Slashdot Mirror
A Quick Look at Longhorn Build 4053
An anonymous reader writes "Even though the next generation Windows product is not due until late 2005 or even 2006, here is a look at what Microsoft has in store for it's future operating system. 'Without a vast amount of tweaking, this build is a resource hog. At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.'"
Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.
You don't think Microsoft can figure out 10 more things to implement in the next 2 years to consume any ram they happen to free up through optimization?
GPL Deconstructed
Are you so sure it wouldn't, Microsoft was never one for making a small package, and Longhorn is meant to be run on machines of 2006, where there is much more RAM in the the system.
So the big news is, an alpha version of an operating system from an OS family known to eat lots of memory, actually eats lots of memory?
"They must be running IIS on Longhorn!" or something. I heard that if nobody says something like that in a Slashdot thread, the universe implodes.
is 512mb enough for anyone?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
They're just waiting for the hardware needed to run it to become available...
They're on build 4053 and they won't be ready until about 2005 or 2006?
Woah. At the rate they're going, they'll be on approximately build 13000 by the time 2006 comes around.
Geez and I thought Gentoo had a lot of builds...
Bill Gates: 483MB will be enough for everybody.
Most systems now have 512MB, in two years they will probably have 1GiB or more. I've got 1GiB in mine right now.
Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.
No actually, they have the all important Brushed... I mean Slate look in place, so thats development pretty much wrapped up on this version.
Jonathanjk.com
Am I the only person who thinks improvements should come in the simplification of code rather than adding new features? I would much rather have another version of Windows 2000 that runs more efficiently than whatever may come from Longhorn. It's beginning to sound less like an application launching layer and more like a 3-ring circus stuffed into a shoebox.
Is this Gate's law once again counter-manding Moore's Law?
Joe
I just wonder how they where able to graft X-Windows into their current source code.
Intel: Hey Microsoft why don't you slow down windows a bit? Microsoft: Why? Intel: That way home users will actually have a reason to buy a 3Ghz processor
At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.
What'd they do? Replace the Windows GUI with Gnome?
ducks
FreeSpeech.org
microsoft works with computer vendors to make it that the new opperating system requires a new computer to be compatible with it. Revitalizes companies like Dell, HP, etc. Everyone walks away richer (well except all of us who will have to throw away our current computers).
Dang, i remember the days when 8 megs of ram was a lot, and 80 meg hard drive would never get filled.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
I see Longhorn ain't going to play nice with even XP-class machines. Oh well, not like I wanted my rights digitally managed anyway.
/b
|f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)
It's maybe possible to save ram by compiling stuff you don't need as modules, like:
:)
* IE
* The clipper thingie in office
* The animated, fading menues from the start button
And other stuff which obviously live in the kernel
That's as much as I have committed on a fully-loaded 2003 server running dreamweaver and hosting fedora core 1 on VMware. That swanky DB/filesystem better bake me fresh cookies.
Bill gates has called a meeting with the memory chip manufacturers...
GATES: "Gentlemen, I'm here to offer you a proposition. With my evil, resource bloating operating system, you can join with Microsoft and we will band together and control all the memory on the planet."
JAPANESE BUSINESSMAN: "I am not comfortable with this."
GATES: "I understand."
(He presses a red button on his arm rest)
(A trap door opens up from the ceiling and 10,000 copies of WordPerfect, Borland C++, Lotus, and Quattro Pro, bludgeon the Japanese semiconductor CEO to death. His lifeless body slumps over.)
GATES: "Anyone else have any problems with my plan?"
Of course it's a resource hog, they probably have every debugging feature turned on in it. Is there a point to "reviewing" this build?
I found a handy page on Google with some torrents and other doodads. You may want to check how much RAM you have first ;-)
I have tried to install an alpha version of Longhorn. It hangs when it gets to detecting hardware, so I havent been able to actually use it. I think the build that i have it pretty much like XP is so I'm not that hurt that I can't get it to run. The nice thing is though, that it comes with a nicer partition utility than XP does. Not as good as something like Mandrake or SUSE, but still good for Windows.
That's ONE HUNDRED times more than my computer's operating system, RISC OS*, uses. Ridiculous.
* http://www.iyonix.com/iyonix/features/osfeatures.s html
Hey, if you're extremely worried about the RAM resources, are too cheap to shell out that extra $40 for 256 MB of memory, or expect to run the whole thing on TI-83 calculator, then maybe next Windows is not for you.
If you want functionality, you have to dedicate resources, if you don't want much functionality, stick to Linux on a floppy with pre-installed vi and life would be great.
Mozilla Firefox 0.8 is currently taking up 63 MB of RAM, and that's just a browser with no media players, mail clients, task schedulers, etc.
Just another reason to stick with the tried-and-true Ninnle Linux!
It will consume more...
Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.
Is MS in bed with hardware manufacturers?
...small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri...
The democrats are fucking traitors and losers, especially the former deaniacs. President Bush, our hero is setting the right course and he knows exactly where he wants to lead this country. When are you dipshit liberals gonna get it? Open source, lunix, macs they're all the same. Total shit operating systems and hippies. I stick with my American made Windows XP and my American made Dell pc. You fucking traitors can go ahead and use apple and lunix like the traitors you are.
Probably they put the animated "Clippy" on the Start button.
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
Posted by Team Flexbeta on 05 March 2004 (34135 views) Rating: 4.64
Even though the next generation Windows product is not due until late 2005 or even 2006, we wanted to take a look at what Microsoft has in store for us. We take a quick look at the recently leaked Longhorn Build 4053.
For those of you that are lucky enough to have snagged a copy, remember this, Build 4053 is still a baby, not even in Beta stage yet, so we will not go in depth into subjects such as the theme, sidebar, etc.
The installation wizard has improved greatly from past installers that Windows 2000 and XP had. No more will we see the plain DOS like setup screen, its all graphical now with minimal questions during the installation process, which, has its good and its bad. For a home user upgrading to Longhorn, the installation is a breeze, start the setup, enter the key and go take a nap, by the time you wake up it will be done. If the setup continues on this path towards final release, then the use of an answer file will be necessary to alleviate any post installation changes, especially for a network administrator implementing a company wide roll out, but Microsoft has always provided excellent administrator tools for this very reason. The installation did take an awfully long time, especially during the "Hardware Detection" phase, but I'm sure that this will be improved upon in the months to come.
Even though the initial startup is extremely fast, once logged in the system crawls along, taking a seemingly endless amount of time to get everything up and running. This too will definitely improve over development time.
The layout is clean and clutter free. Minimal icons are presented on the desktop, which is one of my pet peeves; I go to great lengths to maintain an icon-less desktop. The sidebar is definitely going to have its share of protestors, me being one of them. To me, no matter what is docked on the sidebar in the final release, it is a huge waste of space and system resources that a vast majority of users will just turn off. There will be more applets applied to it in the end, search bars, link bars, etc, so as the sidebar comes of age, we will examine it once again.
Without a vast amount of tweaking, this build is a resource hog. At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources. My test system is an Intel Pentium 4 2.4Ghz with 512 MB of RAM, so it is still running at a good pace, but anything less than this makes the system crawl along at an insanely annoying pace. When the final build is released, the recommended system requirements will be roughly the same as Windows XP, but as anyone that has tried to run XP with multiple users will testify, simply having the recommended requirements is just not enough.
At this point in time, build 4053 is basically Windows XP with a different theme, even though some new technologies are being created and there are dribs and drabs of them in this build. Build 4053 is still a lot different from previous builds where some of the new technologies Microsoft is working on were clearly integrated, such as the Hardware Carousel, WinFS, etc, in this build like Build 4051 (PDC) they are absent or implemented at a minimum.
There are very visible bugs at this stage, but it seems that some of the major pains that plagued previous builds have been worked on or corrected. The infamous Internet Explorer memory leak seems to have disappeared, and that was a huge memory leak, but as I sit here writing this, the commit charge is growing and growing, so there are still memory leaks in some processes and/or services that are running.
Some features previewed in previous builds have been developed to a greater extent such as Contacts, Photos and Videos. The layout and orientation of the windows has been vastly improved. All links and graphical elements have been fine tuned
it's slow, but still up. -- just hit reload..
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
They must be running IIS on Longhorn or something!
It may be the new Microsoft business model, low cost software, high cost hardware -- just like inkjet printers (low cost printers, high cost ink)
If Microsoft gets there hands into trusted computer hardware platforms, and ram, they can lock you into platforms that only Microsoft gets money from. And doesn't Microsoft make money from ram now?
Of course the early builds are debugged enabled and fat, but I have no doubt that by the time it is released, it will be much bigger. Microsoft programmers are lazy, why write efficient code when you can just add more hardware? And don't forget that no one will ever need more than 640k.
Fight Spammers!
Maybe it won't take until 2006 to finish Longhorn, maybe they just need to wait until DRAM prices fall enough that people will be able to afford to run it.
Is there any news on what the name of this version will be? (I'm assuming "longhorn" is purely a working title)
Sources working at the Redmond campus say that it is common knowledge on campus that Longhorn will not ship until mid 2007. With current technical problems mounting, the same sources say that 2008 is starting to look likely, if not optimistic.
Those who have to use the current build say that it is not stable at all. Apparently, there are new failure modes in the DRM and file systems that are "very difficult to analyze and very non-intuitive to troubleshoot or even understand." The failure modes are reported to totally freeze the computer, prevent rebooting and resist reformatting.
If true, the words "difficult and non-intuitive" are not encouraging, particularly when used by very experienced users at Microsoft .
here is a look at what Microsoft has in store for it's future operating system.
I wonder if it'll educate its users on apostrophe usage. This is third-grade stuff, dickhead. Maybe you should KNOW IT BY NOW.
At Microsoft, our current take is that memory and storage are cheap and that every user will have a machine with 1 gig of RAM when Longhorn hits the stores. In the end it will come down to whether the user can live without the Longhorn without having to upgrade their system. Although some users might choose not upgrade, we feel that the overall majority of users will see the value our software provides and opt to upgrade.
Even though the next generation Windows product is not due until late 2005 or even 2006, we wanted to take a look at what Microsoft has in store for us. We take a quick look at the recently leaked Longhorn Build 4053.
For those of you that are lucky enough to have snagged a copy, remember this, Build 4053 is still a baby, not even in Beta stage yet, so we will not go in depth into subjects such as the theme, sidebar, etc.
The installation wizard has improved greatly from past installers that Windows 2000 and XP had. No more will we see the plain DOS like setup screen, its all graphical now with minimal questions during the installation process, which, has its good and its bad. For a home user upgrading to Longhorn, the installation is a breeze, start the setup, enter the key and go take a nap, by the time you wake up it will be done. If the setup continues on this path towards final release, then the use of an answer file will be necessary to alleviate any post installation changes, especially for a network administrator implementing a company wide roll out, but Microsoft has always provided excellent administrator tools for this very reason. The installation did take an awfully long time, especially during the "Hardware Detection" phase, but I'm sure that this will be improved upon in the months to come.
Even though the initial startup is extremely fast, once logged in the system crawls along, taking a seemingly endless amount of time to get everything up and running. This too will definitely improve over development time.
The layout is clean and clutter free. Minimal icons are presented on the desktop, which is one of my pet peeves; I go to great lengths to maintain an icon-less desktop. The sidebar is definitely going to have its share of protestors, me being one of them. To me, no matter what is docked on the sidebar in the final release, it is a huge waste of space and system resources that a vast majority of users will just turn off. There will be more applets applied to it in the end, search bars, link bars, etc, so as the sidebar comes of age, we will examine it once again.
A Quick Look at Longhorn Build 4053 - Page 2
Without a vast amount of tweaking, this build is a resource hog. At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources. My test system is an Intel Pentium 4 2.4Ghz with 512 MB of RAM, so it is still running at a good pace, but anything less than this makes the system crawl along at an insanely annoying pace. When the final build is released, the recommended system requirements will be roughly the same as Windows XP, but as anyone that has tried to run XP with multiple users will testify, simply having the recommended requirements is just not enough.
At this point in time, build 4053 is basically Windows XP with a different theme, even though some new technologies are being created and there are dribs and drabs of them in this build. Build 4053 is still a lot different from previous builds where some of the new technologies Microsoft is working on were clearly integrated, such as the Hardware Carousel, WinFS, etc, in this build like Build 4051 (PDC) they are absent or implemented at a minimum.
There are very visible bugs at this stage, but it seems that some of the major pains that plagued previous builds have been worked on or corrected. The infamous Internet Explorer memory leak seems to have disappeared, and that was a huge memory leak, but as I sit here writing this, the commit charge is growing and growing, so there are still memory leaks in some processes and/or services that are running.
Some features previewed in previous builds have been developed to a greater extent such as Contacts, Photos and Videos. The layout and orientation of the windows has been vastly improved. All links and graphical elements have been fine tune
Every Microsoft operating system during development does! The OS is not designed to run on systems that we use now, it is designed to run on systems that we will be using in 3 years time.
Historically, when Windows NT received heaps of exactly the same flack about it running extraordinarily slowly from reviewers quite simply because they weren't smart enough to work that basic fact out.
Its a product that won't hit the shelves for 2 years. It was compiled in debug mode - of course its going to be a resource hog.
Don't you love the fact that MSFT always builds an OS for nonexistant hardware? MSFT relies on the hardware manufacturers to put out faster, more capable hardware to support their shotty implementations; it's a crackers heaven.
This is how it works:
1: MSFT Releases new OS
2: MSFT stops supporting old OS
3: End user forced to upgrade
4: PROFIT $$$
but it doesn't stop there.
Since the OS is implemented badly to begin with, you can expect there will be plenty of things to exploit, to gain control over the end-user's machine. With the above cycle in mind, it's more than obvious that MSFT is blindly supplying crackers with faster, more powerful machines that they can use in their network of zombies.
I hear that they plan on shipping a virus scanner with future versions of windows...I sure hope they update virus definitions much faster than they currently patch their security holes.
and 483 MB? That's rediculous. I'm running slackware with everything I need to rule the world, and it uses less than 200MB.
Memory isn't really an issue for me, as I have an ample amount, but my point is this: Microsoft should more concentrate on fixing their current implementation issues. They need to make their OS's usable (and fast) on widely available hardware. They need to do a lot of work with their memory mangement. I shouldn't have to reboot my computer twice a week, or even twice a month. MSFT should not require users to use the latest technology either, because generally it's prohibitively expensive, and always implemented poorly.
Until MSFT fixes the above issues, I think I'll stick to OSS.
Even though the initial startup is extremely fast, once logged in the system crawls along, taking a seemingly endless amount of time to get everything up and running. This too will definitely improve over development time.
Thanks Microsoft you made no changes to existing software!
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
perspective?
Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.
Obviously, this Timothy fellow must be joking. Your average Microsoft advocate has an air of respectability and tries to avoid creating the impression that they smoke crack.
I thought you meant who cares about windows. Is there anybody here that doesn't care a fig about windows? It's one of the reasons I used to come here, in order to not feel so lonely. Now I fear it's being co-opted by the Borg. If y'all love windows so much isn't there another web log to discuss it on?
Moore's Law says that the numbers of transistors per integrated circuit increased exponentionally.
One day a economist overheard this and didn't know how to apply it, so he looked at a price graph and observed that technology cost half what it did 18 months before.A Marketing major heard it and thought that too drery, and declared speed doubled every 18 months.
Then an MCSE came along, and proclaimed efficient programming isn't cost effective, and Windows bloat will be absorbed.Just a reminder: with Mac OS 10, Apple has been improving its performance with every single release...
although, Jaguar and Panther did add a 128 MB "requirement"
..for a Windows build, in terms of window colour (brushed metal, like OS X). As far as everything else, it isn't needed. These screenshots show how nothing has really changed.
Come on x86ers, save up for a Mac (even a used one) and get more stuff done more enjoyably. If you're going to spend $ on new hardware (which Longhorn will surely require for 95% of the pop.), don't run the risk of it not working with your setup.. and you can still run *nix or a BSD.
must not post while Bob is involved.
Last Friday, I had to fire up an old, tired PC running Windows 98. Gosh, a real dinosaur - 166Mhz, 256Mb RAM, MS Office.
It was weird. It booted quickly, and the whole thing felt snappy. Menus actually popped up on screen immediately. Explorer did things, instead of hanging about "thinking" all the time.
Windows XP doesn't feel like that, even with my brand new 3Ghz, 1Gb RAM machine.
Why is this so? Why are the menus so slow - and what have they done to Windows Explorer to make it so snail-like?
"Cats like plain crisps"
WinFX is the new API framework. I'm willing to put my money on Windows FX.
It's great to see betas leaked. While we in the free software world of course shouldn't just follow in Microsofts path, we should keep a close eye on them. Hopefully, by the time Longhorn is released we will have most if not all improvements implemented. In this release, I don't see much to copy. Actually, it was more of Microsoft playing catch-up with free software (Firefox).
Of course the UI has changed a bit, but other than new colours there didn't seem to be much enhancements. I guess I'll go back to study the screen shots more carefully. I'd better hurry before the rest of you make Flexbeta grind to a halt completely--it's already slow!
Okay, I know a dude who recently got Longhorn installed on his machine, because he's inside the M$ business.
;)
He reports:
- It's totally unstable. - It is unuseable on his 2.6 Ghz machine with 1gig of ram (as far as I remember)
I do not know which build, but it's probably still hella unstable, and seriously what can we use their RAM muncher numbers for when the system is unstable, filled with debug, and probably won't look much like it when it's done?
Still it's nice to hear a "status report", I love those little gems
So, first he calles it micro - soft, and now he's calling it long - horn?
micro. soft.
long. horn.
I think that makes my phallic implications painfully obvious. My work here is done.
It's called debug code. Just look at FreeBSD:
/boot/kernel/kernel /boot/kernel/kernel /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC/kernel.debugx r-x 1 root wheel 30170033 Mar 7 21:31 /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC/kernel.debug
fafnir# ls -l
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5940286 Feb 26 00:52
fafnir# ls -l
-rwxr-
Enabling debugging options makes the FreeBSD kernel five times as large; if anything, I'd expect Microsoft to have even more debugging code in their pre-release builds.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Newsforge is the Slashdot of 5 years ago. Try them for "Borg" bashing.
I'm typing this from a 400Mhz PII with 128 megs of ram. Linux 2.4, Xfce4, gaim, Epiphany and assorted daemons currently have my memory monitor at around 50 megs. I know this is a debug build and that the final optimized release could use as little as half as much memory, but I can't for the life of me imagine what functionality could possibly justify using even that much. I'm about to build a new pc that will have at least 1gb of ram in it, but I want that space to be used for applications, not some retarded dog that should have died with MS BOB.
XP gold is build 2600. And I haven't used NT 4 in a long time, but I think every boot the blue screen told you the build number, 1381.
I find it kind of interesting that 4053 is just out when 4051 was handed out months ago at the PDC. I was under the impression (and think I remember reading somewhere) that MS made a new build every day, and that it took something like 12 hours to compile Windows each night.
Anyone else remember that?
"At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources."
MS typically aims at having the OS consume, or fit into, about a quarter of whatever amount of memory is considered standard at the time.
Now, by the time Longhorn rolls out in 2007 or so, it's likely that 2 GB of RAM, if not 4, will be standard on most new systems. So I'd say MS is probably aiming at a 512 MB base for Longhorn. Maybe 256 or 384, but there's nothing in MS's history to indicate that they would have a problem releasing an OS that consumes 512MB.
The parent post doesn't even make sense. It appears to be a poor attempt at trolling lightly enough to get modded up as "Funny" by people who don't understand it.
"X-Windows" (a common misnomer for the "X Window System") isn't any code, it's a standard. XFree86 is an implementation of a server and client for this standard. XFree86 is largely under the X11 open source license, not the GPL. Other X11 implementations are licensed under the GPL, but they're not exactly the ones that come to mind immediately. Finally, how is there any correlation between XFree86's memory usage and the article's bloated debug build of Windows? Other X11 implementations are even lighter on memory usage than the completely reasonably memory usage of XFree86.
Longhorn 4053 Tweak Guide ...
...
Found this over at Neowin
483 is surprisingly similar to 384, isn't it?
Run!
http://guessthatnumber.craftyidiots.com
- - - - - - -
Orppf urp mf y.ppcxn. yflcbi otcnnov C am yflcbi yr n.apb Ekrpatv (Dvorak -> Qwerty)
...bitching. I mean, this sounds like a new Ferrari owner complaining about the gas mileage.
(Looks for nearest exist in case someone doesn't get the joke.)
In Mozilla 6.0 and Firefox 0.8
bash: rtfm: command not found
Since SCO will win its case and the
deal they made with Microsoft includes a
bin compatibilty util.....
What is a commit charge?
First out of the gate, somebody says Microsoft will find some crap to put in to eat up any resources they gain by optimization.
/. would care about validity).
Next, the Microsoft trolls pounce, claiming that the same statement is true about Linux (no doubt they more precisely refer to the KDE and GNOME desktops, but hey...)and even if it isn't, if a Windows troll said it, the Linux trolls would pounce, so it's a valid complaint (as if anybody on
These guys must still be using Windows 98 because Windows 2000 is a very slow-starting OS compared to current Linux. Windows XP is better but still not good. Both also take an eternity to install compared to current Linux. Reread that statement about how long Longhorn takes to do "hardware detection". Knoppix Linux does it in the two minutes it takes to boot up.
The bottom line however is that Longhorn has a database file system which HAS to be a resource hog and slow as hell - requiring all new hardware, and all new applications to be BOUGHT and installed. And the Windows trolls claim Linux is hard to use for a newbie. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I'd call having to upgrade your hardware on every release of the OS to be hard on newbies.
Note that the article states that that over-400MB of commit charge is WITHOUT applications running.
What kind of "debug" does Microsoft run - a full 256MB simulation on top of a 256MB OS?
Give me a break. This thing is going to be a nightmare to run, a nightmare to install, a nightmare to administer.
They finally admitted in Windows 2003 Server that the 2000 Group Policy menus were a nightmare to figure out and put them in an MMC Console. How long before they have to put everything on a Console in order for anybody to figure Longhorn out.
And the trolls think Linux is hard to use!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Microsoft software is crap. (Linux is crap, too, but at least it's FREE crap.)
Mod this flamebait, mod this troll, mod this up your grandmother's ass, I could care less.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
People, let's get realistic here. Think about desktop Linux now: back in 1999, KDE 1.x required 16M to run (and preferably 32). Today, KDE and GNOME need 64 and preferably 128. Add on top Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, and you need 256 to run comfortably.
By the time Longhorn ships, we can expect Linux desktops to require 512 at this rate.
Geez, with the time it took for the artical to open up you'd think that Flexbeta was using this thing.
Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
Of which 256 MB is related to DRM?
Sigs are bad for your health.
;P
They stealing our mantra? Sounds like they've been reading the _Cathedral and the Bazaar_
OR
They want to keep the hounds slavering and aware of their hunger. You want that, boy? You want that? Take a good sniff. Hmmm. You can have it later, though.
Meanwhile the poor dog who had forgotten his growling belly is now killing himself trying to get at the bone.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
Lemme guess... you're one of the "GNU-slash-Linux" bastards, aren't you?
Just so you know: X mmaps all your video card's RAM. So if your video card has 256MB of RAM, X will appear to be using 256MB of RAM.
#include "sig.h"
I am not surprised. They probably used .NET to build it all. That means a few things:
.NET style SOAP XML messaging)
.NET does essentially the same, but it will have the same drawbacks as Java - slower execution and larger memory footprint.
- they are now using components (with
- they use bounds checking all over
- more meta information on objects is stored
- libraries are probably more extensive - makes reuse better
- more things are service-driven, so more is in memory all the time
This all comes down to more memory use. Look at Java. It's fast enough nowadays, but it still uses a lot of memory resources. You get more runtime functionality (reflection etc) in return.
This is a good thing though, it's a one time performance penalty returning huge benefits. It won't favour small/old machines though.
The future is runtime.
I'm sorry, but there are no features in longhorn that kde 3.2 in Linux has that I desire. KDE 3.2 also dosen't take 483Mb of ram, looking at my memory usage I am using 48% of my memory (768MB), and most of that is disk cache, only about 140Mb is "Application Data".
So skip the longhorn and get KDE instead, preview the future, today!
And we'll all be on 64 bit CPUs by then, so you can multiply everything by 2*(% of pointers in the resident set).
Remember, wasting RAM funds terroris... oh, wait, that's oil.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
XP is tolerable with 128
What, if you're running one application? I've got 512MB in my XP machine at work, and I've turned off all the snazzy effects and play-skool skins, and there are still times that my machine just suddenly decides to be completely unresponsive. This on a recent model Sony VAIO. I do tend to run back and forth between a lot of applications (Photoshop, Fireworks, Word, Excel, Thunderbird, Mozilla, IE, text editor, and when I'm feeling brave, Illustrator), but after a few days of uptime, even if I'm running only 2-3 of those, funny little things (like, selecting a drop-down menu) just start to crawl.
I'm suspecting it's something to do with disk performance, rather than memory, of course, but if I had 1-2 GB, maybe I wouldn't have to swap out so often.
Tweet, tweet.
Of course it will not, All we expect it to be as much as 16x more. That's why it cannot run on current hardware...
There you are, staring at me again.
>Everyone walks away richer (well except all of us who will have to throw away our current computers).
Dunno, afterall this is slashdot where every change in technology or even price drops get posted as articles and geeks salivate over future purchases. You're going to buy a new PC anyway, unless you're buying a mac or building your own. What do you think a PC in 2007 is going to look like?
The consumer PC market is quite comfortable with getting their OS as attached to their new computer. Its like buying a car, after x amount of time the car simply isn't worth repairing so you might as well buy a new one with better MPG and safety equipment.
The comments here contains a lot of false outrage and have been modded pretty high. MS is designing an OS for 2007, maybe even 2008, do you really expect them to make it usable on the beater you're using today when technology changes so quickly? I mean look at how fast and cheap RAM is and 64bit computing for the home is right over the horizon.
Conversely, if MS wasn't planning ahead and released nothing more than XP with some tweaks there would be a whole lot of complaints from the same people complaining here that MS is just trying to make money by re-naming their existing product like they pretty much did with WindowsME.
There are some real things MS gets wrong, focusing on how much RAM is used on an alpha release and turning into some MS hatefest only helps to label all anti-MS people as nuts not worth listening to.
Linux doesn't have an integrated web browser afterall. How much RAM would Linux + XFree86 + Gnome + a window manager take up? What if this combination of things was as feature rich as even windowsXP? And what if Longhorn uses memory as disk cache? Lets compare apples to apples, here.. I'm sure Longhorn -does- have a disk cache, why wouldn't it?
An OS should use all the memory all the time or else it is not doing its job. Thing is, without looking at the code, you do not know what that job is. It is entirely possible that it will release memory as applications are loaded.
Build 4053 is a debug-mode release w/o any form of compiler optimization. To add to the performance hit, 4053 doesn't actually put a WinFS partition on your disk - It runs a WinFS emulator, which is basically trying to simulate a RDBMS using a normal untweaked and non-indexed file system. Also adding insult to injury, half the OS frontend is running a debug version of the .NET 2.0 Framework WITH profiling turned on.
In other words, yeah, its slow as balls. If your company has a MSDN Universal Subscription, you can get a non-debug build which runs much much faster, but it still relies on WinFS emulation, so memory usage is through the roof.
'640K ought to be enough for anybody' :D
He must have meant 640 MB
My PC is vastly faster than my PC was a few years ago. Windows XP uses about 2% of system CPU overall (and mostly sits between 0 and 1%). I don't see much payback for making the OS faster.
I _do_ see payback in putting more functionality into it.
My Journal
Does anyone know if it's a debug build as well? Its commit charge seems to tend to infinity at this time :P
The revolution will not be televised.
Not as far as I know. I can't remember ever correcting someone on it (one can normally understand what someone is getting at) and when I do write "Linux" I intend to mean "Linux: the kernel", needing no such differentiation on my part; otherwise, I just mention the distribution (encompassing Linux, the GNU userland, and a whole lot of other stuff) as far as I can recall. He's trying to be somewhat derogatory and being nonsensical in the process, I don't feel that I'm being overly pedantic in my response (although it is a bit pedantic, I'd agree).
Bullshit.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It seems to obvious the better solution is to implement real POSIX threading. Not only would it make it easier to scale Sql Server, .NET and transactions, but it would provide the ability to switch modes for dedicated servers. The feeling I get is now MS will have multiple components that by pass the default system threading and implement their own POSIX like threading to get around existing scalability issues. One on hand, it will be nice to get reliable transaction management, but having a kernel level TM just feels wrong. LongHorn's WinFS is also suppose to provide full ACID capabilities, but I don't think that will really solve anything in terms of implementing shared memory for Sql Server. I'm no expert, but that's not how Oracle implements shared memory architecture to achieve dynamic table distribution at runtime within a cluster. I'm sure some of my assumptions are wrong, since I'm guessing based on what I can find.
The average household must not have any games. Sure, some people may be happy playing the same games 7 years later (off the top of my head estimate at how old a P200 would be), but not your average gamer. Sure, your average household may not be your average gamer. However, many home pc sales are fueled by games. For example, take a (mother|father|pair of parents) who works very hard trying to give their children a better life than they had. This is part of the American dream, no? Due to working long hours, this perental mass feels guilty over not spending as much time with their children as they want to. However, computer games make this child act happy. The parent can rationalize spending to much time away from the house, as it allows them to buy computer hardware/games, which make them happy. (Ok maybe this includes console gaming as well, but that appears to be getting closer and closer to desktop hardware). Anyway, the point is, that new games, a HUGE market, create a need in a household for new hardware.
Lead me not into temptation. I can find it myself.
This is because adding another 32MB or ram is a lot (two words for those that don't know) cheaper than 200 bucks.
I run Mandrake 9.1 with Gnome on 128!
I didn't know three-toed sloths used computers!
Dude, this is alpha software. Moreover, MS is applying a new display system similar to Quartz Extreme. That thing is going to use up a LOT of resources until MS gets it down solid.
...These things require ram.
My OS X box has 1.25gigs of RAM. Right not I'm only running 1 major application, Safari. However, my system has about 40+ process open.. with only a few actually running and using the CPU. Those processes in include the dock, the window server, core services, etc etc.
370megs of RAM are being "used" by my machine right now. about 150megs of that is inactive. Because I have 1.25 gigs, my machine tends to stretch out and get comfortable. Nevertheless, OS X uses a shit load of RAM.
Operating systems like OS X and Windows have quite a few toys and tools that slackware does not have.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I love how everyone here seems to tweak there linux system for days to get it running just right, but dont do shit to Windows. Just install it and start complaining. On my xp install, with Symantec Enterprise AV starting up with it, it only uses 60mb.
Maybe you all need to learn how to run your systems correctly and stop bitching. Idiots.
Now that the link is slashdotted, I'll post another review / info page about this alpha build from PDC:
. asp
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4051
There are no apparent differences between that reviewed build (4051) and the one in this article.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I made no mention of DDOS attacks. These "zombies" could be used for a zillion things, some even useful. Take a look at the setiathome project. There are plenty of uses for zombie machines that have more processing power than bandwidth.
Where would we be without MS innovations?
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
First of all, I am sure it was compiled in degug mode - resource hog.
Secondly, whenever ID Software claims:
-"Our next game, DoomQuad, will require that you travel forward in time and get yourself a system powerful enough to run it. Unless, naturally, you are content at playing the game at -2 FPS".
Now M$ has a product that requires you to have a somewhat beefy system and everyone starts bitching.
Why am I not surprised? This is slashdot after all.
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
So now MS is even stealing Apple's least liked ideas... brushed metal.
Does Microsoft, a multibillion dollar company tied the richest man in the WORLD, even own a god damn industrial design department?! They contract other designers to make their icons (mac geeks of course, http://www.iconfactory.com/ ), they acquire 99% of their photography from Getty and Corbis, and their desktops are completely devoid of anything intuitive.
I'm sure MS spends a butt load of money on overrated geeks who have been specifically schooled in HCI / Human Factors. However, they don't seem to have a staff that understands graphic and, more importantly, interactive design.
These bizzaro Apple desktops are getting old. MS has the money and power to make a NICE and ORIGINAL desktop... but for some reason they chose not to. Why is this?
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I have never seen a BSOD. Used to get them all the time with NT 4.
If Linux were as popular as Windows, it would also attract buggy drivers, and be unstable.
Slashdot entertains. Windows pays the mortgage.
483MB at a standstill?
What, are they stealing code from Gnome?
*insert rimshot here*
Hey, I found out today you can buy computers pre-loaded with the alpha version of Longhorn - the store was all white with wood floors, and they were selling these cool MP3 players too.
My laptop came in this cool aluminum case, and it's running pretty well. Searches were really fast and the new browser (I think they are calling it Jungle or something like that) was really great. Plus I had no viruses even when I connected it to the internet for a minute without thinking!! And in this version they made that huge bar on the side of the screen you could see in the article screenshots resizable. So I think Longhorn will do just fine.
Exactly!
In my orignal post, I didn't say just _Windows_ I made the point that _hardware_ and _hardware drivers_. Even third-party drivers like Norton Anti-virus can make a big difference in system stability - and they aren't hardware drivers!
Also consider that most people who use Windows get whatever OEM's put on them. Frankly, most OEM's put crap on them and tweaks to the default settings... or uncertified drivers to boost performance. Microsoft gets all the blame by the end user.
Personally, I reformat and load from scratch... old skool. I don't want three bands of computers all having their own crappy DLL's and anti-virus releaes.
A program with a huge memory footprint will always be slower than a smaller one, even if you have so many gigs of memory that it can run without paging. Moving huge amounts of data in main memory is slow. A smaller footprint means more of your program can fit into the L2 cache.
Pick on grammer and don't even respond to my _main point_.
Microsoft has a much larger customer base. I think they long ago (Windows ME timeframe) decided that each release was going to have a longer lifespan.
Your Apple user also tends to have a much narrow range of hardware budget and size of computers. I bet the average Apple user spends 2x as much and has twice the quality of hardware.
Why does /. only say negatives about M$ and not about Linux betas? BiAS
Is that meant to spoof the old "more Windows viruses because it's more popular" myth?
If a company has to write 2 drivers, which one are they more likely to spend time writing and testing properly: the one that will be used on 95% of desktops or the one that will be used on 5% of desktops? Even the large companies that can write decent drivers often write their Linux drivers in a rush, usually after some big customer asks for it and they're facing the loss of a big sale.
Of course, one could argue that a company that doesn't have the resources to make a decent driver won't even bother with the Linux market. But such no-name companies mostly just use common chipsets anyway, most of which have good drivers.
Ive used beta linux, apple, beos software, alpha linux kernels and gnome, and none of them consumed a gig of ram for no reason. Debug? Oh I admit mozilla was slower than netscape when it came out but mozilla was a total redesign.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
> No more will we see the plain DOS like setup screen How many more revisions of Windows are going to claim to be the death of DOS? I don't think the market MS is pimping to even knows what the hell a DOS is anymore... hmmm.. then again, if they use Outlook, they may be quite familiar with Denial Of Service.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Why not just install their copy of windows98? or XP? Why downgrade to longhorn?
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Last friday I saw win 2000 server restart on our server for no reason.
Are you using logic here man? There IS A REASON this system crashed. Computers are not items with feelings...
Faulty drivers, faulty hardware are most causes of things that 'seem random'. In most cases, a OS crash itself (Windows 2000) should be reproduced if you can figure out what sequence of events lead to it...
Ive used mozilla in debug mode and linux and while it was bloated, it was never this bloated. Windows is not a rewrite, Longhorn is a patch over XP. So why are we treating it like a rewrite? Of course its going to be slower, its a patch over the already slower than win2k/XP, which was a patch over NT.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
By the time Longhorn is out our co will be running Linux on the client.
Linux developers don't have to work to the same release schedules as the MS guys so they tend to release better drivers, even if it takes a little longer. The number of users will not affect this, it is the business model that drives the crappy driver problem. Instead of trying to bang out some code to score more cash from the consumer market they should look into making the code quality higher and the stabilty better.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Not as far as I know. I can't remember ever correcting someone ... and when I do write "Linux" I intend to mean "Linux: the kernel", needing no such differentiation on my part; otherwise, I just mention the distribution (encompassing Linux, the GNU userland, ...[blah blah blah].
Christ, get the stick out of your ass.
See: Download Manager
Ummm, actually the NT kernel itself is a microkernel as opposed to a monolithic kernel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computers)#Mi crokernels
It's all the crap M$ have shoved on top of the kernel (Internet Exploder anyone?) that causes the bloat.
Good ole binary marshallers are OK and much more efficient.
Instead of just pathetically saying 'it's a memory hog' why not look at it the way MS looks at us?
It's a huge threat.
We need to take all the good features of Longhorn (nice install, clean and simple desktop) and do them better in the OSS world.
These are the features that MS thinks the world needs, and they do have a monopoly on the desktop market even now.
Let's trump them at every trick.
Simplicity of use is the next big challenge for OSS.
Monopoly$oft apologists continue attempt to make a virtue of Windoze 2008's bloat or attempt to ignore it, as they always did.
Meanwhile the PC market has matured and buyers these day's are looking critically at just why they should keep throwing away hardware just to keep up with fashion. People want more RAM for desktop video editing etc not simply to boot the goddam OS and they know it. Whether the shills like it or not, buyers are questioning previous behavior. Just look at the accelerating uptake of Linux world wide.
This quote from Bob Metcalfe, of Ethernet fame.
On the one hand, my writing makes me appear to take things too seriously. On the other hand, with a little work, I can pretend that I'm a law student or something like that. I'm not really posting these comments-that-will-never-be-seen for any good reason or motivation (probably the same reason you replied, heh), so I'm not really sure why I do it.
So the new UI is called Aero? We already have Aqua. If only GNOME or KDE could rename themselves to Lito and (lacking anything better) firefox would take the name Ignis, we could move technology even further back in time. Archimedes would be proud.
Eww! I really hope they reconsider that dismal, brown desktop pattern. That thing would scare anybody away from using a PC!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some retching to do...
(Heard echoing from the toilet bowl) BWAAAWWFF!!! ROWWLLLFF!!! BLOORRPP!!! ... WHOOOSHHHH!!!
the JoshMeister on Security
Mirror of all screenshots of Longhorn in case of slashdotting.
42 + 1 = 42
Microsoft says the earliest for Longhorn at this point is 4th quater 2007 and its likely to be delayed, saying who said late 2005?
http://www.activewin.com/screenshots/longhorn/Imag e29.jpg
m dk 91-scr7.jpg
lets look at this image for 1 second, lets calculate how much percentage of the screen goes to some useful usage, 30%, 35%?... And you are paying a few grand (software + hardware), for a bit more eye candy which makes you less productive? am I missing something?
Now lets look at a typical linux session:
http://images.mandrakesoft.com/img/screenshots/
KDE now has all sorts of integration, and gnome is heading the same way. So soon, if not already, there is nothing windows has to offer that doesn't already exists in linux open source with open standards that can be used on ANY platform.
I do not have a single complaint or problem with linux except for less than perfect hardware support, which requires you to pay a little extra for better quality hardware.
In linux, I can do graphics, video animation, I can program, I can use the wonderful openoffice, I can record sound and edit sound in highest quality (with some commercial programs), and these are the very reasons why Crysler, Disney, IBM and other leading companies use linux. Not to mention the reliability, control, and power both as a server and a desktop machine.
I for one am now getting an OQO, (oqo.com), that is the size of a typical handheld with 500mhz P3 equivelent speed and 256Mb ram and 20Gb hard drive. And I will run linux with KDE, and it will work more than adequate to use. Then I'll become a lot more productive as this will replace both the PC and the laptop for me and since its low power CPU, battery lasts up to 6 hours with standard battery and 15 hours with extended.
I do not see longhorn ever rising personally and microsoft knows it and tries postpone the release as long as it can, as it will be seen as an instant failure. So instead, microsoft invests in companies like sco to try to slow down linux.
And I for one plan to use 1ghz PCs for a long time to come, I just do not see a reason to update as each new versions of KDE and the linux kernel focus on making it run better on both older and newer hardware, and with every release, I enjoy using linux on my 400mhz laptop more and more.
And as someone in one of the comments said, while you spend time rewriting a program to be cleaner, someone will come up with a better, more full featured product, and that someone is linux.
Can someone please tell me how there is a potential advantage to use windows? because I am completely lost how such a pointless, expensive, slow, unstandarized, closed standard product can be even discussed seriously as an alternative to linux.
By the time it comes out, 1gb will be dirt cheap, so they will 'require' 512 mb, 1gb reccomended..
Oh, and a 5gh processor..
Hey.. bloat sells more hardware for Intel and Amd. Plus will help usher in DRM'ized hardware to the masses...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I recently visted Ford's design lab. They were working on the 2007 Mustang. Those guys didn't even have the engine designed! I mean what the hell? The car can't even drive for god sakes!
Longhorn is still a long way from the beta stages, so I don't think this really works as an analogy...
I would guess that for the beta they try to put out the system that is there best candidate for actual release... in other words, they would turn off much of the extra debugging and try to get results from people running the system as it should be run.
The other thing is, MS is packing a lot more into this release, as evidenced by the release schedule. Keep in mind that IE hasn't had a major revision since XP either, so there are probably a ton of changes there as well. And I'm sure MS is testing a bunch of features that aren't necessarily decided on just yet.
Sure, it's possible the commit charge could be that high. But it is very likely not going to be, because even MS can't get away with making something that bloated. What corporations are going to migrate to Longhorn if all of their machines that are current now can't even fit the OS into main memory?
I know it's a joke, but. . .
Even an idiot like me can set up a webserver/fileserver with MacOS. You've got to give Apple ease of use points for that.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Finally! I'm important!
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
10 years from now you're gonna be laughing with your friends about how that 'oldie' longhorn only used 483MB of RAM, as opposed to the 3TB you have now
Control Panel
-> System
-> Advanced (it's a tab)
-> Performance "Settings" button
-> Adjust for best performance
You can also get "TweakUI" from Microsoft (google for it), and adjust the time delay before windows come up.
XP is fast with these changes (and is only slow when something locks up for a while).
--
Yow
Being a linux user and only reading reviews of OS X and Windows (haven't used either for more than 5 minutes in the last 4 years) I find some of the screen shots on this page shocking similar to this Anyone else find that?
It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
Users don't need more then 640k of mem
"Software is like sex: it's better when it's free."
> Oh, and its dual-processor support is pretty
> pathetic. The load balancing seems incredibly
> naive. (And, this may not be an OS problem, but I
> find that I have problems scrolling text in
> VS.NET in a timely fashion.
I too have seen this on my (older) dual-proc Intel box. There seems to be a sharper "knee" in XP's loading curve than on W2K. I hope that Longhorn doesn't suck even more than XP on SMP boxes.
I write Windows-based client-server business software. After a while I just had to accept that I was _way_ more productive with a Linux desktop and Crossover Office. Now I run my Windows IDE with Crossover on SuSE Linux.
Linux has better SMP support, than XP and _way_ better support for my dual monitor setup. KDE and Xinerama kick ass when combined with kpager. And because I this is swerving seriously OT, I won't mention about how Linux has seriously better developer tools than Windows.
Microsoft would REALLY have to show me something cool about Longhorn before I would ever think of switching back to developing _for_ Windows whilst actually _on_ Windows. There is however the QA bit that has to be actually performed on Windows but thats another story.
This sig kills fascists.
The reverse is true: IE hasn't improved much in functionality over the past 2-3 years. Meanwhile, Mozilla, which was re-written from scratch to be easily expandable, has bounded well ahead of IE. I'm thinking of things like tabbed browsing, popup block, junk filtering, XUL. Perhaps IE would benefit from being written re-engineered from the ground up...?
Here are the most interesting quotes:
All in all, a great article.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Is WinFX what I remember from running WinNT on an Alpha, that would allow you to run (some) x86 programs on the Alpha under Windows?
-Rich
They don't even sound the same when you say them out loud. Or should that be outlawed?
Yes...but keep in mind that OS X, the initial release, was a terrible resource hog. I'd go so far as to say that OS X was at least a year away from being completed when released. Apple just needed something other than classic Mac OS ASAP, and was running really late.
I want to see what all the people laughing now are saying in two years or three years, when we see how much memory Nautilus and Konqueror are using, the latest version of X (probably freedesktop.org's release by then, which will likely use more memory), with Mono possibly in use (and perhaps Java as well.
KDE/GNOME/Mac OS X are not particularly svelte when it comes to RAM usage. They are, in fact, rather fat.
You can build a much more peppy Linux desktop -- sure. I use sawfish and gkrellm. It uses a lot less memory, but I'm sure that a lot of people would be dissatisfied with this combination.
May we never see th
Uninformed troll...
If you watch the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" you'll see that all Billy G/Steve Balmer did in College was read porn and play poker.
Yes. That's why you should switch to Linux. Windows can't just be "simplified", they have created a monster in the form of NT kernel and now they need to deal with it. Switch to a lean, mean POSIX kernel.
Oi, I'm a longtime Linux user (I contract for $MAJORDISTROVENDOR too) and that's a complete troll. There's stacks of cruft in Linux (the OS) and Windows (the OS - because we're talking about OSs, remember). I nthe case of Linux, applications store their configs in a stack of different config file formats, major apps like XFree are filled with cruft, the
A brushed-metal skin on an OS? Well it's a bit crazy, but I guess it could work.
Paul Lenhart writes words!
The Speed of Software havles every 18 months, So I think when Longhorn will be released, We will need at least 5 GHz to run it properly
fork() is an abomination. When it was originally implemented, it was the best of a bad lot, and at least matched the hardware of the time pretty well. I'm sorry that you're too stupid to realize it, but this is one thing that Windows NT really gets right that Unix systems ALL SUCK at. fork()+exec()==REAL SHIT THAT ONLY A MORON WOULD PUT IN A MODERN NON-LEGACY OS.
I don't know about Plan9, but considering that all the other kernels you mention there are Unix kernels (even Mach, the microkernel designed for making a microkernel based Unix), I think your view on kernels is very narrow. The heaviest influence on Windows NT came from VMS. Considering that 1960 was already three decades ago at the time, this was a Very Good Decision.
PS. Windows NT kernel for x86 is about two megs non-pageable. That compares favorably with modern Linux systems. I don't know how the comparison would go on PowerPC embedded versions of each.
Microsoft spends entirely too much time trying to make the desktop look pretty and not enough time trying to make things more stable and more secure. The ever-growing resource usage in Windows is also linked to a big security affliction of the OS. Integrating apps creates some serious problems. A) It uses signficantly more resources; B) It puts the entire OS's security at risk; C) It leaves the user with no option to uninstall them and D) It makes securing the OS more difficult and problematic. And to top things off, web integration is found throughout the OS. Web integration causes drag and latency because IE has to render the content of the windows. Personally, I find it stupid and a waste of resources. And other companies including Intuit, Symantec, McAffee and others have followed suit with their programs' GUIs. And now Microsoft is doing something with XAML and XML from what I understand. And this has been incorporated into the GUI as well. Microsoft has a history of system requirements increasing as newer Windows and NT-based versions have been released. Not suprisingly, the GUI gets clunkier and has more clutter with each new release.
That was FX!32.
Hands in my pocket
IMHO, you're already comparing two different things if you're talking about only the netcraft charts.
Most of the people saying "Windows is just as stable for me as Linux/BSD" are referring to using it as a workstation. Netcraft charts only measure relative uptimes in server environments.
I've used quite a few Linux releases over the years, and while I can guarantee most worked for me "rock solid stable" as things like web or ftp servers, they were fairly "quirky" if I did lots of different things with them inside an X environment with a Gnome or KDE type desktop.
By contrast, I can actually get quite reliable "uptime" out of a Win2K or XP system that's left on all the time, but the overall reliability performing tasks like web serving via IIS is *much* poorer than Apache on a Linux machine.
In other words, it really boils down to how well the respective OS's handle the applications you choose to run on them.... Right now, most of the "core" Internet server type services work much better on the Unix type OS's, while gaming and multimedia heavy things are likely to run better on a Windows environment. (Linux doesn't really have something like Microsoft's "Direct-X" support, for example.)
has anybody got a deja vu when seeing the screenshots? :)
It's XP. XP's VM is total shit. The moment you minimize a window, the VM will page it out to the swap space. When I was doing Windows development for 3 months, the trick I found was to use a third-party tool which allowed window shading, and then I just shaded windows which didn't require my immediate attention.
512mb of RAM was thus able to sustain VS.net, Mozilla, Firebird, WinAmp, and a couple of extra windows all at once without choking like a 5$ hooker.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
am i the only one thinking the skin 'slate' is beautifully similar to kde's 'plastik'?
Same Shit Different Package. While m$ windows is busy trying to reinvent a square wheel made of snazzy buzzwords, Apple is moving forward with a strong, stable, lean, mean operating system with very nicely separated yet integrated layers, each of which are subject to exponential innovations: UNIX subsystem powered by collaborative work of the open-source community and Apple developers, journaling filesystem, graphics/video subsystem, user-interface.
meanwhile Apple is also busy developing aspects of computing life people actually care about, meet iLife. Say hello to email with built-in bayesian spam filtering and built-in support for ISP-supplied spam-canning frameworks. Say hello to iSync, Address Book.app, Calendar.app, Mail.app, iChat.app, all insanely intuitive independent applications, yet tightly integrated thru open APIs. Apple is already moving forward with consumer electronics vendors: digital still cameras, digital video cameras, PDAs, cell-phone manufacturers to all get them to adhere to Apple's very-well defined APIs and standards so their products will "just work" with Macs, without installing a single piece of additional software, beyond what comes out of the box with the mac. iSync currently lets me sync my contacts and calendar, to my iPod, my sony ericsson t610 bluetooth phone, my online .MAC account, and my powerbook laptop with built-in bluetooth, all with the single press of a button. If i make a modification to contacts or calendar on any device, the next sync reflects it on all other devices. I could buy a Palm Pilot and have it work in the exact same way, without even using Palm's desktop software.
Apple gets it.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
haha they are almost copying apple with there bursh metal look, hehe wonder how far they can get before ppl catch on that is is just cheap copy
j
With the evolution of hardware and the constant expansion of code, software continues to drive the expansion of hardware. The costs of hardware for the performance received has drastically dropped. With all this that has happened in a relatively short time and the application of Moore's Law we will notice something.
Before I go on I will attempt to quote Bill Gates:
"No one will need more than 670KB of disk space."
Well we all know that was wrong. Right now my system contains 512MB of Ram, a 40GB HDD, an Athlon 1400 proc and a 128MB Radeon 9000. In 1997 my first computer contained a 133Mhz Pentium with 32MB of RAM, a 1.44GB HDD and a 1MB gfx card. Things have drastically changed.
Then again the windows 95 system the old computer ran only took up a footprint of 16MB. The current system I am running takes up 80MB. Nothing is running in the backround that is 3rd party on either of these systems. Now with the evolution of hardware and the growth of code to meet user needs and specifications in the market that computers are demanding.
Is it so hard to believe that a system will need 400MB of Memory to contain it?
This comes as no shock to myself since the standard system is continually receiving bigger numbers as we progress in years. Is it so hard to believe that in a few short years the standard speed of a computer will be around 100Ghz? Or that gfx cards will have 3GB of memory on board? Or that the standard system will have 8-10GB of memory and HDD's will be in the terabytes? All for a home end user.
I quote my dad when I showed him my laptop in 1997.
"Man that thing is blazing fast. Wow! I have never seen a computer run so quickly."
Now the thing is so sluggish by comparison of my current system that I would fear running any game other than MDK which at the time was resrouce hungry and now? Is frankly a joke. I think Mozilla takes up more memory than that game did.
400MB as a footprint on the ram doesn't even phase me. It seems that it is the proper direction for the evolution of computers to take. We have all seen it.
I believe many ./-ers must be annoyed by stupid template-like anti-Microsoft (or anti-commercial) posts that prevail on the forum.
Most folks are interested in quality software that can improve on what's been done, not in useless and repetitive posts about bloated this bloated that, SCO this SCO that, it's-all-about-control, etc.
About this post:
1) By the time it is released, 512MB RAM will probably not be available even for PDA's, not to mention PCs. Even now, most reasonable users get 512MB RAM to start with. Besides, RAM is cheap.
2) Linux is equally bloated, if not worse than Windows.
But the open sores zealots seem to forget that. The attribute seam to be reserved for closed source software, the same like "control" and such.
I used to run Win2K Professional on my 64MB RAM notebook. I couldn't do that with Red Hat 9.
I also agree. XP is more than stable enough as an operating system. Take the Microsoft factor out of it, and what you have left is a stable OS. I think most people get their crashes due to faulty drivers, and underspec hardware. I to used to get random crashes and lockups, whcih I then resolved with a new powersupply. Since then, I have yet to see XP bluescreen on me. I use Firefox, Apache, MySQL, and many stuff on the core operating system, and speeds are great for what it is.
Sure I am a Linux user too, and I find Linux intresting for what it can do, and what it promises, the Open Source factor. However, in stability I woudl say that both are pretty much equal, and certainly (pre 2.6 kernel) Windows XP is noticeably faster.
The only reason I do not liek WIndows is due to some of the other dodgy addons. If WIndows was a Open source project, I certainly would NOT use Linux. I woudl compile a version of XP which is as lean as possible, and use that.
Have a nice day!
Second, what's with the one-size-fits-all interface? It seems that every interface for every function looks about the same. Is that was MS is moving toward? That would drive me bat-shit. A flexible interface following consistent rules of behavior is the way to go. But making everything look like it was generated out of some kind of web page template...? Weird.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Now I heard this somewhere I don't know where but wasn't this OS designed with gamers in mind? It supposed to have taken out all the old trash and really minimized it's feature set while centralizing it's option menu's and data areas?
Have to stop believing Microsoft mission statements
/me hits self with baseball bat.
Well, hmm, don't those new innovative Microsoft windows look rather similar to Panther's... even down to the strange waste of space at the top middle...? http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/finder/
The last time I got excited (to use the term loosely) about something MS did was when the first shots of the Windows 95 UI came out... and wow, if it didn't look just like the Amiga (well you know, those bevelled square buttons and stuff.)
I guess this is how you make billions of dollars though...
Is Avalon MS trying again to estabilish a proprietary technology over an already-deployed one, in this case its own drawing model over Adobe's PostScript as present today in Mac OS, GNUStep and soon X Cairo?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I remeber back in the days of fixed-spec computers. Tandy Color Basic, Commodore 64, Amiga 500... Computers like that had more or less locked specs, which developers would have to keep in mind. Kinda like the gaming consoles these days.
It's amazing how much better the software get's written, when there are absolute constraints which can't be tangled. That goes for back in the old days on FS-computers, and it goes today on the consoles. The developers will actually have to write efficient code.
Totally unlike todays computers, where software authors really doesn't seem to give a shit. "If it doesn't run well, spend anotgher $2-300 on your setup allready". Does my current computer work that much faster than my 66Mhz 486 running Windows 3.11 and Word 6.0? No really, it runs faster, but heck, take into account my current computer specs.
My computer is rigged with a Pentium4 2.4Ghz and 512MB ram. Running the "multi-tasking" OS Windows XP (yes I use it, software issue, say no more), inserting a CD/DVD (not to mention DVD+R) and any opening of (new) files gets lagged 3-6 seconds at least.
Generally anything which involves disk-access will have to wait until Windows has properly detected (and performed an Autorun on, if not disabled) any removable media.
Amazing. Multi-tasking my fscking ass.
And for 486-comparison... If we say my current setupis aprox. 40 times faster. I'll say that a bloat-factor of 10-15 is applicable. That means 40/(10-15) is the actual speed increase.
But that's just me, and this comment is getting way long.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Heck, come think about it, my old Amiga multitasked better than Windows XP does.
Natively my Amiga 500 with 1MB ram would react immidatly to application switching and load-scheduling.
Ofcourse with only floppy-disks, the only problem was disk-access (which goes without saying really didn't work well at all).
However my Amiga 1200 with harddisk and virtual memory never, ever had that kind of lagging you see on a well-loaded Windows-computer.
And that is really kinda weird.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Around these parts we call it memory usage. Has someone thought up a new buzzphrase to make themselves sound more with-it or something?
Good point. Regardless of system memory, free memory or any factor whatsoever, I have yet to see any Windows system where 50% of the kernel isn't paged at all time.
With the huge amonunts of memory available today, I can't see any reason for kernel-paging at all.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
By looking at the screenshots, I can say that the Longhorn GUI sucks. First of all, the sidebar is useless and takes too much screen space. Secondly, they have flatten the GUI too much, and suddently the user can't tell a label from a menu item. In previous versions of the GUI, the 3d elements made clear which parts of the window are editable and which aren't. Without 3d, it is much more difficult to quickly judge the borders of each area.
The only good thing about Longhorn is WinFS. Something that the Linux community should embrace. I have said it previously, and I will say it again, that we need to manage information, not binary data. The operating system must be aware of the types of data stored on the disk. It is a task not to be left on the application layer.
Personally, Can't say I give a toss, really. My association with MS ended with Win 2000, which I'm still using, occasionally. Aside from all the viruses, worms security problems and so on, their products are simply boring and uninteresting. At home, I'm letting Win2000 wither on the vine, while Linux gradually takes over for me....
-- Fuck Beta
I bought a nice, new, large case with 3 fans and a 320 V power-supply.
And I thought that too low voltage would cause system crashes. I wonder if you live in Europe (and have 230 Volt sockets) or in the US (with 110 V).
Anyway that's not as hazardous as doing the opposite, overvoltaging your power supply.
Long live the SI!
?SYNTAX ERROR
I wonder why Billy said that he can't imagine desktops apps using more than 4GB of memory.
Seriously, I do feel that MS is more than a bit undisciplined about their release strategy (i.e., letting fixes provide new functionality) and that is one of the reasons that they get a bad rap for stability and security.
See my journal, I write things there
Because most people don't know that *insert older version here* is sometimes better than *insert current version here*, and buy the box with the current version. They just run whatever comes with the box. Of course, on my parents' box, I offered to install Windows 2000, but they wanted to just get XP. They occasionally get annoyed by the handholding ;-)
In addition, the entire desktop will be hardware-accelerated, using a "photorealistic" desktop interface they have yet to reveal, code-named Aero.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Is that where you bill someone if their check-in breaks the build?
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Yes, I said if at all. One of the reasons that Microsoft employees were not allowed to exercise all of their underwater options in 2003 (and none in 2004), is that Microsoft is trying to promote "employee retention" by making them hold on untill 2005. 2004 could be the year that permatemps on up decide to look for a new employer.
Perhaps Windows 98 had the better error detection and so would lockup instead of continuing to run.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my operating system to keep on running on a faulty motherboard without telling me anything was wrong or behaving differently in any way. That just tells me the operating system has no idea what is going on. It's not unlikely that Windows 98 would encounter a fatal error in your motherboard and lock up, unwilling to risk data loss or memory corruption. You're telling me Linux would keep on running? I'd be scared for my data.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Because, moron, it has nothing to do with Quartz Extreme or OpenGL. They're hardware-accelerating their desktop with DirectX.
Whoever modded you as "Interesting" is a moron. That's like randomly claiming someone stole intellectual property without any proof or reason to believe so...in other words, you're acting like SCO.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Whoever modded you as insightful on this post would be interested to see the depth of your hyposcrisy--not only do you insult the parent poster but you also see fit to insult the person who moderated him up as well. What was that again about Slashdot being more mean these days? What was that Mr. Kettle? Mr. Pot wants to have a word with you.
Please mod parent up. It is very informative. Parent has posted the most interesting parts and the rest of this article is basically in the lines of: "this feature sucks ass but we can all be absolutely sure that it will be wonderful when it is ready." All of the true interesting and insightful content is in the parent post.
Why did Microsoft code name their next operating system after a big, stupid, stinky animal that produces copious quantities of methane (farts) and cowpies (bullsh*t)???
While the garbage collection does make generalized memory management easier (i.e. you don't have to worry about when or where to clean up memory you've allocated,) it doesn't really lend itself to the overlooked memory being cleaned up at all.
The sad fact of the matter is that bad programming combined with dynamically sized data structures make it all too easy to keep adding things to an object collection and never releasing them. (i.e. caching them or just being unaware that the referrenced objects are no longer needed)
The flipside is with modern envirnoments like Java and C#, even a crappy profiler will tell you what objects are sucking up your memory and why they're not being let go of.
The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.
..And no matter how much goodwork they put into longhorn, they still have to accept that
..Because they lock the whole thing down (including non-security related elements) with heavy weight encryption, just so as
It could always be faster.
no one can get a hold of their precious source code.
This isn't the final interface. The final interface is codenamed Aero and is fully hardware-accelerated and "photorealistic."
The only good thing about Longhorn is WinFS. Something that the Linux community should embrace.
This is exactly why Microsoft have withheld Aero from these beta builds, because they are concerned that people will rip off their new desktop concept.
"Outlook Express 7 has features that better integrate with system elements such as the Contacts."
That worries me.
For one thing, memory usage detectors are notoriously inaccurate.
For a second, unused memory is wasted memory. A good operating system will not leave loads of memory untouched. What good will that do? What a good operating system will do is use your memory most effectively so when higher priority applications need to run, they can, but when they don't more trivial things can be put in memory such as disk cache.
Oh please... You are too kind... I strongly believe that posting Informative, Interesting and especially Insightful comments is my holy duty as a Slashdotter. I do it for the great people who are reading it right now and have a chance to become smarter thanks to my texts. I would like to dedicate all of my insightfulness to them. Thank you. Thank you very much, indeed.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."