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."

Comments

Oh geez, thin clients again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still in the early stages of development, Eiger will run a bare-bones set of programs directly from the desktop. The list will include the Internet Explorer browser, Windows Media Center, a firewall and antivirus software. Most other programs, however, will run off a central server.

So they aren't actually stripping down Windows like they should, but instead doing some kind of funky thin-client thing. they still need the processing to be done somewhere, so I'm not seeing the savings for the schools.

Nice that at the end of TFA, the exec still told people to buy new computers.

Re:Oh geez, thin clients again.

[jpk236]

I think the point is that buying 1 new central server will be cheaper than buying hundreds of new desktops.

Re:Oh geez, thin clients again.

[ScentCone]

Do you also look forward to not having the option of "owning" any of the software you have on your machine?

Come on, don't change the subject. The target here is institutional users with lots low-brow machines. When you sit down in a cube doing data entry for an insurance company, do you own that machine? Does that company's IT want you to install anything you personally do own on that machine? We're not talking about your personal box here, and you know it, so I call your comment a red herring. The scenario here is exactly one where centralized, server-based app configuration makes perfect sense. Someone doing accounts payable doesn't need to install MySQL or .Net or Max or Doom3.

Something doesn't make sense here...

[It doesn't come easy]

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?

Why just old machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just make a 'faster windows' all around, that runs fast on both old and new hardware? /boggle

Toxic Vaporware

[Kiaser Zohsay]

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?

De-featuring

[overshoot]

Well, yes, Eiger is targeted to run on older boxen. However, MS has a couple of nasty dilemmas here:

• If they de-feature Eiger to the point of uselessness, nobody buys it.
• If they de-feature Eiger to a thin client but require monster servers, nobody buys it.
• If they don't de-feature Eiger but still manage to keep the small footprint, they undercut their full-feature offerings.
• If they price Eiger at full-feature prices, nobody will buy it.
• If they cut the price without massive de-featuring, they undercut their full-feature offerings.
• If they don't remove Media Player or IE, they have a much harder time with the footprint.
• If they do remove Media Player and IE, they contradict their sworn testimony and potentially land senior executives in jail for perjury (admittely not likely.)

Re:Crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have windows machines, and you are using VNC, then I pitty you. I have used VNC, and I often have VNC installed on machines so that I can remotely control the windows boxes when logged into linux (and because terminal services does not control the root console of a windows server like VNC does), but there is no comparison. VNC is nice solution when you have nothing better. Terminal Services/Remote desktop is a nice solution period. Its fast, easily an order of magnitude faster than even TightVNC.

I regularly use Terminal services to connect to my home server, and then use remote desktop from there to remotely control other machines on my network at home, even the ones connected only by 802.11b. VNC is sometimes acceptable for one connection. It is painful to piggyback.

Don't get me wrong folks, OSS is great, and I would love to see the beast from redmond defeated, but Terminal Services/Remote desktop is a solution done right, give credit where its due.