Microsoft gives XP an extra two years to live (kinda)

The Register ^ | 4/3/2008 | Austin Modine

[ThePythonicCow]

they should have woke up DOS/9x and open-sourced it

There is an open source DOS -- FreeDOS.

Not sure what you meant by the "9x" in this context -- Windows 95 and 98? That, granted, has zero chance of being open sourced.

[dayglored]

>> 2MB (I presume you mean disk space) is not enough to hold any Linux install that can be reasonably used by a typical home user.

> True, but not because of Linux. Rather, this is true because of the various applications, such as web browser or word processor, that a general purpose home user will want to run.

True, for the most part. The other part is feature set -- you can do a small, tight-featured web browser in about a quarter the size of today's heavily-featured browsers.

> The Linux operating system itself can go much lower than the usual desktop applications that run on it.. As stated at IBM's Embedded Linux page: a Linux system can actually be adapted to work with as little as 256 KB ROM and 512 KB RAM.

I think we're really discussing various definitions of "a Linux system". Linux is the kernel. The GNU tools and other OS components, plus a host of applications, make up what we loosely call "a Linux system".

> If they didn't mind running telnet for their web browser and ed for their word processor (one at a time!), they might need only another 128 Kbytes of RAM. But this is for serious (and insanely impoverished) geeks. Beware that none of the usual command line shells, not even sash - Stand-alone shell will go quite that low. When I have to work down here, I write my own shells using a page or two of C code to fork and exec simple commands, one at a time, as read from the input.

In the mid-80's, I ran a 32-bit desktop minicomputer (AT&T 3B2/300) with 2MB of RAM and a 30MB MFM hard drive that only had 10MB of system files on it. Yet, it ran Sys-5 Unix, and I had a full-featured WYSIWYG screen editor, word processor, communications software, email, a couple different shells, etc. and could support a couple of concurrent logged-in users. No heavy graphics, of course, all text.

When I was on it by myself, I could run in under 512KB of RAM, and as long as I wasn't paging too badly, it ran acceptably. And that was a full, legit, Unix. I'm sure Linux could do better than telnet and ed. Vi at least.

> Linux can also stretch the other way. I've run on it systems with 2048 CPUs and 2 terabytes of main memory. This wasn't a cluster; this was a single system image (SSI) multi-processor system.

Indeed, that's a major strength of Linux -- scalability.

[ThePythonicCow]

better than ... ed. Vi at least.

vi sucks, in my view. I much prefer ed. The vi command was derived from Version 6 ed, whereas some nice little improvements that were made in Version 7 ed never made it to vi.

Back then, we ran a group of 10 or 20 people, as simultaneous interactive users, on a 256 Mb DEC PDP 11/45, running Version 6 or 7 full blown Unix.

[roamer_1]

There is an open source DOS -- FreeDOS.

Yes, I know. Still nothing around as good as MS-DOS 7.10a (WIN 4.10.2222)

FreeDOS still sucks, kinda. Udo Kuntz's Enhanced DOS (based on open source Caldera/DRDOS), Paragon DOS, or ROMDOS are great stand alone, but there really is no GUI other than Win3x or Win9x, and those really require MS-DOS for really good FAT32 and LFN support.

Not sure what you meant by the "9x" in this context -- Windows 95 and 98? That, granted, has zero chance of being open sourced.

Yeah, I meant Win95-WinME. and one could include Win3x, though probably 3.11wfwg would be the only one to worry about. Yes, I know they won't open their source, and yes, I know they won't release specs so an open community can write their own, but that's a damn shame, and a mistake too, IMHO.

[ThePythonicCow]

Oops -- 256 Mb Kb DEC PDP 11/45

[dayglored]

> vi sucks, in my view. I much prefer ed. The vi command was derived from Version 6 ed, whereas some nice little improvements that were made in Version 7 ed never made it to vi.

Oh, we agree that vi sucks. I prefer modeless screen editing.

But I'm confused. The ed I know (/bin/ed) is strictly a line editor -- you even have to request a prompt 'P'. I use it when I have to edit /etc/fstab from a single-user shell when a crashed system refuses to boot with fsck hung on a failed drive. But it's only marginally better than writing with a sharp pointy stick and a pile of poo, for anything more complicated than a 10-line config file.

Are we talking about the same ed?

[ThePythonicCow]

Are we talking about the same ed?

Yup. You're talking to one of the last people on earth for whom that ancient line editor is their preferred tool. There are some things you can do with it that no other editor can do as well, even after 30 years.

[dayglored]

Further comment on how Microsoft stupidly plunged ahead with their Vista bloatware in spite of clear indication that the market didn't want it. MS intentionally ignored the under-$1000 small computer market, even though they were warned explicitly, by their own in-house marketing people, over two years ago.

From this CRN Channel Media article Analyst Warned Microsoft About Vista, Low-Cost PCs:

Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT)'s announcement Thursday that it will extend the availability of Windows XP Home for ultra-low-cost PCs (ULCPCs) to June 30, 2010 might have come as some small solace to Gregg Daugherty.

Daugherty is the in-house market analyst who in early 2006 warned Microsoft's Windows Vista marketing team that the new operating system's "harsher" hardware requirements didn't make a lot of sense in a market that was skewing rapidly towards ultra-low-cost mobile PCs.

Thursday's extension makes Windows XP Home available for Microsoft OEM partners to pre-install a full two years after XP Professional is discontinued. The move is seen as an effort by the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant to stave off Linux in ULCPCs, but also as an admission of sorts that Vista's pricey system requirements aren't well suited to the growing ULCPC market segment.

Daugherty's warnings and the extent to which they apparently fell on deaf ears are part of a large collection of internal Microsoft e-mails that were unsealed by a U.S. district court judge in the ongoing Vista Capable class-action suit in Seattle.

The article quotes from Microsoft internal docs that indicate that they intended to force-feed Vista Home Basic (the totally brain-damaged version) to anybody with a small computer. Maybe if they were lucky they could run Vista Home Premium.

Instead, of course, the market spoke loud and clear: "We don't want your stinking, bloated Vista with its extra DRM, WGA, limitations and restrictions, and high cost -- especially on our new smaller notebooks."

Frankly, XP Home is a fine product for these small machines -- for people who want to run Windows, that is -- and although I expect Linux will gain a foothold, I expect that XP will do better.

What's futile is hoping that Vista will ever suitably address the small computer market. Microsoft missed the boat on that growing market, because of their stupidity and arrogance. Pure and simple. They screwed the pooch on this one.

[dayglored]

> You're talking to one of the last people on earth for whom that ancient line editor is their preferred tool. There are some things you can do with it that no other editor can do as well, even after 30 years.

Well, my hat is off to ya. What you say is true (some things no other editor can do).

In 1986 I needed a native text editor on a small system (64KB RAM, 80186 CPU) whose only programming language was a BASIC. So I wrote a line editor using that BASIC, and used ed as my model for the command set (pared-down, of course). My comment about the sharp pointy stick and the pile of poo actually originated with that experience. ;-)

These days I generally use a screen editor, except that I still regularly use sed of course. So I'm never very far from the old ed command set...

[Golden Eagle]

Funny watching you guys claim a victory for Linux when what this really shows is people would still rather pay for a six year old version of Windows than use your very latest version of Linux for free. And as for Vista it’s already been paid for on more machines than all versions of Linux combined too, so you’re never gonna catch it either now. Even Mac blowing you outa the water these days.

[dayglored]

> Funny watching you guys claim a victory for Linux when what this really shows is people would still rather pay for a six year old version of Windows than use your very latest version of Linux for free. And as for Vista it’s already been paid for on more machines than all versions of Linux combined too, so you’re never gonna catch it either now. Even Mac blowing you outa the water these days.

You're boring, GE. You don't read my comments, but you try to put words in my mouth so you can refute them.

Your obsession with Linux is sick, dude. Get over it.

[Golden Eagle]

Your obsession with Linux is sick, dude. Get over it.

Typical personal attack instead of admitting the fact that a six year old version of Windows, that people choose to pay for, still beats your very latest free version Linux in the "super cheap pc" market of all markets. It's an irony apparently beyond your ability to comprehend, much less explain, so all you can come up with is a few cheap personal shots instead. Typical, as I said, but I'm all I'm trying to do is point out a few facts to you, when you're the starry eyed dreamer here, not me. If your free Linux can't even beat Microsoft at the super cheap low end, where exactly do you think it's going to beat it?

[dayglored]

> Typical personal attack instead of admitting the fact that a six year old version of Windows, that people choose to pay for, still beats your very latest free version Linux in the "super cheap pc" market of all markets. It's an irony apparently beyond your ability to comprehend, much less explain, so all you can come up with is a few cheap personal shots instead. Typical, as I said, but I'm all I'm trying to do is point out a few facts to you, when you're the starry eyed dreamer here, not me. If your free Linux can't even beat Microsoft at the super cheap low end, where exactly do you think it's going to beat it?

You don't understand me, GE. I don't care if XP outsells Linux in the EEE-PC. Get it now???

What are the sales figures so far for XP vs. Linux on the EEE-PC? I expect XP to outsell Linux eventually, but I don't think XP's commercially available (pre-installed) on it yet. Right?

Anyway...

It's not "my Linux", as you claim. I'm not humping Linux -- at the moment most of my own workstations are Macs, because they're serving my needs best. I also use Linux, and I also use Windows. Next month it might be something else. I pick the right OS for the work I'm doing at the time.

I'm not a fanboi of -any- OS. I use what makes the most sense for what I'm doing.

You, on the other hand, are clearly a fanboi of Windows, and probably a Microsoft shill. But I don't care about that. What annoys me is that you are unfortunately also a boring troll (yes, that is a personal attack, which would be unfair if it weren't true).

Why?

Because you keep writing things saying I'm maniacal about Linux. I'm not. I like it, and I use it where it makes sense. I'd like to see it succeed, which is also how I feel about Macs, Windows, and anything else competing in the marketplace.

You, on the other hand, want to see Linux die, because you have a political obsession about it, centering on its origin and manner of development.

I say again: Your obsession with trashing Linux is stupid and sick. Get over it, and write again when you have something interesting to say.

Bye.

[Golden Eagle]

More name calling of course, it’s all you guys ever have since you can’t handle it when someone questions your constant fawning over Linux. Guess it makes you feel better since people would rather pay for 6 year old Windows than use that crap but those are the facts, and no amount of insults are ever going to cover them up.