Posted on 12/03/2007 5:49:45 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
In the year that has passed since Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) released Windows Vista to business users, the operating system has gained a reputation in the channel as a bloated memory hog that many companies are avoiding like a trip to the dentist.
But Microsoft partners have a more positive opinion of Windows 7, the next generation of Windows that Microsoft expects to ship in the 2010 timeframe. That's because Windows 7 will be based on MinWin, a scaled down version of the Windows core that will also serve as the framework for Windows Server and Windows Media Center.
MinWin's source code base takes up about 25 megabytes on disk, compared to about 4 gigabytes for Vista. Solution providers see this as a sign that Microsoft has learned its lesson from trying to cram too much into the Windows OS, and some feel that Windows 7 will be a roaring success in the market.
(Excerpt) Read more at crn.com ...
Microsoft, no longer the company of bloat? Now I know I'm in the twilight zone.
So, are they going to take out the DRM crap and leave in the ever-so-capable hands of the RIAA?
That’s a good question. But probably not.
Really just give me Windows 3.11 back. I really don’t care about the operating system, I just want to run applications.
I have the macbook with bootcamp and just installed Vista on it. It runs pretty well. Vista’s problem is that its meant pretty much for PCs running on steroids instead of 1ghz single processors with 512 ram.
Convincing people that it can run on that smoothly was a bad idea.
2gb or more is my recomendating if you want full performance.
That can't be an apples-to-apples comparison. That's a factor of over 150-to-1. Not possible.
Even if MS took all their famously long variable names and chopped them down to 6 characters like Fortran, you couldn't get 150:1.
I suspect the 25MB Win7 number is just a bare kernel, whereas the 4GB Vista number must be everything including the applications that come with it.
Then I still don’t want it. Along with the fact that it doesn’t seem to offer anything like enough new stuff to justify the processor and memory load, I refuse in principle to buy stuff from people who think they should be able to police my actions and have me pay for it. I have no desire to steal anyone’s IP (and I don’t), but if I pay for something, the seller has a duty to act in my interests, not those of some third party, especially if doing so imposes a further cost (decreased performance at a given hardware level) on me. To do otherwise is to make me pay money in the interest of the RIAA against my will.
I've heard rumors to that effect, but would like confirmation.
Granted, without a really good reason to use it on a completely isolated network, anyone who runs a telnet daemon deserves to be strung up over a vat of boiling oil and slowly lowered into it. That doesn't make telnet any less of a multifunction battleclub from a troubleshooting perspective.
Variable names don’t affect the length of executable code.
Of course. But the size comparison was of "the source code bases", not the executables.
I don't know if they removed it from Vista.
But seriously, do you know anybody using Vista, who knows that you can use telnet for things other than the default term (e.g. "telnet mailserver.foo.com 25" to talk to SMTP/sendmail)? I don't know anybody that savvy, who is running Vista... just (l)users with Vista Home Edition because they had no choice.
Wow. I haven't heard about that. Did they supposedly remove the telnet client or server? If true, it would be quite a surprise(well not really). Telnet is terrible to use for anything you wouldn't want everyone else to know about, but can be useful for certain troubleshooting situations. Removing telnet would be just stupid. What's next? Are they going to remove Ping? lol
Maybe MinWin is a new Linux distribution.
They wouldn't know to do it, but when instructed very carefully even monkeys can type what they are told.
Unless you are running a server version of windows I don't think you have access to a telnet daemon. Noone should be running a telnet daemon anymore anyway. It is the client that is still useful.
Remember, though, that that 25MB needs to have reverse compatibility with at least all Win32 programs [dating from the early 1990's] - because without backwards compatibility, a new kernel from Microsoft is no better than Linux or FreeBSD.
From there, the kernel will of course need forwards compatibility - through WinXP, ".NET", Win64, and "Aero/DRM" [or whatever].
With an expected timeframe of 2010, Microsoft might go ahead and ditch backwards compatibility with Win16, although that would leave literally gazillions of businesses [& their employees] without access to some older mission-critical apps.
My guess would be that that 25MB would merely provide an interface into which you could load older libraries, as necessary, to gain all of that reverse compatibility, and that if you were to load all of the older libraries, then you'd be right back at 4GB+.
Check out Windows Server 2008 (Longhorn) Server Core installation.
I sometimes use telnet for troubleshooting email servers, connecting to port 25 to work with Postfix.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.