-I- Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) 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- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 ^ Has read too much from Link21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredledingue Posted July 7, 2006 Author Share Posted July 7, 2006 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atmosphere XG Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janus zeal Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainyShadow Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Yeah, but most of these 15+ GBs on Linux are sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredledingue Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 ...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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolookas Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainyShadow Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewan Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 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 offiles on a number of computers and file systems) yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewan Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 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 hardwaredependencies are isolated to particular VxDs that could be amended or replacedwith relative ease. The same is true for MS-DOS - the traditional design had allhw-deps in IO.SYS - OEMs were given the source code for customisation to theirhardware (whereas MSDOS.SYS was provided in object form only)... but bothDOS and W3.x/9x were always closely tied to the x86 CPU architecture, largelywritten in assembly language (making them more efficient and compact).The NT designers, however, tried hard to make the OS portable even toalien architectures (RISCs in particular) - with C++ as the implementationlanguage, and the famous"HAL" for shielding the rest of the system fromhardware dependencies, and as a matter of fact they went as far asbuilding a 286-emulator into the system for running DOS/Win16 softwareon the other (non-PC) architectures. Such effort was expended in thehope of seriously competing with Unix in workstation and server markets.Fortunately Linux and the free BSDs arrived just on time to thwart thosesinister 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 ofvirtualisation implemented in W9x VxDs. From the trival tasks of routingkeystrokes and mouse movement to the proper VM (one of of which isthe 16-bit shell - known as the desktop), to the rather more impressivearchievements of simulating the display device, sound card and DMAchannels well enough to allow applications written with almost exclusiveaccess to the machine in mind, to run properly.(* VMware, Qemu and similar virtual machine applications do exceed thevirtualisation 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 thesedeficiencies, whether due to lack of ambition or lack of skill, as reasonsfor "upgrading" to one of those systems, just as we're supposed toregard an ever richer "legacy" as a bad thing.Not that Win9x or any other OS from Redmond or other sources isperfect. For example, the limitations of the 16-bit core Win3.x/9xcomponents are real, bugs are hiding in all layers of the system,the hardware support is rapidly getting outdated (as others havementioned), an additional or reivsed file system is needed, manyparameters that should be configurable are actually fixed, and so on...but that's still a lot easier to fix than Microsoft's supposed successorOSes would be - imagine weeding through 7 GB to find the scatteredpieces 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 byteDOS .COM-file that I successfully verified the proper operation of in aWin98 DOS box. Vista would certainly crumble under such heavy load.Furthermore, if you load a kernel debugger, such as Soft-Ice orWDEB386 (comes with the DDK), you can view system stateinformation about active threads and VM (each VM contains atleast one thread, in addition to other resources). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewan Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 M$ software is in a state of decline... definitely.Sounds more like a state of inflation to me... much like the conceptof "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 - especiallythe modern bad habit of using 16 bits to store 7 bits. 16-bitcode is almost amazingly compact. Try invoking DEBUG.COMon WIN.COM, and use the U command (repeatedly) and notethe 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 immediatelyobvious 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 whenstarting Win3.x are more obvious than the start button, or evenworse, the trash bin,"online services", "network" and other weird"system"-icons appearing in Win95.Additionally, the meaning of icons are often far from obvious, andI find myself waiting for the "tooltip" on a daily basis, so unlessI'm especially bad at the task, beginners can be expected to haveeven greater difficulties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camarade_Tux Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_win Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now