Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Windows Vienna
#31
Quote:Not really no . Nothing compared to this anyway. Windows XP on the same machine takes something like 2-3 minutes on first boot, even when running inside a virtual machine (yes, I tried that the other day).
My XP system boots in 30 seconds or so both on my 800 Mhz machine and my 2.4 Ghz x2 dual core machine, but that's probably because I've stripped almost every useless process I can.
[Image: 1403.png]
^ Infrosoft
http://www.thecodeyouneed.us.to/ - A wiki of source code, mostly in PHP and FreeBASIC
http://www.osadvocacy.uk.to/ - Your opinion matters no matter your OS
Reply
#32
XP on 2.4GHz single core: 75 seconds, due to lazyness in stripping stuff out.
XP on p3-800: 55 seconds.
Hrm...
Screwing with your reality since 1998.
Reply
#33
Quote:Want to know just how unreliable Vista is under a trained eye? The National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Transportation, and Federal Aviation Administration has BANNED Vista from it's computers: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/03/13/nist-says-no-to-vista/
Thats not under a trained eye, thats because they haven't yet had a trained eye look over the potential security issues. NIST also "banned" Windows XP, and its service packs when they were initially released until they were certain there were going to be no major problems. NIST expects that they will be running Vista eventually. This practice is normal in highly secure environments. It is also why the 2.4 and even 2.2 Linux kernels are still actively developed.

Quote:Good security without asking to verify everything and a bug free environment that is backwards compatible.
Pretty tall order. Would you like some world peace and a cure for cancer with that? Also, how do you get backwards compatibility when switching from Windows to Linux?

Quote:Why not destroy the corporation instead?
You mean like Apple, IBM, Sun RedHat and the plethora of other corporations investing money in Linux. Yeah, that'll show them.
esus saves.... Passes to Moses, shoots, he scores!
Reply
#34
Quote:
Zap Wrote:Not really no . Nothing compared to this anyway. Windows XP on the same machine takes something like 2-3 minutes on first boot, even when running inside a virtual machine (yes, I tried that the other day).
My XP system boots in 30 seconds or so both on my 800 Mhz machine and my 2.4 Ghz x2 dual core machine, but that's probably because I've stripped almost every useless process I can.

I was talking about the first boot Wink
url=http://www.copy-pasta.com]CopyPasta[/url] - FilePasta
Reply
#35
When I ran Ubuntu, I'd say it booted at about the same speed as winXP. (Athlon XP 2400+, 512mb ram)
It's the difference between asking someone how much flour goes into pancakes, and handing them a sorry mix of oozing green goo and asking them to fix it." - Deleter

-Founder & President of the No More Religion Threads movement-
Reply
#36
Not the companies involved in Linux. Microsoft.
In the beginning, there is darkness – the emptiness of a matrix waiting for the light. Then a single photon flares into existence. Then another. Soon, thousands more. Optronic pathways connect, subroutines emerge from the chaos, and a holographic consciousness is born." -The Doctor
Reply
#37
Quote:Pretty tall order. Would you like some world peace and a cure for cancer with that? Also, how do you get backwards compatibility when switching from Windows to Linux?

I don't, I want Vista to run ALL XP programs. Linux doesn't do that because its developed by a loose association of programmers, a big company like Microsoft should be able to make that happen. OSX will run all OS9 programs through the "Classic Environment."

It's not just Windows, that complaint is also about the 360, the PS3 supports PS1 and PS2 games.
f you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
Reply
#38
Any OS will support some software from previous platforms. But no OS can completely and safely support all older programs. It's just not practical/secure.

EDIT: It could make the basic install size about 3 times bigger. Is that what you want?
In the beginning, there is darkness – the emptiness of a matrix waiting for the light. Then a single photon flares into existence. Then another. Soon, thousands more. Optronic pathways connect, subroutines emerge from the chaos, and a holographic consciousness is born." -The Doctor
Reply
#39
Quote:I don't, I want Vista to run ALL XP programs.
What didn't it run that forced you to switch? Like I said, would you like a cure for cancer while you're making these fantasy demands.

Quote:Linux doesn't do that because its developed by a loose association of programmers
Right, so because they aren't all in one place they can't possibly create backwards compatible API's. Open source projects are still organised and controlled in a similar manner to closed source projects. Patches to the Linux kernel are ultimately accepted or rejected by Linus. You can't just submit code to the kernel and say "Oh, by the way, this breaks heaps of old applications".

Unfortunately the open source community are by in large terrible at backwards compatibility. The Gtk1 -> Gtk2 transition, for example, broke just about every application based on it. The Linux kernel has routinely broken applications when it has been upgraded.

Quote:OSX will run all OS9 programs through the "Classic Environment."
By having a full install of MacOS 9 present, and even then it will not run /everything/, several drivers and applications have noted problems. Also, you can't run the Classic environment on Intel based machines, which kinda throws the whole backwards compatible argument out the window.

Backwards compatibility is hard, especially when you are changing underlying systems like the process architecture (360/PS3), the kernel (MacOS X) or the security model (Vista). It adds bulk, more points of failure and makes the overall system harder to debug. It is impressive how much backwards compatibility companies like Microsoft and Apple have maintained with their operating systems.
esus saves.... Passes to Moses, shoots, he scores!
Reply
#40
Quote:It's not just Windows, that complaint is also about the 360, the PS3 supports PS1 and PS2 games.

Do your research. The PS3 does not support all previous versions. The removal of the emotion chipset in the PS3 is a primary cause. At launch, around 1000 titles were supported on the PAL systems, around 40%, given that Wikipedia should be trusted.

It's very likely that not all titles will be supported.
Screwing with your reality since 1998.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)