This isn't the first time we've heard about the new slimmer windows. But apparently microsoft is going to try.
Microsoft, no longer the company of bloat? Now I know I'm in the twilight zone.
To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; ..
2 posted on
12/03/2007 6:06:04 AM PST by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
So, are they going to take out the DRM crap and leave in the ever-so-capable hands of the RIAA?
3 posted on
12/03/2007 6:13:36 AM PST by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Really just give me Windows 3.11 back. I really don’t care about the operating system, I just want to run applications.
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
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.
6 posted on
12/03/2007 6:23:37 AM PST by
smith288
(Ohio State, close to being 2007 NCAA Champs)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
>
...MinWin's source code base takes up about 25 megabytes on disk, compared to about 4 gigabytes for Vista... 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.
7 posted on
12/03/2007 6:24:15 AM PST by
dayglored
(Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I think the reason why Microsoft would reduce the size of the code was that by specifically developing for the x86 and x86-64 platform only, they can highly optimize the code for smaller size and higher performance. It's possible that Windows XP and Windows Vista were using core OS code that could be ported to non-x86 CPU's such as the Intel Itanium CPU.
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I've a question for whoever out there might be unlucky enough to be burdened with the MS-Vista OS. Did Microsoft
really remove the
telnet program?
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.
10 posted on
12/03/2007 7:04:57 AM PST by
zeugma
(Ubuntu - Linux for human beings)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Microsoft, no longer the company of bloat? Now I know I'm in the twilight zone. Maybe MinWin is a new Linux distribution.
15 posted on
12/03/2007 7:36:23 AM PST by
Egon
("If all your friends were named Cliff, would you jump off them??" - Hugh Neutron)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
This isn't the first time we've heard about the new slimmer windows. But apparently microsoft is going to try. Microsoft, no longer the company of bloat? Now I know I'm in the twilight zone.Check out Windows Server 2008 (Longhorn) Server Core installation.
19 posted on
12/03/2007 8:37:05 AM PST by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson