[off topic] Vista instal >7.1 Gb

[-I-]

i realy never ever heared of so mutch BS in my life....

i know there are lots of guys and girls who dont have the money for a better computer ....

but thinking that 98 has a better HAL than for example windows 2k xp or vista is like saying that a toad will outrun an antilope or a sail plain wil better manourvre than an F15 tomcat....

windows 98 a 32 bit extention tot a 16bit implempentation of an 8 bit os

that was initialy designed for a computer that didn't work for 1 bit?????

ever tried multi-treaded aplications (true multi-treading like cad).

ow yeah what happends if some extention card fails, hmmz whatsn't that somthing with a bleuscreen thingy ...

now a GOOD os would just ignore and disable it if id wasn't part of the core req to run the os....

ow and yournaling FS right??????

thank god MS finaly stops wasting time on 98 suppport so we can finaly get faster response time for OS's that DO deserve it...

Edited July 6, 2006 by -I-

[LLXX]

^ Has read too much from Link21

[Fredledingue]

Atmosphere,

I agree. What will kill w98 is the new technologies like 64bit that are flat out uncompatible with this old OS.

Also increasing audio/video quality/resolution/sampling, HDTV etc are making also w98 a bit limited because of the FAT32 4Gb limit.

But, it's not Vista or XP that are causing thiis move. It's the new hardware technologies.

Vista and XP64 just appaer to be able to handle new hardwares.

If one day someone decide to create an alternative windows compatible 64 bit OS, the world will rush in on it.

Because XP and Vista are realy POS. XP was a bloat monster comparing to 2000 (but 2000 was only the first version fo XP) or w98, now Vista is amonster of bloat comparing to XP. The w98 comparison is even not made anymore.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Fredledingue

[Atmosphere XG]

Fredledingue,

I agree as well. Hardware Requirements have catapulted throughout the years.

I'll reserve my opinion on Vista, until I purchase a new computer. Seeing that it's pointless, upgrading my XP Computer (32 Bit) to Vista, I'll just wait a few years, when the "beta stage" should be over.

Have A Great Weekend.

[janus zeal]

Im not a linux fanboi or anything, but linux installs take up sometimes as much as 15 GBs and none of the linux people complain.

(then again, linux comes with just about every app most ppl would need... browser, office suite, etc)

[RainyShadow]

Yeah, but most of these 15+ GBs on Linux are sources.

[Fredledingue]

...and there are thousands of Linux distros ranging from micro-installs of a few Mb to the full bells-and-whisles ones.

By contrast there are only ONE version of desktop OS sold by M$ and it's XP. And one day it will be Vista.

That's the problem.

[zolookas]

Yeah, but most of these 15+ GBs on Linux are sources.

Which distro installs all programs sources by default? Sure some distros include kernel sources in /usr/src but it doesn't take much space.

[Zxian]

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

Watch the "Search" video here. It's pretty freakin quick IMO. Even when you haven't just created the files, the search is very fast.

Also - a point to note - that's the Portege M400 tablet. It only comes with integrated shared graphics, and yet the Aero interface is still that responsive

[RainyShadow]

Yeah, but most of these 15+ GBs on Linux are sources.

Which distro installs all programs sources by default? Sure some distros include kernel sources in /usr/src but it doesn't take much space.

Probably none. But which distro is 15GB as standard install ?

[somewan]

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

Watch the "Search" video here. It's pretty freakin quick IMO. Even when you haven't just created the files, the search is very fast.

In my case, it takes much longer to find newer files, as they aren't in the index (just a list of

files on a number of computers and file systems) yet.

[somewan]

i realy never ever heared of so mutch BS in my life....

i know there are lots of guys and girls who dont have the money for a better computer ....

but thinking that 98 has a better HAL than for example windows 2k xp or vista is like saying that a toad will outrun an antilope or a sail plain wil better manourvre than an F15 tomcat....

For an OS never intended to be ported to other architectures (Alpha, MIPS, etc.),

W98 has a reasonable HAL (hardware abstraction layer) - most hardware

dependencies are isolated to particular VxDs that could be amended or replaced

with relative ease. The same is true for MS-DOS - the traditional design had all

hw-deps in IO.SYS - OEMs were given the source code for customisation to their

hardware (whereas MSDOS.SYS was provided in object form only)... but both

DOS and W3.x/9x were always closely tied to the x86 CPU architecture, largely

written in assembly language (making them more efficient and compact).

The NT designers, however, tried hard to make the OS portable even to

alien architectures (RISCs in particular) - with C++ as the implementation

language, and the famous"HAL" for shielding the rest of the system from

hardware dependencies, and as a matter of fact they went as far as

building a 286-emulator into the system for running DOS/Win16 software

on the other (non-PC) architectures. Such effort was expended in the

hope of seriously competing with Unix in workstation and server markets.

Fortunately Linux and the free BSDs arrived just on time to thwart those

sinister plans, hopefully for ever.

Or perhaps you weren't thinking of "abstraction" but of "virtualisation",

which is actually a specialty of the Win3.x/9x series - no other OS(*),

whether NT/XP/2K or Unix-like, comes close to matching the level of

virtualisation implemented in W9x VxDs. From the trival tasks of routing

keystrokes and mouse movement to the proper VM (one of of which is

the 16-bit shell - known as the desktop), to the rather more impressive

archievements of simulating the display device, sound card and DMA

channels well enough to allow applications written with almost exclusive

access to the machine in mind, to run properly.

(* VMware, Qemu and similar virtual machine applications do exceed the

virtualisation in Win9x, but they are applications dedicated to that task,

rather than general purpose operating systems)

NT/2K/XP falls short, after all the years they've had to get the job done,

and with full access to tried and tested reference implementations (namely

the Win9x source code)! Perhaps we're supposed to view these

deficiencies, whether due to lack of ambition or lack of skill, as reasons

for "upgrading" to one of those systems, just as we're supposed to

regard an ever richer "legacy" as a bad thing.

Not that Win9x or any other OS from Redmond or other sources is

perfect. For example, the limitations of the 16-bit core Win3.x/9x

components are real, bugs are hiding in all layers of the system,

the hardware support is rapidly getting outdated (as others have

mentioned), an additional or reivsed file system is needed, many

parameters that should be configurable are actually fixed, and so on...

but that's still a lot easier to fix than Microsoft's supposed successor

OSes would be - imagine weeding through 7 GB to find the scattered

pieces that might be worth preserving!

ever tried multi-treaded aplications (true multi-treading like cad).

I tried Autocad once... whether it was multi-threaded I don't know.

I also wrote my own multi-threading kernel, resulting in an ~820 byte

DOS .COM-file that I successfully verified the proper operation of in a

Win98 DOS box. Vista would certainly crumble under such heavy load.

Furthermore, if you load a kernel debugger, such as Soft-Ice or

WDEB386 (comes with the DDK), you can view system state

information about active threads and VM (each VM contains at

least one thread, in addition to other resources).

[somewan]

M$ software is in a state of decline... definitely.

Sounds more like a state of inflation to me... much like the concept

of "inflation" of currencies (the decline of currency value per unit).

In the good old days 10 floppies would suffice, now 10 CDs...

One needs to look outside of "code". While it's very likely there is huge swathes of not-so-veryily-optimized code in Vista - much like everything else being produced today it is overladen with graphical candy.

Text also takes a lot of space compared to code - especially

the modern bad habit of using 16 bits to store 7 bits. 16-bit

code is almost amazingly compact. Try invoking DEBUG.COM

on WIN.COM, and use the U command (repeatedly) and note

the increase of memory addresses to the left.

Thats because Vista is supposed to be an OS, i.e. it's not supposed to consume the resources, but rather only provide services for the apps that *are* supposed to be using the majority of the system resources. A game being 2-5Gb is understandable, as it contains a lot of graphics and textures, and games are supposed to have those. An OS is not a game... it doesn't require any fancy graphics and textures.

I've heard Vista requires a 3D card, which seems rather absurd.

Sounds more like Quake XII (or whatever) than MS-windows (NT 7?).

Besides, the "cool graphics" don't buy much in terms of usability...

As a beginner, I found the DOSSHELL more or less immediately

obvious how to navigate, with either the mouse or keyboard,

and the same was true for Win3.x. In fact, I would say the pull-

down menus and program groups you'd see on the desktop when

starting Win3.x are more obvious than the start button, or even

worse, the trash bin,"online services", "network" and other weird

"system"-icons appearing in Win95.

Additionally, the meaning of icons are often far from obvious, and

I find myself waiting for the "tooltip" on a daily basis, so unless

I'm especially bad at the task, beginners can be expected to have

even greater difficulties.

[Camarade_Tux]

Thats because Vista is supposed to be an OS, i.e. it's not supposed to consume the resources, but rather only provide services for the apps that *are* supposed to be using the majority of the system resources. A game being 2-5Gb is understandable, as it contains a lot of graphics and textures, and games are supposed to have those. An OS is not a game... it doesn't require any fancy graphics and textures.

I've heard Vista requires a 3D card, which seems rather absurd.

Sounds more like Quake XII (or whatever) than MS-windows (NT 7?).

I read there would be a no-display version of Vista Server to spare some memory and let it run on older computers. Does anyone have more infos ?

[M_win]

just a comparison, how much space does mac os x take?

theres really no reason for it to be so huge im gonna have to stop splitting partitions at 10 GB