Well, as much as I'd like to say the 'bloatation' of Windows is a microsoft problem - I've noticed enhanced feature performance hindrance every bit as much (or even more) in the X-Windows, shareware realm of Gnome (graphic environment for RH (and other) Linux(es)). The '2000 release' of RH 7 Linux runs (almost) decently fast on a 233Mhz Pentium I MMX. I don't mean way way up there in bogomips, but it doesn't "lag". But - running Fedora 6 on a 500Mhz Celeron machine was downright 'painful'. (More than a scant 128M of memory, MIGHT have helped, though) [Painful also in that it showed me I wasn't "all that" in configuring Samba.] XP, being less promiscuous than Win98 has made communicating with my Linux "droids" impossible in their role as file servers. Easy still, to FTP or Telnet, but that SMB thing... argh!!
I guess somewhere there's a perfectly 'well put adage' about how operating system overhead always increases to the degree that cutting edge hardware will suffer only slightly. As an ancient Chinese philosopher, (or somebody in the Firesign Theater), (or both), once said, "...dig a big enough hole and everybody will want to jump in." Or some other wise guy - "Any foot - sufficiently large, will have a shoe made that will fit it." (But only the horse led to water will, if the shoe fits, wear it) -DC On 5/2/07, Charles Goldsmith <wo...@justfamily.org> wrote:
I'm not surprised, I put WFW3.11 on a server class pentium pro 200 with a raid 5 scsi system back in 1996, just to time it booting up, and of course, it booted very nicely in under 2 seconds. I'm sure Win95 or 98 will boot up on modern, fast hardware very quickly, it would be usable, and would probably get compromised pretty quickly if you didn't protect it properly when putting it on the web. For the most part, modern OS's are getting very bloated, they boot slowly because they have to load way too much junk, IMO. My macpro boots the fastest out of my modern boxes, it boots up to a login prompt in under 5 seconds from a cold start. The same box takes about 15 seconds to load up to XP via Bootcamp. The average computer doesn't come close to that unfortunately. Hopefully the computer manufacturers will learn that we want the option for a simple & fast computer, without all of the fluff. OK, I'll get off my soap box :) Charles On 5/2/07, Don Cooper <wavyca...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe in the interim they'll release a 'Classic' 3.1 version. > Wouldn't that be hilarious? A "return to Windows fundamentals...." > I think I might have mentioned it to you or someone on the remailer list > that I hooked up hard drive containing Windows 3.11 on a 400 Mhz PIII > machine. It booted up so incredibly fast that it seemed comic. Literally > booting up within 1/4 of a second. (Shutdown too) > Not useful for much though... not many 'current' applications were > written for the 3.1 O/S. > Not many available drivers for much of the hardware either - > -DC > > On 5/2/07, Charles Goldsmith < wo...@justfamily.org> wrote: > > > > Don, your prediction is probably right, I'll stick to my OSX and UNIX > > favorites... I only use Windows where I have to, and will keep using XP > > there until I'm forced to update because xyz application or game forces me > > to go to Vista. > > > > ME was a horrible experience. > > Charles > > > > On 5/2/07, Don Cooper < wavyca...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > While we're "On Computers" and predictions I'll try my John > > > McLaughlin voice: > > > > > > >Vista will become the next instance of an 'ME' type, poorly > > > received release.< > > > Opinion, Commentary? > > > -WaV > > > > > > (IMO - even with USB 2.0 - non volitle memory sticks are too slow to > > > speed up any process. > > > Useful as a substitute for older removeable magnetic storage, but > > > about the same.) > > > On 5/2/07, Charles Goldsmith <wo...@justfamily.org > wrote: > > > > > > > > David, flash drives are becoming a very viable medium for > > > > computers. Dell recently announced that certain models of laptops would > > > > have the option for a flash hard drive, but at a steep cost. > > > > http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/26/2049235 > > > > > > > > I predict that within 5 years, you'll find lots of computers > > > > having a solid state drive. > > > > > > > > Lots of people are using usb flash drives as a part of their OS > > > > today, moving their swap files over to flash for speed: > > > > > > > > http://lifehacker.com/software/vista/speed-up-windows-vista-with-a-flash-drive-221592.php > > > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/04/24/living-dangerously-moving-your-macs-swap-files-to-a-usb-flash-drive > > > > > > > > Windows XP won't support this without quite a bit of hacking, but > > > > it can be done. It's not for the faint of heart though. > > > > > > > > One thing to note, moving your swap file over will work, but with > > > > cheap USB Flash drives, it will actually slow you down, make sure you use a > > > > quality flash drive that is built for performance. > > > > > > > > Charles > > > > > > > > On 5/2/07, David Locklear <dlocklea...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A few weeks ago, I posted an idea about putting a USB stick on > > > > > the > > > > > inside of your computer. This idea met with little fanfare. > > > > > > > > > > Asus, a motherboard company, has decided to take my idea one > > > > > step > > > > > farther. They took the plastic shell off the USB stick and > > > > > then > > > > > soldered the flash-memory card to one of their newest > > > > > Vista-ready > > > > > motherboards. > > > > > > > > > > http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/asus-vistaedition/phison.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, there are obvious disadvantages to this, like what if > > > > > you > > > > > get bad memory or your memory later fries. Or you decide you > > > > > like > > > > > it, but want more flash-memory. > > > > > > > > > > But with 512 Mb, you could "temporarily store" your current work > > > > > projects, > > > > > especially Word and Excel files. > > > > > > > > > > I think the main reason they are doing this is that they claim > > > > > it > > > > > "might" speed up the time that your Vista computer > > > > > boots. But if > > > > > you already have fast RAM, this new Vista feature, will not be > > > > > improved by the flash-memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ten years ago, I worked for an engineering research company on a > > > > > AutoCAD station. The computer had a huge 600 Mb hard-drive. > > > > > My > > > > > point is that you > > > > > can probably find a practical use for a 512 Mb flash-memory on > > > > > your > > > > > motherboard. > > > > > > > > > > My prediction is that in another 10 years, computers will have a > > > > > mother-board > > > > > slot for internal flash-memory. It "might" use something > > > > > similar to > > > > > Firewire 800, and we will be talking about gigabytes. For > > > > > example, > > > > > Lexar, > > > > > already has a Firewire 800 CF Card reader for their fastest 8 Gb > > > > > cards: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.lexar.com/readers/pro_udma_reader.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In summary, now would be a good time to invest some money in a > > > > > start-up > > > > > company making flash memory. > > > > > > > > > > David Locklear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
