SuperSubZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,780
If you absolutely have to staple your hand to a workstation that is old, you might as well be running NT4 on it. NT4 will handle old hardware better than even Win2k.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
VIsta written from the ground up?
- Thread starter eeyrjmr
- Start date
Steel Chicken said:
Well, for some reason djnes/Phoenix keeps touting XP for how great it is. Perhaps they find use in XP's deep configuration for their admin work that 2000 was lacking. After all, MS gets most of their feedback from IT pro's, not the newbies that live on a farm.
-J.
Steel Chicken
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2001
- Messages
- 4,798
GeForceX said:
Nice one, when logic fails, get personal.
or the standard was developed after the OS... Security is fast moving.Steel Chicken said:
Did you not read what I posted before? Here's I'll try again.Steel Chicken said:
How well does AOE3, a popular new microsoft game, run on 2K?
Can W2K do EAP-TLS authentication?
What about l2TP/IPSec?
There are 2 scenarios you can appreciate, being either an enthuasist or IT pro.
That's why you are really concerned with? Older machines???Steel Chicken said:
Don't shift goal posts. You said it was bloated, argument was given that it's not when configured the same as 2K, now you say "old machines". When logic fails, shift goals!
GeForceX, if I touted XP so much, why am I in here saying why we need vista?
Besides I spend much more time dismissing bad information about the OS than touting what it can do.
Vista will be more secure, more configurable, it will support new technologies that Win2K and XP do not, and it will have substantially more than "a handful" of new features. I think that makes it a better OS.Steel Chicken said:
The *only* reason we're having this discussion is because MS has retrofitted so much new code and technology onto XP and Win2K. That obviously makes the ugprade picture much less clear, simply because you're already getting much of what's in Vista for free. Much...but not nearly all of it.
Still, the bottom line is pretty clear for businesses. The cost of the upgrade itself is chump change compared to their deployment costs of a new OS. That in turn is trivial if they get any real benefit from the new OS...which they will.
Spetsnaz Op said:
Whatever, XP has a smaller foot print in memory and I have run Windows 2000 and Windows XP side by side on the same PC. On a modern computer, the Windows XP interface takes nothing to run. Even so, you can turn it off. It's not like you are stuck with it. I've found XP systems to be more responsive on the same hardware. Just because XP has extra graphics doesn't mean that its slower.
I was talking about permissions and the TCP/IP stack. Not the Windows firewall. There is alot of hardware support lacking in Windows 2000. Try Hyperthreading for one thing. 2000 has well documented issues with it. 2000 was fine in it's day, but is geriatric now.
Supposedly, Vista has been rewritten. I read the original article in the WSJ when it came out, and it was very informative.
Below is a link to an Inq article that talks about the original WSJ one.
Inquirer Article
Here is a transcript of the original article.
Original WSJ Article
I seriously doubt they rewrote everything, but I would hope they restructured/modified all the kernel stuff. Even if just for Security reasons. It will be interesting to see how much has really been changed. The article certainly implies more changes than just a pretty shell.
Apple has done a great job with OS X, using Unix as the core. I hope that MS can accomplish more.
Update the original VAX VMS core used for the original NT to today's modern standards, enhance data segregation, improve multiple execution support and really protect the core OS routines.
I would love to have a core Vista Kernel and use whatever shell I want.
Below is a link to an Inq article that talks about the original WSJ one.
Inquirer Article
Here is a transcript of the original article.
Original WSJ Article
I seriously doubt they rewrote everything, but I would hope they restructured/modified all the kernel stuff. Even if just for Security reasons. It will be interesting to see how much has really been changed. The article certainly implies more changes than just a pretty shell.
Apple has done a great job with OS X, using Unix as the core. I hope that MS can accomplish more.
Update the original VAX VMS core used for the original NT to today's modern standards, enhance data segregation, improve multiple execution support and really protect the core OS routines.
I would love to have a core Vista Kernel and use whatever shell I want.
pxc
I agree that is in the article, but it does not actually say Windows Server 2003. Just a version for corporate server computers. That could be anything. Have you read somewhere else that they are using WS2003
BTW, here is a link to a cache of the original article.
Original Article
I agree that is in the article, but it does not actually say Windows Server 2003. Just a version for corporate server computers. That could be anything. Have you read somewhere else that they are using WS2003
BTW, here is a link to a cache of the original article.
Original Article
And considering XP runs faster on newer machines, what does that say about your argument? As usual, the argument degrades down below the important facts. If performance is what you are concerned about, you need to look at drivers. They have been optimixed for XP, since XP is the standard platform right now.Steel Chicken said:
Nasty_Savage
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2001
- Messages
- 33,181
All arguments aside, up until real recently, I understand what the XP<2000 argument comes from. My home machine was Win2K Pro up until last year (maybe before). As stated in other arguments, I stripped out all the crapola and put the shell to classic Windows. I never noticed anything limiting in games for 2k up until that point. The only reason I swtiched at all is a HD crash...so I figured I would upgrade it. In a networking environment...2000 is a S.O.B next to XP off of a win2k3 server domain, and I do not use all the fancier stuff either.
Now, from that standpoint I see 2 sides to this argument. Moving from XP to 2000 for your average home user/game rig machine...there isn't a lot to offer that is much different that would justify the cost of scrapping everything and getting XP. Up until my HD crash, my intital 2k install lasted 4 years without a reformat, running almost 24 seven minus power outages and security updates. I noticed nothing limiting game wise (except in the beginning, service packs fixed most of that). I may still have it on my box if it wasn't for that one whacky thing that I probably could have repaired. As it was, I got a bigger HD and decided to hell with it and installed XP clean and transferred my data from the now unbootable drive to the new one.
On the other hand, by the time Windows 2000 became less of a pain in the ass to use in a domain environment, we were already looking toward XP. Some new accounts had 2000 deployed already and I haven't moved them over yet. Since I am a one man army, I would prefer to upgrade it to XP. Working on the 2000 boxes is doable, but more time consuming for me. In this instance, its worth the cost to upgrade it IMO.
As far as Vista goes, I think it will be better then 2000 and XP's launches. Already major companies are creating drivers and software for the betas to serve their customers well (just saw a beta driver from ATI as I downloaded an update. I think the transition for the home user will be better. I'll probably wait a year before deploying it in the workplace though because I do not have time to fix bugs and teach users the new ins and outs of it. I will put it on my home box though, because I want to play with it. My laptops are more then adequate to do work with and i can have a semi techno box when I upgrade and slap Vista on it to play with.
BUT I would prefer a new kernal myself. Still, like one of the previous posts jokes at...none of this will be all that earth shattering to me since most of the features I've seen deployed on OSX already. Microsoft may make some improvements that I may like...and I'm looking forward to the gaming aspects of it as the main feature for me, and personal noodling around.
Now, from that standpoint I see 2 sides to this argument. Moving from XP to 2000 for your average home user/game rig machine...there isn't a lot to offer that is much different that would justify the cost of scrapping everything and getting XP. Up until my HD crash, my intital 2k install lasted 4 years without a reformat, running almost 24 seven minus power outages and security updates. I noticed nothing limiting game wise (except in the beginning, service packs fixed most of that). I may still have it on my box if it wasn't for that one whacky thing that I probably could have repaired. As it was, I got a bigger HD and decided to hell with it and installed XP clean and transferred my data from the now unbootable drive to the new one.
On the other hand, by the time Windows 2000 became less of a pain in the ass to use in a domain environment, we were already looking toward XP. Some new accounts had 2000 deployed already and I haven't moved them over yet. Since I am a one man army, I would prefer to upgrade it to XP. Working on the 2000 boxes is doable, but more time consuming for me. In this instance, its worth the cost to upgrade it IMO.
As far as Vista goes, I think it will be better then 2000 and XP's launches. Already major companies are creating drivers and software for the betas to serve their customers well (just saw a beta driver from ATI as I downloaded an update. I think the transition for the home user will be better. I'll probably wait a year before deploying it in the workplace though because I do not have time to fix bugs and teach users the new ins and outs of it. I will put it on my home box though, because I want to play with it. My laptops are more then adequate to do work with and i can have a semi techno box when I upgrade and slap Vista on it to play with.
BUT I would prefer a new kernal myself. Still, like one of the previous posts jokes at...none of this will be all that earth shattering to me since most of the features I've seen deployed on OSX already. Microsoft may make some improvements that I may like...and I'm looking forward to the gaming aspects of it as the main feature for me, and personal noodling around.
Up until recently I would have agreed with you, and since no one wants to delve into my questions about 2K, I'll answer them. AOE3, a MS game, does not run on 2K, a supported MS OS.
I don't know what the technical issue is, or if there's a workaround or not, but I think it's a moot point.
MS is not producing software on the OSes they support. This is the begining of a trend...
okay, I'm a Vista windows, Microsoft enthuthiest, so I follow vista VERY VERY CLOSELY. The Video Driver stack, the Audio Stack, the Networking Stack, hell pretty much everything excpet the ntoskrl core is being rewritted, basicly the only parts thas being kept is akin to the liunx kernal, while all distros of linux use same kernal, they use diffrent windows managers, diffrent many things of doing things, basicly the kernal is being updated from the xp x64/2003 kernal code, and they are just the old stacks(video, audio, etc) to help give a leg up, as well as keeping some of the code for compatblity, but for the *MOST* part, the majority of windows vista code wise is being re-written, but because they use the same kernal and many other things that are simply being updated theres still the strong possiblity of bugs being found in xp and still affecting vista somewhat (btw the wmf exploit doen;t work well on vista, unlike xp where it WILL infect windows xp because of the new rendering stack, in vista, the chance of it working depends on what your running in memory and hard you have, ie very small chance of an infect wmf working on vista without patch)
Phoenix86 said:
Isn't this a sign of MS "bullying" ppl into upgrading, it doesnt take much for a line of code to chekc what kernel the system is running and say NO if not XP,
But then again their could be a tech reason.
I upgraded to XP not to long ago since a Harddrive crashed and Ebuyer were selling an OEM of £40 so I went to try it out. IN all honesty I dont really see the difference between XP and 2k (bar GUI stuff), Hence why I asked this question
Yes I am a Linux user and yes I have started MS vs Linux is the past, but this isn't one of them I want to know what Vista could give me since the only use of Windows is for games and a couple of engineering programs (simulators & CAD) that the Linux variants just dont cut it.
The Other reason I was asking is because this isnt the first Time I have come across code-reuse. about 4months ago I was writing a work report and in WORD I click to open a docu BUT accidently chose an Excel file (running OfficeXP at the time) Now what I was presented with was a Windows3.1 dialog box (the bevelled buttons gave it away) asking abt data inport, that screemed out that there was some legacy code in windows (in office for the fn calls as well as in Windows system dialog code)
The main thing I want to know about Vista is memory footprint as well as CPU usage and OpenGL.
As I said I use Linux for everyday stuff at home, but when it comes to games and more importantly Electronc design & Sim (OrCAD) there are really no substitute.
Now for Matlab I have that in Linux and when I have a large system model I reutenely shutdown everything I do not need (GNOME goes minimal X-ONLY, CUPS goes,.....) so I get as much CPU and RAM as possible. Why? I have models that take over 24H to simulate (on a P4 2.4Gig 1Gig-RAM) so any spare CPU cycle or byte of RAM makes a difference)
I cannot do that with Windows and an equiv model in XP takes a good hour longer.
Is Vista just a bolt-on (so to speak) thus mem/CPU usage will increase or is there any form of optimisation?
Agromahdi123
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2005
- Messages
- 656
i firmly believe that vista is a ploy that microsoft has put out to whittle people out of what little money they have by buying a brand new OS. But i am willing to believe otherwise. Heres how i see it. I am a casual computer enthusiast. By that i mean i play lots of video games, watch lots of movies, and listen to lots of music, and wank off to lots of pron. For me, i upgraded to XP from WinME, and this occured right after SP2 came out, that is a justifiable upgrade. ME was a piece of shit as im sure you can all agree.
XP works well for me, i dont do a whole bunch of networking and what not, but its cool not to have an easy way of setting up temp networks in my house for LAN games and stuff. Im sure i couldve done it on 2000, but i figured MS would support XP longer than they would 2000, and i do believe i am right in that.
Vista on the other hand, although it is said it offers many "under the surface" changes, their (MS) consumer base, which is average Joe over there in the corner NOT Lockheed martin or any business for that matter, cares only about what they see and know about. Ask an average user what the difference between XP home, and XP pro is, they wont know. Many of MS consumer base has like MAC OSX because of how it looks and feels, which i believe is the major reason for the extensive overhaul of the outer layer of the onion. And i think that Microsoft know and is exploiting the ignorance of their consumers by making the OS flashy. I for one wont buy Vista until at least after the first service pack, and i definately will keep XP, cause ummmm DRM sux my nutz.
Everything in this post, unless i said it was a fact, is based on my personal observations, feel free to correct me if im wrong anywhere, im always open to new facts.
XP works well for me, i dont do a whole bunch of networking and what not, but its cool not to have an easy way of setting up temp networks in my house for LAN games and stuff. Im sure i couldve done it on 2000, but i figured MS would support XP longer than they would 2000, and i do believe i am right in that.
Vista on the other hand, although it is said it offers many "under the surface" changes, their (MS) consumer base, which is average Joe over there in the corner NOT Lockheed martin or any business for that matter, cares only about what they see and know about. Ask an average user what the difference between XP home, and XP pro is, they wont know. Many of MS consumer base has like MAC OSX because of how it looks and feels, which i believe is the major reason for the extensive overhaul of the outer layer of the onion. And i think that Microsoft know and is exploiting the ignorance of their consumers by making the OS flashy. I for one wont buy Vista until at least after the first service pack, and i definately will keep XP, cause ummmm DRM sux my nutz.
Everything in this post, unless i said it was a fact, is based on my personal observations, feel free to correct me if im wrong anywhere, im always open to new facts.
Talk about knit picking.
Nobody other than you cares about "used code". I couldn't care less if the code from Notepad.exe came from Windows 3.1 or was freshly written. The fact is that it doesn't matter as long as the program works.
You're fueling a senseless debate with the most trivial of issues. Did it ruin your day that the money you spent on Office XP didn't include new code for a warning dialog box? Please..
Vista is a new OS. Not a service pack nor an expansion for XP. It will be same type of update XP was from 2000. There are large chunks of code taken directly from XP. I'm willing to bet the code for Notepad and Solitare didn't change either.
But it's not like 98 where you're actually running Windows on top of DOS. It's a new OS.S1nF1xx said:Talk about knit picking.
Nobody other than you cares about "used code". I couldn't care less if the code from Notepad.exe came from Windows 3.1 or was freshly written. The fact is that it doesn't matter as long as the program works.
You're fueling a senseless debate with the most trivial of issues. Did it ruin your day that the money you spent on Office XP didn't include new code for a warning dialog box? Please..
Vista is a new OS. Not a service pack nor an expansion for XP. It will be same type of update XP was from 2000. There are large chunks of code taken directly from XP. I'm willing to bet the code for Notepad and Solitare didn't change either.
Just seems sloppy that they left a 3.1/1 dialog in for a recent product and if they were sloppy their and missed that what else have they missed in re-use of code (potential security risk, WMF vuln...)
and BTW it was Windows2k running OfficeXP at work so I didn't spend any money on it
yes, it is. Microsoft has a term for it. They call it 'pushing the market.' It's also the same reason that it's easier to register domains and active directory clients in post-SP2 WinXP boxes than it is with current Win2k boxes. Microsoft is no dummy. They know that if they make an OS completely compatible and completely stable, then no one will upgrade. So, they make them as stable as they can since they sit in the hot seat if a major security flaw causes a government agency problems or the like. however, they can choose to make things 'incompatible' since there is no real brick-n-mortar real-world tangible way for 90% of end users to cry foul.eeyrjmr said:
If a certain thing doesn't work on Windows 2000, they can always tell a business or consumer 'for compatibility, please use our latest OS'.
So far as the WinXP - Win2k debate, Win2k is more robust and more stable. WinXP is more *popular* so there are more devices (with their nasty little unsigned device drivers), so there is more instability. In that regard, Win2k is very Linux-esque. It comes with most things turned off and you have to turn them on if you want them. In contrast, WinXP has most things on and you have to KNOW to go and turn them off.
For example, why does my desktop PC, which has never seen nor does it know what to do with a WiFi network card have "Zero Configuration for Wireless Networks" installed and running *by default*.
For those folks who say "I installed Win2k and then installed WinXP on the same machine and WinXP was faster/more stable/blah", you're missing a crucial thing there. Did you do a binary-level comparison of the services that were running and *what they were doing*. Just because a service has the same name in XP as it does in 2000, does not mean that it's doing the same things.
Also, for the folks who say that having Themes.exe running in XP is not a memory hog, then they must only be using the default theme. The amount of memory that that process requires is 100% dependent on the size of the resources required for the loaded theme. I'm pretty sure the default themes are pretty lightweight, but most others (including the now-popular Royale) are quite a beast when it comes to memory use since WinXP has the lovely foresight to load all of the Theme's resources into memory whether it's using them or not.
For Vista, let's talk about WinFS and Monad and the *original* vision for Aero. That's right, they're gone. Nowhere in sight. Sure, there's a beta of Monad out that runs on XP, but per Microsoft's own discussions, this is only so that they can get feedback on what Admins and those folks likely to use it want to see in it. WinFS has been scrapped for the foreseeable future and *may* appear as a download for Vista in the future.
Generally, I'd agree with you. As a professional engineer, I can vouch for the value of design/code re-use. It definitely allows a team to progressively improve a product over time.S1nF1xx said:
However, seeing Win3.xx dialog boxes is scary for entirely different reasons. If they didn't catch that (which they should've given that it's as simple as altering which MFC classes are being used), then what *else* didn't they catch.
When that old code was written, current dangers didn't exist. MS got into trouble with this a lot in the late 1990's/early 2000's because people were executing buffer overflows and the like on legacy code in order to gain access to the now-protected kernal space.
I'm not saying that MS should re-write the OS every time out, but they should do a more thorough audit each time out.
No, there's no disagreement at all. I say that, in the abstract, code re-use is good. However, Microsoft's *implementation* of code reuse is poor.Phoenix86 said:It's like a mini-debate with yourself.
First you say it's good, then you say it's bad. Finally, you end up with it's good, but should be reviewed more.
benamaster
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,146
Well lets all go back to when Windows 2000 came out, did you see it installed on the PC's being sold at the big box retailers? Nope they carried the OS but not many "consumer" PC's came with Windows 2000 becuase it was a business OS. You wouldn't have walked into Best Buy 8 years ago and said I want a computer with NT4 preinstalled. Windows XP is mostly a consumer OS thats why it has Wirless Zero Configuration installed incase you add a wireless card, It would probably cause less hassel than having to install it and find the Windows XP disk for a simple home user.
I heard that with Vista we will have like a Home, Professional, and Business versions, I believe I saw a graphic/chart a while back with each version and its use. I think we'll see a stripped down version that is Windows 2000 like with the looks of classic Windows 2000. I can't imagine Windows Longhorn server using Aero to spruce up the the look of the management console.
I think Vista will be good. I have used it so far and like it, though I dislike the approach of getting away from the cryptic OS, it makes things so much simpler and being a Computer Guy is having less meaning with things getting simpler.
In respect to code being reused. I'd rather have reused code that has been tested since Windows NT came out rather then reinvent the wheel. The NT kenrel is very stable and Microsoft just continues to refine it with each OS. I'm sure in some dark corner of a Microsoft office they have a new OS that was built from the ground up but that process would take quite some time than just making changes to an existing OS.
I heard that with Vista we will have like a Home, Professional, and Business versions, I believe I saw a graphic/chart a while back with each version and its use. I think we'll see a stripped down version that is Windows 2000 like with the looks of classic Windows 2000. I can't imagine Windows Longhorn server using Aero to spruce up the the look of the management console.
I think Vista will be good. I have used it so far and like it, though I dislike the approach of getting away from the cryptic OS, it makes things so much simpler and being a Computer Guy is having less meaning with things getting simpler.
In respect to code being reused. I'd rather have reused code that has been tested since Windows NT came out rather then reinvent the wheel. The NT kenrel is very stable and Microsoft just continues to refine it with each OS. I'm sure in some dark corner of a Microsoft office they have a new OS that was built from the ground up but that process would take quite some time than just making changes to an existing OS.
laxmiddi44
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 863
i don't know if you guys have realized but all the features they are adding to vista, mac osx already has......maybe except for a few. I mean i know you can't play games and all etc....but the switch to intel might eventually solve that over the years...
ever since the Apple Intel switch was announced, there have been rumblings in the various circles around WINE/Cedega that it wouldn't be too hard to extend WINE/Cedega to run on Intel under MacOS X.laxmiddi44 said:
I'm not a WINE/Cedega developer, but if they can get it running on MacTel (running well, that is), then we might see the tables turn.
svet-am said:
Now I didn't think of that. IF Cedega sales increase (sinceOSX ~ BSD ??) and recent games run good, then the dev for Cedega will increase and they may finally hand back code to WINE
That is a minor thing, BUT if game dev's actually see LINUX/BSD as a viable gaming platform then more native games will start to appear
Maybe. MacOS has been a viable (viable in the sense that games will run properly) platform for years, but few games get ported. If MacOS (since it's a BSD) could get support via WINE and/or native games, they MAYBE more developers will port. But, I think that Apple will remain the Nintendo of the home PC world.eeyrjmr said:
Nasty_Savage
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2001
- Messages
- 33,181
Phoenix86 said:
True enough. Obviously I do not have that one game, nor am I running Win2k anymore, but its just one anomoly and maybe a few others down the road. Its based on the same kernal and Direct X so unless there is some specific XP doo dad I am not aware of, I don't see why it would not work. Hardley a deal breaker for the Win XP/2k game rig debate...unless that was the only reason you would build a rig for that game
I have no idea why it has that requirement, I'm with you, there's not likely a technical reason. However the installer demanded it.Nasty_Savage said:
Sure it's not a deal breaker, yet. I was highly disappointed when faced with that installer screen.
kumquat said:
Except for the privelidge layers, the kernel, the driver model, the fault detection and correction (not just detecting errors).
Basically, there is almost NO code the same. I think only a few system files were left with the same names for compatibility but those were totally different too.
You should watch the development team interviews to find out just how much is different, it's a totally different operating system that is being made to look similar to windows despite its changes.
Link for the interviews:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=148820