support the damn thing.

What differences are there, between the WinXP kernel design and the
Vista kernel design ?

Was the Vista kernel designed from scratch with all new code, or was
it merely an evolution of some WinXP code ?

********************** Copilot Answer *******************

**Windows Vista did *not* use a new kernel written from scratch. It was
an evolutionary continuation of the Windows NT lineage, including
Windows XP, but with major architectural changes - especially in
security, driver isolation, memory management, and graphics.** The Vista kernel is still NT-based (NT 6.0), while XP is NT 5.1.

That's what I suspected and understood based on various reverse engineering
I participated in. So, not a complete rewrite. Which is what I was asking
you to clarify.

### **No - Vista was not a clean-room rewrite.**

I didn't think it was. Which is why I asked you what you meant by rewrite.

Think of it as **a new generation of the NT kernel**, not a new kernel.

I think of it as a horrible rework personally. Mostly from a support aspect though, not that of an end user.

XP services ran with far more privileges and could not restart cleanly

Some wouldn't restart cleanly. The majority of them infact, but, not all.

- **Vista was not a rewrite**, but a **major evolution** of the NT
kernel.

That's how I've understood it to be, yes. Which is why I asked you what you meant by the rewrite claim.

If we give the AI one more swing at bat...

Must we?

The kernel at one time, had ticks set by the hardware timer (8253?).
At some point, it may have had a 1 millisecond tick. And
at another time, it may have switched to tickless. I could easily
be confusing this with Linux, but I believe Microsoft toyed with
some of these ideas too.

I believe you're correct.

Microsoft also claims that it has not changed NTFS and this
is why it refuses to change the NTFS release number. However, they overstepped their bounds, when they (for no reason) added large clusters
(up to 2MB clusters) to NTFS on W10/W11. This means, if a user is sloppy
and is suckered into such a choice, their NTFS partition won't mount
on Windows7. But this does not prevent Microsoft P.R. from
pretending it's perfectly compatible.

I've noticed that as well and agree with you concerning it.
--
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.
https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

By running them on Windows then *displaying* them on linux ...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 12 Jan 2026, Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> posted some news:XnsB3D2AAD415D85HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5:

Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> news:ms4qo9Fp402U1@mid.individual.net Tue, 06 Jan 2026 16:15:04 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

On 06/01/2026 08:03, Daniel70 wrote:

On 6/01/2026 11:20 am, anonymous wrote:

On 02 Jan 2026, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-
202601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some
news:5be959453815243adb2123f28fa23935@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:

- Run Windows apps on Linux with 'WinApps'.

https://www.howtogeek.com/run-any-windows-app-linux/

Windows Vista 11 looks like Linux.- Terminology changed in subtle
ways.

"Windows Vista 11"?? Wasn't Vista about Windows 5 or so??

I think he's using the Vista name as an supposed insult to Windows
11. Windows Vista did seem to have a bad reputation, but actually it
was very like Windows 7 and as far as I'm concerned, was fine to use
if you just accepted that you got lots of User Account Control (UAC)
prompts. To this day I always run with UAC prompts set to maximum
like in Vista.

Vista earned that bad reputation. It was the equ of WindowsME. Windows
7 was quite stable on stand alone systems as well as workstations.
Vista was just a pain in the ass. Esp when it was first released to
the public with it's rather shitty driver support. If you only use one computer for personal use where you didn't own any say, HP printers or scanners, I can see why you might not have had any noticeable issues
with it. In a workstation environment, it wasn't so much fun. Having
to replace a working printer or flatbed scanner because Vista didn't
support it and the manufacturers didn't have drivers available (yet if
ever) that wasn't so good. Didn't run into this issue when Windows 7
was released though. It supported 'older hardware' for the most part
just fine. Vista also ran like dog shit on the same hardware as XP. XP
was a solid OS. Windows 2000 basically with the end user eye candy.
Windows 7 was the 'fix' for Vista. It was a decent OS as well.

MS wasn't happy with that, of course, so we got Winshit 8 and winshit
8.1 - lets turn your desktop/laptop into a tablet. Yea! Brilliant move
on their part. /sarcasm.

How do you like "Copile-o-shit" aka copilot? Not sure which
implementation is dumber, MS or Adobe. Both are pointless, useless and
just get in the way of accomplishing actual work.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2