Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Developing Windows for Low-End Machines
Jeff writes "According to the Washington Post, Microsoft is developing a version of Windows to run on old machines that currently run 95 or 98. It would be very similar to XP, but run faster on the older hardware. The move is to appease businesses and universities that don't want to scrap the old hardware. This is likely aimed at preventing Linux from gaining market share where MS is currently alienating their customers."
Nice that at the end of TFA, the exec still told people to buy new computers.
According to the Washington Post, Microsoft is developing a version of Windows to run on old machines that currently run 95 or 98. It would be very similar to XP, but run faster on the older hardware.
Wait, since 95 and 98 barely ran on the old hardware, how is Microsoft going to make XP, a system that normally takes at least 4 times the hardware compared to the old systems, going to run at any workable speed in this scenario? Microsoft really only has two code bases for their systems (the 95/98/ME code base and the 2000/NT/XP/2003 code base), so this new system must be a pared down version of the XP code base, especially since (according to the article) service pack 2 fixes are in place for this future system. So, if they can do this for XP on old hardware, why can't they do it for modern hardware? Is it that Microsoft is simply admitting XP has a load of unnecessary crap in it?
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
why not just make a 'faster windows' all around, that runs fast on both old and new hardware? /boggle
I think this is a good move for them. I have linux running on two machines that could otherwise run windows if an even remotely modern version of windows would run on them.
Sadly, since installing linux on them I've fallen for it and wouldn't change back unless there was some compensation involved.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
According to the Washington Post, Microsoft is developing a version of Windows to run on old machines that currently run 95 or 98. It would be very similar to XP, but run faster on the older hardware.
Umm.. Shouldn't improving performance always a metric for systems developers? Really. Apple manages to make new versions of OS X that run and perform better on the same hardware. Is it too much to ask that MS, who has significantly greater development resources, try to improve the performance of their OS?
Is this due out before or after Longhorn?
The OS will only run IE and Windows Media; everything else will be on an application server. I do not think this solves the actual problem. We have terminals.
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
If the former, then I don't see it being popular for the usual reasons (see any thread on Starter Edition). If the latter, then why don't they just release a new version of Windows XP that runs more efficiently for everyone? It seems stupid that a (presumably) cheaper version of windows would run faster than the full price version.
One simply needs to remove all the eye candy.
This is true for XP.
This is *especially* true for Linux.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Puh-leaze. Yes, this announcement is obviously aimed at preventing adoption of Linux on low-end hardware. The real question is whether or not a product will ever emerge from the vapor. How many times has Longhorn slipped? And what kind of bleeding edge hardware specs does it have? Microsoft can't build an OS with a blank check for hardware specs, so how are they going to do it on a budget?
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
So... why upgrade them? If doesn't make sense to me other than MS is trying to sell more software to an already_tapped_once market.
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
How cheap is hardware getting these days? I mean really, I can build a brand new AMD system for less that 300$. Why would I want to run a stripped down version of XP on an older system? Half of older hardware (video/sound, etc..) drivers are not even supported in XP due to the companys being out of business. Most people only use Outlook/IE/Office and that runs fine under XP on a Pentium 2 300 with 256mb ram. This just looks like a way for Micro$oft to market XP-Lite in the US. Hardware is Cheap, It's all the damn software that is expensive. That will still be the problem for people wanting to upgrade to XP. It's all the custom DOS accounting packages/etc.. that do not run under XP is why most of my customers are still running 98 anyways.
while im not a fan of their practices, but from a business standpoint, its a great idea if they can actually pull it off. its a market that they have never tended to and has been a feeding ground for linux. the company i work for deals with places that have 'old' computers that dont run linux. so they end up with these systems that chug through win98. if MS can make windows XP efficient enough to run on older systems then good for them. i really dont like the fact that they are basically saying 'we loaded useless crap onto XP and we are just now getting around to it' but hey, better late then never. toNt0r
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are forgetting Windows CE. Should perfectly run on old hardware. Already has IE. Some tweaks and a citrix client....
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
You mean there's a major popular Linux distro that runs (with GUI) fast on older hardware? Where can I get this marvel of coding technology? Obviously we're not referring to the latest versions of Redhat, Mandrake, Suse, etc. as I've NEVER seen them run responsively on older hardware.
I get so sick of the "WinXP is a hog!" whining when there's no "real" alternative that requires substantially less RAM/HD space, and runs as responsively as WinXP on newer hardware.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
This is a Bad Idea TM. A machine to "just surf the Web" sounds great in concept but in reality does not cut the mustard. Look at the Web these days. People want to watch video, read big PDFs, and do it all with "teh snappy," in other words fast page renders.
And rare is the employee who can get work done exclusively on the Web. Most will want one of: Word, Excel, PowerPoint. And for sake of compatibility they'll want versions that can read docs created by the most recent version without pain.
With a new Dell starting at $299, why would one invest in
*Employee training to use the new centralized/Webified OS and workflow
*Licenses for the client OS
*License OS for the server
*Buy hardware for the server
All to keep poking along on the same old hardware? Are corporations really this short sided? A new copmuter is less than a tenth of one month's pay for someone making just $30,000 per year.
This is likely aimed at preventing Linux from gaining market share where MS is currently alienating their customers.
No, I don't think that's it. Though Linux advocates will be more than happy to try and lay claim to any victory over marketing opportunity, I doubt Linux had anything to do with it.
I think this better characterizes Microsoft's train of thought:
==> Any business that isn't growing is downsizing, and downsizing does not bode well for stocks and outlooks.
==> For Microsoft to grow, it has to sell software.
==> Microsoft's greatest profits come from two sources: Windows and Office.
Therefore, Microsoft has to keep selling Windows and Office. But therein lies the dilemma: how can you sell a new version of Windows to someone who's content with their current version of Windows?
This has long been a thorn in Microsoft's side. Developers still (for the most part) support Windows 98, and everybody supports Windows 2000. These are versions of Windows that are now seven and five years old, respectively. Now, think back to the year 1997, when Windows 95 has been out for a little more than two years. Was anybody back then still supporting Windows 2.0 (seven years old at the time), and how much support remained for Windows 3.1 (five years old at the time)?
Microsoft is trying to find a way to make upgrades look important and desirable again. I personally think that Microsoft won't find any takers, but who knows...
Depending on what your problem is. If you need to run XP apps and XP drivers then yes, this might be a good thing. OTOH, if you need Server 2003 active directory support for your old win98 box, just download Active Directory Client Extensions and install it. Microsoft obscures it's existance to encourage new boxen and OS sales, but it's there and it works.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Want thin computing? The future is here.
For most people, almost all work can be done on a internet terminal. Although I prefer Gmail, Yahoo! mail has a few nice features that Google has yet to offer including calendar tools (events, tasks, birthdays) and a notepad (though you could use the drafts feature and spell check for a "notepad"). Beyond that, there are PHP applciations such as Horde that offer similar and even extended functionality.
Even special applications are making thier way to the web - think of doing your taxes online, or even diagnosing health problems. You can share pictures online, and do a further multitude of tasks.
There was even a push several years ago (6 maybe?) to put the desktop paradigm onto the web through DHTML. The idea never took off, but the portal functionality has always continued to develop.
Now if only I could open a window to Slashdot within my web browser!
This is an historic development. Like when detroit actually started making smaller cars with better mileage, and stopped encouraging greater consumption of petroleum. The interests of Microsoft and Hardware makers are diverging. It was once coincident that when a firm upgraded their software, they bought new hardware, and vice versa. But with the economic slowdown in IT, many firms can no longer afford both. And since less than 1% of the resources of a typical CPU are used by most office tasks, Microsoft can easily sway companies to believe that a software upgrade provides the biggest bang for the buck. But if they are too greedy and stupid though, Microsoft may really be cutting their own throat. If they establish that new software can run on old hardware at imorived performance, they will break the 3-year upgrade cycle for PCs, and since most copies of Windows are purchased simply because they come installed on a new PC, customers may begin to think of hardware and software as separable purhcases again, which may very well lead to wider-spread use of Linux.
It may also take some of the economic incentive out of new chip design for AMD and intel. With slower hardware sales, they will have to raise the price of new chips to recover their plant costs. Which will slow new hardware sales even further. Here's a marketing idea for some enterprising soul- hard drive upgrade kits for older PCs, that come with Linux pre-installed (because there's no where to hide the $100 price of windows in a $69 disk drive.)
The reason they're doing this is so they can sell software upgrades to schools who can't afford new computers. They couldn't care less if the schools bought more hardware, but for them to stop buying software? The horror.
There are better thin client applications out there than Windows. Apps that will run with fewer resources, less psychotic licensing schemes, and which cost a hell of a lot less.
And Microsoft's never been known for "thin".
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
[from the "It's not a troll if it's true" dept.] ...Microsoft announces it's trying harder to keep breaking software sales records by selling software to people that a) don't WANT it, or b) don't NEED IT.
Oh wait, this isn't 'other news', it's this news article too.
No one needs to ask why micrsfot does ANYTHING. The end game is always to make money, everything is justifiable, so please don't be surprised when they announce another way to sell the same thing.
While on the topic of MS OS's, I want to say personally and professionaly, I like Windows 2000 due to its stability and reliability (as I sit here at home with nothing to do). So much so, that I've recommended only it (as opposed to WinXP or Win98 etc) to all of my clients.
When Longhorn hits, I will evaluate it and make recommendations, though I am sure I already know my answer (seeing as though WinFS alone consumes over 30MB of RAM, and the advent/prospective incorporation of TC/DRM).
My point is that I wish MS would quit with the trinkets and toys for business OS's and give me predictability, stability and reliability (== the most important attributes an OS can have).
Windows2006 should be Win2k SP5.
Inject.
Wow, I can't believe I have insight into this. Windows already has a thin-client product. It's called 'Remote Desktop/Terminal Services' and this probably isn't a bad idea.
Let me tell you my experience: we were recently denied the ability (via a firewall) to map drives between our individual machines and our data center windows servers, as this was seen as a possible virus vector. (insert Microsoft bashing here.) So we took one of our mid-size Win2k3 servers in our data center, added a bunch more Terminal Services licences, and now we spend alot of our time terminal-serviced into our datacenter. As IT folk we still have a bunch of fancy high-powered development software installed on our machines, but otherwise they are acting as thin clients.
If you were a school with 1) a whole bunch of decaying windows boxes (50+), and 2) a strong desire to stay with Windows, and you were offered the chance to buy a single beefy server for $5-6K, and install a Terminal Services + IE package (named 'Eiger') on all your old machines, you'd probably go for it.
this is open source software, winning.
.. getting it to actually fix its bugs and fulfill its 'promises & dreams' for hardware of yester-year.
swaying the giants' attention off the 'bleeding edge, hardware upgrade treadmill', and
right on.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"This is likely aimed at preventing Linux from gaining market share where MS is currently alienating their customers."
Uhhh, maybe MS is just trying to satisfy customers that currently use Windows and what to stay with Windows but want an update and can't currently have it because XP is designed for newer computers.
Why does every news story on MS have to be entirely tainted and slanted against the company? Why not just report the story and the possible reasons why MS is making the move without posting a slam against MS and no alternative view?
Presumably if Joe Bloke has an old PC running Windows 98 then he's probably never going to upgrade to Linux anyway. The only reason he might want to install Linux would be to run maybe a web or mail server, something that he probably would not want to do on Windows 98 anyway.
Otherwise, if he has older hardware, he doesn't need the additional driver support (say for USB 2.0) that comes with Windows XP and today's games that only run on Windows 2000 or XP are probably too hefty to run on his hardware anyway.
Sure, Microsoft would love to get Joe to spend more money on a new OS, that's just plain business, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Linux.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
For a PC that's not constantly running, a tweaked version of Windows 98 SE works really well.
Plus if you mess about with memory management in config.sys and autoexec.bat, you get a machine that supports older DOS programs and games pretty well also.
Sure, if you leave it running for weeks on end, it slows to a crawl due to the poor memory management but it's nothing a reboot doesn't cure.
Even XP is a horrific bloated mess out of the box but once you turn off all the pretty rubbish and effects, you get an OS that looks a lot more like Windows 2000 and that runs pretty fast.
People that assume an operating system is just fine out of the box simply have no idea what they are missing - any OS, Linux included, can slow any PC to a crawl if not tweaked properly.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.