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."
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 can this replace old stand-alone machines that aren't connected to any useable server?
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
If it's made to run faster on old hardware, then why wouldn't I prefer this speedier system on my new hardware? Sounds like they could just take some of the bloat out of Windows XP and come up with an altogether better OS, rather than forking.
Check out the specs below. What, are they going to make another "thin client" or just a version of Windows XP that runs on something slower than a Pentium 233? These are the requirements for Windows XP Pro, from Microsoft's own site. They say it'll *run* but what they don't tell you is that it'll run slower than cold syrup trying to flow uphill (both ways) in December in Minnesota.
It'll run, but once you try to open an application, you'll wish you hadn't.
"Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device"
I have successfully run WinXP Pro on a 350Mhz Pentium 2 with 96MB of RAM... that is below the specified requirements, but it ran just fine. It even played DVDs and some (albiet older) games. I would think that if they just used XP Pro, maybe with some customized pre-set registry stuff, it would scale just fine down to 200-250Mhz machines. And I'm sorry, but if you are using a sub-200Mhz machine still... ouch. Ouch. And did I say OUCH? Get up to speed.
...that Microsoft is in cahoots with hardware manufacturers to maintain the "software update == hardware update" status quo and force people to constantly buy new hardware. Because evidently, with this announcement, they *can* create a "diet-Windows", it was just not in their best interest to do it before Linux started gnawing at their pant legs.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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
Hmm... I think I saw this once, and it was called Windows 2000... I can run Win2K just fine on my 233MHz PII laptop w/64MB of RAM.
Of course XP has a load of unnecessary crap in it. That's how people want their OS. However, you shouldn't assume that just because an OS is based on the modern Windows codebase, it won't run on old hardware. My point is that if you shave away the "crap" in XP that won't be of any use in a school environment, offload all heavy tasks to a central server when possible, then remove all the eyecandy and trim what's left down a bit, you will have a Windows NT/2k/XP/2k3-codebase system that runs quite well on an old Pentium or something like it. At least so long as all you're using is Office and IE (or OOo and Firefox...). I tried this myself by slimming down Windows 2000 Pro to the point where it would run beautifully on a Pentium 133. It's quite doable, and would be great for all those systems still stuck on 95/98/Me.
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
I can only hope Apple sues the hell out of them...
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
EIGER was a version of Unix being reworked by SCO when they bought whatever it was they bought from Novell. It's dealt with specifically in the contracts.
Let's see...MS needs something that runs on oldder machines and is more secure than Win95/98...yep, sounds like a version of Unix would work just fine.
Maybe that's what MS bought from Caldera/SCOGroup for $50M...?
The best thing about this is that they will be forced to make their code more efficient to work on slower PC's.
Sorry that won't happen. This new lightweight XP is gonna be the barebones OS, with IE/OE, Media Player and probably a terminal services client. That is ALL it is. They are cutting out features and doing nothing at all (or the barest minumum) of code optimisation. This is MS we are talking about here--they haven't done anything radical with their OS since NT 3.1 came out. Innovation might be BillGs favourite word, but MS rarely does that--they mostly just evolve.
Other apps could probably be installed, but then those old machines would be bogged down just as before. MS' strategy is to try and entice cash-strapped enterprises to keep their MS infrastructure: Instead of buying 30 new workstations, just buy 30 licenses of "barebones XP" and a $5000 server to handle the apps. I don't see much there forcing MS to take the bloat out of their software.
Problem with that idea is that there isn't much cost savings up front (perhaps none at all) vs. upgrading the workstations, because the customer still has to buy a big app server and most likley upgrade ther office suite software, etc. too...in addition to licenses for the barebones XP (unless they give that away with server CALs).
Any admin worth his salt will figure out he could just get the application server and run terminal services on the Win98 boxes without upgrading them...or better yet just convert all the terminals to Linux...and save up front and get all the same TCO benefits in the long run. I don't think this dog of an XP distro will hunt.
The tinfoil hat worry is that, with all the data in a central repository, whoever controls the repository controls the information. If the idea that this could be the government doesn't scare you, imagine if it were Microsoft. Or, if you want to stay up all night in a cold sweat, imagine some Enron or SCO type of company rising to power. It might not actually make 1984 come to fruition, but it could certainly knock down a whole lot of barriers.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
OSX only has to run on 1 evolutionary line of hardware (AKA the Mac from the first with reasonable specs to the latest). Microsoft have to make windows run on ALL system set ups.
More like hardware manufacturers have to make their hardware run under Windows. MS does not code the vast majority of hardware drivers, the hardware companies do, because otherwise no one can use the hardware. MS's monopoly has largely made it much easier for them to obtain driver compatibility, Apple actually has to go out and convince hardware manufacturers to support their software as well by offering incentives or writing the drivers themselves.
Applications.
You might have a very very thin XP that'll run on a Pentium II, but who cares? As soon as you load Office on it, the only thing it'll do quickly is take a nosedive.
Although the Windows OS is a famous place to look for software bloat, it's only half of the problem. With the API being the way that it is, and the application developers for that platform pushing for more and more useless features as a revenue stream...99% of todays apps will still bomb on a thin XP machine.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I could see using a Windows box like this as thin client for a UNIX server running X11, because X11 uses the user's computer for the actual drawing... it doesn't maintain and render a local copy of the screen, it just sends drawing commands to the client. A Windows Terminal Server doesn't do this, every session has to maintain its own *unaccelerated* screen image, locally, and send bitmaps containing changed areas. Much higher load on the server, so if you have a room with 10 low end PCs in it, buying a server that could support 10 concurrent terminal server sessions would set you back WAY more than 10 new PCs.
We ran into this. When we got our first WinDD servers (Tektronix' version of the Citrix software that became Windows Terminal Server) I sized them based on our experience with UNIX servers... and thought doubling the per-user RAM and CPU was pretty conservative. Boy was that a shock... and the requirements have only gone UP since then.
Yeah, but Windows is definitely slower than OS X on comparable hardware for pretty much everything. I have a 1.3 Ghz g4 laptop sitting next to a 1.8 Ghz P4-M laptop. They have similar amounts of RAM and I use many of the same applications on both of them. OS X absolutely destroys Win2k when running multiple tasks and still fares considerably better running only one task. Win XP slows down the Windows box even more (hence it is running Win2K right now). You claim OS X gets faster because the Kernel was slow to start, what then is making Windows so slow and why don't they fix whatever that is?
Linux actually has pretty amazing support for some legacy hardware, although configuration can be kind of opaque and most newer distributions don't know what to do with it. There is support remaining in the kernel for ancient ISA cards that haven't been properly supported under ANY Microsoft OS since MS-DOS.
I agree that modern desktop Linux is not the best choice for older systems, but I think the reasons have to do more with software bloat than hardware support.
Support for new hardware that the manufacturers are loath to release specifications for is IMO much more of a problem.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
What will happen to geek dumpster diving if businesses don't have to buy new hardware every few years? That's where I get most of my computers!
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
>>...Apps that will run with fewer resources, less psychotic licensing schemes, and which cost a hell of a lot less.
Tell me about it, a client of mine was just given a quote for a server and a series of thin clients (Maxspeed thin clients I believe). The cost for a server and a set of dumb terminals seemed rather high and I questioned the quote.
Turns out the licensing costs amount to nearly what a full system would.
Check this, they had to pay for the Server 2003 license AND the CAL (Client Access License) AND the Terminal Services License, like buying two licenses for each workstation!
Makes no sense...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
I think you're imposing your own standards on everyone else - purely because something is "old" does not make it unusable to everyone.
Take the UNIX editor vi - a console based text editor that has been there just about as long as UNIX has yet is still the most popular editor despite many more modern editors, especially those with GUIs. Yet I and many other people can edit faster using keyboard-only vi than mouse and keyboard alternatives.
I still enjoy playing Duke Nukem 3D, original Doom and original Civilization - keeping a copy of MS-DOS to hand is great for that reason alone, whatever you may think.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Apple remote desktop is compatible with VNC. YOu can run put linux or windows on your legacy PCs and run VNC on them.
evil is as evil does
Jaguar has VNC built into the system, you just have to enable it. Pretty painless to 'remote into'.
Try again.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is an unfair comparison.
If you're going for a fair comparison then around the time Windows 2000 was a new OS, you would be looking at RedHat 5.2 or SuSE 6.0 - both of these would have been equipped with older {=lighter) versions of KDE or Gnome which would run much faster than their modern counterpart versions.
For a school, non-profit, or church, you know the answer is "no."
And why is the answer "no"? Because you're not confident installing a lighter window manager? I've not used recent SuSE or RedHat versions but I seem to recall both of these had granular enough installation programs that allowed you to skip installing Gnome or KDE and install a lighter desktop.
I do agree that some applications might have a reliance on big Gnome or KDE libraries but then if you need older applications, you can always look at earlier versions of them - like Applixware if you want word processing, etc.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I do a lot of setting up machines for giving away to families that cannot afford a computer. The group I work with takes old business computers that have all software wiped from them - most at present are P3 500 to 600mhz machines. We now use Linux to get the job done. I can do a drive to drive install in about 30 minutes, Have everything a regular user will need. XP is way too slow -- 98 is way to hard to install a few machines at a time. Both would kill us on license fees. The only thing that makes this project even posible is Linux.
Just like MS to miss the mark again!
Telephony, VPN & Dial-up
No dail-up means that it wouldnt work very well for users just wanting an internet connection over 56k. It also means that connecting to remote app servers over a 56k connections. However i dont think MS would be able to get a remote app running ever 56k anyway.
Lima India November Uniform X-ray