Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support
Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support
Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support
Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support Windows 7, Vista & Linux Media Center Support


Go Back   Australian Media Center Community > Windows Media Center - Related Support & Discussion > Windows 7 - Discussion & Suggestions

Community Information

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20th August 2008, 09:40 PM   #1 (permalink)
 
Mike's Avatar
Status Mike is Offline:
Location Sydney
ActivityPosts: 6,392
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
Mike Mike Mike Mike Mike Mike Mike Mike Mike Mike Mike
Points Earned: 1591

Mike has been Thanked 223 times in 116 posts
Mike's
Media Center
Engineering Windows 7

written by Steven Sinofsky & The Windows 7 Team

Thanks to everyone who provided comments and sent me mail. I definitely appreciate the discussion we have kicked off. There’s also a ton of energy in our hallways as this blog started. It seems like a good thing to do to start off is sort of an introduction to the Windows development team. This post provides an overview of the team that is represented by this blog.

Before diving into the main topic, let’s talk a bit more about what to expect from this blog. First a few words on the comments and emails I’ve received. I’ve received a ton—most of the weekend was spent reading emails and comments. There are definitely some themes. I would say by and large the reception has been very warm and we definitely appreciate that. The most frequent request was to discuss Windows performance and/or just “make Windows faster”. There’s a lot to this topic so we expect to talk about this quite a bit over the next months. There are many specific requests—often representing all possible sides of an issue such as some folks saying “please get rid of (or don’t do) <x>” and then other folks saying “whatever you do it is really important to keep (or do) <x>”. A big part of this blog for me personally is having the discussion about the multiple facets of any given issue. Even something that sounds as binary as performance proves to have many subtle elements. For example, some folks suggested that the best thing for boot performance is to not start anything until idle time and others suggested that the delay loading feels like it slows them down and still others have suggested that the best approach is to provide a startup manager that pushes everyone to choose what to start up. All of these have merit worth discussing and also demonstrate the subtlety and complexity of even the most straight forward request.

Second, much to the surprise of both Jon and I a number of folks questioned the “authenticity” of the post. A few even suggested that the posts are being “ghost written” or that this blog is some sort of ploy. I am typing this directly in Windows Live Writer and hitting publish. This blog is the real deal—typos, mistakes, and all. There’s no intermediary or vetting of the posts. We have folks on the team who will be contributing, but we’re not having any posts written by anyone other than who signs it. We will us one user name for all the posts since that keeps the blog security and ownership clear, but posts will be signed by the person that hit publish. (If I participate in the comments I will use my msdn name, steven_sinofsky.)

And third, what frequency should folks expect and when do we get to the “features of Windows 7”. When we wrote that we would post “regularly” we meant that we don’t have a schedule or calendar of posts and we don’t want to commit to an artificial frequency which generally seems inconsistent with blogging. We do expect to follow a pattern similar to what you have become familiar with on the IEBlog. FWIW, on my internal blog no one has yet accused me of not contributing enough. :-)

As we said in the introductory post we think it will be good to talk about the engineering of Windows 7 (the “how”) and the first step is establishing who the engineers are that do the engineering before we dive into the product itself (the “why” and “what”).

So let’s meet the team...

It is pretty easy to think of the Windows team as one group or one entity, and then occasionally one specific person comes to represent the team—perhaps she gave a talk at a conference, wrote a book or article folks become familiar with, or maybe he has a blog. Within Microsoft, the Windows product is really a product of the whole company with people across all the development groups contributing in some form or another. The Windows engineering team “proper” is jointly managed by Jon and me. Jon manages the core operating system, which is, among many things, the kernel, device infrastructure, networking, and the engineering tools and system (all of which are both client and server). I am part of the Windows client experience team which develops, among many things, the shell and desktop, graphics, and media support. One other significant part of the Windows product is the Windows Media Center which is a key contribution managed along with all of Microsoft’s TV support (IPTV, extenders, etc.).

There’s a lot to building an org structure for a large team, but the most important part is planning the work of the team. This planning is integral to realizing our goal of improving the overall consistency and “togetherness” for Windows 7. So rather than think of one big org, or two teams, we say that the Windows 7 engineering team is made up of about 25 different feature teams.

A feature team represents those that own a specific part of Windows 7—the code, features, quality, and overall development. The feature teams represent the locus of work and coordination across the team. This also provides a much more manageable size—feature teams fit in meeting spaces, can go to movies, and so on. On average a feature team is about 40 developers, but there are a variety of team sizes. There are two parts to a feature team: what the team works on and who makes up a team.

Windows 7’s feature teams sound a lot like parts of Windows with which you are familiar. Because of the platform elements of Windows we have many teams that have remained fairly constant over several releases, whereas some teams are brand new or represent relatively new areas composed of some new code and the code that formed the basis of the team. Some teams do lots of work for Server (such as the VM work) and some might have big deliverables outside of Windows 7 (such as Internet Explorer).

In general a feature team encompasses ownership of combination of architectural components and scenarios across Windows. “Feature” is always a tricky word since some folks think of feature as one element in the user-interface and others think of the feature as a traditional architectural component (say TCP/IP). Our approach is to balance across scenarios and architecture such that we have the right level of end-to-end coverage and the right parts of the architecture. One thing we do try to avoid is separating the “plumbing” from the “user interface” so that teams do have end-to-end ownership of work (as an example of that, “Find and Organize” builds both the indexer and the user interface for search). Some of the main feature teams for Windows 7 include (alphabetically):
  • Applets and Gadgets
  • Assistance and Support Technologies
  • Core User Experience
  • Customer Engineering and Telemetry
  • Deployment and Component Platform
  • Desktop Graphics
  • Devices and Media
  • Devices and Storage
  • Documents and Printing
  • Engineering System and Tools
  • File System
  • Find and Organize
  • Fundamentals
  • Internet Explorer (including IE 8 down-level)
  • International
  • Kernel & VM
  • Media Center
  • Networking - Core
  • Networking - Enterprise
  • Networking - Wireless
  • Security
  • User Interface Platform
  • Windows App Platform
I think most of these names are intuitive enough for the purposes of this post—as we post more the members of the team will identify which feature team they are on. This gives you an idea of the subsystems of Windows and how we break down a significant project into meaningful teams. Of course throughout the project we are coordinating and building features across teams. This is a matter of practice because you often want to engineer the code in one set of layers for efficiency and performance (say bottom up), but end-users might experience it across layers, and IT pros might want to manage a desktop from the top-down. I admit sometimes this is a little bit too much of an insider view as you can’t see where some interesting things “live”. For example, the tablet and inking functionality is in our User Interface Platform team along with speech recognition, multi-touch and accessibility. The reason for this is the architectural need to share the infrastructure for all mechanisms of “input” even if any one person might not cross all those layers. This way when we design the APIs for managing input, developers will see the benefits of all the modes of user interaction through one set of APIs.

The other aspect of our feature teams is the exact composition. A feature team represents three core engineering disciplines of software development engineers (sde or dev), software development engineers in test (sdet or test, sorry but I haven’t written a job description externally), and program managers (pm). Having all three of these engineering disciplines is a unique aspect of Microsoft that has even caught the attention of some researchers. In my old blog I described dev and pm which I linked to above (I still owe a similar post on SDET!).

The shortest version of these roles is dev is responsible for the architecture and code, pm is responsible for the feature set and specification, and test is responsible for validation and the ultimate advocate for the customer experience. Everyone is responsible for quality and performance, each bringing their perspective to the work. For any given feature, each of dev, test, and pm work as a team of peers (both literally and conceptually). This is a key “balance of power” in terms of how we work and makes sure that we take a balanced approach to developing Windows 7. Organizationally, we are structured such that devs work for devs, sdets work for sdets, and pm works for pm. That is we are organized by these “engineering functions”. This allows for two optimizations—the focus on expertise in both domain and discipline and also the ability to make sure we are not building the product in silos, but focused on the product as a whole.

We talk about these three disciplines together because we create feature teams with n developers, n testers, and 1/2n program managers. This ratio is pretty constant across the team. On average a feature team is about 40 developers across the Windows 7 project.

We also have core members of our engineering team that work across the entire product:

Content Development – the writers and editors that create the online assistance, web site, SDK documents, and deployment documents.
Product Planning – responsible for the customer research and learning that informs the selection of features. Product Planning also coordinates the work we do with partners across the ecosystem in terms of partnering through the design and development of the release.
Product Design – develops the overall interaction model, graphical language, and design language for Windows 7
Research and Usability – creates field and lab studies that show how existing products and proposed feature perform with customers.

Some have said that the Windows team is just too big and that it has reached a size that causes engineering problems. At the same time, I might point out that just looking at the comments there is a pretty significant demand for a broad set of features and changes to Windows. It takes a set of people to build Windows and it is a big project. The way that I look at this is that our job is to have the Windows team be the right size—that sounds cliché but I mean by that is that the team is neither too large nor too small, but is effectively managed so that the work of the team reflects the size of the team and you see the project as having the benefits we articulate. I’m reminded of a scene from Amadeus where the Emperor suggests that the Marriage of Figaro contains “too many notes” to which Mozart proclaims “there are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required, neither more nor less.” Upon the Emperor suggesting that Mozart remove a few notes, Mozart simply asks “which few did you have in mind?” Of course the people on the team represent the way we get feature requests implemented and develop end to end scenarios, so the challenge is to have the right team and the right structure to maximize the ability to get those done—neither too many nor too few.

I promised myself no post would be longer than 4 pages and I am getting close. The comments are great and are helping us to shape future posts. I hope this post starts to develop some additional shared context.

Steven Sinofsky

source: Windows 7 Blog
__________________
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2008, 10:25 PM   #2 (permalink)

 
arkay's Avatar
Status arkay is Online:
Location Melbourne
ActivityPosts: 7,240
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay
Points Earned: 1613

arkay has been Thanked 273 times in 213 posts
arkay's
Media Center
Re: Engineering Windows 7

and so the spin begins.

You'd think they'd have learnt a serious lesson about advertising a feature list early on.

They'd want to be careful they don't promise the world and cut features along the way. That's what killed it with Vista.

I don't believe the world will swallow the Windows 7 - "all new and improved" line. The way that reads is just so typical of corporate stagnation, compartmentalisation, lack of vision, restriction in design. All the reasons why people say they are too big to actually be able to pull it off. It also comes across as a little bit Oliver: "Please sir, can I have some more"... Like as if anyone of the consuming market, corporate or private owe them anything in any of this.

They've already said they're using Vistas code base, at best it'll just be the Vista that Vista should have been. They're just buying themselves a couple of extra years to develop Vista and then they're gonna turn around and sell it to us all over again for ridiculous prices and a new name.

Personally I think they aught to GIVE it to anyone that already paid for Vista by way of apology.

Cheers,

Arkay.
__________________

The box said 'Requires Windows XP or better' - so I installed Linux . . .
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2008, 10:08 AM   #3 (permalink)
MC Apprentice
 
carll's Avatar
Status carll is Offline:
Location brisbane
ActivityPosts: 36
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
carll
Points Earned: 14

carll has been Thanked 2 times in 2 posts
Re: Engineering Windows 7

you might be right about windows 7 being the vista, vista was ment to be. how ever there there were things within vista which were ground breaking and warrent merrit.

we have all heard the spin from within this forum and news artical floting around on the net. I'm personally looking foward to getting a beta and having a good look as well as a test. espically with the news of winmin, starting off with the core and allowing other applications to be built on. Hopefully allowing a quite customizable windows taylered to specific needs of the user.

This was something which i was impressed with vista the different levels. Home basic, home Professional, business, ect. ect. and what i'm hopeing for is we see this again.

Maybe a basic that is just that a core operating system with no fat and where users can purchase modules ie media center or other aspects of the os that come with higher versions, or maybe even a Windows 7 Media Center Edition taylered specifically for a home theter environment . well we can always hope

however no doubt we'll see in due course what microsoft decide to do and no doubt mike will keep us up to date
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2008, 10:56 AM   #4 (permalink)
 
dgaust's Avatar
Status dgaust is Online:
Location Wollongong, NSW
ActivityPosts: 3,063
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
dgaust dgaust dgaust dgaust dgaust dgaust dgaust dgaust dgaust
Points Earned: 1229

dgaust has been Thanked 479 times in 428 posts
dgaust's
Media Center
Re: Engineering Windows 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by carll View Post
This was something which i was impressed with vista the different levels. Home basic, home Professional, business, ect. ect. and what i'm hopeing for is we see this again.
Are you kidding???? This was absolutely the worst feature they introduced with Vista.

47 flavours of an OS just confuse the consumer, as well as make development of software just plain hard. Imagine trying to develop and application only to find that a key component is missing from one of the 42 flavours.

Why does MS feel the need to split the features off? It's not like they don't have to develop the feature - they cost is still there, why not include them in the one OS and amortise the cost over the whole range instead.

Vista is bloated due to way it was built, not the features. Vista Home Basic is just as bloated and slow as Vista Ultimate.
__________________
Abit Fatal1ty F-190HD | Quad Core Q6600 2.4Ghz | 2GB Kingston DDR2 667 | Asus 8500GT | WD 250GB, Samsung 500GB | SPDIF Out | Pioneer BDC-S02BK Blu-Ray | DigitalNow Dual Hybrid S2 | Vista Ultimate | Antec Fusion v2

Asus M3N78 Pro | AMD 4850e | 2GB Kingston DDR2 800 | 6x500gb Samsung | DVD-RW | DigitalNow Dual Digital PCI-E | Vista Ultimate | Antec 4U22EPS650

Sign the myEPG petition. Go on, you know you want to.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2008, 12:13 PM   #5 (permalink)
MC Apprentice
 
carll's Avatar
Status carll is Offline:
Location brisbane
ActivityPosts: 36
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
carll
Points Earned: 14

carll has been Thanked 2 times in 2 posts
Re: Engineering Windows 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaust View Post
Are you kidding???? This was absolutely the worst feature they introduced with Vista.
i dont think so business buy vista business [if they want to] because they know its set up for business likewise with the other versions.

as for System requirements. they speak for them selves. im a gamer i chose basic bacuse of its smaller ram requirements and a samller footprint

xp was no different home, pro and mce for people like us we got mce because it is what we wanted but for the average jo who just wants to browse the internet and print word documents mce was a waste of money and the mce software they had no use for

its really up to the oem's and system builders to detremine the users need and recommend the right prodcut for the job and its up to mircosoft to provide the appropate solutions to the oem's and system builders.

going back to day of one size fits all (ie windows me) is not necessarily good thing. being able to choose whats right for you is a step in the right drection and hopefully improved on in windows 7

Last edited by carll; 21st August 2008 at 12:28 PM. Reason: typos i wish i could spell properly
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2008, 12:19 PM   #6 (permalink)
 
ExtremePC's Avatar
Status ExtremePC is Offline:
Location Sydney
ActivityPosts: 4,438
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC
Points Earned: 1456

ExtremePC has been Thanked 294 times in 221 posts
Re: Engineering Windows 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by carll View Post
No i'm not business buy vista business [if they want to] because they know its sut up for business likewise with the other versions.

as for System requirements. they speak for them selves. im a gamer i chose basic bacuse of its smaller ram requirements and a samller footprint

xp was no different home, pro and mce for people like us we got mce because it is what we wanted but for the average jo who just wants to browse the internet and print word documents mce was a waste of money and the mce software they had no use for

its really up to the oem's and system builders to detremine the users need and recommend the right prodcut for the job

going back to day of one size fits all (ie windows me) is not necessarily good thing. being able to choose whats right for you is a step in the right drection and hopefully improved on in windows 7
One size fits all is THE best method of distributing an OS, BUT only so long as you are able to select only what you want at install time (including unbundling IE and seperating it from the file manager !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!) I don't think I put in enough exclamation marks(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
__________________
That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.
Aristotle
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2008, 12:48 PM   #7 (permalink)
MC Apprentice
 
carll's Avatar
Status carll is Offline:
Location brisbane
ActivityPosts: 36
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
carll
Points Earned: 14

carll has been Thanked 2 times in 2 posts
Re: Engineering Windows 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremePC View Post
One size fits all is THE best method of distributing an OS, BUT only so long as you are able to select only what you want at install time (including unbundling IE and seperating it from the file manager !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!) I don't think I put in enough exclamation marks(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
lol so true remember back to the day of 98 and a program called windows lite. A 450 mg full installed version cut back to like 70mg almost bare bone it ran so fast used hardly used any ram (at the time)

also i foud this rather interesting eric-talk-demo-windows-7-minwin/ an 8 min movie of eric traut an engneer withing microsoft talking about the core of windows 7
  Reply With Quote
The following Member(s) said "Thank You!" to carll for this information:
Old 21st August 2008, 01:30 PM   #8 (permalink)

 
arkay's Avatar
Status arkay is Online:
Location Melbourne
ActivityPosts: 7,240
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay
Points Earned: 1613

arkay has been Thanked 273 times in 213 posts
arkay's
Media Center
Re: Engineering Windows 7

It would seem that the term Operating System doesn't mean what it used to any more.

Once it meant the kernel and drivers required to provide services to the application layer.

That is what it should still mean.

MS are selling Operating Environments. Where the OS + Applications are tailored to a specific use. No different to the various number of Distros' out there for Linux. But the problem in doing so with windows is that they use that fact to stop anyone from truely looking at the OS, the inner core and that which everything else is built upon.

It they were to write and release just an OS for scrutiny I think they'd find they'd be held accountable for something which they've always had trouble with. Poorly written, insecure and badly performing core functionality.

I feel their first attempt at shutting the gate failed miserably and this will be their second attempt. By now though, the horse is so far gone that I'm certain they don't recall what it looked like

What they should do it open source the OS. Most commentators these days make note of the point that the underlying OS is becoming less and less important given the nature of web apps etc.

If they open up the core, allow the world to fix it up, they could then continue to concentrate on selling product and service on top. Interoperability is going to be what defines the future success of any OS and MS's monopoly position means that by design they are lousy at playing well with others.

Cheers,

Arkay
__________________

The box said 'Requires Windows XP or better' - so I installed Linux . . .
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2008, 01:38 PM   #9 (permalink)
 
ExtremePC's Avatar
Status ExtremePC is Offline:
Location Sydney
ActivityPosts: 4,438
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC ExtremePC
Points Earned: 1456

ExtremePC has been Thanked 294 times in 221 posts
Re: Engineering Windows 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by arkay View Post
It would seem that the term Operating System doesn't mean what it used to any more.

Once it meant the kernel and drivers required to provide services to the application layer.

That is what it should still mean.

MS are selling Operating Environments. Where the OS + Applications are tailored to a specific use. No different to the various number of Distros' out there for Linux. But the problem in doing so with windows is that they use that fact to stop anyone from truely looking at the OS, the inner core and that which everything else is built upon.

It they were to write and release just an OS for scrutiny I think they'd find they'd be held accountable for something which they've always had trouble with. Poorly written, insecure and badly performing core functionality.

I feel their first attempt at shutting the gate failed miserably and this will be their second attempt. By now though, the horse is so far gone that I'm certain they don't recall what it looked like

Cheers,

Arkay
Thats not quite true, I've extensively played with XP embedded and from my POV it is THE best OS Microsoft ever made and that has everything to with the completely modular build process. I've built a completely XP Pro equivalent install with it that came in just under 500MB with drivers, firefox, thunderbird, foxit and a few other. The bloody thing ran a quick as greased lighting and stayed stable for a very very long time ...... because I picked what libraries were installed in the first place and it ONLY had hardware support for my exact hardware.
__________________
That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.
Aristotle
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2008, 01:45 PM   #10 (permalink)

 
arkay's Avatar
Status arkay is Online:
Location Melbourne
ActivityPosts: 7,240
Reputation & Thanks Support Rating:
arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay arkay