Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Lead Head on 2 June 2005, 22:00
-
What is going on with longhorn, is this finally going to be a stable OS from M$
-
What is going on with longhorn, is this finally going to be a stable OS from M$
Just think of it as Windows XP SP4...
-
umm.. SP4? You mean sp3?
-
What is going on with longhorn, is this finally going to be a stable OS from M$
That was Windows 2000.
I agree with piratePenguin Widnows XP was only a very minor update to Windows 2000 and Lonhorn will be what XP was to Windows 2000.
-
umm.. SP4? You mean sp3?
It's most likely that Microsoft will at least release SP3 before Longhorn.
Just to hype some of the new features of Longhorn, which some are already in SP3, crippled of course.
-
At least this support athlon and P4 chips compared to Starte Edition
-
I was very interested in Longhorn when they first announced it. Sounded like they were going to do a lot of cool things with it, and introduce a lot of cool tools and functionality. Over the last 3 years or so, it seems that they just kept pushing the release date up, while removing all the good stuff that made me interested in the first place. Longhorn will be crap IMO. XP with a new interface and higher system requirements.
-
One of the things I find interesting about Longhorn is that they're really trying to go where OS X was heading 5 years ago. Mac users experienced the shock of moving from something relatively lightweight like OS 9 to OS X, and the related hardware sluggishness associated with it five years ago. When Jaguar hit things started to actually feel 'right.' OS X has progressively ran better on older hardware, and one can expect even 5 year old machines to be in service a few more years, since Apple is still manufacturing machines running at 1.2ghz (the minis).
Apple was able to harness the latest technologies and still make a pleasurable experience on even meager hardware. 2 years from now OS X is probably still going to be acceptable on an 800mhz machine; meanwhile Longhorn will require what, a 3ghz CPU, and 128mb graphics card? PC components may be cheaper, but if one is going to run Windows on them, expect a much more frequent update cycle, since Microsoft needs to please hardware manufactures and help them sell more products.
From what I've seen of Longhorn so far it reminds me very much of the car Homer designed and had his brother Herb produce: tacky nonsense. I'm hoping Longhorn finally puts a nail in the Windows coffin, causing people to look at other alternatives to keep their machines up to date. Computing has really reached the point where one can easily say, "1gz is good enough for almost anyone." If you're running a sensible OS, not dictated by corporate pressure to sell more hardware -- such as Linux, I see no reason one couldn't keep a machine in service for ten years -- or longer. This is the reality Microsoft is going to have to face, so expect their lock-in tactics to become much more fierce. The relevancy of the traditional OS maker is diminishing quickly.
-
Like the only new feature is the new improved file veiwing stuff. Will this mean i won't be able to run lobghorn on my main gaming machine w/ a 1.466 GHz AMD Athlon XP
-
I'd say it probably will run on that machine (as long as you have a good (512mb, I'd say) bit of RAM too), but I wouldn't even try it (it'd be slow, probably). Better off staying on 2000/XP, or looking to alternatives (which I hope some more people will do).
-
Longhorn will definitely be more stable than XP. If you look at the WDC Longhorn presentations where they compare XP to Longhorn you will understand why. There will be a lot of changes to the GUI, network systems, programming abilities etc. Still there won't be much difference all-in-all. The operating system will also use NGSCB so I wouldn't touch it even with a claw. Except that Longhorn will probably use a lot more resources than XP. Gentoo works fine for me and I'm not forced to upgrade hardware.
-
I'm hoping Longhorn finally puts a nail in the Windows coffin, causing people to look at other alternatives to keep their machines up to date.
Sadly most people won't bother, they'll either be pushed into Longhorn or just stick with XP, both my work and college have stuck with Windows 2000.
Computing has really reached the point where one can easily say, "1gz is good enough for almost anyone." If you're running a sensible OS, not dictated by corporate pressure to sell more hardware
I agree.
-- such as Linux, I see no reason one couldn't keep a machine in service for ten years -- or longer.
I'd like to see someone try to install a modern graphical distribution of Linux on hardware 10 years old. :D
This is the reality Microsoft is going to have to face, so expect their lock-in tactics to become much more fierce. The relevancy of the traditional OS maker is diminishing quickly.
I think Microsoft are going to find it increasingly difficult to sell their new operating systems. Windows 2000 has been so stable compared to their 9x/ME series that lots of people and organizations are happy with it and have decided against XP.
-
I'd like to see someone try to install a modern graphical distribution of Linux on hardware 10 years old. :D
Last year, I installed Mandrake 10.0 Community onto our abandoned ~10 year old computer. It worked pretty good, well, better, and faster than Windows 98 did on the same computer. Although, I must admit, there was quite alot of RAM in that computer (I took I think 128mb from our Gateway computer).
-
Lot's of old machines are fine after a RAM upgrade, what processor was it?
-
I managed to get suse 9.1 Free edition to run on my brothers old PC with 96 MB of SIMM ram, K-6 233 MHz, and a Hercules 3D Prophet 4000 XT PCI. For some reason win XP is running faster on his machine that Suse did.
Also i got 768 MB of PC2100 Ram, so i might be able to run longhorn without MUCH lag. Anyways there is always overclocking
-
I managed to get suse 9.1 Free edition to run on my brothers old PC with 96 MB of SIMM ram, K-6 233 MHz, and a Hercules 3D Prophet 4000 XT PCI. For some reason win XP is running faster on his machine that Suse did.
KDE can be a bit slow, try using GNOME and if that's slow go for XFCE failing that use FluxBox.
-
Lot's of old machines are fine after a RAM upgrade, what processor was it?
P1 233MHZ IIRC.
It's a pity I blew up the power suply (changed the voltage setting thing.. It was fun while it lasted (not long)) :(
-
Like the only new feature is the new improved file veiwing stuff. Will this mean i won't be able to run lobghorn on my main gaming machine w/ a 1.466 GHz AMD Athlon XP
From what I've read Longhorn will scale down easily machines much slower than that.
-
So is this (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1339) bullshit then?
-
So is this (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1339) bullshit then?
Yep. The minimum requirements for all of the nice pretty animated graphics might be up there, but Microsoft has said that if you have a weak computer Longhorn will automatically turn off all of the eye candy in order to scale down. Bascially it longhorn will look just like XP/2000 if your computer is weak.
-
I've heard an MS developer quoted as saying, "Longhorn will run fine on a 1GHz computer with 256MB RAM." I'm guessing that's with the stuff turned off.
-
Perhapps they've done their market reasearch properly this time. I bet the visit Linux forums and places like this and see what people bitch about most and try to improve it.
They've looked at the normal mimimum requirements for an average graphical Linux distro and monitored the resource usage and adjusted their new operating system to do as best as they can to match it. Don't for get Microsoft are very interested in Linux and the want to and probaly do understand it inside out.
-
Of course they do - they have a whole department for it. LongBorn will be BIG, as we all heard here before...
-
They've looked at the normal mimimum requirements for an average graphical Linux distro and monitored the resource usage and adjusted their new operating system to do as best as they can to match it.
You don't need 1GHz and 256MB RAM to run Linux. Really. I ran Ubuntu at school on some 400MHz/128MB machines, and it was fine. The same for SuSE 9.2 on an XP 2000+ with 128MB (the CPU is much, but that RAM amount sticks out a lot).
-
Gentoo can run with as low as P1's without any big problems. Just throw fluxbox on it and you're go. Installation compilation shouldn't be a problem as the Jackass project provides a pre compiled high optimized tar ball, which could save you days or weeks of installation on such a machine.
-
'Usable' is highly subjective. A few months ago I installed Debian on an old p100 with 32mb of ram. It wasn't the fastest experience on earth (Firefox was a dog, Konqueror was acceptable), but if I was forced to, I don't think I'd have a huge problem accomplishing every day tasks on it.
-
Try using XFCE or fluxbox?
KDE is just... Can't believe it even runs it :/
-
Haha, KDE on a P1 100mhz, lol. Except fluxbox and other BB modifications, WMII is also a good lightweight choice. It's a pretty new project and the screens show a look better than BB clones. HERE (http://wmi.modprobe.de/index.php/WMII/Screenshots) are some shots.
-
You don't need 1GHz and 256MB RAM to run Linux. Really. I ran Ubuntu at school on some 400MHz/128MB machines, and it was fine. The same for SuSE 9.2 on an XP 2000+ with 128MB (the CPU is much, but that RAM amount sticks out a lot).
That's not average, look at the default configurations for Linspire, Mandrake, Fedora etc. I know Linux will run with way under 128MB of RAM even with KDE and no a swap space if you use Knoppix Gentoo or Slackware, but forget about it with the default installs of the aforementioned distros.
-
Ubuntu and SuSE are the same kind of thing: an easy-to-use Linux. Yet they're somehow mystically faster? Fair enough. Let's see the system requirements as published for these distros.
Linspire:
PC with 800 MHz or higher processor**
128 MB of RAM (256 MB or higher recommended for best performance)**
Hard drive with 4 GB free space**
SVGA or higher resolution and monitor** (3-D graphics accelerator card for some games, screen savers, etc.)
CD-ROM or DVD drive, Keyboard & Mouse
Linspire-compatible sound card and speakers or headphones**
Linspire-compatible 56 Kbps hardware modem, cable modem, or DSL modem**
Ethernet card for Internet/LAN connectivity**
(Off topic, but the Linspire website is an utter ripoff of Apple's. Pathetic.)
Mandrake:
Processor: an x586-class or above processor is required. This includes Intel Pentium I/II/III/IV/Celeron, AMD K6/II/III, AMD Duron, AMD Athlon/XP/MP. Hyper-Threading is supported. SMP multi-processor machines are supported. (*)
Memory: at least 64 MB is required (32 MB for text-install); 128 MB or more is recommended.
Hard disks: IDE, SCSI and S-ATA hard disks are supported.
Hard disk size: At least 500MB is required, 1GB is recommended. Large capacity drives are supported (up to 250GB).
Fedora:
CPU Requirements
Minimum: Pentium-class
Recommended for text-mode: 200 MHz Pentium-class or better
Recommended for graphical: 400 MHz Pentium II or better
Hard Disk Space Requirements
Custom Installation (Minimal): 620MB
Server: 1.1GB
Personal Desktop: 2.3GB
Workstation: 3.0GB
Custom Installation (Everything): 6.9GB
Memory Requirements
Minimum for text-mode: 64MB
Minimum for graphical: 192MB
Recommended for graphical: 256MB
Those three aren't so good. Mandrake perhaps the best of them. But what about what I listed? Ubuntu lists no requirements, but I know it ran fine on a P2/400 with 128MB RAM.
SuSE:
Processor: Intel: Pentium 1-4; AMD: Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Athlon 64 and Sempron
Main memory: At least 128 MB; 256 MB recommended
Hard disk: At least 500 MB (for minimal system); 2.5 GB recommended for standard system
Sound and graphics cards: Supports most modern sound and graphics cards
Now...nothing listed is a "hard" distro that supports old machines. Those are all the easy, "bloated" ones. I'll give you Fedora; it's slow. But I've never had performance problems with Mandrake, SuSE, or Ubuntu, on said P2/400s with 128MB RAM. (My school has a lot of those.) It's actually kinda gotten better: Ubuntu Warty had a laggy Gnome 2.8, where opening the Run Application box took upwards of 10 seconds. But Hoary changed this to about 2, and is more responsive overall. I've only worked with Mandrake/SuSE 9.2, so I can't say if Mdk 10.1 would be faster on such machines.
You're not limited to harder stuff for old machines. That is, provided you can get 128MB RAM for them. Which you likely can.
-
Now...nothing listed is a "hard" distro that supports old machines. Those are all the easy, "bloated" ones. I'll give you Fedora; it's slow. But I've never had performance problems with Mandrake, SuSE, or Ubuntu, on said P2/400s with 128MB RAM. (My school has a lot of those.) It's actually kinda gotten better: Ubuntu Warty had a laggy Gnome 2.8, where opening the Run Application box took upwards of 10 seconds. But Hoary changed this to about 2, and is more responsive overall. I've only worked with Mandrake/SuSE 9.2, so I can't say if Mdk 10.1 would be faster on such machines.
You're not limited to harder stuff for old machines. That is, provided you can get 128MB RAM for them. Which you likely can.
Fair enough, perhapps I wasn't being fair, as I was comparing them too much to Knoppix and Vector Linux, lol I think I'm becomming a zealot. Mandrake isn't too bad even though it's not the fastest, I haven't run SuSE before and I shouldn't have mentioned Linspire before as I've never used it.
Mandrake is similar speed to Windows in my experiance which isn't that bad, but bet it'll be way faster than Longhorn. Windows XP has a minmum requirement of 64MB of RAM and it's very slow on that, they recommend 128MB and it's not too bad unless you're running too many programs but I haven't run Mandrake on 128MB before so I don't know.
Sorry please forgive me for my Vector/Knoppix zealotism.
-
Hey, I see where you come from, I run Slackware myself. ;)
-
the longhorn beta runs like a dog. i HAd an athlon 3.2 barton and it was so slow i couldnt believe it. that cpu would run xp pro sp2, another copy of pro sp2 inside vmware and i would run linux (a few distros) in vm aswell. and if the beta was really just xp with the interface tweaks and a bit of extra stuff, how is longhorn gunna shift? they will prob go with dell to get it out there asap. M$ have a winner, no one will waste time cracking activation for such a slow OS.
-
Aren't you being a bit unfair, as you're only looking at the beta release?
-
Beta usually have debugging code and stuff in them. But still...if it's slow on a 3200+ Barton, how can they speed it up so machines with 1/3rd the CPU can run it? That's an awful lot.
-
Regardless of what Microsoft has said about longhorn scaling down,we should not forget Microsoft's previous system requirements for their OS's...
Win2000 P133 64MB RAM (yeah right)
WinXP p233 64MB ram (hahahah!)
Those requirements were a complete joke. I'm sure longhorn's minimum requirements will be equally ridiculous.
-
And to add:
Windows 95, 386/33 with 8MB RAM
Windows 98, 486DX2/66, 24MB RAM (95 wasn't even good on this)
Windows ME, Pentium 150, 32MB RAM
Longhorn's box will probably end up saying something like P3/500 with 128MB RAM. And it won't run on that.
-
Longhorn's box will probably end up saying something like P3/500 with 128MB RAM. And it won't run on that.
No. It will 'walk' on that. :D
-
Ah yes, walk. Much the way Mozilla 1.3 walks on an iMac G3 with 32MB RAM. \o/
(I've done it. It's not pretty.)
-
I had a similar experience. See those minimun requirements up there for Windows 95? I actually installed Win95 in on a machine that met those exact specs once. I remember it taking about 5 minutes to boot up. I set up a modem and dialed into the internet and simple text webpages would take 45 seconds to render on the screen.
I threw the machine in the trash shortly afterwards.
-
I still have an ole laptop with Windows 95 on (I forget how much RAM, may've been 8MB or even 4MB) and it was fucking slow. I'd say Windows XP requires 128MB mimimum but I'd recoment at least 256MB which is about the same for a modern graphical Linux distoro but wft XP was released in 2001 and I'm comparing it to OSs around today!
-
Windows 95 and 98 aren't so bad on a 486 running at say 66 or 75mhz. It needs at least 16mb though to feel comfortable. Netscape doesn't feel too fabulous on it; IE 4 is acceptable.
-
Hang on you people here say Microsoft bullshit about the mimimum requirements for their software and I agree they do you could never run Windows XP properly on 64MB of RAM. What about OpenOffice though?
From the readme file for OpenOffice 2.0 beta, see attached.
------------------------------------------------------------
Notes on Installation
------------------------------------------------------------
System Requirements:
- Microsoft Windows 98, ME, NT (Service Pack 6 or higher), 2000 or XP
- Pentium compatible PC
- 64 MB RAM
- 250 MB (CJK version: 300 MB) available hard disk space
- 800x600 resolution or higher, at least 256 colors
OpenOffice 1.1.x is a bit choppy on 128MB of RAM, while OpenOffice 2.0 beta is bigger and I wouldn't like to run it on only 64MB of ram, and wtf all those wonderful gradiants and eye candy would look shit on 256 colour display. I would say 128MB minimum (256M recommended) with a 64K colour display to run OpenOffice. I suppose many software vendors are guilty of this, not just Microsoft.
Edit:
I've just being using OpenOffice 1.1.4 at work today on 128MB of RAM and it was OK, so you might beable to get away with 64MB - just. However Openoffice 1.1.2 was a lot slower, perhapps they've improved the speed from 1.1.2 to 1.1.4!
Who knows the final relese of OpenOffice 2.0 might be even faster, KDE has got faster so I hope the same happens for OpenOffice.
If I ever bother to get my old p20O 32MB running again I'll upgrade the RAM to 64MB and try OpenOffice 2.0 and see what happens.
[verwijderd door de beheerder]
-
i got XP to run pretty good on my brothers old K-6 233 MHz w/512 KB L-2 cache, 96 MB of SIMM ram. It actually booted faster than my old P3 800 MHz with win98 with 300 MB ram. I got win95 to run good on a Pentium 100 with 16 MB of ram, same with win98,
I wouldn't be surprised if longhorn said P4 840 EE Dual Core with 4 GB of Dual Channel DDR or/ Athlon 64 X2 4800 with 4 GB Dual channel, ATI Radeon x850 XT PE in Crossfire or Nvidia 6800 Ultra in SLI
-
Also suse is pretty quick for KDE and there is a GNOME version too
-
i got XP to run pretty good on my brothers old K-6 233 MHz w/512 KB L-2 cache, 96 MB of SIMM ram. It actually booted faster than my old P3 800 MHz with win98 with 300 MB ram. I got win95 to run good on a Pentium 100 with 16 MB of ram, same with win98,
Why do I doubt this?
-
it was 320 MB or ram and it was a dell Demension L800r. Now my brother's pc has 128 MB ram. Anyways the Dell's HD was kind of cheap.It is dead now
-
SuSe quick? BwAHAHAH!
SuSe has got to be the most CPU/RAM hogging distro I have come across. We have a family machine, 400mhz +/- 128mb ram I think. And it ... well it didn't. It took ages to boot and even to log in. Slackware was a dream however, went like a crazy train (on tracks). :)
-
SuSE a hog? Hmmm. I did an FTP install of 9.2 onto an Athlon XP 2000+ with 128MB (120MB really, shared video)...the CPU is good but that ram isn't...but it was still fast. The hard drive churned sometimes but it wasn't bad at all.
-
I tried SuSE personal edition (can't remember the version. It was about 6 months ago) on my XP Athlon 2400+, 256mb ram, and it was pretty slow. Mandrake was better on the same machine.
SuSE seems like, all bloated up ...
And it didn't have gcc either, so I couldn't compile isdn4k-utils to get on the net (and couldn't download the binaries either) :( So I went back to slack!
-
Ah well, I first ran Windows 2000 Professional on a computer with these specs :
AMD Athlon K6-2 450MHz
128mb RAM (not DDR)
3DFX Voodoo Banshee
Creative Soundblaster PCI 128
8gb Hard Disc
This computer ran great for years, I spent most of my gaming days on this machine.
-
My brother was running 2000 Pro on a 6 GB HD, K-6 233 MHz, Analog Devices AD1816 Sound card, Trident 9680 @ MB video card. Now he has XP home