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.'"
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.
Remember the days when the PC magazines all used to review pre-release software, find some bug or other, and say this will be fixed in time for the final release? Except the bugs never were fixed come the final version?
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)
ah but bill gates doens see it that way. He believes the future of computers is in the software. Pack it full of "features".
Here read up on what he said at MIT on computers.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
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
I think the point is, you don't have a choice of not using the bloated Windows interface. You choose to use Gnome; that's just fine.
I choose to use blackbox:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1033236 475028 558208 0 32748 394020
-/+ buffers/cache: 48260 984976
Swap: 514040 0 514040
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil". DK.
Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
Geocrawler error message.
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 .
Well you might trying to be sarcastic but um yeah.
Sorry hate to break it to ya but 8MB of ram is shit for a compiler [that is meant to handle a program of any respectable size]. 80MB of disk space is little space to hold source+builds, etc...
The trick [which most miss] is an acceptable rate of growth.
I imagine 100 years from now a PDA will have a baseline of 1TB of memory [anything less will just be inhuman]. The point is right now that would be insane.
Similarly sure 20 years ago 8MB of ram was godly [cuz quite frankly the average program was of limited appeal and functionality]. You can pick up a 512MB of ram for relatively cheap [~110$ CDN for PC2700].
So it isn't unreasonable to assume a desktop user would have 512MB or even 1GB of ram [it's much I agree but not overly excessive]. If windows required 512MB of ram 10 years ago they would have gone out of business. Right now though it's not asking too much.
That being said I agree with the sentiment against bloat. I run icewm for the sole reason that it takes 10MB of ram. Combined with X my entire "desktop" takes less than 30MB of ram. It would be nice if the next version of windows didn't take 200MB of ram when idle but alas it wouldn't be cool enough if you didn't have a million little things going on all at once.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
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"
"I'd still like to point out that Windows isn't the only OS that has turned into a RAM hog" right... With each release, windows has grown more and more bloated. When I installed sp1 over xp a while ago, i thought it had broken my xp install because it was taking over 30 seconds more to load on my p4. And that was just a service pack, imagine what the next version will bring.
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
How is mine *anti* Microsoft?
It's a legitimate point, I asked why it was obvious the final release will take less memory?
I would fully expect all OSes in 2005 to take more than 256mb; possibly even 512mb. Microsoft would just happen to be one of many. If this were a Linux article, I would have asked the same question. I use a Mac, and I *know* how much memory OS X likes, and am under no illusions that 10.5 won't take as much!
GPL Deconstructed
"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.
But, what you or Bill think doesn't matter. What matters is the public opinion of the people buying it. I don't know whether Bill is a genius or a moron, but people are buying his product, so we really can't complain about what he's doing with it!
It's not necessarily how much memory is used, it's what it's used for.
.NET "managed" code at the core of the OS. If it's anything like Java, then this also uses a lot of RAM.
Longhorn is going to have an embedded SQL server in its filesystem, right? Well, SQL server uses a lot of RAM. So that's one thing. It will also have
The RAM usage really should be itemized and MS should provide ways to turn off features that people might never use that just eat up RAM in the background.
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.
And it's not like you can run a modern Linux desktop distro on a 486 100mhz nowadays anyway. Face it, requirements have changed in every way imaginable. You and the grandparent poster are already as ancient compared to the current generation of computers as we years ago were compared to the cardpunchers of days yore.
Adapt, or obsoletize yourself.
"Why is it obvious that an OS in two years won't consume 400mb of ram?"
Because there's no good reason for it to. It's hard to think of a good reason for it to take 400MB on disk!
This is just the same kind of bloat that took word processors / desktop publishing from floppies to multi-CD bloat-fests. Yes, things should naturally get a little larger with these windowing systems etc., but not so many orders of magnitude larger (or slower).
What does XP give me with that > 1GB install that I couldn't otherwise have in less than 100 Meg? I excpect any disassembly of most modern software will find 100MB chunks of NULLs to increase hardware sales. And perhaps there is one copy of each file for each day of the month.
RAM/HD space is for the data your applications work on, not your OS!
Even Multics, VMS, and MVS back in the day had kernel features comperable to modern, BeOS had the database FS and it was small and fast, Plan9 is just 64MB and the whole windowing system is TINY, NeXT had DisplayPS way back when and was smaller and faster than modern systems...
Let's design an OS.
We'll give it preemptive multitasking w/ hard realtime support, memory protection, ErOS type capability security, sync & async I/O, rethink the API like BeOS, make it multiuser, full-featured shell (before Berkeley [cat should not have flags]), a database filesystem (hell, several lesser FSs too), a DisplayPDF or PS vectored windowing system, give it TCP/IP OpenGL etc., support for filesharing of various types, some initial apps (basic UTF-8 editor, HTML4+CSS browser, image preview)...
How much space? 'Prolly well under 100 or 200 Meg.
//end pathetic, illucid rant
I really believe open source has a real edge on drivers... because the HW Mfg's can study dozens of source examples for ideas.
WIndows (and OS/2) really suffers from closed source drivers. The SDK examples are good starting, but the lessons learned 'in the real world' in terms of specific hacks for certain motherboards/chipsets never seems to make it back to the SDK...
Look at a driver like the Realtek Ethernet on Linux... it is a pefect example of something that shows the 'real world' side in terms of slight differences on motherboards and with the Realtek chips themselves.
"Looks like Quartz Extreme" indeed. I'd bet anything they "borrow" the technology.
I have not been following Windows development very closely, but I as under the impression that all the OS (and associated applications) was being rewritten in C#. If this is the case, memory leak should not happen anymore. Is this right ? If yes, then I guess IE had not been completely rewritten yet.
:wq
This is so fucking stupid I'm not sure why I'm replying to it, but I think the power of sanity compels me...
No, it's not hard to think of why it takes up 400MB on disk. Windows isn't a fucking command-line based hardcore sysadmin funtime OS. It is designed to be everything to everyone. There is an old saying you obviously haven't heard that goes something like this "90% of users will only use 10% of an application, but those 90% will each use a DIFFERENT 10%."
Anyone that pines for the days of VMS should be legally restricted from bitching about current operating systems.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
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.
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."
To be honest, I find these arguments about how much memory Linux uses compared with Windows to be rather pointless. Windows XP can run in a very low-end low memory environment too. In this case, as Windows XP Embedded. Most people refer to Windows' resource requirements only when it's running as a fully-featured desktop OS. To compare that with Linux would require installed KDE, etc... and we all know what the result will be. The major difference of course is that end-users don't have as much choice to customise Windows for their hardware.
The other thing many people don't know about Windows is how to tune its system cache. It too can be configured to be very aggressive - try changing it's settings to maximise throughput for file sharing, and watch all your free memory disappear.
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
Resource kit has a tool that actually tries to page out as much memory as it can. After you run it, all applications have to read their stuff from disk, and everything is so slow that you can literally see your wallpaper repainting.
It can be argued that there's not much point in trimming working sets when an application is minimized, but it definitely doesn't have such a huge impact on performance as you describe.
Actually I think it is codenamed "Longhorn" after the "Longhorn Saloon" in Whistler, BC. Originally, after "Whistler" (Windows XP codename), the next major release was supposedly going to be called "Blackcomb" after the other mountain at Whistler. After the goals for that release proved to be too lofty, they decided to scale back the design and shoot for a simpler release, codenamed instead after the bar at the base of Blackcomb mountain.
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.
Around these parts we call it memory usage. Has someone thought up a new buzzphrase to make themselves sound more with-it or something?