RSSWhat Windows 8 perhaps should be: Microsoft's multi-kernel OS project
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 25, 2009, 3:41 PM
Perhaps you've read an article this week purporting to offer new details on "Windows 8," or whatever Microsoft's next client operating system will be called, only to be perturbed at discovering at the end that you were the one being asked to supply the details. The expectation among many observers is that Windows 8 will be a lot like Windows 7, maybe something less than the great leap forward that a "point-oh" release typically implies.
But that doesn't mean there aren't folks at Microsoft (or at least, folks being funded by Microsoft) who are unaware that such a significant advance may be necessary within the next few years. Granted, simply because a project is being undertaken at Microsoft Research is no guarantee that anything that culminates from it will ever be put to use (case in point: HTTP-NG). On the other hand, to paraphrase a slogan formerly used by PBS, if Microsoft doesn't do it, who will?
A team of nine researchers led by the Swiss university ETH Zurich and the Cambridge, UK offices of Microsoft Research, have launched a Web site to promote their ongoing effort to create of a completely new, experimental operating system for super-multicore systems. Called Barrelfish (PDF available here), it isn't Windows at all; in fact, it's intentionally designed not to be Windows, at this point. In the interest of removing the structural complications brought about by decades of layering upon layering of fixes, add-ons, and workarounds, Barrelfish attempts to exploit a phenomenon of computers with large numbers of cores (say, more than eight) that doesn't manifest itself in smaller systems.
Up to now, multicore design from both AMD and Intel has focused on the ability for each core on a die to have access to shared memory; in fact, AMD has recently claimed advances in architectural quality over Intel in the way its advanced HyperTransport directs shared memory to individual cores. But even AMD has acknowledged that certain types of programs can run slower on multicore systems than even on single-core systems, and has offered techniques for encouraging better parallelism in programming, with more multithreading, as its solution.
"This upheaval in hardware has important consequences for a monolithic OS that shares data structures across cores," the Barrelfish research team writes. "These systems perform a delicate balancing act between processor cache size, the likely contention and latency to access main memory, and the complexity and overheads of the cache-coherence protocol. The irony is that hardware is now changing faster than software, and the effort required to evolve such operating systems to perform well on new hardware is becoming prohibitive."
For shared memory to work effectively as CPU producers envision it, the Barrelfish team argues, the structural changes that software engineers would need to make will be too complex. But preventing them from being able to achieve their goals in due course is the fact that hardware engineers' and software engineers' evolutionary plans are being executed at two different speeds, with latter being the slowest perhaps by orders of magnitude.
The Barrelfish solution, as proposed, is to replace the shared memory architecture of the present operating system with a new and simplified structure that would appear, at least on the surface, to be inefficient and non-conservative. It's a multikernel operating system structure where each core effectively has its own OS and its own exclusive memory. Everything each core needs to know about the state of the other is replicated, in a kind of broadcast-like system where all cores are getting the same picture. And everything each core needs to "tell" the other is exchanged by way of a messaging scheme.
As the team explains it, "Within a multikernel OS, all inter-core communication is performed using explicit messages. A corollary is that no memory is shared between the code running on each core, except for that used for messaging channels. As we have seen, using messages to access or update state rapidly becomes more efficient than shared memory access as the number of cache-lines involved increases. We can expect such effects to become more pronounced in the future. Note that this does not preclude applications sharing memory between cores, only that the OS design itself does not rely on it."
Single-core kernels, deployed en masse in a distributed scheme, the team argues, enables the architecture of the operating system to be more platform- and vendor-neutral than current models. An analogy might be all the different variants of billiards that have been created over the centuries, without there being a fundamental need to revise or re-architect billiard balls. If the kernel is small enough, then what makes a deployment unique would be the way it's multiplexed, thus making the deployment on a Sun SPARC processor-based system different than it would be on an Intel Xeon-based system, without the kernel itself needing to be different at all.
Previous efforts at building experimental operating systems (including at Microsoft Research) have been stopped dead in their tracks, we've been told, by the fact that migration would be technically impossible -- moving an enterprise's applications onto the new platform would take more years of humanpower than they are willing to invest in. But the onset of the age of virtualization may have already changed this state of affairs: Since more businesses are already becoming comfortable with running virtual Windows Servers, through Hyper-V or VMware or through Windows Server itself, there may not have to be any huge migration involved at all.
Conceptually, Barrelfish might not have to be the next Windows as much as "the next Hyper-V," enabling a new and more efficient platform for the execution of virtual Windows Server as its application. As the team acknowledges, virtual shared memory systems would be a key feature of Barrelfish, even though the operating system itself doesn't require it -- it's for the sake of hypervisors, which could likely become such a system's principal application, were it ever to be released for sale.
"We view the OS as, first and foremost," the research team concludes, "a distributed system which may be amenable to local optimizations, rather than centralized system which must somehow be scaled to the network-like environment of a modern or future machine. By basing the OS design on replicated data, message-based communication between cores, and split-phase operations, we can apply a wealth of experience and knowledge from distributed systems and networking to the challenges posed by hardware trends."
Windows 8 Improvements?
Hmmm..
How about fully formatting a 2GB thumbdrive in less than 8 minutes like it takes Windows 7 to do?
Maybee even aproaching the 6 seconds it takes XP to fully format the same Thumbdrive?
Hmm..
How about booting Windows 8 in 12 seconds from a compact flash card like XP-SP2 does?
Hmm..
How about getting rid of the Government Spyware that ruined XP, Vista and Windows 7?
Hmm..
So many possibilities here
Where to begin......Hmm..
Score: 0
|i rather use an older program on more advanced hardware, do the speed and power available which exceeds optimal performance.
but to use more advanced programs on more advanced hardware, only provides optimal or below par performance.
Score: -1
|In the short term most technological advancement are "bad fiscal investments" if you go for "best-bang-for-the-buck". But if you're talking 5 or 10 years from now, then obviously the far more advanced software on far more advanced hardware would be the choice of everyone since your old STYLE (non-paralleled) software will be PRIMITIVE in comparison, lacking extremely important features that probably will generate/save you money (or your competitor).
But I do agree that only spoiled b*st*rds need the latest and greatest. I normally personally go for slightly better than "best-bang-for-buck", paying a modest premium (15% or so) over the per-$ increased benefit. Meaning, for example, I'd pay upto 38% more for an item which is only 20% "better" than "the best value" item (faster, more features, whatever). Calculation = 100 benchmark points for best value $X. 120 benchmark points for a better item, so price would optimally be 1.2X. I'd pay upto 38% (1.2X * 1.15 = 1.38X) for the "premium" of being only 20% better.
Henceforth, I shall never EVER buy a Mac, even if it's MUCH better (it isn't - so that doesn't even leave a room for dilemma).
Score: -1
|Re: "Apple's marketing is genius, but also dubious. Take the 'first 64bit computer' marketing, and that was several years ago, and they still don't sell a desktop Mac that has a 64bit OS. (Even Snow Leopard won't load the 64bit kernel unless it is a XServer.)"
Please double-check your facts on Snow Leopard. Can be booted and run in a choice of either 32-bit or 64-bit mode, as long as the EFI version is also 64-bit. Which excludes some early Intel CPU Macs. All SL device drivers are 64-bit, but can also be used while running in 32-bit mode.
See:
"32- or 64-bit Kernel Startup Mode Selector 1.4"
http://mac.majorgeeks.com/download6597.html
Score: -1
|This AnthonySPT character def knows his sheeit. I hereby declare him to be none other than ... the author of the above article! hehehehe
One thing's for sure -- Apple's days are numbered. Their stock is way inflated...as soon as *that* bubble bursts, say byebye to the company... Apple's iPhone will be remembered as a "one hit wonder"... Nobody in their right mind will get an iPhone in 5 years from now... ONLY deranged Mac users will...and their number will continue to shrink cuz you know the saying "you can't fool all the people all the time"... You fooled them once (to try a Mac machine) and they got disappointed (they will), they ain't coming back to your expensive junk. ;) Even Apple cannot help stupid people from being disappointed by EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH hehehehe
Score: -2
|Completely agree with you
Score: 0
|What you speak of is interesting, but I think that those who are interested in the sub-architecture of Windows are few, and far between. The average Windows user either likes, or dislikes it for the UI and not much else. If more people were interested in the actual way that work, projects, or any tasks were accomplished, they would use another operating system .
Another thing is that the typical user is being forced into multicore systems, when most cannot keep two cores busy. Research drives innovation, but very little of that innovation is interesting to the unwashed masses.
I believe that changes, for the public to be interested in buying, need to happen from the outside in - showing touch and speech driven architecture, and then showing what is needed underneath, to accomplish those ends.
Score: 1
|True that the technical aspects of an OS are important to an user, just like how a car works is not so important to the majority of people that drive them.
However, when the technology makes things possible for the users, they enjoy the benefits.
Coming at it from a 'user' or 'driver' wish list is not always the best solution, and when it comes to functional technology it takes 'capable' technology before 'possible' use of the technology can be achieved.
Take for example something as abstract to the average user as the revamped WDDM system in Vista/Win7. It is not a great 'selling' point, but for the users that have a hybrid video card and it can automatically flip GPUs on the fly to save power without the user even noticing, it is an important technology. (In contrast XP, Linux, OS X, the GUIs have to be restarted and/or drivers reloaded for the GPU to switch to the power saving GPU.)
So this wasn't something Microsoft could 'sell' or market or is even something anyone driving the car or using the OS cares about in technical terms, but when the technologies that provide features to users because of the WDDM become available, users do notice and apprciate the technology behind.
Users don't know what they want. If technology was driven by only 'user' wants, they only know the technology from their side of the world and some things will be impossible with current technology, or too simplistic and be more cumbersome to the users as the technology can often do more things that the users can imagine.
If you look at Microsoft Research, going back to the early 90s, they have done some things right with regard to addressing both aspects of this argument. They do extensive research and testing on usability and from a user viewpoint and they also do very hardline technical research at the actual chip and software integration levels.
So you have Microsoft taking average people and getting wish lists and doing research from these concepts and you also have Microsoft designing hardware and software technologies.
(Yes Microsoft designs CPUs and GPUs, although the concepts are often given to companies like NVidia for the XBox or ATI for the XBox 360 or IBM for the changes in the PowerPC in the XBox 360, or even changes in the AMD/Intel x86 and x64 processors, etc.)
The problem is that the companies that 'sell' the technology don't sell technology or even 'good' products, they sell 'concepts' and use marketing. So it is a lot like consumer products, they sell ideas and brands and warm feelings and not usability or technology to the average users.
Apple is the best example of this, as their research is centered around 'what seems cool' instead of what is the 'best'. And their marketing is brilliant at creating a buzz for mediocre products and a love for these products that really do a dis-service to their users, as the users are cheated out of 'better' products because they love and trust Apple.
Apple's marketing is genius, but also dubious. Take the 'first 64bit computer' marketing, and that was several years ago, and they still don't sell a desktop Mac that has a 64bit OS. (Even Snow Leopard won't load the 64bit kernel unless it is a XServer.)
They also sell good people high end PowerMacs with 8 core Xeon processors, but the majority of the users and the IT world has no idea that the basic 'technology' of the OS X kernel has problems with locking CPU cores in SMP modes. (Look up OS X funnel locks.)
So these good people are buying an 8 CPU computer when an application or driver is often locking the OS and all threads to using only ONE CPU. That is not 'honest' and the consumers are buying 'cool' and cool sounding technology and getting ripped off. (The OS X funnel locks is why a lot of Movie development is done on Final Cut Pro, but then offloaded to an NT or Linux system for final rendering, as OS X doesn't take full advantage of the cores/CPUs and hardware.)
Even Final Cut Pro is dubious, as Apple took good Dreamworks money and development outside of Apple to create Final Cut, yet they pretend like it is their ideas and inventions. If the geniuses at Dreamworks didn't invent the concepts and technologies for Final Cut, it wouldn't exist.
The other way Apple fails to truly address the needs of their customers is they teach their customers that if the Apple product X doesn't have the feature it is not worth having. They did this with Bluetooth, SMS, etc on the iPhone when people had been using stereo bluetooth headsets for years and listening to music on free phones from Walmart.
Bluetooth became 'not cool' because the iPhone didn't support it. Yet when calling someone, pressing a button a bluetooth headset and saying call 555-1111 is a lot easier than 'touching' a screen.
I could also go on about how Apple doesn't invest research in 'technology' as they tend to use what is available instead of defining a new level of technology. Darwin is an OLD an cobbled up kernel technology, and even Display PDF is ancient, but these are technologies Apple didn't have to 'create', they just licensed and used them, and as technology moves beyond the abilities of Display PDF and the Darwin kernel (which is already happening), Apple falls behind, just like they did the 90s, and almost went under.
So it takes a balance, and although topics like this may not be important to people, there always comes a time when the technology does play a role in the user's lives.
How about listening to a song and browsing the internet and burning a DVD at the same time? This is all pre-emptive scheduler talk, but the user does use the technology and notices it, and notices that the programs are not locking each other up and that they can run more than one program at a time on the screen.
Up until 'switching' and multi-tasking was introduced to users on the desktop, they would never have even offered this as an 'idea' or 'wish', as one application on the screen at time was all they knew and could conceive.
Score: 5
|"Another thing is that the typical user is being forced into multicore systems, when most cannot keep two cores busy"
Latest games can ;)
Score: -1
|Just one small 'nit' to pick with what you say - Perhaps Apple was fully aware that Bluetooth and wi-fi don't get along well, and the company wanted to remove that possible problem.
This was something that I had suspected, and then George Ou, then at ZDNet showed it WAS true. see :http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=906
That is why I don't always trust anyone. Not Apple, not Google, and anyone else, however, when it comes to Microsoft, I approach with distrust and anything they say must be proven to me.
Score: -1
|I'm not so sure they can pull this concept off either, although it does have some interesting concepts put forth.
Basically it is taking the concept desing of NT's architecture, and creating a new agnostic kernel layer at or below the NT low level kernel.
The concept of this 'new' design is what NT already does with upper layers of the OS, as Win32 has its own kernel yet runs with a kernel API interface to the NT core kernel. This is also how the BSD and other 'subysystems' can and do run on NT, as they have their own kernel API set that interfaces with the main NT kernel that provides the low level hardware interfaces and IPC and Object manager.
So in a way this is just taking what NT alreay does, and breaks the NT kernel itself apart and layers it up one step so that even it becomes more agnostic so that it can multi-thread on various architectures.
This has more to do with multiple kernels running on various architectures at the same time than just a running on multi-CPI/cores. This would mean the kernel itself would be broken apart so that it could do processing on the x86 CPU, the GPU, an ARM processor, etc all in the same system with a managed system of integration.
So this has some interesting concepts, but they also could and probably will be just applied back to the NT kernel architecture, as they could break the NT kernel apart already and give over some of this functionality without having to start from scratch. And yes it would be more of an expand concept of Hyper-V with a mix of the NT client/server kernel concepts playing out the OS layers above as they do now.
What I would guess is going to happen is that some of the ideas will be pushed into the NT architecture, but it won't replace the basic NT architecture anytime soon, especialy when NT itself can already fragment out the API layers already beyond what it is doing now and add in some of the messaging/network concepts they are introducing.
I think it is funny that that are psuedo creating messaging mechansims and using Linux code to create the concept of these layers, and yet spending time recreating functionality that already exists in the IPC and Object Manager of NT. This I don't understand, as it would be beneficial to this team to get NT source and work backwards instead of recreating NT functionality that Microsoft has already nailed solid.
The whole client/server kernel design and messaging is what makes NT a very impressive kernel architecture, and if they would start with NT code and break the kernel apart at the lower layer and s*** the kernel constructs up thus creating a new hardware layer concept they could recreate what they are doing far easier, and use the exisitng messaging and client/server nature of the NT kernel.
So instead of NT doing client/server and layered kernel API interfaces to subsystem OSes as it does now, they could use the existing NT technology to estabilish a hyper-v type of kernel messaging construct that would be hardware/network agnostic and then still use the upper layers of the client/server model on top of the new client/server hardware model they are creating. So it would be a new hardware kernel agnostic threading NT(hyper-v) with NT sitting on top of it, and also other kernels sitting on top of the lower NT or sitting on top of the upper NT as Win32 and BSD already do in Windows.
PS...
Yes Windows has a full BSD subsystem for casual readers, you can install it from your DVD or downoad it for free from MS.
NT's architecture is NOT locked to the Win32/Win64 subsystems, even though they are the primary subsystem and what people see as Windows.
This is not emulation or virtualization, it is the BSD API set having an API interface to the NT kernel, which is what the NT client/server kernel design is all about.
NT has some true architectural brillance, and this is one area that is under utilized but significantly ahead of other kernel technologies.
(Not only does it offer the OS subsystems, but it part of the Object Oriented nature of the NT kernel and is also part of the layered API concepts that don't require libraries or drivers to be recompiled for version changes.)
Score: 2
|For your information, it is called USA. The United States of America.
Score: -4
|Now that Windows 7 has already started ruling and will crush os xxx snow leopard. Anyways Windows 8 will def. kill os xxx. And once done, crapple will be back to what they do the best--make mp3 players like iPot
Score: 0
|sjc= racist
Score: -3
|Since Microsoft has an established reputation for copying all things Apple, you only need to look at what Apple's next operating system after Snow Leopard will look like to know what the next version of Windows will be like. There simply is not need to speculate or wonder. Apple always works on it next great OS first and then Microsoft follows.
Score: -11
|What?
Your nuts!
Apple works on it's next OS so it can charge you fan folks for a service pac'
Thank Gawd MS does NOT copy apple'
Score: 3
|I'm not a great fan of MS or Apple for that matter, but I think the GUI/Windows concept came from Apple story is sadly overplayed. If Apple were so great, I'd be able to build my own Apple box. I can do that with Windows, Linux, Solaris, BSD etc. Apple doesn't look so great compared to every other OS does it?
Score: 2
|Apple doesn't have the billions in PROFITS (reserve) in the bank like Microsoft to start taking massive risks like MS will continue to do... So the most Apple can do is incremental upgrades for the next 15 years or so until they have permanently killed themselves (they nearly managed to do it a couple times already). ;)
Microsoft will keep Apple alive as long as there isn't a third "serious" player in the home OS market (5% market share or more). Once there is, MS will kill Apple and let the smaller competitor live for a while, just so they can claim "I, monopoly?? Nooooo..."
Score: 2
|Guys please forgive me for my ignorance because you all know that I am a SOB and MOFO. As usual I just love trolling because I gotta do this to earn my living because if I don't Crapple won't pay me. Thanks
Score: 2
|Er, MS didn't copy the gui/windows concept from Apple
But they both copied it from Xerox
The only thing apple won is MS cannot call the trash bin - trash
How anyone thinks Win7 and OSX looks the same is beyond me...
Score: 4
|I'm not gonna rag on the author in my post :)
The catchy title inspired me to read and learn about something pretty darn awesome. I much prefer this article to the ten-thousand Mozilla vs IE vs that have plagued Betanews lately (exagerating a little)
Great job!
Score: 1
|"German university ETH Zurich"
WOW! Just WOW!
1. ETH stands for Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule, which more or less translates into Swiss College of Technology (think Swiss MIT)
2. Zuerich happens to be the largest city in Switzerland - they speak what in English is called Swiss German (an official language, not a German dialect).
The Swiss will be VERY PISSED OFF by this mistake (and US Americans please note: I am not talking about Sweden up in Scandinavia...)
Score: -6
|Yea, I have to admit that was pretty stupid of me. Don't know what I was thinking here; it's corrected, with apologies to everyone in both Switzerland and Germany.
-SF -3
Score: 4
|What the hell is a US American?
Score: 3
|I would guess nationality vs continentality. (Yeah, I realize that is probably not a word, but it's Friday...)
Score: 0
|There is no "American" continent. There's a North American, and a South American continent, NOT a North of America, nor a South of America continent. He was making the same sort of mistake that he had accused the author of the article of making. There are three countries in NA (Canada, USA, and Mexico.) Only ONE of them called themselves Americans. Guess which one? [rollseyes]
Score: 1
|Sorry. There goes my gracious attempt at sharing my wisdom by carelessly making this too difficult for you. I thought the 'Sweden' hint would eliminate any doubt since it is an exclusive but frequently encountered educational deficit in the US of A to confuse these countries. Unfortunately your reminder of hell instantly depleted my benevolence - thus you shall wither in ignorance...
Score: -7
|Full of yourself I see. I wasn't referring to the "Sweden" issue but to your own obvious error.
I feel sorry for you and your arrogance. BTW, I'm not an American.......... My country ranks much higher in education than yours does, but than again so do a great many other countries as well....
Score: 0
|P.S.
That obvious error of yours makes you into a blatant hypocrite.
Score: 0
|Not to take fire here, but I've made the Sweden/Switzerland mistake before myself. Why did those silly Europeans name two countries so close? Those swiss chicks do look good though :)
Score: 0
|@ sjc1963: Why don't you sad humorless being go away and program a computer or something? Glad your country has such a great educational system tough (in comparison to mine, which you don't even know) since your comments got me on the wrong track there...
P.S. I'll generously spend 5 secs more on you: Do a search for 'US Americans' on this innovative thing called Google and you may with some luck see the common application of this additional attribute, which clarifies - especially for non-Americans - who you are talking about. Taking a different perspective than your own may even get you out of your mum's basement some day.
Kudos to SF3 tho who took my rant so... 'gracefully' ;-)
Score: -3
|Hey, "US Americans" could well mean non-native Americans. i.e. not "red indians" from pre-united America.
The white people that came from Europe, basically.
Much like the criminal Aussies... erm... I mean... non-native Aussies.
Just felt like country-bashing for a minute there. Always fun :)
Score: -3
|Hi greetings from Mexico, well Im impressed, so theres no American Continent!! (OMFG).
There is an AMERICAN CONTINENT and a country who pretends to be it, because not having their own name like the rest. By the way there is a North american, south american and central american region, and Mexico of course. they are not continents. sorry for the off-topic.
Score: -3
|what in the world does any of this garbage have to do with the article? Take this political crap somewhere else. This is a technology site.
Score: -1
|there is a Central America too man... yep.
Score: -1
|@Paul Skinner: Yeah, good point :)
Score: -1
|"It isn't Windows at all; in fact, it's intentionally designed not to be Windows, at this point. "
You got that right. In fact, right now, it's using a Linux kernel.
This is not MS development, here...this is Microsoft Research. They don't make products the public will ever consume. If they do manage to hit on something the public might eventually see, it is long gone from Microsoft Research by the time it starts being developed at Microsoft (proper).
Which brings us to the incredibly stupid (or worse, purposefully misleading) headline.... Had to find a way to bring Windows 8 into a story that has *nothing* to do with Windows 8...much less *any* windows OS? Was there *any* point in throwing that in there other than to *mislead* people into thinking this article had *anything remotely to do with Windows 8????
Score: -8
|Yes, God forbid I should write a headline that would make people want to read the story. It's not the least bit misleading; "What Windows 8 perhaps should be" is exactly the point of the article. I think at this point you're fishing. You should've stuck with ragging on me for saying ETH Zurich was in Germany.
-SF3
Score: 8
|yeah, well, Linux is based in unix, not an original creation.
Score: -1
|Well, if this came any close to becoming the actual Windows, it would be for say... Windows 10 i guess, zero chance of 8. In that i agree with PC_Tool.
Score: -1
|""What Windows 8 perhaps should be" is exactly the point of the article"
Not misleading? So it's just ignorant then? Hell, I'd have stuck with misleading.
It's funny, Scott. I am certain you know about Microsoft Research. I am also pretty sure you know that Windows 8 has already been planned, spec'd, and that development has begun.
So...knowing that anything out of MS Research rarely makes it into products in anything *less* than 5 years, and that Windows 8 is already "done" as far as the planning states go... the mere suggestion of it in regards to Win8 is ludicrous.
Why not just say: What Windows 95 should have been? Or: What the future of Microsoft OSes should be? Or: Why don't they put peanut butter on Hot Dogs?
...They're all in the same realm of fantasy as your current headline. :)
-PC "Couldn't fish to save his life" Tool
Score: -3
|Scott should have you write his headlines, huh?
Score: 0
|@Mr. Starband:
Ooh! Brilliantly clever riposte!
Thank you *so* much for your wise and revelation inspiring contribution.
Glad you took the time to dedicate your sole post in this thread to me. Your feeble attempt at wit notwithstanding, I am honored at least by the attempt.
Score: -3
|*You* are welcome.
Score: 0
|The expectation ... is that Windows 8 will be a lot like Windows 7, maybe something less than the great leap forward that a point-release typically implies."
Point release? 7 to 8 would be a "major release". Something like 7.0 to 7.1 would be a "point release."
Score: 2
|Didn't Microsoft state their intention to not perform another leap forward like that of XP -> Vista in the future? The next version of Windows might be 6.2 (Windows 7 is 6.1).
Score: 2
|...and they fixed it with "point-oh" release now. :)
Score: 0
|