Hardware Analysis Community Forums http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/58188/ 2008-11-23T06:03:09-05:00 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/58188/ http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif text/html 2007-03-10T15:46:47-05:00 j s http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/58188/#480065 text/html 2006-05-05T23:26:35-05:00 Gerritt http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/58188/#410501 The 2000/XP platforms were the first to minimize the dependency on legacy 16 bit code. The 9x platforms still required a huge dependency on 16 bit Dynamic Libraries in order to run. Vista is a step towards 64 bit code with 32 bit dependencies. I run XP64 on one of my systems and have had issues with 32 bit code running on it...especially benchmarks that have 32 bit code latches to the present HALs.<br /> Given the everything for everybody approach that Microsoft is trying to take, it is still possible that the Vista OS will continue to run slower than XP, but XP has become better over the last several years, so Vista may also become appreciably better, given the new HW capabilities and it's capability to deal with it on a 64 bit HAL.<br /> <br /> Gerritt text/html 2006-05-05T18:39:10-05:00 j s http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/58188/#410415 text/html 2006-05-04T08:00:07-05:00 Fred Yontz http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/58188/#409955 I'm about to gag when I hear that Vista uses 450MB of memory just for itself. I remember when NT4 came out, and people talked about how it would need so much more than Win95 — I think it was 8MB to load, and 16MB to run (maybe I've got those numbers low by half). Oh, how far we've come!<br /> <br /> For Jeremy, though, I'm surprised by his calling Win98 the best OS of the Microsoft lot, one they should have stopped with. Geez, all the Win9x versions were just GUI overlays to DOS! They were compromises, quickie short cuts to designing and writing a proper OS with a robust kernel. I can't believe that a lot of the features being used in the NT kernel Windows, especially 2000 &amp; XP, could ever be spliced onto a Win9x house of cards. And with the greater demands for security, I doubt very much that Win9x versions could be made robust enough to do the job.<br /> <br /> As for the remark &quot;...if you're not happy with it write your own source code and build yourself your very own os!&quot; That strikes me as being like saying that if you aren't happy with Detroit autos, go out and build your own. Aside from the abilities required to create a whole modern operating system from scratch (Apple didn't; they took a BSD UNIX frame and added their own bodywork), the amount of work involved in writing all the necessary code isn't something one person could do in any reasonable time frame. Linus Torvalds probably is the closest example of a single person doing this in creating Linux, but now there is a whole world of people working on that OS, and large projects like this are more than one person can carry. While Linux and OS X may have problems, and that is to be expected of any such large and complex projects — it's still true of modern automobiles and war machines — the better comparison would be whether Linux &amp; OS X have as many problems as Windows, and also whether they are as great resource hogs. And finally, if Microsoft has the best programmers in the world, I would expect them to produce efficient code so as to be installable on as many systems as possible, which doesn't appear to be the case — maybe they are in cahoots with the hardware suppliers. text/html 2006-05-03T13:08:55-05:00 j s http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/58188/#0 firstly, vista will run slower; each new release of an os puts further demans on system resources; run 95 or 98 on your machine and it will run much faster - though with limited options available. also, it's in the beta version, give it time. so vista takes up 450mb - by the time the retail version hits the shops ram would have increased to about an additional gig anyway; in a few years time the average will be 4gb so 450mb is nothing