I have seen several machines with minimal amounts of memory that poeple here have upgraded to XP or Win2k. I'm not sure what you do to make them run faster than Win95, but I have the suspicion it involves halluninogenic drugs, because it's sure not the case on the machines I've been using.
Yep you got it, we pay people around 100K a year to test and work on hardware and OSes, and then we supply them with massive amounts of shrooms so they are always high and giving us wrong answers for the hell of it.
lol
Re:Been saying it for years
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
No, it's actually because Windows 2000 will develop registry corruption on large FAT32 partitions
This isn't a specific flaw of Win2k, or the registry. FAT32 is inherently not a data safe FS, the registry corruption is likely just a result of power loss or system failures when the OS is writing to the registry.
NTFS is journaled and protects against this type of write failures to ensure the registry will not get corrupted. FAT32 doesn't.
If you use ANY OS with a FAT/FAT32 file system, you will eventually find write failures from accidental power offs to basic system failures.
The registry hive is just a little more sensitive in the Win2k/NT line, as it is the core of the OS.
I have also seen registry and lots of other file corruption in non-journaled OSes. Cruicial system setting data corruption is just a prevalent in other OSes as well, it is just not centralized. Hunting down a corrupted config file in *nix for hours because of power failure on a desktop system is not a fun task either.
Luckily in Win2k you can use the recovery tools to restore the previous registry versions and not do the hunt and find to get the OS fixed.
However, as recommended with ANY OS, you should be using FS with certain safe guards like journalling. Period.
Re:Been saying it for years
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Ok, people were up in arms that NTFS would have SO much overhead that it would never be viable in desktop PCs(1992 Buzz). And here we are again...
However, even on the 486-33mhz 16mb Systems that NT 3.1 and 3.51 were released on showed that NTFS's performance was at the same level and sometimes much faster than less featured FS technologies like FAT, etc.
Ironically, Journaling is still seen as a major overhead on OSes like OSX - which baffles me, considering MS was able to offer great journaled performance on a 486 platform, and on modern systems is transparent and offset by the advanced MFT and data structuring in NTFS.
and I don't need journaling
You don't? Do you even know what it is? Journaling allows the OS FS to track and protect from read/write file corruption. Especially in cases of power loss or hardware failure.
This is why CHKDSK screens on NT running NTFS are very rare - the journaled NTFS takes care of these problems without letting the FS or the information on the FS get corrupted by an interrupted write for example.
File Systems are a database variant, whether people like it or not. Why not add the advanced indexing and heuristics of a database technology onto the basic NTFS structure (especially since NTFS was designed to be extended in this direction).
And no, a simple indexing server is not going to cut it, there are simple indexing systems in Win2k and XP already, they prove inefficient and do not expose non-FS storage data mechanisms to applications.
Also your Metadata example of the MP3s is already a moot point. NTFS using Metadata ALREADY, just because it is not that obvious to users, does not mean that NTFS is not ALREADY doing this. This is part of the design of NTFS, the ability to store more than name, date, and location of file structures. It can store virtually any amount of additional data about files on the volume, and already does with many files types. People just don't realize that this is already happening, and because NTFS was designed to do this, there is already NO performance degradation.
Put fast information retrieval technology that exists in Database servers behind this, and not only will you add functionality for users, but it could in theory also increase the file access performance of the NTFS file system itself.
Database server algorithms are very fast and efficient and offer relational constructs, something a modern OS just might be able to use - especially when you stop seeing files and documents on a volume as closed entities and instead realize that they are data constructs that often relate to other data on the system. (i.e. A very easy basic example would be Mail Folder Files)
Do you even bother to read peoples' messages or just go directly to "Reply to This" so you can disagree with them?
We have several Pentium 200mhz Laptops with 80mb of RAM (max configuration) running WindowsXP.
These systems run faster than they do on Windows9x with identical hardware configurations.
They also run WMP9 with all the bells and whistles, including being able to play full screen video with WMP7-9 codecs at MPEG2 quality.
So if you think that Win2k or XP needs 128mb to be functional, you do not understand the OS architecture at all.
The benefits of MORE RAM in Win2k and XP can be stated like this - you will get an additional performance boost with more RAM in 2k and XP than you would with Win9x, but with anything above the baseline level of RAM 64mb, 2k and XP are more efficient. Period.
Just like the Win95/NT4 performance tests of 1996, if your system had over 32mb of RAM, NT4 was 20-25% faster than Win95 because it could use the extra RAM more efficiently - even though the NT OS architecture had more overhead.
So even with only 80mb of RAM and a regular Pentium MMX 200mhz CPUs, these test systems STILL run faster than they do with Linux, FreeBSD, Win95, Win98, WinME, etc.
Additionally when running XP, even with the 'eyecandy' of XP TURNED ON, they still perform 5% faster than Win2k with the exact same configurations.
All tests were performed using identical Hard Drives, swapped out of the laptops, and run on an array of laptops with various Graphics Chipsets, from 2mb 2D video chipsets from Neomagic, to early Trident 3D chipsets. (All old video technology).
Tests consist of PC benchmarking (CPU, HD Subsystem, etc), Application Benchmarking (MS Applications for the Win9x to WinXP comparisons and Open Source apps like OpenOffice for cross-platform comparisons), in addition to technicians being forced to use the machines as their daily machines for several days to assess the benchmark reliability. And the techs impressions back up the benchmark results.
Additionally XP, Win2k, and NT4 Configurations use NTFS as the base file system which, in theory, would add overhead for things like journalling.
The tests across the board were consistent. XP and Win2k simply run 20% faster than any other OS, with Win98 coming in second with the Web Interface disabled).
I understand that not everyone is in the business of OS engineering and have a lab dedicated to benchmarking and testing systems, but it is just wrong to state facts that are based on propagated myths and FUD.
128MB of RAM for Win2k and XP is a sweet spot, but in systems with less RAM (64-128mb), the Win2k and XP OSes still run faster than their predecessors (Win9x,NT4) as well as competing x86 OSes.*
*The above statement is comparing Graphical OSes only, DOS, and *nix environments running without a graphical front end are not being compared in the above test results.
Why not just do a Projection Array.
on
10 Panel LCD Displays
·
· Score: 2, Informative
When you can pick up descent and cheap DLP 1024x768 Rear projection displays that can do 2000 ansi, why not just use a nice rear projector for your desktop wall.
Additionally if you want more resolution or immersion, buy a few rear projectors and use a circling curtain screen (Can be made with sheets even)
Not only would you have a seamless display, but it would be cheaper, and have a larger screen.
Many of our techs have used rear projectors for large display projects - even tiling them for seamless displays.
Also with the quality of even the low cost models (under $2000) you can make a quite impressive desktop for yourself. Especially when your eye stops being able to discern the pixels at certain distance - even if you are just using a 1024x768 projector for a flight sim or other immersion project.
I would recommend trying rear projection technology, and if you want the display to come at you, use a screen like the 'floating displays that were on here a month ago' and make the rear projection devices into front projection.
So instead of wasting $50,000 just pick up a couple of rear projection devices (LCD or DLP) and you can get a nice large display with a credible resolution.
At first, I thought you were a half way intelligent person - even disregarding your grammatical and spelling errors. I gave you way too much credit.
With your latest post you have fully demonstrated that not only are you admittedly ignorant but also a rabid racist and homophobe.
Have fun in your pathetic closed minded life, I give up on you.
Just to clarify for other readers... *nix is a common way to reference any or all Unix style OSes that are not TRUE Unix. OSX is not TRUE Unix, nor is Linux. It is a common generic term.
Additionally Win9x is a common term to reference the Win95 to WinME code base which is built on the DOS architecture; hence differentiating it from the NT OSes like Win2k and WinXP which have no code commonality to the DOS Windows OSes.
No, vial - as in an empty person - quit trying to rewrite my words. Would you rather I said a vial of air so you would get it?
Actually after reading your acerbic response, a stronger word like vile might have been more appropriate.
Pick up a book called Inside Windows NT (The original first edition and subsequent editions that cover WindowsXP).
You might actually learn that the Object/Token security model in NT is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the security system in OSX or *nix.
You might also learn that the 'ROOT' in *nix is NOT the same thing as the administrator account privileges in NT. You sound like a fool by keep referencing them as being the same thing.
You will also learn that the Security Model in NT was designed from the beginning as a crucial core concept of the OS - to the extent that pieces in the kernel itself have to grab a security token just to run a process or perform simple operations. It is not a 'bolt it on later' method. Are you confusing Win9x as most fools do?
The NTFS file system is not only a secure FS, but has had the mechanisms for encryption for a long time.
After reading about NT or any 'modern' OS, you will also learn that during fast user switching, the MEMORY SPACE is protected from other processes; you can't yank data from another person's running programs, not even if you are the Administrator.
If you took time to look at things that not in your face, you might also learn that OSX does not simply 'un-mount' the user's volume. The applications for the user are STILL running, STILL in Memory, and the Volume is STILL active to keep the applications from crashing. It is 'conceptually un-mounted, but it is not truly un-mounted from the OS. Period.
Other than the 'cool' spinning cube for switching users it fundamentally does not work any differently than WindowsXP. Just because WIndowsXP doesn't force users to encrypt their User folder does not mean that XP is more insecure in fast user switching. Read the security mechanisms of NT so you can fully understand how it works and how it works 'differently' than the *nix security model that is at the core of Mac OSX.
I have been an OS architectural engineer for way to long to listen to your dribble. I have worked with everything from OS theory, OS Security theory to XWindow development, the NT OS architecture, and have also contributed to many open source projects. In fact, some of my work is even in the Mac OSX you are using today. But since you have been using OSX for a couple of years, I am sure you understand OS theory better than any other mere mortal posters here.
Trust me when I say there are major differences in how security is used and implemented in Windows (NT) and *nix. Just because you are only capable of seeing the security model in reflection of how it works on *nix or MacOSX I feel sorry for you, because you are missing the bigger picture.
I actually appreciate your and the other posts on here quickly correcting my total misconception.
After totaling missing the main feature of Expose that was being talked about, I had one of my Mac techs give me a demonstration since I don't always play with the upcoming OSX releases - like I should be doing.
Expose is kind of cool, and we also took the time to talk to the Mac tech that had conveyed to me earlier that it wasn't much different than the Tile Windows command in Windows. He also got Expose explained to him by the other Mac tech that demonstrated it to me.
So I thank you for correcting my post.
BTW The Mac tech that showed me Expose, wanted to smack me upside the head for making such a stupid mistake in comparing it directly to the Tile Command. lol
Humbled by all your posts and my Mac techs, The Net Avenger
Meaning that if you fast user switch over to a user with "root" access (for lack of a better term), you can read the other user's files. Great. Very secure.
Get a fucking clue.
Steaming vagina piles of crap. Fuck you.
Not only are you lacking in technical knowledge, you are a vial person.
Fast User Switching and SECURITY are independent in WindowsXP. It doesn't matter if the user is logged in or not, the other person ONLY HAS THE Security that has been allocated to them to access what they can.
Even if the other users have Administrator privileges, they only can access files and folders that are given to them in the security system of WindowsXP. It DOES NOT MATTER if the other user is LOGGED in or not. XP simply does not work that way, as security is requested and passed for every operation and process, even at Ring 0 level of the OS, unlike *nix that gives the ROOT account a Free pass to do anything.
(NT has NO ROOT account - or a concept like a ROOT account - it is divided among the Administrator and other System security accounts)
If the other user is an administrator they could 'Take Ownership' of your folder structure, but they could do this whether you were 'logged in with fast user switching' or NOT if they have administrator access.
If security is that important on the local machine...
#1) You should not be giving all users Administrator access.
#2) You should encrypt your User Folder and its contents, then if the person has administrator access, reinstalls the OS, or tries to hack the system in any way, they will NOT be able to EVER access the files - they become virtually inaccessible short of employing a supercomputer to decrypt the NTFS encrypted file system.
NTFS has the ability to encrypt files and folders to restrict access past the standard OS ACLs and this STILL CHANGES NOTHING whether the other user is logged in or NOT via Fast User Switching.
(BTW - NT has NO ROOT account - or a concept like a ROOT account - it is divided among the Administrator and other System security accounts.)
Even in OSX, if a USER has ROOT access, fast user switching doesn't matter if it unmounts the user's files or folders or not. You STILL CAN FULLY access the User's files and folders.
Please for the love of God, actually read a book on security before you post again.
When you Fast User Switch on Panther, the outgoing user's keychains get locked, and all of his processes get niced. If he's a FileVault user, his home directory gets unmounted. It's safe and secure, and convenient.
So, not only do you not understand fully how panther handles fast user switching, you also demonstrate you have no idea how WindowsXP handles 'locking' user's folders, or 'making the processes nice'.
WindowsXP's security mechanisms and user structure has NO need to 'unmount' anything. This is like complaining that a jet doesn't parallel park as well as a honda.
I'm sorry if you feel threatened by that, you shitfaced retard.
And you surmise with your grandest intellectual retort.
I have Expose set to a mouse gesture; it's also set to F9 by default. When I hit F9 or mouse over to the bottom-left corner of the screen, all of my open windows shrink down to fit the screen without overlapping. These are not proxies; these are live windows. For example, if I'm watching a DVD in a window while I work, and I invoke Expose, my DVD window shrinks down to the size of a postage stamp while it is still playing. Without a skip. All windows continue to run, live, while I scan the screen to see what I want to click.
There's never been anything like this before.
Actually there was, has, and is... Windows has been able to cascade or Tile Windows since Windows 3.0.
Still to this day, you can right click on the taskbar in WindowsXP and select Tile or Cascade to have all the open windows on the desktop automatically resized to fit on the screen.
And this is not mentioning the hundreds of screen utilities available for Windows that have been able to scale the Windows and move them around with a keystroke.
Has any Mac Zealot ever even used Windows for more than Five Minutes?
I have lots of Mac friends/employees, many technical engineers for Mac, and they would laugh your post off the screen and they loath Windows.
What will your next post be "OSX is the first OS to allow multiple users to login at the same time without closing applications" ?
The article starts out sounding like the multi-layer CPU will be 'DESIGNED' to run mulitple OSes, but then the article itself admits "Vanderpool doesn't eliminate the need for virtualisation software, but it's going to make it perform a lot better,"
(And I am ignoring that virtualization is spelled wrong in the article.)
So the CPU is going to optimize for VMWare or MS Virtual Server? Ok, sure, why not...
But this is NOT the revolution that the article makes it sound like at first.
It is just a faster CPU that will let you DO EXACTLY what you are DOING TODAY. Running multiple OSes with Virtualization software.
do keep in mind that there is a 64 bit version of OS X that will be released to the public soon. Not released but right now it still more stable than any Windows product...
Kidding right?
Basically all modern OSes, like WindowsXP (any NT), Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and OSX can all be considered to be respectively JUST AS RELIABLE and STABLE.
OSX is NOT the world's crowning achievement of stability, sorry.
In our test labs, of hundreds of test machines, we have only 11 logs of Windows2000 or WindowsXP systems crashing to a BSD. Three are listed as Hard Drive failure, one is listed as RAM failure, three are marked as unknown, and the other four are listed as specific driver bugs that were found during a beta process of either the driver or Windows2k/XP itself.
Out of our OSX Machines, we have 30 reports of failure, and we have 1/20th the number of OSX test machines to Windows machines.
The OSX errors range from driver problems, to kernel panic, bad Apple Updates, and general unknown system crashes caused by applications taxing the systems.
There is a BIG difference between Win9x and the NT line of OSes. If you would have said Windows95, 98, or ME instead of 'Windows' in general - I would have agreed with you fully. But the NT line of Windows has been very stable since 1992 when we first pulled in alpha copies for testing. And WindowsXP especially, is a step beyond the early NT.
I understand that not everyone has test labs at their place of work to compare issues like this, but please don't buy into the myths.
WindowsXP is very solid - even our techs that hate Microsoft, grudgingly admit this.
Even with the amount of stress and beta testing we do, OSX, Windows, Linux, OpenBSD, etc, etc are ALL very stable OSes. Using modern memory protection and dozens of other fairly 'standard' features in modern OSes, the stability we see today can be very much expected in ALL of them.
Why hasn't someone benchmarked this? Or at least why would apple not publicize this one? I would think apple could use a benchmark with very large datasets that would show the G5 with 8GB Ram and a Dual Xeon with 8GB Ram(using PAE). The G5 would clearly kick the $#!t out of the Xeon in this case.
The fact that the G5 can handle more ram without resorting to the PAE b.s., is a clear advantage and I think Apple should market that a little better.
Or even better, how about an AMD64 or Intel Itanium with 12GB or more of RAM compared to the 8GB limited G5.
This would be really fun; especially considering the G5 can ONLY access the full 8GB of RAM by swapping out RAM to 4GB per process using a method MUCH LIKE THE PAE you are making fun of in the Xeon/Intel Multi-CPU specification. And even the Intel specification can use 64GB of RAM, not a mere 8GB of RAM.
The AMD64 and Itanium don't have to use PAE or OSX tricks to access RAM above the 32bit addressing level. Even the 64bit of Windows XP that has been shipping since 2001 for the Itanium natively supports 64GB of RAM, and this was for the DESKTOP version of Windows XP64. Additionally, the new Service Pack for Windows XP 64 supports up to 512gb of RAM for both the Intel and AMD64 CPUS - and the Server version of Windows 2003 also supports 512GB of RAM on both 64bit CPUS. (The Itanium version shipping since early this year, the AMD64 version in beta now, to be released at the end of the year.)
And next we should really do the test with real 64bit operations, especially considering the OSX is NOT a 64bit OS, or will be a 64bit OS in the near future. So half of the features of being able to push twice the bits as a 32bit CPU is lost on the G5 because OSX is a 32bit OS.
And this doesn't even take into account 64bit versions of Linux and other OSes that are available for the AMD64 and Itanium systems.
I will say it once again, the G5s are impressive machines, but they are not the end all be all of desktop computing, nor are they FIRST 64bit desktop computers or the FASTEST desktop computers, or even the BEST PRICE for the performance.
Give the G5s credit for what they are and what they are good at, and stop trying to trump everything else out there just because the marketing guys at Apple went a little over the top.
Oh, and BTW, what were Intel's fastest SP and MP solutions at the time, if not the P4 and Xeon?
The P4 was the SP solution, and much faster in tests than the Xeon and G5 according to the same site Apple quotes.
Additionally the P4 supports hyper-threading, which offers a step between a a SP and MP solution.
But with that said, they should have at least used the newest P4 or the newest Itanium at the VERY LEAST.
Additionally, for a Dual CPU comparison, they should have used the Itanium, or AMD 64, both WHICH WERE SHIPPING in commercial products and both support Multi-Processor configurations. (Do a web search, you will shipping systems of Itanium dating back to 2002 and AMD 64 to early 2003)
That is completely irrelevant, however, and does not excuse the flamebait quoted from the Tom's Hardware site. I'm sure AMD and Intel would make the same type of claims in a heartbeat in the same position, as they have in the past. That is marketing, plain and simple. Taking issue with Apple's marketing claims while ignoring other companies' is irresponsible and biased (makes the internet faster, anyone?). Marketing fluff should always be ignored, and a good way to make it irrelevant is to do some real world testing, something that is now possible. If Tom's site had showed some data supporting their view, and ommitted the biased flamebait, then maybe it would have been a decent article (along with all the other stupid biased comments Tom's is famous for), and maybe it could be taken seriously.
Actually, I don't disagree with this. I have seen many articles on Tom's Hardware that were just wrong, false, and out and out lies. They have independent writers and the editor is admittedly not as technologically savvy was someone in that position should be.
From articles that were just wrong about print head technology in printers to incorrect facts about the features of MS's Longhorn being propagated as fact.
Additionally, there are NOT many Mac fans on Tom's Site. As by nature, they deal mainly with the non-Mac PC hardware and software world (i.e. main boards, Windows Games, etc)
I don't find it a bit surprising that Tom's makes goofy statements; just as with other 'reporting' sites, most can't be trusted. This is why our labs do independent hardware testing and just use these sites to spot new technology that we may have missed elsewhere.
You claim to have been using 64 bit x86 CPUs for over a year (Itanium) as well as from AMD (Opteron), but what you fail to realize is that Apple is claiming first 64 bit DESKTOP. The Itanium and Opteron chips are not desktop CPUs, but server and workstation chips.
You could 'possibly' argue the Itanium systems are not 'classified' as desktop systems as Intel does not 'classify' them as desktop but server level CPUS. However this does not mean you cannot build a desktop Itaninum System - which people/companies have done.
The AMD CPU has not been distigushed as a 'server' only CPU, and several companies have been shipping desktops with a 64bit AMD CPU, even some have included WindowsXP Professional, technically a DESKTOP OS as well.
So quit splitting the hairs and making excuses for Apple.
Just like your comment on the Intel Xeons being the fastest Intel chip that Apple used in the flawed tested where you comment 'them's the breaks', but the Xeon wasn't even the FASTEST processor from Intel, let alone the fastest processor in the consumer market.
That isn't the 'breaks' that is lying and distorting facts to make their system look better than it is.
Additionally, using the 'desktop PC' excuse as the reason to defend Apple's claims is just insane. There have been 64bit 'desktop' computers out for a long time, in fact years before the Intel and AMD chips.
When you could buy an ALPHA 64bit CPU with Windows NT 4.0 Workstation (A desktop - NOT Server OS) several years ago, this just expands on how incredible the Apple lie is.
Why would there be a DESKTOP OS for the Alpha Systems, if it was not a DESKTOP Computer? It would be different if only NT Server was shipped for the Alpha, or only other Server class OSes were designed for it, but no, there was a specific DESKTOP version of NT made for the Desktop that ran on the Alphas.
.Where do you come up with "8GB of addressible RAM on the G5?" The PowerPC 970 ("G5") uses 42-bit real addressing, and 64 bit effective addressing. In short, much more than eight gigs
The CPU has 42bit addressing, but what about OSX or the G5 architecture surrounding the CPU, which is what my point is based on.
The PPC 970 is a 64bit CPU, but if it is stuck in a box that limits its RAM, and in a BOX with an OS that can't take advantage of the 64bit features, there is a lot of the 64bit performance and scalability lost.
If I am wrong and OSX can now somehow magically address more RAM, please let me know.
I assume it is possible, WindowsXP has been able to hit 64gb on multi-processor systems for a while and 512GB on Itanium 64bit processors.
FUD, lack of evidence, and outright lies - they call this journalism? They dismiss the Apple's claims about the G5's performance without a) including it in their later benchmark or b) citing any references.
Because sane, savvy people in the technology industry should know better.
We have had 64bit AMD systems running here before the Apple G5 announcement, additionally, we have had Itanium with Windows XP 64 edition running here for over a year.
Considering we ACTUALLY have these 'shipping' systems already in our office and labs for quite some time, do we need a reference from the article's author to know that Apple was lying out their ass?
Where in the hell have you been?
Apple was NOT the first 64bit desktop PC, their performance numbers were 'admittedly' pulled from a comparison of slower 32bit Xeon CPUs, and only showed the specific few tests that the G5 actually outperformed even the older Xeon chips.
And the last nail in this Apple shenanigan is that Mac OSX (even the new release for the G5s) is NOT a 64bit OS, and has no plans to be a 64bit OS in the near future.
I don't dislike Apple or their products, but their marketing department needs to be whacked up side the head. Instead of billing the G5 for what it IS and its TRUE good points, they go out on this hyperbole that is false and make a fool of themselves.
I'm sorry you and other people buy into it. If you are so worried about facts and citing references, why haven't you checked the facts that Apple has been purporting? You would have found they are false which is what the rest of the industry already knew.
What's that fanboy? You think 8 GB of RAM will impress me [sun.com]?
Not defending the Mac post, but I find it funny the link you provide is for a Sun server that uses 4way CPU architectures with only 36bit addressing for RAM, topping at 64gb per CPU/Memory board.
Even Intel Multiple CPU extensions with 32bit Processors use 36bit addressing and can access 64GB of RAM per 2 and 4 way CPU/Memory board configurations.
The Sun example can address 1/2 a terrabyte in a server domain cluster, but the single CPU/Memory management is not that impressive unless you actually add 100 CPUS to your Sun Server/Domain.
BTW the 8GB of addressible RAM on the G5 is also pathetic... Apple should and possibly could do more. Maybe if they DID have a real 64bit OS, but as you pointed out, they don't.
But hey, maybe the Mac users won't notice if Apple never tells them.;)
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen several machines with minimal amounts of memory that poeple here have upgraded to XP or Win2k. I'm not sure what you do to make them run faster than Win95, but I have the suspicion it involves halluninogenic drugs, because it's sure not the case on the machines I've been using.
Yep you got it, we pay people around 100K a year to test and work on hardware and OSes, and then we supply them with massive amounts of shrooms so they are always high and giving us wrong answers for the hell of it.
lol
No, it's actually because Windows 2000 will develop registry corruption on large FAT32 partitions
This isn't a specific flaw of Win2k, or the registry. FAT32 is inherently not a data safe FS, the registry corruption is likely just a result of power loss or system failures when the OS is writing to the registry.
NTFS is journaled and protects against this type of write failures to ensure the registry will not get corrupted. FAT32 doesn't.
If you use ANY OS with a FAT/FAT32 file system, you will eventually find write failures from accidental power offs to basic system failures.
The registry hive is just a little more sensitive in the Win2k/NT line, as it is the core of the OS.
I have also seen registry and lots of other file corruption in non-journaled OSes. Cruicial system setting data corruption is just a prevalent in other OSes as well, it is just not centralized. Hunting down a corrupted config file in *nix for hours because of power failure on a desktop system is not a fun task either.
Luckily in Win2k you can use the recovery tools to restore the previous registry versions and not do the hunt and find to get the OS fixed.
However, as recommended with ANY OS, you should be using FS with certain safe guards like journalling. Period.
Ok, people were up in arms that NTFS would have SO much overhead that it would never be viable in desktop PCs(1992 Buzz). And here we are again...
However, even on the 486-33mhz 16mb Systems that NT 3.1 and 3.51 were released on showed that NTFS's performance was at the same level and sometimes much faster than less featured FS technologies like FAT, etc.
Ironically, Journaling is still seen as a major overhead on OSes like OSX - which baffles me, considering MS was able to offer great journaled performance on a 486 platform, and on modern systems is transparent and offset by the advanced MFT and data structuring in NTFS.
and I don't need journaling
You don't? Do you even know what it is? Journaling allows the OS FS to track and protect from read/write file corruption. Especially in cases of power loss or hardware failure.
This is why CHKDSK screens on NT running NTFS are very rare - the journaled NTFS takes care of these problems without letting the FS or the information on the FS get corrupted by an interrupted write for example.
File Systems are a database variant, whether people like it or not. Why not add the advanced indexing and heuristics of a database technology onto the basic NTFS structure (especially since NTFS was designed to be extended in this direction).
And no, a simple indexing server is not going to cut it, there are simple indexing systems in Win2k and XP already, they prove inefficient and do not expose non-FS storage data mechanisms to applications.
Also your Metadata example of the MP3s is already a moot point. NTFS using Metadata ALREADY, just because it is not that obvious to users, does not mean that NTFS is not ALREADY doing this. This is part of the design of NTFS, the ability to store more than name, date, and location of file structures. It can store virtually any amount of additional data about files on the volume, and already does with many files types. People just don't realize that this is already happening, and because NTFS was designed to do this, there is already NO performance degradation.
Put fast information retrieval technology that exists in Database servers behind this, and not only will you add functionality for users, but it could in theory also increase the file access performance of the NTFS file system itself.
Database server algorithms are very fast and efficient and offer relational constructs, something a modern OS just might be able to use - especially when you stop seeing files and documents on a volume as closed entities and instead realize that they are data constructs that often relate to other data on the system. (i.e. A very easy basic example would be Mail Folder Files)
uhhh.. he said "under 128 MB of RAM"..
Do you even bother to read peoples' messages or just go directly to "Reply to This" so you can disagree with them?
We have several Pentium 200mhz Laptops with 80mb of RAM (max configuration) running WindowsXP.
These systems run faster than they do on Windows9x with identical hardware configurations.
They also run WMP9 with all the bells and whistles, including being able to play full screen video with WMP7-9 codecs at MPEG2 quality.
So if you think that Win2k or XP needs 128mb to be functional, you do not understand the OS architecture at all.
The benefits of MORE RAM in Win2k and XP can be stated like this - you will get an additional performance boost with more RAM in 2k and XP than you would with Win9x, but with anything above the baseline level of RAM 64mb, 2k and XP are more efficient. Period.
Just like the Win95/NT4 performance tests of 1996, if your system had over 32mb of RAM, NT4 was 20-25% faster than Win95 because it could use the extra RAM more efficiently - even though the NT OS architecture had more overhead.
So even with only 80mb of RAM and a regular Pentium MMX 200mhz CPUs, these test systems STILL run faster than they do with Linux, FreeBSD, Win95, Win98, WinME, etc.
Additionally when running XP, even with the 'eyecandy' of XP TURNED ON, they still perform 5% faster than Win2k with the exact same configurations.
All tests were performed using identical Hard Drives, swapped out of the laptops, and run on an array of laptops with various Graphics Chipsets, from 2mb 2D video chipsets from Neomagic, to early Trident 3D chipsets. (All old video technology).
Tests consist of PC benchmarking (CPU, HD Subsystem, etc), Application Benchmarking (MS Applications for the Win9x to WinXP comparisons and Open Source apps like OpenOffice for cross-platform comparisons), in addition to technicians being forced to use the machines as their daily machines for several days to assess the benchmark reliability. And the techs impressions back up the benchmark results.
Additionally XP, Win2k, and NT4 Configurations use NTFS as the base file system which, in theory, would add overhead for things like journalling.
The tests across the board were consistent. XP and Win2k simply run 20% faster than any other OS, with Win98 coming in second with the Web Interface disabled).
I understand that not everyone is in the business of OS engineering and have a lab dedicated to benchmarking and testing systems, but it is just wrong to state facts that are based on propagated myths and FUD.
128MB of RAM for Win2k and XP is a sweet spot, but in systems with less RAM (64-128mb), the Win2k and XP OSes still run faster than their predecessors (Win9x,NT4) as well as competing x86 OSes.*
*The above statement is comparing Graphical OSes only, DOS, and *nix environments running without a graphical front end are not being compared in the above test results.
When you can pick up descent and cheap DLP 1024x768 Rear projection displays that can do 2000 ansi, why not just use a nice rear projector for your desktop wall.
Additionally if you want more resolution or immersion, buy a few rear projectors and use a circling curtain screen (Can be made with sheets even)
Not only would you have a seamless display, but it would be cheaper, and have a larger screen.
Many of our techs have used rear projectors for large display projects - even tiling them for seamless displays.
Also with the quality of even the low cost models (under $2000) you can make a quite impressive desktop for yourself. Especially when your eye stops being able to discern the pixels at certain distance - even if you are just using a 1024x768 projector for a flight sim or other immersion project.
I would recommend trying rear projection technology, and if you want the display to come at you, use a screen like the 'floating displays that were on here a month ago' and make the rear projection devices into front projection.
So instead of wasting $50,000 just pick up a couple of rear projection devices (LCD or DLP) and you can get a nice large display with a credible resolution.
Nice flat panels and all, but haven't macs been able to do this since, like, forever. Does nobody else remember Radius Pivot monitors.
Windows, *nixes, and other OSes have also been able to do this for A LONG TIME NOW.
This is not the point of the article.
At first, I thought you were a half way intelligent person - even disregarding your grammatical and spelling errors. I gave you way too much credit.
With your latest post you have fully demonstrated that not only are you admittedly ignorant but also a rabid racist and homophobe.
Have fun in your pathetic closed minded life, I give up on you.
Just to clarify for other readers...
*nix is a common way to reference any or all Unix style OSes that are not TRUE Unix. OSX is not TRUE Unix, nor is Linux. It is a common generic term.
Additionally Win9x is a common term to reference the Win95 to WinME code base which is built on the DOS architecture; hence differentiating it from the NT OSes like Win2k and WinXP which have no code commonality to the DOS Windows OSes.
If you say "Mac techs" one more time, I am going to fucking kill you. You sound like such a fucking dickhead
How about Apple engineers? Oh wait, that sounds like they work for a produce company.
Give me a break...
No, vial - as in an empty person - quit trying to rewrite my words. Would you rather I said a vial of air so you would get it?
Actually after reading your acerbic response, a stronger word like vile might have been more appropriate.
Pick up a book called Inside Windows NT (The original first edition and subsequent editions that cover WindowsXP).
You might actually learn that the Object/Token security model in NT is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the security system in OSX or *nix.
You might also learn that the 'ROOT' in *nix is NOT the same thing as the administrator account privileges in NT. You sound like a fool by keep referencing them as being the same thing.
You will also learn that the Security Model in NT was designed from the beginning as a crucial core concept of the OS - to the extent that pieces in the kernel itself have to grab a security token just to run a process or perform simple operations. It is not a 'bolt it on later' method. Are you confusing Win9x as most fools do?
The NTFS file system is not only a secure FS, but has had the mechanisms for encryption for a long time.
After reading about NT or any 'modern' OS, you will also learn that during fast user switching, the MEMORY SPACE is protected from other processes; you can't yank data from another person's running programs, not even if you are the Administrator.
If you took time to look at things that not in your face, you might also learn that OSX does not simply 'un-mount' the user's volume. The applications for the user are STILL running, STILL in Memory, and the Volume is STILL active to keep the applications from crashing. It is 'conceptually un-mounted, but it is not truly un-mounted from the OS. Period.
Other than the 'cool' spinning cube for switching users it fundamentally does not work any differently than WindowsXP. Just because WIndowsXP doesn't force users to encrypt their User folder does not mean that XP is more insecure in fast user switching. Read the security mechanisms of NT so you can fully understand how it works and how it works 'differently' than the *nix security model that is at the core of Mac OSX.
I have been an OS architectural engineer for way to long to listen to your dribble. I have worked with everything from OS theory, OS Security theory to XWindow development, the NT OS architecture, and have also contributed to many open source projects. In fact, some of my work is even in the Mac OSX you are using today. But since you have been using OSX for a couple of years, I am sure you understand OS theory better than any other mere mortal posters here.
Trust me when I say there are major differences in how security is used and implemented in Windows (NT) and *nix. Just because you are only capable of seeing the security model in reflection of how it works on *nix or MacOSX I feel sorry for you, because you are missing the bigger picture.
I actually appreciate your and the other posts on here quickly correcting my total misconception.
After totaling missing the main feature of Expose that was being talked about, I had one of my Mac techs give me a demonstration since I don't always play with the upcoming OSX releases - like I should be doing.
Expose is kind of cool, and we also took the time to talk to the Mac tech that had conveyed to me earlier that it wasn't much different than the Tile Windows command in Windows. He also got Expose explained to him by the other Mac tech that demonstrated it to me.
So I thank you for correcting my post.
BTW The Mac tech that showed me Expose, wanted to smack me upside the head for making such a stupid mistake in comparing it directly to the Tile Command. lol
Humbled by all your posts and my Mac techs,
The Net Avenger
Meaning that if you fast user switch over to a user with "root" access (for lack of a better term), you can read the other user's files. Great. Very secure.
Get a fucking clue.
Steaming vagina piles of crap. Fuck you.
Not only are you lacking in technical knowledge, you are a vial person.
Fast User Switching and SECURITY are independent in WindowsXP. It doesn't matter if the user is logged in or not, the other person ONLY HAS THE Security that has been allocated to them to access what they can.
Even if the other users have Administrator privileges, they only can access files and folders that are given to them in the security system of WindowsXP. It DOES NOT MATTER if the other user is LOGGED in or not. XP simply does not work that way, as security is requested and passed for every operation and process, even at Ring 0 level of the OS, unlike *nix that gives the ROOT account a Free pass to do anything.
(NT has NO ROOT account - or a concept like a ROOT account - it is divided among the Administrator and other System security accounts)
If the other user is an administrator they could 'Take Ownership' of your folder structure, but they could do this whether you were 'logged in with fast user switching' or NOT if they have administrator access.
If security is that important on the local machine...
#1) You should not be giving all users Administrator access.
#2) You should encrypt your User Folder and its contents, then if the person has administrator access, reinstalls the OS, or tries to hack the system in any way, they will NOT be able to EVER access the files - they become virtually inaccessible short of employing a supercomputer to decrypt the NTFS encrypted file system.
NTFS has the ability to encrypt files and folders to restrict access past the standard OS ACLs and this STILL CHANGES NOTHING whether the other user is logged in or NOT via Fast User Switching.
(BTW - NT has NO ROOT account - or a concept like a ROOT account - it is divided among the Administrator and other System security accounts.)
Even in OSX, if a USER has ROOT access, fast user switching doesn't matter if it unmounts the user's files or folders or not. You STILL CAN FULLY access the User's files and folders.
Please for the love of God, actually read a book on security before you post again.
When you Fast User Switch on Panther, the outgoing user's keychains get locked, and all of his processes get niced. If he's a FileVault user, his home directory gets unmounted. It's safe and secure, and convenient.
So, not only do you not understand fully how panther handles fast user switching, you also demonstrate you have no idea how WindowsXP handles 'locking' user's folders, or 'making the processes nice'.
WindowsXP's security mechanisms and user structure has NO need to 'unmount' anything. This is like complaining that a jet doesn't parallel park as well as a honda.
I'm sorry if you feel threatened by that, you shitfaced retard.
And you surmise with your grandest intellectual retort.
It's just that the Mac does it better
Well of course, it has the Apple logo...
I have Expose set to a mouse gesture; it's also set to F9 by default. When I hit F9 or mouse over to the bottom-left corner of the screen, all of my open windows shrink down to fit the screen without overlapping. These are not proxies; these are live windows. For example, if I'm watching a DVD in a window while I work, and I invoke Expose, my DVD window shrinks down to the size of a postage stamp while it is still playing. Without a skip. All windows continue to run, live, while I scan the screen to see what I want to click.
There's never been anything like this before.
Actually there was, has, and is... Windows has been able to cascade or Tile Windows since Windows 3.0.
Still to this day, you can right click on the taskbar in WindowsXP and select Tile or Cascade to have all the open windows on the desktop automatically resized to fit on the screen.
And this is not mentioning the hundreds of screen utilities available for Windows that have been able to scale the Windows and move them around with a keystroke.
Has any Mac Zealot ever even used Windows for more than Five Minutes?
I have lots of Mac friends/employees, many technical engineers for Mac, and they would laugh your post off the screen and they loath Windows.
What will your next post be "OSX is the first OS to allow multiple users to login at the same time without closing applications" ?
Geesh...
so, what are you saying? you are a bad mac sysadmin?
Actually we have certified Mac technicians, as well as *nix and Windows trained techs.
Since this is a research division of my company, I don't think I would be considered a System Administrator.
The article starts out sounding like the multi-layer CPU will be 'DESIGNED' to run mulitple OSes, but then the article itself admits "Vanderpool doesn't eliminate the need for virtualisation software, but it's going to make it perform a lot better,"
(And I am ignoring that virtualization is spelled wrong in the article.)
So the CPU is going to optimize for VMWare or MS Virtual Server? Ok, sure, why not...
But this is NOT the revolution that the article makes it sound like at first.
It is just a faster CPU that will let you DO EXACTLY what you are DOING TODAY. Running multiple OSes with Virtualization software.
Geesh, nice reporting guys...
do keep in mind that there is a 64 bit version of OS X that will be released to the public soon. Not released but right now it still more stable than any Windows product...
Kidding right?
Basically all modern OSes, like WindowsXP (any NT), Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and OSX can all be considered to be respectively JUST AS RELIABLE and STABLE.
OSX is NOT the world's crowning achievement of stability, sorry.
In our test labs, of hundreds of test machines, we have only 11 logs of Windows2000 or WindowsXP systems crashing to a BSD. Three are listed as Hard Drive failure, one is listed as RAM failure, three are marked as unknown, and the other four are listed as specific driver bugs that were found during a beta process of either the driver or Windows2k/XP itself.
Out of our OSX Machines, we have 30 reports of failure, and we have 1/20th the number of OSX test machines to Windows machines.
The OSX errors range from driver problems, to kernel panic, bad Apple Updates, and general unknown system crashes caused by applications taxing the systems.
There is a BIG difference between Win9x and the NT line of OSes. If you would have said Windows95, 98, or ME instead of 'Windows' in general - I would have agreed with you fully. But the NT line of Windows has been very stable since 1992 when we first pulled in alpha copies for testing. And WindowsXP especially, is a step beyond the early NT.
I understand that not everyone has test labs at their place of work to compare issues like this, but please don't buy into the myths.
WindowsXP is very solid - even our techs that hate Microsoft, grudgingly admit this.
Even with the amount of stress and beta testing we do, OSX, Windows, Linux, OpenBSD, etc, etc are ALL very stable OSes. Using modern memory protection and dozens of other fairly 'standard' features in modern OSes, the stability we see today can be very much expected in ALL of them.
Why hasn't someone benchmarked this? Or at least why would apple not publicize this one? I would think apple could use a benchmark with very large datasets that would show the G5 with 8GB Ram and a Dual Xeon with 8GB Ram(using PAE). The G5 would clearly kick the $#!t out of the Xeon in this case.
The fact that the G5 can handle more ram without resorting to the PAE b.s., is a clear advantage and I think Apple should market that a little better.
Or even better, how about an AMD64 or Intel Itanium with 12GB or more of RAM compared to the 8GB limited G5.
This would be really fun; especially considering the G5 can ONLY access the full 8GB of RAM by swapping out RAM to 4GB per process using a method MUCH LIKE THE PAE you are making fun of in the Xeon/Intel Multi-CPU specification. And even the Intel specification can use 64GB of RAM, not a mere 8GB of RAM.
The AMD64 and Itanium don't have to use PAE or OSX tricks to access RAM above the 32bit addressing level. Even the 64bit of Windows XP that has been shipping since 2001 for the Itanium natively supports 64GB of RAM, and this was for the DESKTOP version of Windows XP64. Additionally, the new Service Pack for Windows XP 64 supports up to 512gb of RAM for both the Intel and AMD64 CPUS - and the Server version of Windows 2003 also supports 512GB of RAM on both 64bit CPUS. (The Itanium version shipping since early this year, the AMD64 version in beta now, to be released at the end of the year.)
And next we should really do the test with real 64bit operations, especially considering the OSX is NOT a 64bit OS, or will be a 64bit OS in the near future. So half of the features of being able to push twice the bits as a 32bit CPU is lost on the G5 because OSX is a 32bit OS.
And this doesn't even take into account 64bit versions of Linux and other OSes that are available for the AMD64 and Itanium systems.
I will say it once again, the G5s are impressive machines, but they are not the end all be all of desktop computing, nor are they FIRST 64bit desktop computers or the FASTEST desktop computers, or even the BEST PRICE for the performance.
Give the G5s credit for what they are and what they are good at, and stop trying to trump everything else out there just because the marketing guys at Apple went a little over the top.
I think you have missed most of Carlin's work.
Sure there are the trivial humors, but there are also a lot of profound thoughts, ideas, and views on world events.
BTW, it is spelled 'scatological'
Oh, and BTW, what were Intel's fastest SP and MP solutions at the time, if not the P4 and Xeon?
The P4 was the SP solution, and much faster in tests than the Xeon and G5 according to the same site Apple quotes.
Additionally the P4 supports hyper-threading, which offers a step between a a SP and MP solution.
But with that said, they should have at least used the newest P4 or the newest Itanium at the VERY LEAST.
Additionally, for a Dual CPU comparison, they should have used the Itanium, or AMD 64, both WHICH WERE SHIPPING in commercial products and both support Multi-Processor configurations.
(Do a web search, you will shipping systems of Itanium dating back to 2002 and AMD 64 to early 2003)
That is completely irrelevant, however, and does not excuse the flamebait quoted from the Tom's Hardware site. I'm sure AMD and Intel would make the same type of claims in a heartbeat in the same position, as they have in the past. That is marketing, plain and simple. Taking issue with Apple's marketing claims while ignoring other companies' is irresponsible and biased (makes the internet faster, anyone?). Marketing fluff should always be ignored, and a good way to make it irrelevant is to do some real world testing, something that is now possible. If Tom's site had showed some data supporting their view, and ommitted the biased flamebait, then maybe it would have been a decent article (along with all the other stupid biased comments Tom's is famous for), and maybe it could be taken seriously.
Actually, I don't disagree with this. I have seen many articles on Tom's Hardware that were just wrong, false, and out and out lies. They have independent writers and the editor is admittedly not as technologically savvy was someone in that position should be.
From articles that were just wrong about print head technology in printers to incorrect facts about the features of MS's Longhorn being propagated as fact.
Additionally, there are NOT many Mac fans on Tom's Site. As by nature, they deal mainly with the non-Mac PC hardware and software world (i.e. main boards, Windows Games, etc)
I don't find it a bit surprising that Tom's makes goofy statements; just as with other 'reporting' sites, most can't be trusted. This is why our labs do independent hardware testing and just use these sites to spot new technology that we may have missed elsewhere.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
You claim to have been using 64 bit x86 CPUs for over a year (Itanium) as well as from AMD (Opteron), but what you fail to realize is that Apple is claiming first 64 bit DESKTOP. The Itanium and Opteron chips are not desktop CPUs, but server and workstation chips.
You could 'possibly' argue the Itanium systems are not 'classified' as desktop systems as Intel does not 'classify' them as desktop but server level CPUS. However this does not mean you cannot build a desktop Itaninum System - which people/companies have done.
The AMD CPU has not been distigushed as a 'server' only CPU, and several companies have been shipping desktops with a 64bit AMD CPU, even some have included WindowsXP Professional, technically a DESKTOP OS as well.
So quit splitting the hairs and making excuses for Apple.
Just like your comment on the Intel Xeons being the fastest Intel chip that Apple used in the flawed tested where you comment 'them's the breaks', but the Xeon wasn't even the FASTEST processor from Intel, let alone the fastest processor in the consumer market.
That isn't the 'breaks' that is lying and distorting facts to make their system look better than it is.
Additionally, using the 'desktop PC' excuse as the reason to defend Apple's claims is just insane. There have been 64bit 'desktop' computers out for a long time, in fact years before the Intel and AMD chips.
When you could buy an ALPHA 64bit CPU with Windows NT 4.0 Workstation (A desktop - NOT Server OS) several years ago, this just expands on how incredible the Apple lie is.
Why would there be a DESKTOP OS for the Alpha Systems, if it was not a DESKTOP Computer? It would be different if only NT Server was shipped for the Alpha, or only other Server class OSes were designed for it, but no, there was a specific DESKTOP version of NT made for the Desktop that ran on the Alphas.
Geesh....
.Where do you come up with "8GB of addressible RAM on the G5?" The PowerPC 970 ("G5") uses 42-bit real addressing, and 64 bit effective addressing. In short, much more than eight gigs
The CPU has 42bit addressing, but what about OSX or the G5 architecture surrounding the CPU, which is what my point is based on.
The PPC 970 is a 64bit CPU, but if it is stuck in a box that limits its RAM, and in a BOX with an OS that can't take advantage of the 64bit features, there is a lot of the 64bit performance and scalability lost.
If I am wrong and OSX can now somehow magically address more RAM, please let me know.
I assume it is possible, WindowsXP has been able to hit 64gb on multi-processor systems for a while and 512GB on Itanium 64bit processors.
FUD, lack of evidence, and outright lies - they call this journalism? They dismiss the Apple's claims about the G5's performance without a) including it in their later benchmark or b) citing any references.
Because sane, savvy people in the technology industry should know better.
We have had 64bit AMD systems running here before the Apple G5 announcement, additionally, we have had Itanium with Windows XP 64 edition running here for over a year.
Considering we ACTUALLY have these 'shipping' systems already in our office and labs for quite some time, do we need a reference from the article's author to know that Apple was lying out their ass?
Where in the hell have you been?
Apple was NOT the first 64bit desktop PC, their performance numbers were 'admittedly' pulled from a comparison of slower 32bit Xeon CPUs, and only showed the specific few tests that the G5 actually outperformed even the older Xeon chips.
And the last nail in this Apple shenanigan is that Mac OSX (even the new release for the G5s) is NOT a 64bit OS, and has no plans to be a 64bit OS in the near future.
I don't dislike Apple or their products, but their marketing department needs to be whacked up side the head. Instead of billing the G5 for what it IS and its TRUE good points, they go out on this hyperbole that is false and make a fool of themselves.
I'm sorry you and other people buy into it. If you are so worried about facts and citing references, why haven't you checked the facts that Apple has been purporting? You would have found they are false which is what the rest of the industry already knew.
What's that fanboy? You think 8 GB of RAM will impress me [sun.com]?
;)
Not defending the Mac post, but I find it funny the link you provide is for a Sun server that uses 4way CPU architectures with only 36bit addressing for RAM, topping at 64gb per CPU/Memory board.
Even Intel Multiple CPU extensions with 32bit Processors use 36bit addressing and can access 64GB of RAM per 2 and 4 way CPU/Memory board configurations.
The Sun example can address 1/2 a terrabyte in a server domain cluster, but the single CPU/Memory management is not that impressive unless you actually add 100 CPUS to your Sun Server/Domain.
BTW the 8GB of addressible RAM on the G5 is also pathetic... Apple should and possibly could do more. Maybe if they DID have a real 64bit OS, but as you pointed out, they don't.
But hey, maybe the Mac users won't notice if Apple never tells them.