[off topic] Vista instal >7.1 Gb

[Camarade_Tux]

With nlite I learned something : Windows is a distribution just like linux distros.

It has a kernel (currently NT kernel) and apps. Unlike *nix distros you can not decide (exactly) what to install. Of course, you have optionnal components but among the softwares that come with Windows the vast majority installs anyway (WMP, IE, OE).

NT kernel is really nice and is far from being heavy imho.

Additional softwares are different : they are made to be seen and come with lots of graphics, themes (WMP is particularly registry-hungry on this side), sounds (remember the first logon music, welcome/shutdown sounds, music samples that come with WMP...).

Btw, my WinSxS folder is 7 or 8MB on XP SP1a without .Net Framework.

Drivers may also take a lot of space. An possibility would be not to copy all drivers to hard drive but only the most likely to be used after installation. If you buy a new USB-mouse, you want it to work immediately. Now, imagine you install a new graphic card and don't want to bother finding the latest drivers; shutdown, open case, unplug old card, plug new card, reboot. Is it so annoying to have windows ask for a CD ? It took you 10 minutes to install the card, you can search your CD during 20seconds.

Moreover, it is likely to search the drivers on the internet on its own.

No need to have all drivers (especially graphic cards, chipset, audio)stored on the computer.

[Fredledingue]

Exactely. Or maybe M$ already consider that an OS is a web browser and a multimedia player. Maybe now they consider it also as a multimedia library, and a game pack?

Seriousely, what "eye and ear candy" stuffs could take room?

Video and audio can be easily compressed... and even uncompressed, 1 Gb is way enough for splash screens, bitmaps and other ding-dongs.

...so what's in the remaining 6Gb?

It seems they duplicate the whole OS everytime they added a functionality.

Probably because they outsourced developement among dispersed teams around the third world. Each team coming up with a "full package" no matter what is already preinstalled or what the others did.

Unefficient developement management at its best!

[Lunac]

LLXX you said: "An OS is not a game"

You hit the nail on the head. When XP was released, first thing I noticed was all the colors, almost neon in their intensity. The window bars were over sized, all the buttons were huge and illustrated, there was even an animated dog in the search window! My first thought was: how clownish! It looked like a toy OS, something for kids to play with. Then I noticed the bugs, lack of performance, and lack of software and hardware compatibility. It was a toy alright, not even a good one.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Lunac

[Atmosphere XG]

LLXX you said: " there was even an animated dog in the search window! My first thought was: how clownish! It looked like a toy OS, something for kids to play with."

Actually Video Games, is the next big thing for Home PCs. This is why, many are

upgrading their 32 bit systems to 64 bit systems, and installing the Vista Platforms.

Being very familiar with Audio, I'm more than positive, Vista, is steered primarily

for Video purposes than XP, 98, & of course, 95. You just don't need an OS housing

7 GB for Audio purposes.

This is why I can use 98SE for DJing audio in 2006. It's not that I don't have an XP

Computer available. It's because, all the extras that XP offers, doesn't justify the

need for playback pre-recorded music.

But for Video, more graphics, clarity, and, effects, increases the operating size

tremendously! And, this is where XP shines over 98SE.

It will come to a point, that we (Consumers) will need to stop, think, and, decide if

all these extras are really necessary for our needs.

Vista is a graphical operating system. For a gamer, this is great. For a video editor,

this is fantastic. For the person who has no intrest in neither, it's overkill on your PCs

Hard Drive.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Atmosphere XG

[Lunac]

Atmosphere XP, aside from quite obviously misquoting me, your post proves my point better than I could ever.

[Atmosphere XG]

I appologize for quoting you wrong.

It was just that piece, that solved the puzzle.

At least we're on the same track

[Fredledingue]

What XP or Vista offers about video editing that w98 don't?

[Zxian]

There's also the fact that Vista was built on a modular structure, instead of the integrated design process that Windows 98, Me, and XP were built with. That modularity requires that each part be self sustaining, meaning that there might be some duplication in the code. It's a trade off there.

Did everyone also forget the fact that the only install sizes we've seen so far are for the Ultimate edition - the largest and most feature-filled of the Vista lineup? I'm sure that the basic version, which doesn't have Media Center, Aero, bla bla blah in it will be considerably smaller.

@Lunac - did you also think about the people who've never used a computer before? Sit them down in front of Windows98 and then sit them in front of XP. If they take their time to look at the screen, they'll probably find what they need easier in XP. Same goes for Vista. Pretty much everything you need is only a couple of clicks away. You might not like the Luna theme, but most "newbies" do.

How many of you have actually used Vista instead of just bashing it?

[Atmosphere XG]

What XP or Vista offers about video editing that w98 don't?

If you're doing MPEG, or AVI editing, you won't have that much problems.

However, if you're trying to edit DVDs in terms of effects, and surround

sound, you'll find 98SE is the limiting factor for not only the software, but the

Video card as well.

With Blue Ray Disks being the latest craze, Vista's 64 Bit platform will benefit

over Windows XP.

You can read more about Blu Ray here if you're not familiar with it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

[LLXX]

How many of you have actually used Vista instead of just bashing it?

Yes, I tried it for a few days... horribly slow and the experience just wasn't that good at all.

IMHO deciding to write most of the OS in .NET was already a bad move...

[Lunac]

Zxian, hallucinogenic color themes and LEGO-like shell is the least of it.

For more information see my posts in: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=76515

Or the old "Why run 98?" thread (300+ replies): http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=60251

In short, HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) found in NT operating systems is seriously flawed and simply inadequate when it comes to what it was designed to do.

It was supposed to assist developers in creating drivers much faster by writing less code and letting HAL itself deal with any portability and compatibility issues. One way HAL does this is by emulating hardware and/or hardware features that are not even there to begin with. In theory this was a dream come true. You could write minimal code with maximum results in record time. In theory of course.

For basic information on what HAL is and what it does go here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hardware-abstraction-layer

Edited July 6, 2006 by Lunac

[Camarade_Tux]

There's also the fact that Vista was built on a modular structure, instead of the integrated design process that Windows 98, Me, and XP were built with. That modularity requires that each part be self sustaining, meaning that there might be some duplication in the code. It's a trade off there.

To me XP is higly modular. Just look at nlite and at how we can restore some components. To restore a component, you need to find the proper inf, copy all needed files to your hard drive, install the inf. That's all and that's probably how windows installs itself. Pretty modular isn't it ?

As for the modularity, windows is probably compiled so it runs with shared libraries.

Main drawback for shared libraries is with versions : if I dynamically link to a lib and the version on the target-computer does not offer the thing I want my program will not run.

If you used *nux you probably know there are tens different version of a single library unlike under Windows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linker#Dynamic_linking and this from an older rev of the article : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...17199#Criticism

( I think I'll have to correct this page : "If an error in a library function is corrected by replacing the library, all programs using it dynamically will immediately benefit from the correction. Programs that included this function by static linking would have to be re-linked first. ", this is clear propaganda for shared linking)

(there is also this link but it is not so interesting in the end : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Library#Shared_library )

Sharing libs is good under windows because if the needed dll is present, it also has the correct version. So using it will reduce memory usage without the stability cost.

How many of you have actually used Vista instead of just bashing it?

Not yet, but I'm not bashing it either, at least, not yet.

I'll try to see Vista beta2 and find why it is so huge.

Btw, it is maybe ultimate edition but beta2 is not feature complete yet.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Camarade_Tux

[Fredledingue]

However, if you're trying to edit DVDs in terms of effects, and surround

sound, you'll find 98SE is the limiting factor for not only the software, but the

Video card as well.

I confess I never edited DVD. But the only limitation I can see about DVD editing is the file size limited to 4Gb.

But I don't know if you need files over 4Gb to edit DVD.

The scond disadvantage is that softwares are written to work on XP only, but that's not a problem with the OS, it's a problem of the software.

About Blue Ray CD why it wouldn't be compatible with w98? No driver?

Did everyone also forget the fact that the only install sizes we've seen so far are for the Ultimate edition - the largest and most feature-filled of the Vista lineup? I'm sure that the basic version, which doesn't have Media Center, Aero, bla bla blah in it will be considerably smaller.

Sure! You can remove pinball and paint. You will save 300 Kb. LOL

Now just one technical question: how long it takes for a Vista platform to find a piece of information among 7GB of datas?

[Camarade_Tux]

Did everyone also forget the fact that the only install sizes we've seen so far are for the Ultimate edition - the largest and most feature-filled of the Vista lineup? I'm sure that the basic version, which doesn't have Media Center, Aero, bla bla blah in it will be considerably smaller.

Sure! You can remove pinball and paint. You will save 300 Kb. LOL

I take your own example : Pinball is approx. 9MB, 30 times what you estimated.

[Atmosphere XG]

Fredledingue,

I would say the limitation on 98 goes back to Fat 32. When you are editing Audio/Video hard drive space is used up rather quickly. When you take into consideration the plugins to enhance quality, comparing the original to the finished work, you'll need alot space.

Sure! 4 GB is what you start off with. However, once you begin your work, the size is much larger than that.

Blu Ray discs can hold up to 200 GB. This could be easily used for the best video quality, and, surround sound. Video and Audio holds no boundaries in size, when quality is the objective.

If I record an audio file @ 24 Bit 96 Khz, I'll reach the 2 GB limit (Fat 32) under an hour.

Today, 192 Khz 24 bit, is the new standard for professional audio recording.

If a Blu - Ray Disc is using High Definition Video, and, Surround sound, I can't say Windows 98 would be strong enough to handle such a file, when editing is concerned. If by chance it's encoded in 64 Bit, it will eliminate Windows 98 altogether.

Bare in mind, I'm speaking sheerly on a Audio/Video Professional level. The Home Consumer could well indeed operate a Blu Ray Disc Drive on Windows 98. Provided it is not encoded @ 64 Bit of course!

Although, as you mentioned, drivers will probably be non existent, unless some one is skilled enough to design one on their own.

When I see Vista, I see a whole new meaning to Windows. One that will create a new standard, on a lot of things, and, restrict users that don't have computers operating on At Least Windows XP.

While I do love my Windows 98/98SE, technology is moving very rapid these days. When 64 Bit computers become the standard as far as society goes, Windows 98SE/98 & 95 will be what Windows 3.1 is today.............. Non existent.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Atmosphere XG