This isn't hard to do at all, there are many options that come to mind, all that are built in and would do what you need.
Hit MSDN.microsoft.com or even do a few searches on Microsoft.com.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but getting a solid answer to a Windows solution on Slashdot is like asking Charlie Manson where the best nearby starbucks is... Not going to be an answer he will have, and if he gives you one, it won't be one you will want...
I do the same in a little notebook in my car. I take it and calculate the fuel economy on a near monthly basis
I find it easier to just hit the fuel economy button on the dash and get either my avg or instant fuel usage. ( I reset the average every once in a while to spice things up)
BTW Shouldn't geeks at least be using a palm pilot to track this if their car doesn't have a fuel consumption computer?
I know from my car, watching the fuel economy go form 2mpg to 45mph it could really help people when they are wanting to get the most out of their gas.
I think fuel computers should be standard on all cars, so people can see when they are lead footing it, or when they are on an incline they don't realize if they ease back, they can save some gas.
Even my old 85' Vette had one... With today's technology, they can't be that expensive to be standard on cars.
It has taught me a lot about fuel consumption, that I think everyone would benefit from if they could watch it in real time.
Wrong - Windows NT for Alpha/AXP was NOT 64-bit. It used the Alpha's 32-bit mode. This was a well-known issue at the time.
Not sure what you are smoking, but there was no 32bit mode on the Alpha CPU.
There was a 32bit emulation mode that allowed the Alpha CPUs to run Intel programs under NT, but that was just a compatibility later that allowed regular Intel based 32bit NT applications to run the 64bit Alpha. The OS itself had a 64bit memory space and ran 64bit processes natively. (with the exception that the memory space was reduced below a full 64bit of available memory to be compatible with older Alpha CPUs of the 1993 period.)
Do a little research, and I hope to God you still don't work for the government.
But compare it to microsoft who is still trying to get 64 bit to work right.
Yeah, it has taken Microsoft FOREVER, especially considering NT 4.0 was a 64bit OS on Alpha back in 1996 - let alone that Windows XP 64bit for Itanium was out in 2001.
Man, Microsoft is really behind the curve here...
It is great Apple is making great roads into the 64bit progression; however, ignorance of Microsoft's advances don't mean that Apple is the leader in this area.
Let alone the various other 64bit OSes that have been around for a while.
Do people really not know this stuff here? I thought this is where intellectual geeks talked about new and exciting concepts. Not praising companies and bashing others for doing the same things.
Oh wait, silly me... (This is the year 2004, and slashdot has turned into geeks and AOL users, that are either new to this stuff or just fan boys/girls of a singular concept or platform without knowing much of the rest of the world)
...it was in the '93-'94 timeframe. It was supposed to be a video server; i.e., multiply specified video streams could be served up to various clients.
Hmmm. I haven't heard of anything about it since then.
It is a little program that you might now know as Windows Media Server, and has been a part of the NT platform for several years. It is also built into Windows 2000 and 2003 servers.
We use Windows 2003 as media distribution devices, and have used Windows Servers for this for years now.
Heck even the theater and video streams in my house all come from a Windows Server.
Just like several theaters are doing all over the country that have converted to digitial distribution. (Think of the irony that the next time you see a high quality digital flick at your local theater is running a Windows Media Server.)
elegance of the Apple solution to offer as the standard solution a combination CD/CD-RW/DVD/DVD-RW drive
Wow, never thought of it this way, espeicially the "elegance" of it.
When I bought my Windows PC two years ago that came standard with a CDRW/DVRW, I didn't realize it was such a great and "elegant" solution that Mac users would get a couple of years later.
And yet not only was NTFS one of the first file systems to assist in preventing fragmentation and the performance issues of fragmented files from the MFT stucture, in Windows 2000 and newer NT platforms also perform defragging while the system is idle, moving files not only to be degragged, but for optimal performance.
So glad Apple was the innovator here again... Geesh. (except they are still following in the footsteps of the NT team).
Do a performance anayalsis of files that are even fragmented on NTFS compared to files that are fragmented on HFS+ and you will get part of what I am talking about. Peformance degredation is not as much as an issue with NTFS as it is even with HFS+, read the NTFS whitepapaers.
Additional, critical speed files (like paging files, user hives, etc are always automatically defragged during login and logoff, in addtion to be processed during idle machine time.)
The irony is that NT has been doing this for years, and even Win98 had background defrag and file optimization techniques even with FAT32.
So tell me again about this great HFS+ innovation and how it works so much better at defragging files than NTFS.
I haven't defragged the laptop I am typing this on now for months, and yet, only a small about of large downloads are the files that are fragmented.
Apple geeks get a new feature that everyone has had for years, and they think Job invented the wheel.
As for the "Virtual PC works well", see that post of mine I referenced above. It's MUCH easier to fake a x86 on a PPC than vice versa.
Actually, this is not even close to being accurate.
A few companies have had PowerPC emulators running at near native speeds for years; however, Apple keeps suing the companies out of business. Check out SoftMac for example.
The reasons this emulator is slow on the X86 platform can be explain by actually looking at how the emulation is transpiring.
#1) All video calls are being software rendered - Even a G5 if forced to perform all video via software, and via software emulation would also run VERY SLOWLY.
#2) This is an early beta that barely covers the basics of the PPC functionality, let alone optimizations that would provide 'correlated' emulation through existing X86 architecture technologies. X86 technologies have many equivalent optimizations and processing advantages that this beta doesn't even attempt to use, as they are just in the process of 'getting' it to work.
#3) This emulator is written in a high level language for portability reason. Apple has many assembly specific optimizations in the upper (and some of the lower) layers of OSX. This emulator is tranlating these 'assembly' based optimized software through a non-optimized 'portable' language.
Apple makes ok products, and IBM makes ok chips, but neither are the best at everything - even in a delusional world.
Some would argue that marriage is designed solely for procreation, and includes certain incentives to facilitate that. Personally, I don't see marriage as having anything to do with love (certainly love can exist outside marriage); why do people need the state to acknowledge their love for each other?
Maybe you should actually do some fact checking before you make up your mind about something based on 'What other people think or have told you to think'.
Even if you still disagree, at least you won't be arguing a point just from ignorance.
Filesystem snapshots (what everybody but microsoft calls "shadow volumes"): LVM, works for just about any filesystem, see http://www.sistina.com/products_lvm.htm
You don't get it my friend.. There is a difference between a 'volume snapshot' and Windows Shadow volumes.
Shadow volumes allow snapshots to occur on a file by file basis, not an entire volume at a time. Additionally this information is contained in the same volume, not requiring a 'snapshot point' volume to hold the information.
Microsoft knows what snapshots are (MS Virtual PCs use them), however Windows Shadow Volumes are NOT snapshots.
Take your LVM link as an example, it can't do anythingn like what Shadow Volumes on Win2k3 can.
For example, I can open any folder on my Windows 2003 server (from any client in the world), and right click on a file I have been working on, and see EVERY time I have saved the file, and restore it back to a prevoius version. (Even if I accidentally deleted it)
This is something that is so easy, that it is put in the hands of the users (with permissions) accessing their data on the server.
They don't have to ask an Admin to have the file recovered from a 'Volume Snapshot' and it also doesn't take an entire duplicate volume to hold the snapshot.
It tracks changes to individual files, on a file by file basis. And of course this also applies to Folders.
As for the other features you cite, these are all STANDARD features of NTFS with Volume Shadowing added in Win2K3. There are no other utilities to install, no additional plugins, no additional overhead.
Why install and work with 5 packages just to replicate what NTFS and Win2k3 does out out of the box?
And then you have to consider the 'performance' of these utilties when enabled on the server, and the selected file system.
There is not one set of solutions that fully replicate all the features of Win2k3 and NTFS and can run the same performance, even with SAMBA3 out there.
The SAMABA3 benchmarks everyone here are so happy to cite forget that all these features are turned on and a part of NTFS and Win2k3, and are not installed on the SAMBA3 tests machines being used to acheive their 'stellar' benchmarks.
And these benchmarks are not STILL not always faster than Win2k3.
SAMBA3 is great, but add in the features that Win2k3 is using by default and you will find that it does not have the amazing performance a lot of people seem to think it does.
If you do want to cite a benchmark with details that supports W2K3AS being faster than Samba3 that hasn't been torn apart by people reading the details, please do.
I can post reports from our own labs my friend. There ARE times Samba performs better, and there ARE times when Windows 2003 Server performs better. (=Moot Point)
However with Samba, you lose a lot of functionality that many customers think are important.
Not everyone is just looking for a large file storage box, they are looking for a SERVER, one that does more than File and Printer sharing. One that can handle Media and a lot of other things that a Samba solution cannot.
People don't get that this is how Novell got into such a pinch. Microsoft NT server technologies offered more than just 'serving files and printers'. It was able to go head to head with even the high end *nix markets because of its application server capabilites that allow it to extend to whatever a developer wants to throw on it just like *nix.
Samba ia great product, but it is NOT always the BEST option for ALL businesses and Server users.
Microsoft and Sun both are going to do more in the open source community and also start having more Linux support.
Microsoft is already starting to open the door with open source projects within their organization, that will extend to the population. (The R&D deparment has been doing this for years, but the open source world hasn't noticed this for some reason.)
Don't be surprised that one of the best friends of Open Source and *nix progression will be coming from Redmond as well as Sun.
Now my question, what if Microsoft does open its arms to Open Source and the Linux world? Will everyone then start to hate Open Source and Linux and just go buy a Mac?
I never said the benchmark was 'reality', I was making a point about not posting a link to an actual benchmark.
If you look on the internet you can find tons of 'benchmarks' that are non-Redmond and some say SAMBA3 is the fastest and others say it is not. The ITWeek results are not the end all, be all in the benchmark discussion.
Also please note the comments I made about the RAID performances and the loss of functionality when running SAMBA3 instead of Win2k3.
I am not bashing SAMBA, just trying to keep the trolls from jumping on the bridge and eating the goats.
SAMBA 3 actually performs quite well; however, not as fast as some zealots would like to believe.
Also of note, things that don't seem to get a lot of press is that, on standard (non-RAID) or RAID-1 systems, Windows 2003 Server performs better than a Samba/Linux solution. In RAID 5 solutions, the numbers get closer. (A lot of small businesses don't use RAID 5 on their in house servers) - Which is the IDEAL market for low cost SAMBA solutions.
Additionally, when using a SAMBA file sharing solution, you are giving up many of the features that make Windows 2003 Server and NTFS a better choice.
Like Shadow Copies, Compressed Storage, File Encryption, etc.
I'm sure you mean well, but don't drink all the cool-aid.
If Linux is catching up, why does Samba file sharing under Linux run faster than under NT?
Because the easter bunny told you it does?
Geesh...
Samba is a great product, and ran neck and neck with NT4 file sharing services. However, Windows 2K3 is a leap ahead of what Samba offers in features, and also is running circles around Samba performance wise.
There are a couple of benchmarks that give the edge to Samba, but in real world overall use, Win2k3 is considerably faster.
And THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NT Scheduler or predictive disk read ahead techniques that this thread is about.
ok, i know this is evil and all - but lets say MS decide to implement this as a concept (so without "stealing" code)... the linux community will have given them something and received (probably) nothing in return.
Not to burst your bubble, but the NT scheduler already implements predictive disk I/O concepts.
The OS load times for XP are fast at the moment... Wait until SP2 arrives and you'll be back to the good old days.
Current boot -> useable on my SP2 box is 2-3 minutes. It was 1 minute before SP2...
And this is not reflective of all SP2 test systems. In our labs, this is unique to a certain set of chipset confirgurations. Also please note the word 'beta' on the SP2.
90% of the systems in our lab boot faster with SP2 than SP1 or RTM versions of WindowsXP.
So you may be ready for the good old days, but everyone else won't have to be.
If you are seeing this type of delay, then bug it, if you are not participating in the beta, then tell someone that is, so they can bug your system configuration.
I am currently typing this on a 1.7ghz Laptop, and my FULL boot time is 17secs. Standby is 1sec, and Hibernate is 3secs from power off.
(And this is in contrast faster than any of our high end test systems in the lab can acheive with any *nix distribution booting to the XWindows GUI desktop.)
The previous poster saying that Windows BOOT time is slow has not apparently used Windows in a long time, or is just talking crap.
Can you explain something about NT, XP or any WIN variation that is superior to *NIX in design?
I am not even advocating the NT model in my argument, but if you want examples...
Input/Output model Kernel Design - Not Mach limited, Not monolithic Microkernel -- Object Based Client/Server Kernel Subsystem Architecture - The NT foundation is not tied to any OS subsystem The Networking Layer architecture
And that is just a quick list, and this is from NT of 1993 that still exists in XP today.
I suggest people pick up a couple of books on OS theory and engineering. The *nix model is great for what it is, but we could be doing SO Much more.
OK you convinced me. Mac OS X answers all the needs. Runs the mainstream stuff and has the *Nix underpinnings.
Why is it that most people here assume that *nix is the end all be all of OS design.
Has anyone ever even read or studied OS engineering or OS theory?
*nix is great for what it is but no matter how pretty you make it look or features you stick in the kernel, it still has the same limitations of the *nix OS design standards.
Microsoft NT isn't the end all of OSes either, however at least Microsoft took tons of OS theory that DOES NOT exist in the *nix world and implemented it quite well.
I just don't get it, everyone that is new to computers, or an old timer that got caught in the *nix is god mindset don't ever look past the trees to see the forest.
What about other superior OS design models that have features and abilities that *nix will NEVER have due to the very definition of *nix and the baggage the *nix model brings with it.
*nix is great, but it isn't the latest or greatest set of OS theories or engineering around.
Open Source DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ONLY a *nix world. Why aren't other projects that go beyond what a *nix could ever do get any support, why is everyone so tied to *nix concepts and methodologies?
I'm not saying to suck MS's butt to get NT, but at least they evolved past the *nix model with NT. Why can't we do the same in the Open Source world as well?
As long as Open Source is defined by being only a *nix world, it will never get to a point of actually passing Microsoft in core technology capabilities.
At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB
This is crap...
Testing both 4051 and 4053, even with all the 'extra features' turned on, the commit charge is around 240mb.
Additionally, there are about 50-100mb of Services for Microsoft reporting that is running and is used ONLY for reporting to internal servers at Microsoft for the developers at Microsoft. And thse services can and should be turned off, since outside testers are NOT using these services.
Some of our developers are running Longhorn in VMWare and VirtualPC with it set to 196mb and 256mb of RAM for the guest OS. And it runs better than expected for a pre-beta.
Let's dog on Longhorn when it gets to RC1, the current Alphas are so far away from the shipping product it isn't even close.
This reminds me of Windows 2000 when it was Beta 1 back in 1997, it was a TOTALLY different OS than even Beta 2 or RC1. Beta 1 of Windows 2000 had very few features working properly and was slow as hell compared to the release version.
Considering the time table of Longhorn, 2 years is a lot of time for a lot optimization and it already has a solid NT core that the redesigned Windows Subsystem will run on.
If all else fails, I would bet money that when longhorn releases it will run as fast as WindowsXP, even on comperable hardware, although you may have to turn off many of the 'resource intense' features of Longhorn to make it run well on lower end hardware.
Hopefully they're cracking down on all the apps that have to run as admin
Actually, this is being addressed. Read the papers on changes.
This is actually very simple...
on
The Memory Masters
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I do this trick for friends all the time. It is fun with cards...
You can use it for any serialization of numbers, and cards are very simple. You can also do this with binary (but be good at converting two digit decimal to binary and back).
Develop a set of references for most two digit numbers that have meaning to you.
Some I use for example are: 07 - think of James Bond, 22 think of 22 caliber pistol, 13 think of unlucky. It also helps to have a set for single digits, 7 think of lucky for example.
Then when you look at a series of numbers, all you do is make a story to fit the numbers together.
For example: 1307877299220713442
The story I would make up to remember this:
Unluckily, James Bond found a RX7 to get away back when I was born. During the getaway, agent 99 shot a 22 pistol at Bond but she was unlucky, and got shot with a 44 magnum twice.
(The story is often shorter in your head, but I wanted to make it readable for you guys)
In essence instead of remember numbers, you are remembering the plot to a story.
Without looking above here is the number set: 1307877299220713442
13 - Unlucky 07 - Bond 87 - Year of RX7 I had a long time ago 72 - Year I was born 99 - Agent 99 (from Get Smart) 22 - 22 pistol 07 - Bond again 13 - Unlucky 44 - 44 Magnum 2 - Twice
If you get your associations down for the number pairs you can create little stories and easily remember 100 digit or more sequences of numbers.
For card tricks, just add color to the story, I use blue and green to denote the difference between hearts and clubs, or sometimes will mix in the heart or spade or club reference into the story (i.e. the Queen took her Spade, etc)
Most people are impressed if you can just remember the number sequence of a deck of cards and not even bother with the suit, so if the extra colors for the suits throw you, just do the number order of the cards.
Start with a deck of cards, and I will guarantee you in a few hours or day, you can easily do this.
Just make up the story as you look through the deck, the faster you know your associations for a story, the faster you can remember the cards. You should be able to remember an entire deck by literally flipping through them as fast as you can read them.
Seems kinda strange that it is an "NT kernel". Wouldn't XP embedded or even a variant on CE be more likely? NT did run on the PowerPC, but I thought they would port one of their more modern OSes
NT is and will continue to be the CURRENT kernel for Windows.
It is the core kernel in Win2k, XP, 2003, and the XP and server 64bit versions of Windows. (And no, I am not talking about the WIN32 kernel)
NT has also been the kernel in NT 4.0 that ran on PPCs, Alpha, and RISC systems as well as the x86 architecture.
Where in the hell have you been?
It amazes me that people don't get something as simple as this.
Also in case you have missed other breaking news, Linux/OpenBSD are kernels under XWindows. -Geesh
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't hard to do at all, there are many options that come to mind, all that are built in and would do what you need.
Hit MSDN.microsoft.com or even do a few searches on Microsoft.com.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but getting a solid answer to a Windows solution on Slashdot is like asking Charlie Manson where the best nearby starbucks is... Not going to be an answer he will have, and if he gives you one, it won't be one you will want...
I do the same in a little notebook in my car. I take it and calculate the fuel economy on a near monthly basis
I find it easier to just hit the fuel economy button on the dash and get either my avg or instant fuel usage. ( I reset the average every once in a while to spice things up)
BTW Shouldn't geeks at least be using a palm pilot to track this if their car doesn't have a fuel consumption computer?
I know from my car, watching the fuel economy go form 2mpg to 45mph it could really help people when they are wanting to get the most out of their gas.
I think fuel computers should be standard on all cars, so people can see when they are lead footing it, or when they are on an incline they don't realize if they ease back, they can save some gas.
Even my old 85' Vette had one... With today's technology, they can't be that expensive to be standard on cars.
It has taught me a lot about fuel consumption, that I think everyone would benefit from if they could watch it in real time.
Wrong - Windows NT for Alpha/AXP was NOT 64-bit. It used the Alpha's 32-bit mode. This was a well-known issue at the time.
Not sure what you are smoking, but there was no 32bit mode on the Alpha CPU.
There was a 32bit emulation mode that allowed the Alpha CPUs to run Intel programs under NT, but that was just a compatibility later that allowed regular Intel based 32bit NT applications to run the 64bit Alpha. The OS itself had a 64bit memory space and ran 64bit processes natively. (with the exception that the memory space was reduced below a full 64bit of available memory to be compatible with older Alpha CPUs of the 1993 period.)
Do a little research, and I hope to God you still don't work for the government.
But compare it to microsoft who is still trying to get 64 bit to work right.
Yeah, it has taken Microsoft FOREVER, especially considering NT 4.0 was a 64bit OS on Alpha back in 1996 - let alone that Windows XP 64bit for Itanium was out in 2001.
Man, Microsoft is really behind the curve here...
It is great Apple is making great roads into the 64bit progression; however, ignorance of Microsoft's advances don't mean that Apple is the leader in this area.
Let alone the various other 64bit OSes that have been around for a while.
Do people really not know this stuff here? I thought this is where intellectual geeks talked about new and exciting concepts. Not praising companies and bashing others for doing the same things.
Oh wait, silly me... (This is the year 2004, and slashdot has turned into geeks and AOL users, that are either new to this stuff or just fan boys/girls of a singular concept or platform without knowing much of the rest of the world)
...it was in the '93-'94 timeframe. It was supposed to be a video server; i.e., multiply specified video streams could be served up to various clients.
Hmmm. I haven't heard of anything about it since then.
It is a little program that you might now know as Windows Media Server, and has been a part of the NT platform for several years. It is also built into Windows 2000 and 2003 servers.
We use Windows 2003 as media distribution devices, and have used Windows Servers for this for years now.
Heck even the theater and video streams in my house all come from a Windows Server.
Just like several theaters are doing all over the country that have converted to digitial distribution. (Think of the irony that the next time you see a high quality digital flick at your local theater is running a Windows Media Server.)
elegance of the Apple solution to offer as the standard solution a combination CD/CD-RW/DVD/DVD-RW drive
Wow, never thought of it this way, espeicially the "elegance" of it.
When I bought my Windows PC two years ago that came standard with a CDRW/DVRW, I didn't realize it was such a great and "elegant" solution that Mac users would get a couple of years later.
And yet not only was NTFS one of the first file systems to assist in preventing fragmentation and the performance issues of fragmented files from the MFT stucture, in Windows 2000 and newer NT platforms also perform defragging while the system is idle, moving files not only to be degragged, but for optimal performance.
So glad Apple was the innovator here again... Geesh. (except they are still following in the footsteps of the NT team).
Do a performance anayalsis of files that are even fragmented on NTFS compared to files that are fragmented on HFS+ and you will get part of what I am talking about. Peformance degredation is not as much as an issue with NTFS as it is even with HFS+, read the NTFS whitepapaers.
Additional, critical speed files (like paging files, user hives, etc are always automatically defragged during login and logoff, in addtion to be processed during idle machine time.)
The irony is that NT has been doing this for years, and even Win98 had background defrag and file optimization techniques even with FAT32.
So tell me again about this great HFS+ innovation and how it works so much better at defragging files than NTFS.
I haven't defragged the laptop I am typing this on now for months, and yet, only a small about of large downloads are the files that are fragmented.
Apple geeks get a new feature that everyone has had for years, and they think Job invented the wheel.
Geesh..!!!
As for the "Virtual PC works well", see that post of mine I referenced above. It's MUCH easier to fake a x86 on a PPC than vice versa.
Actually, this is not even close to being accurate.
A few companies have had PowerPC emulators running at near native speeds for years; however, Apple keeps suing the companies out of business. Check out SoftMac for example.
The reasons this emulator is slow on the X86 platform can be explain by actually looking at how the emulation is transpiring.
#1) All video calls are being software rendered - Even a G5 if forced to perform all video via software, and via software emulation would also run VERY SLOWLY.
#2) This is an early beta that barely covers the basics of the PPC functionality, let alone optimizations that would provide 'correlated' emulation through existing X86 architecture technologies. X86 technologies have many equivalent optimizations and processing advantages that this beta doesn't even attempt to use, as they are just in the process of 'getting' it to work.
#3) This emulator is written in a high level language for portability reason. Apple has many assembly specific optimizations in the upper (and some of the lower) layers of OSX. This emulator is tranlating these 'assembly' based optimized software through a non-optimized 'portable' language.
Apple makes ok products, and IBM makes ok chips, but neither are the best at everything - even in a delusional world.
Some would argue that marriage is designed solely for procreation, and includes certain incentives to facilitate that. Personally, I don't see marriage as having anything to do with love (certainly love can exist outside marriage); why do people need the state to acknowledge their love for each other?
Read This
Maybe you should actually do some fact checking before you make up your mind about something based on 'What other people think or have told you to think'.
Even if you still disagree, at least you won't be arguing a point just from ignorance.
Filesystem snapshots (what everybody but microsoft calls "shadow volumes"): LVM, works for just about any filesystem, see http://www.sistina.com/products_lvm.htm
You don't get it my friend.. There is a difference between a 'volume snapshot' and Windows Shadow volumes.
Shadow volumes allow snapshots to occur on a file by file basis, not an entire volume at a time. Additionally this information is contained in the same volume, not requiring a 'snapshot point' volume to hold the information.
Microsoft knows what snapshots are (MS Virtual PCs use them), however Windows Shadow Volumes are NOT snapshots.
Take your LVM link as an example, it can't do anythingn like what Shadow Volumes on Win2k3 can.
For example, I can open any folder on my Windows 2003 server (from any client in the world), and right click on a file I have been working on, and see EVERY time I have saved the file, and restore it back to a prevoius version. (Even if I accidentally deleted it)
This is something that is so easy, that it is put in the hands of the users (with permissions) accessing their data on the server.
They don't have to ask an Admin to have the file recovered from a 'Volume Snapshot' and it also doesn't take an entire duplicate volume to hold the snapshot.
It tracks changes to individual files, on a file by file basis. And of course this also applies to Folders.
As for the other features you cite, these are all STANDARD features of NTFS with Volume Shadowing added in Win2K3. There are no other utilities to install, no additional plugins, no additional overhead.
Why install and work with 5 packages just to replicate what NTFS and Win2k3 does out out of the box?
And then you have to consider the 'performance' of these utilties when enabled on the server, and the selected file system.
There is not one set of solutions that fully replicate all the features of Win2k3 and NTFS and can run the same performance, even with SAMBA3 out there.
The SAMABA3 benchmarks everyone here are so happy to cite forget that all these features are turned on and a part of NTFS and Win2k3, and are not installed on the SAMBA3 tests machines being used to acheive their 'stellar' benchmarks.
And these benchmarks are not STILL not always faster than Win2k3.
SAMBA3 is great, but add in the features that Win2k3 is using by default and you will find that it does not have the amazing performance a lot of people seem to think it does.
If you do want to cite a benchmark with details that supports W2K3AS being faster than Samba3 that hasn't been torn apart by people reading the details, please do.
I can post reports from our own labs my friend. There ARE times Samba performs better, and there ARE times when Windows 2003 Server performs better. (=Moot Point)
However with Samba, you lose a lot of functionality that many customers think are important.
Not everyone is just looking for a large file storage box, they are looking for a SERVER, one that does more than File and Printer sharing. One that can handle Media and a lot of other things that a Samba solution cannot.
People don't get that this is how Novell got into such a pinch. Microsoft NT server technologies offered more than just 'serving files and printers'. It was able to go head to head with even the high end *nix markets because of its application server capabilites that allow it to extend to whatever a developer wants to throw on it just like *nix.
Samba ia great product, but it is NOT always the BEST option for ALL businesses and Server users.
Microsoft and Sun both are going to do more in the open source community and also start having more Linux support.
Microsoft is already starting to open the door with open source projects within their organization, that will extend to the population. (The R&D deparment has been doing this for years, but the open source world hasn't noticed this for some reason.)
Don't be surprised that one of the best friends of Open Source and *nix progression will be coming from Redmond as well as Sun.
Now my question, what if Microsoft does open its arms to Open Source and the Linux world? Will everyone then start to hate Open Source and Linux and just go buy a Mac?
PS This is a serious prediction...
I never said the benchmark was 'reality', I was making a point about not posting a link to an actual benchmark.
If you look on the internet you can find tons of 'benchmarks' that are non-Redmond and some say SAMBA3 is the fastest and others say it is not. The ITWeek results are not the end all, be all in the benchmark discussion.
Also please note the comments I made about the RAID performances and the loss of functionality when running SAMBA3 instead of Win2k3.
I am not bashing SAMBA, just trying to keep the trolls from jumping on the bridge and eating the goats.
Take Care.
Then go on to say that samba precludes a bunch of features that are already in linux and thus can apply to any filesystem, samba exported or not.
Really, Linux does Shadow Volumes, Real-Time Compression, Encryption, and Journaling all with the one FS?
So which file system is this? Just curious, cause not one of our Linux gurus could find one.
Well, since you didn't give a link to the test, just a report of the test I thought I would share an actual link...
f t/ ms_netbench.pdf
http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microso
Yes this is a pre Samba 3 comparison.
SAMBA 3 actually performs quite well; however, not as fast as some zealots would like to believe.
Also of note, things that don't seem to get a lot of press is that, on standard (non-RAID) or RAID-1 systems, Windows 2003 Server performs better than a Samba/Linux solution. In RAID 5 solutions, the numbers get closer. (A lot of small businesses don't use RAID 5 on their in house servers) - Which is the IDEAL market for low cost SAMBA solutions.
Additionally, when using a SAMBA file sharing solution, you are giving up many of the features that make Windows 2003 Server and NTFS a better choice.
Like Shadow Copies, Compressed Storage, File Encryption, etc.
I'm sure you mean well, but don't drink all the cool-aid.
There is no reality, just perspective.
If Linux is catching up, why does Samba file sharing under Linux run faster than under NT?
Because the easter bunny told you it does?
Geesh...
Samba is a great product, and ran neck and neck with NT4 file sharing services. However, Windows 2K3 is a leap ahead of what Samba offers in features, and also is running circles around Samba performance wise.
There are a couple of benchmarks that give the edge to Samba, but in real world overall use, Win2k3 is considerably faster.
And THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NT Scheduler or predictive disk read ahead techniques that this thread is about.
ok, i know this is evil and all - but lets say MS decide to implement this as a concept (so without "stealing" code)... the linux community will have given them something and received (probably) nothing in return.
Not to burst your bubble, but the NT scheduler already implements predictive disk I/O concepts.
Nice that Linux is finally catching up though...
The OS load times for XP are fast at the moment... Wait until SP2 arrives and you'll be back to the good old days.
Current boot -> useable on my SP2 box is 2-3 minutes. It was 1 minute before SP2...
And this is not reflective of all SP2 test systems. In our labs, this is unique to a certain set of chipset confirgurations. Also please note the word 'beta' on the SP2.
90% of the systems in our lab boot faster with SP2 than SP1 or RTM versions of WindowsXP.
So you may be ready for the good old days, but everyone else won't have to be.
If you are seeing this type of delay, then bug it, if you are not participating in the beta, then tell someone that is, so they can bug your system configuration.
I am currently typing this on a 1.7ghz Laptop, and my FULL boot time is 17secs. Standby is 1sec, and Hibernate is 3secs from power off.
(And this is in contrast faster than any of our high end test systems in the lab can acheive with any *nix distribution booting to the XWindows GUI desktop.)
The previous poster saying that Windows BOOT time is slow has not apparently used Windows in a long time, or is just talking crap.
Can you explain something about NT, XP or any WIN variation that is superior to *NIX in design?
I am not even advocating the NT model in my argument, but if you want examples...
Input/Output model
Kernel Design - Not Mach limited, Not monolithic Microkernel
-- Object Based Client/Server Kernel
Subsystem Architecture - The NT foundation is not tied to any OS subsystem
The Networking Layer architecture
And that is just a quick list, and this is from NT of 1993 that still exists in XP today.
I suggest people pick up a couple of books on OS theory and engineering. The *nix model is great for what it is, but we could be doing SO Much more.
Unix File System -> NTFS
You are either joking or a total moron... I hope joking...
OK you convinced me. Mac OS X answers all the needs. Runs the mainstream stuff and has the *Nix underpinnings.
Why is it that most people here assume that *nix is the end all be all of OS design.
Has anyone ever even read or studied OS engineering or OS theory?
*nix is great for what it is but no matter how pretty you make it look or features you stick in the kernel, it still has the same limitations of the *nix OS design standards.
Microsoft NT isn't the end all of OSes either, however at least Microsoft took tons of OS theory that DOES NOT exist in the *nix world and implemented it quite well.
I just don't get it, everyone that is new to computers, or an old timer that got caught in the *nix is god mindset don't ever look past the trees to see the forest.
What about other superior OS design models that have features and abilities that *nix will NEVER have due to the very definition of *nix and the baggage the *nix model brings with it.
*nix is great, but it isn't the latest or greatest set of OS theories or engineering around.
Open Source DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ONLY a *nix world. Why aren't other projects that go beyond what a *nix could ever do get any support, why is everyone so tied to *nix concepts and methodologies?
I'm not saying to suck MS's butt to get NT, but at least they evolved past the *nix model with NT. Why can't we do the same in the Open Source world as well?
As long as Open Source is defined by being only a *nix world, it will never get to a point of actually passing Microsoft in core technology capabilities.
At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB
This is crap...
Testing both 4051 and 4053, even with all the 'extra features' turned on, the commit charge is around 240mb.
Additionally, there are about 50-100mb of Services for Microsoft reporting that is running and is used ONLY for reporting to internal servers at Microsoft for the developers at Microsoft. And thse services can and should be turned off, since outside testers are NOT using these services.
Some of our developers are running Longhorn in VMWare and VirtualPC with it set to 196mb and 256mb of RAM for the guest OS. And it runs better than expected for a pre-beta.
Let's dog on Longhorn when it gets to RC1, the current Alphas are so far away from the shipping product it isn't even close.
This reminds me of Windows 2000 when it was Beta 1 back in 1997, it was a TOTALLY different OS than even Beta 2 or RC1. Beta 1 of Windows 2000 had very few features working properly and was slow as hell compared to the release version.
Considering the time table of Longhorn, 2 years is a lot of time for a lot optimization and it already has a solid NT core that the redesigned Windows Subsystem will run on.
If all else fails, I would bet money that when longhorn releases it will run as fast as WindowsXP, even on comperable hardware, although you may have to turn off many of the 'resource intense' features of Longhorn to make it run well on lower end hardware.
TheNetAvenger
Hopefully they're cracking down on all the apps that have to run as admin
Actually, this is being addressed. Read the papers on changes.
I do this trick for friends all the time. It is fun with cards...
:)
You can use it for any serialization of numbers, and cards are very simple. You can also do this with binary (but be good at converting two digit decimal to binary and back).
Develop a set of references for most two digit numbers that have meaning to you.
Some I use for example are: 07 - think of James Bond, 22 think of 22 caliber pistol, 13 think of unlucky. It also helps to have a set for single digits, 7 think of lucky for example.
Then when you look at a series of numbers, all you do is make a story to fit the numbers together.
For example:
1307877299220713442
The story I would make up to remember this:
Unluckily, James Bond found a RX7 to get away back when I was born. During the getaway, agent 99 shot a 22 pistol at Bond but she was unlucky, and got shot with a 44 magnum twice.
(The story is often shorter in your head, but I wanted to make it readable for you guys)
In essence instead of remember numbers, you are remembering the plot to a story.
Without looking above here is the number set: 1307877299220713442
13 - Unlucky
07 - Bond
87 - Year of RX7 I had a long time ago
72 - Year I was born
99 - Agent 99 (from Get Smart)
22 - 22 pistol
07 - Bond again
13 - Unlucky
44 - 44 Magnum
2 - Twice
If you get your associations down for the number pairs you can create little stories and easily remember 100 digit or more sequences of numbers.
For card tricks, just add color to the story, I use blue and green to denote the difference between hearts and clubs, or sometimes will mix in the heart or spade or club reference into the story (i.e. the Queen took her Spade, etc)
Most people are impressed if you can just remember the number sequence of a deck of cards and not even bother with the suit, so if the extra colors for the suits throw you, just do the number order of the cards.
Start with a deck of cards, and I will guarantee you in a few hours or day, you can easily do this.
Just make up the story as you look through the deck, the faster you know your associations for a story, the faster you can remember the cards. You should be able to remember an entire deck by literally flipping through them as fast as you can read them.
Happy memorizing...
Seems kinda strange that it is an "NT kernel". Wouldn't XP embedded or even a variant on CE be more likely? NT did run on the PowerPC, but I thought they would port one of their more modern OSes
NT is and will continue to be the CURRENT kernel for Windows.
It is the core kernel in Win2k, XP, 2003, and the XP and server 64bit versions of Windows. (And no, I am not talking about the WIN32 kernel)
NT has also been the kernel in NT 4.0 that ran on PPCs, Alpha, and RISC systems as well as the x86 architecture.
Where in the hell have you been?
It amazes me that people don't get something as simple as this.
Also in case you have missed other breaking news, Linux/OpenBSD are kernels under XWindows. -Geesh