|
Chris Kolkman wrote: however, did you hear recently about MinWin?
No, but I like the idea of it. Is this gonna be for embedded devices only or something?
Chris Kolkman wrote: Using an older OS, may not use many resources. From what I've heard, Vista is supposed to "intelligently" utilize your system resources.
Well, this is may be the case, the aspect I was trying to get at was that, by the end of the day, we have a system that does just about the same exact thing as Win95 and yet requires much greater hardware to run. All specifics aside, I just think that's silly the amount of stuff that gets thrown into Windows. I mean, if MinWin is 25MB, why is a standard install of XP 1GB (I realize some of that is drivers) and needs at least 128MB RAM, so on and so forth, when it does exactly the same thing as NT4?
Chris Kolkman wrote: I've seen people comparing Vista to ME - HOW?
Beats me, I still haven't used Vista. I mean, I will, I have no real choice in the matter as a dev, but I think Me is a tough one to beat. 
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently we will never see MinWin as a product, it will the the basis for everything including the next Windows Desktop, server, embedded devices, etc... By having the core separated they can allow them to work together better apparently.
-----------------------------------------------
It does do a bit more than those earlier windows version (though really not a whole lot compared to XP). I'd say a good deal of it comes with trying to make everything more secure.
I agree - with a core of around 25MB, why install so much more?
I'd say the UI takes up probably a good 100-500MB (this is just guesswork by the way), which already puts you at .5GB. Then you have all the default programs (which are dependent on the UI), paint, IE, etc. that also expand that some more. Not to forget what you mentioned about the drivers. It does seem to copy ALL the drivers to the computer, instead of installing just the ones you need - for convienience when swapping out I suppose. But if they only installed the drivers for what you needed, deleting the drivers for hardware you remove from the system as you go, I'm sure you could cut down a bit on the size.
-----------------------------------------------
It is a tough one to beat isn't it.
Good luck for when you get to Vista, I hope it goes as painless for you as it did me (which was pretty painless).
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify the MinWin thingy....because it has been around for weeks and don't seems to be understood by people. Even though it is explained in the article that everyone is quoting.
MinWin is a nickname for the core (heart) component of the Windows operating system. It is the windows kernel and the most basic windows operations. In other words the foundation on which the operating system is built. It is NOT an operating system. It is NOT Windows and NO it is not a product and never will. Not that it does very much by itself if that's all that you would have on your pc.
For the past weeks in almost all online communities what is written in the forums is "Hey I would like to get MinWin"..."It would be nice if they released MinWin". It is very simply the windows kernel.
Dewm Solo - Managed C++ Developer
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Botha wrote: The only remotely thing wrong I can think about Vista is that Flash is not available in x64 yet
Wow! Finally a good reason to switch to Vista x64. I hate Flash.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind it, but I think I'm waiting until my next PC upgrade before I swap over. Only problem I can see is I'll really miss my Olive Green on XP. 
|
|
|
|
|
Having been using it at work for about 1 year now, I have found nothing about Vista that would compel me to move from XP. On top of that, there are:
1. Considerable hardware problems (lack of driver support for hardware even 1 year old)
2. Software application compatibility problems (even ported apps are inconsistent, some require UAC to be enabled! - e.g., QuickBooks)
3. Just to run the OS at home, at a speed and manner that I would find acceptable, I would have to purchase all new machines. Something I do not want to, nor can I afford to do just because of a new OS; and for what?
4. Not developer friendly in the least. I keep saying this, and saying this, and saying this: Microsoft needs to put out an OS that is targeted for software developers. I should be able to do anything I want, when I want to, how I want to. Period. If I screw up my system because I was stupid, oh well, that's MY fault. I am anything but a typical "home user", and when it comes to technology, one size DOES NOT FIT ALL!
... that's my short list ...
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas,
I don't have Vista, just XP. But I'm building a new Quad Core computer (hopefully online by Thanksgiving Break for a programming stint). I am contemplating Vista only because of DirectX10 and Crysis.
I'm not a heavy duty gamer, but that would be the only compelling reason in my mind. If MS relents and puts DX10 into XP, then I'll never switch.
I don't have it so I can't say its crap, but from everyone who does have it that I know, they've all installed Win XP onto those computers.
So MS IS selling Vista, and its preinstalled, but how many people are using it is the indicator people want.
Their unification of OSs will be their downfall. Their supposed next OS where they have finally figured out that the Linux way of handling things is better (i.e. Load the OS modules that you need). You get a minimalist Ring 0 Core OS and everything else is outside of that. They are putting in a hypervisor as well. This will reinvigorate their OS market if the project doesn't get canned. Consumer choice!! Oh what a new concept.
|
|
|
|
|
MajorTom123 wrote: because of DirectX10 and Crysis.
Yes, this is a typical corporate tactic to 'force' users to switch; same as, say, a hardware vendor not updating drivers for older equipment to support a newer OS ... emmm ... gee, that sounds familiar ...
MajorTom123 wrote: I don't have it so I can't say its crap, but from everyone who does have it that I know, they've all installed Win XP onto those computers.
I wouldn't call it "crap"; but I have had enough problems with it to leave a sour taste in my mouth. There's just not enough in it that makes me say "Wow!", this is leaps-and-bounds better than XP! Nothing.
MajorTom123 wrote: a minimalist Ring 0 Core OS and everything else is outside of that
Yes, I've been following the whole "MinWin" concept, and I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that they continue down the path ... but I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent link. Thanks. Flame wars broke out between the "MS wouldn't do something like that" crowd and the "Tweak this and it increases detail" crowd. As usual in the tech community it skewed off topic. There's just so much to talk about .
It answers some questions, but the jury is still out on others. i.e. Does Crysis really need DX10? It sounds like for me the answer is no, DX9 will do with this config change. If I were hard core, then yeah Vista is the way the truth and the life. Sorry I don't drink that Kool-Aid.
Thanks for the follow-up.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said! I completely agree. I had many problems in Vista while developing an application to integrate with QuickBooks. And yes, i don't know why Microsoft doesn't release something like Windows Developer Edition with full features and targeted only for developers 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
had a little fear  to vote the last choice, having no practical experience in vista.
But wondering: I found myself in a group of about 27%!
 Sigh - I'm not absolutely outdated.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running Vista on a P4 2,8 GHz with 1GB of memory and a 256MB PCI-E graphics card.
It installed in 15-20 minutes and is running just fine after you've switched of the UAC and the DEP.
And if my memory serves me well, Xp had similar compatibility problems at its release...
I wouldn't upgrade just for fun though, it's not better than Xp, but when you get it with a new machine... why not?
(I have to admit I didn't use it for development yet)
V.
No hurries, no worries
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: but when you get it with a new machine...
But is everyone so lucky to get a new machine at thier whims and fancies? 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, XP also had problems when it was released. I stuck to Win 2k for quite some time after the release of XP and I intend to do the same with Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
But when buying a new product the question should rather be WHY than WHY NOT?
With a new machine it's ok. I would do the same
|
|
|
|
|
i don't like vista...
i don't like transparency, disolvence aeroglass etc etc
i used to use always the windows classical theme also in xp.
i use xp pro sp2 and i think it's a good os... perhaps the best microsoft os
i suppose we have to wait for vista sp1 for releasing a real impression on vista.
someone would say: always wait for sp1 in microsoft os
but the real new vista features i were interested in as winfs!!?? where are they???
i think that the windows server 2008 will be a new os and not an new graphic interface as vista (i read some really interesting new features in a microsoft powerpoint)
----------------------------
nowhere now here-------> giammin.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
giammin wrote: always wait for sp1 in microsoft os
The classic Windows 98 is a very good example. Isn't it? The then system administrators would normally prefer installing Windows 98 Second Edition.
|
|
|
|
|
i fear that Vista is going to be a fake as windows me....
|
|
|
|
|
giammin wrote: but the real new vista features i were interested in as winfs!!?? where are they???
Winfs was scrapped a few years ago because performance was very bad.
John
|
|
|
|
|
I have installed and used Vista since it was in Beta version. I've seen how much it has changed till now. Now I'm using it as my primary OS for development. I have to say that it has cute interface and Microsoft has tried to make it more useful for people. But lets face the truth, windows Vista is a big memory waster. I don't care if it boots up or shuts down faster than any other OS, it just wastes system resources. I assume any professional developer may need VMWare or some kind of Virtual Computing software for development purposes. A fresh installation of windows XP takes about 150MB of memory space and leaves the rest of it for your usage. Windows Vista takes about 700MB of memory if you don't install any other 3rd party application on it. My development platform uses about 1.2GB memory when it boots up and during my work it consumes much more. I was able to have 3 VMs up and running during my normal development in windows XP but now i can hardly have one VM working during my normal activities. basically Vista uses more than 4 times as windows XP's memory usage! Isn't there any optimization process during the OS development phases anymore?
By the way, had anyone of you seen WinFS in the early Longhorn Beta Releases? Vista's name was still Longhorn and it had WinFS service in it too. It used 170MB of memory only by it self when the system came up!!! Fortunately they decided not to release it because i think it would have added much more mess to Vista.
During my experience with windows Vista and using it as development platform i have encountered the following problems may times on a system that only has Visual Studio 2005, MS SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition and VMWare Workstation installed on it.
1. Numerous application crashes or short-time hangs especially for Visual Studio 2005 IDE
2. Countless explorer long delays because of no reason
3. Confusion between multiple network devices installed on the system resulting in complete disconnection of network access
4. At least 2 or 3 Blue Screens in a week
So, my conclusion is Windows Vista has got a long way to go to become a stable operating system.
|
|
|
|
|
Osama Askari wrote: Its not developer friendly
Significantly. I think the Shell Extensions have significant impact at least with respect to Vista. Isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Does everyone remember when microsofot released that horror of an operating system Windows ME (HOW COULD YOU FORGET!)...As terrible as it was, it was ultimately a vital stepping stone towards the creation of Windows XP. Similarly, and perhaps more so, Vista is simply a stepping stone towards something greater, a steep learning curve if you like. This is especially true with vista because its almost entirely new, built from the ground up, hence its long production time. Now i don't think i'm telling anybody anything they didn't already know but my point is this:
If you realise that Vista is just a prototype for a faster, better, more user friendly, secure and reliable operating system...then stop complaining and get over it. Of course its going to have bugs and glitches, security issues and user unfriendliness in parts, but overall it will result in a much better end product.
Even when windows XP was released it had its fair share of problems, but two service packs later and the majority of complaints die down, Vista will be the same, two service packs later and we'll all wonder why we ever used XP (maybe). Anyway, that's my opinion and the reason why i haven't bought it yet, i'm gonna wait till the complaints die down, then i know it will be better and good enough for me to make the move.
|
|
|
|
|
The ANZAC wrote: Windows ME (HOW COULD YOU FORGET!)...As terrible as it was, it was ultimately a vital stepping stone towards the creation of Windows XP.
In term of kernel ME was the last offshoot of the ignominious 9x series, when XP is the grandson of NT4.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Syndicalism is the opposite.
Fold with us! ¤ flickr
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps i ment millenium, regardless a learning curve is still a learning curve, just as windows realised that the 9x series was finished it has also decided to move off from the NT4 design.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
