BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 5d, 8h, 55m | CPU: 1% | MEM: 1819MB of 5401MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: MinWin        Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:31 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:33 am

Posts
81
Not sure if anyone has seen this yet, but it is interesting:
http://www.istartedsomething.com/200710 ... -7-minwin/


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:42 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Saw this earlier today - looks very interesting indeed, now if they could make the next version of Windows a really small kernel like this, with everything else an optional package that slots in on top of that which you only install if you need it, each part made up of highly optimised and secure code, now that would be awesome! :D You could build everything from a tiny Windows appliance running on an ancient PC with just that text-based system demonstrated there and one functionality module installed to do a specific task, right up to a system with absolutely everything installed on a top-of-the-range rig.


Interesting too that they have clearly started work on the next version of Windows...

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:06 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Saw this too, thought about mentioning it. Definitely interesting it only takes 25MB on the HD and slightly less than 40MB of RAM (compared to Vista of course). A Gentoo-like build infrastructure for Windows would be awesome. Server Core does go in that direction somewhat, but it's still much much bigger than that.


Last edited by empireum on Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:34 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:49 pm

Posts
85

Location
Halifax, UK
can anybody tell which version of windows 1 he's using?
on the selection window it looks like .00 but on the titlebar it looks more like .01


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:31 pm 
Reply with quote
Peteski wrote:
can anybody tell which version of windows 1 he's using?
on the selection window it looks like .00 but on the titlebar it looks more like .01
I'm pretty sure it says 1.01 on the Virtual PC Selection thing


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:12 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
This guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. Windows XP isn't Windows 5, 2000 is. XP is 5.1. Also, at first he says that you need to look at a different kernel to see version 3, but then he says that NT 3.5 was the first 'modern' Windows kernel (which is incorrect, NT 3.1 was). He also said that Windows 1.01 doesn't know about mice. It does. Its mouse driver just doesn't support PS/2 mice, which is what Virtual PC emulates.

25 MB for a kernel and a basic http server is a lot. DamnSmallLinux is a full system (that includes a full http server, among others) and takes 50 MB. Saying Windows takes 25 MB for a kernel and a minimal http server is admitting it's bloated. A Linux kernel with Apache can be fitted into 10 MB of HD space and run in 16 MB of RAM.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
secure code

Highly unlikely, given Microsoft's under-the-table business buddies (Symantec, McAfee, etc.).

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
You could build everything from a tiny Windows appliance running on an ancient PC with just that text-based system demonstrated there and one functionality module installed to do a specific task, right up to a system with absolutely everything installed on a top-of-the-range rig.

Like you can already do with Gentoo Linux?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:38 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:05 pm

Posts
698

Location
Or-stray-liagh
I like the bootscreen :D

The concept of a really cut down componentized Windows kernel is nice, however it shouldn't be 25mb. There are floppy disk images which contain Linux running as a full-featured web server. Is it really 17 times better as well as bigger? Probably not.

_________________
pr0gram the pr0grammer
BetaArchive retiree | OSBA Expat


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:16 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
ppc_digger wrote:
This guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. Windows XP isn't Windows 5, 2000 is. XP is 5.1. Also, at first he says that you need to look at a different kernel to see version 3, but then he says that NT 3.5 was the first 'modern' Windows kernel (which is incorrect, NT 3.1 was). He also said that Windows 1.01 doesn't know about mice. It does. Its mouse driver just doesn't support PS/2 mice, which is what Virtual PC emulates.

Yes, I noticed those things too - a bit worrying considering that he's quite a senior engineer at Microsoft...though it does seem that a lot of people more generally find the Windows version numbers confusing though, especially the difference between 3.1/3.11 and NT 3.1/3.5x, and the fact that NT started at 3.1.


ppc_digger wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
You could build everything from a tiny Windows appliance running on an ancient PC with just that text-based system demonstrated there and one functionality module installed to do a specific task, right up to a system with absolutely everything installed on a top-of-the-range rig.

Like you can already do with Gentoo Linux?

Yes, kind of I suppose, but with the addition of the ease of use and software/hardware compatibility that comes with Windows.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:35 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2404
Would a 4MB NCLI WinPE be better than this?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:13 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Yes, I noticed those things too - a bit worrying considering that he's quite a senior engineer at Microsoft...though it does seem that a lot of people more generally find the Windows version numbers confusing though, especially the difference between 3.1/3.11 and NT 3.1/3.5x, and the fact that NT started at 3.1.

Maybe, but he should still know this nonetheless considering the works for MS. :wink:

Quote:
Yes, kind of I suppose, but with the addition of the ease of use and software/hardware compatibility that comes with Windows.

Linux software and hardware compatibility is not that bad compared to Windows. And Gentoo isn't too hard to use either :wink:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:53 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Linux software and hardware compatibility is not that bad compared to Windows.

It's kinda bad if you need MS Office, or want to be able to play games, both of which I do ;)


empireum wrote:
And Gentoo isn't too hard to use either :wink:

Hmm, probably not for you, but I suspect that I would probably get rather confused if I tried it...

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:12 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
It's kinda bad if you need MS Office, or want to be able to play games, both of which I do

Both MS Office (up to 2003 at least) and some games work under Wine or WineX, and for the first, there's always OpenOffice. :wink: But well, let's not get too deeply into this, I just wanted to point that out because your statement seemed a bit too general.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:32 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:33 am

Posts
81
In any case, it does seem like a good start.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:47 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:55 pm

Posts
549

Location
UK

Favourite OS
Apple iOS 5.1
empireum wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
It's kinda bad if you need MS Office, or want to be able to play games, both of which I do

Both MS Office (up to 2003 at least) and some games work under Wine or WineX, and for the first, there's always OpenOffice. :wink: But well, let's not get too deeply into this, I just wanted to point that out because your statement seemed a bit too general.


Though I couldn't imagine Star Wars Galaxies, my favourite MMO, working in Linux. Or Empire at war or some other big games...

No offence, but its why I use Windows. Linux can be good I guess :wink:, but it just doesn't suit me.

_________________
My Blog - Interesting TV YouTube
Ecclesia Semper Reformanda Est


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:21 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Compact-mac wrote:
empireum wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
It's kinda bad if you need MS Office, or want to be able to play games, both of which I do

Both MS Office (up to 2003 at least) and some games work under Wine or WineX, and for the first, there's always OpenOffice. :wink: But well, let's not get too deeply into this, I just wanted to point that out because your statement seemed a bit too general.


Though I couldn't imagine Star Wars Galaxies, my favourite MMO, working in Linux. Or Empire at war or some other big games...

No offence, but its why I use Windows. Linux can be good I guess :wink:, but it just doesn't suit me.

While I don't know if these games work within WineX, they might still work. I can't test it, I don't game at all. And: No offence taken, everyone is supposed to use the OS suiting him best, I was just replying to that statement above which seemed too general to me.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:42 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:21 pm

Posts
593
I can't believe. 25 MB x 4 GB?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:38 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Yes, kind of I suppose, but with the addition of the ease of use and software/hardware compatibility that comes with Windows.

I stopped believing Windows has superior hardware compatibility when it stopped recognizing my built-in sound card, after I added a PCI SoundBlaster (both XP and Vista did). Also, an OS that doesn't come built-in with all the drivers I need (I need to download a USB driver? Why?) isn't easy-to-use. Ubuntu, on the other hand... (although I hate OSs that just work because there's no challenge maintaining them, that's why I have Windows on the other partition :lol: ).
This might better explain what I mean:
Quote:
I'm going to reformat my hard drives for Win2K and drop this whole Linux thing. It's just too damned easy and I'll never be able to convince a client I'm worth my consulting rates if they ever realize that fact.


Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Hmm, probably not for you, but I suspect that I would probably get rather confused if I tried it...

What's so confusing about following a simple guide book?

Compact-mac wrote:
Though I couldn't imagine Star Wars Galaxies, my favourite MMO, working in Linux. Or Empire at war or some other big games...

Apparently, both run under Wine (1 2).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:59 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:11 pm

Posts
41

Location
Birmingham, UK

Favourite OS
Mac OS X 10.5
ppc_digger wrote:
I stopped believing Windows has superior hardware compatibility when it stopped recognizing my built-in sound card, after I added a PCI SoundBlaster (both XP and Vista did).

Not meaning to derail this conversation, but I take it you looked in the sound control panel? And now just the one device was listed? I can only get playback from one at a time, but it is selectable between the two.

ppc_digger wrote:
Compact-mac wrote:
Though I couldn't imagine Star Wars Galaxies, my favourite MMO, working in Linux. Or Empire at war or some other big games...

Apparently, both run under Wine (1 2).

And indeed galaxies in crossover office.


And finally, back on topic; It looks 'interesting'. Echoing what others have said, this doesn't seem to offer much that cannot already be found in a linux/BSD distro, although it is interesting to see Microsoft moving in this direction, back towards a slimmer terminal-based approach. I hate to think of the state of the kernel itself though.


Top  Profile  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:20 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
defect17 wrote:
Not meaning to derail this conversation, but I take it you looked in the sound control panel? And now just the one device was listed? I can only get playback from one at a time, but it is selectable between the two.

It wasn't listed anywhere, not even in the device manager, with "Show hidden devices" activated. Some applications (like Skype) let you select which one to use, unless you set the "Use only primary device" option on the control panel.

Being bloated, disorganized or of an obsolete design isn't what I hate about the Windows kernel, it's the DRM. A kernel that doesn't let you load unsigned drivers without a crack isn't worth programming for.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
ppc_digger wrote:
A kernel that doesn't let you load unsigned drivers without a crack isn't worth programming for.

Seeing as bad-quality drivers are the cause of most instability of Windows OSes, it seems like quite a good idea to me to only allow drivers approved as being of good quality by the makers of the OS that they're expected to work with, no? This is only a feature of Vista x64 anyway, though I'm using it and haven't had any problems with this feature at all.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:26 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
ppc_digger wrote:
A kernel that doesn't let you load unsigned drivers without a crack isn't worth programming for.

Seeing as bad-quality drivers are the cause of most instability of Windows OSes, it seems like quite a good idea to me to only allow drivers approved as being of good quality by the makers of the OS that they're expected to work with, no? This is only a feature of Vista x64 anyway, though I'm using it and haven't had any problems with this feature at all.

Sure, disallow unsigned drivers by default, but make it easy to disable. Forcing driver signing is just another way for MS to extort money from device makers.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:23 pm 
Reply with quote
thanks for the video but i already saw it awhile ago


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS