Microsoft Developing Windows for Low-End Machines 610
Jeff writes "According to the Washington Post, Microsoft is developing a version of Windows to run on old machines that currently run 95 or 98. It would be very similar to XP, but run faster on the older hardware. The move is to appease businesses and universities that don't want to scrap the old hardware. This is likely aimed at preventing Linux from gaining market share where MS is currently alienating their customers."
Did anyone read the article? (Score:3, Informative)
My guess is that this won't work especially well with older apps anyway. That central server would also have be orders of magnitude faster if you want to allow multiple people the ability to run their apps at the same time.
What you might see is a situation in which small offices could either upgrade each machine for $500 and get way better performance, or purchase some high end server for tens of thousands of dollars and still be limited by the junk machines you have around. Also, any PC that old has to be near the end of it's life anyway. Any money you might save by converting these PCs will probably be lost when you have to replace all of the parts over the next year.
Re:Something doesn't make sense here... (Score:4, Informative)
Windows XP requires an absolute minimum of 64 MB RAM with corresponding minimums for CPU speed, graphics cards, hard drives, etc. This is before any applications are added (don't forget, IE is so tightly integrated into the system that it is always there). Windows 95 required an absolute minimum of 4 MB of RAM, etc., and you actually could remove IE if you wanted to (although, the 4 MB requirement assumed IE was still there). That is a 8 fold difference. I was being nice when I said it took 4 times the hardware.
So, I reiterate...exactly what crap am I being forced to run in my XP system that could be removed?
KDE doesn't do too well either (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Something doesn't make sense here... (Score:5, Informative)
I thus don't think it's a good idea to name a project after a mountain top famous for failed and deadly attempts to finally climb it.
Re:Something doesn't make sense here... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, if they are going to a terminal services based system, I'd start with:
- Direct-X and all the gaming video stuff
- all the 3-d stuff
- Many performance-related drivers
- APIs related to getting applications to inter-operate
- All generic APIs that aren't used for apps shipped with the OS, including legacy.
- Any of the networking components not directly related to the shipped apps.
Not a faster windows. A remote windows. (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't about making a custom version of windows that is more optimized so that it can run on old hardware. What they are doing is running the slow applications remotly, probably using citrix like technology (MS has their own version but I can't remember the name).
So what this probably is is a version of windows that cuts out a few OS features that affects performance, and then preconfiguring it so that it will run a pile of applications from a central server.
Of course, this is something that's always been easy to do on unix. Linux sounds better and better with every announcement comming out of Redmond these days...
Re:Something doesn't make sense here... (Score:4, Informative)
Now add a low-feature Explorer as in Windows 95 and you might get something that has memory consumption similar to Win98. Of course, you'd have to get rid of all services that are not necessary for a typical desktop. Otherwise, you would be back at a Win2000-like memory hog.
Microsoft will have to compromise here, some applications might not run on the "XP light".
Re:Great News! (Score:3, Informative)
Eiger means Ogre, who is attacking a Virgin. (Score:5, Informative)
The names Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau roughly translate to Ogre, Monk and Young Woman (Or Virgin).
The story as told to me is that The Ogre is attacking the Virgin, but the Monk is standing betweee the Ogre and the Virgin.
Should Microsoft name their product after a monster & rapist?
Re:Linux on old boxes... (Score:3, Informative)
The difference is that you can run a current, maintained Linux distro on old hardware (hint: use a light window manager). But the equivalent Windows version will be obsolete and non-maintained. Security updates are good, yes?
And as far as drivers go, Windows drivers tend to disappear (or become hard to find) after several years, and will probably never be updated. I'd much rather deal with open source drivers, once a driver is written it tends to be included with the Kernel source.
Nope -- thin clients (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft's solution is thin clients. Well, I have run a 100MHz machine with 16M of RAM as a Linux X server with a relatively unimpressive desktop as the application machine which does run KDE and it's quite nice.
You can even play quite a few games as it turns out; stuff like LBreakout work fine. The fact is that an X terminal runs a much smaller footprint than the one proposed for Eiger.
Re:Something doesn't make sense here... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Crap. (Score:2, Informative)
I'm a big fan of "thin clients." And while I think that Citrix is the current thin-client leader, Microsoft has done an EXCELLENT job with Windows Remote Desktop, that's built into Windows XP.
In fact, one reason we recommend Windows XP for many applications over, say Mac OS X, is the ability to remote into machines easily and with built-in software.
Re:Crap. (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah because higher costs, Microsoft lock-in, constant security issues and greater hardware difficulties are less trouble than installing VNC.
Don't get me wrong, I use XP too, but you're argument sounds pretty lame to me. I never messed with Remote Desktop because I've been using VNC for many years without a hitch.
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Crap. (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Crap. (Score:2, Informative)
Also, IIRC using MS's Remote Desktop Connection the system can still only service one acting user login at a time... if another user is already logged in, you might as well forget about it. Whereas with VNC (and especially the X protocol and XDMCP) a system can handle multiple simultaneous user and client sessions. Microsoft is still over 20 years behind in timesharing design...
It has nothing to do with design; it's purely a licensing move. Windows XP Home has no Terminal Services. Windows XP Professional allows one TS connection or console session. Windows Server in "remote administration" mode allows two TS connections plus a console session. To get more than two TS sessions, you need to by TS licenses.
Re:Toxic Vaporware (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Informative)
> the root console of a windows server like VNC
> does)
Erm, yes it does. Click Start, Run and then type "mstsc.exe -console" and it takes over the console. The only thing it doesn't do is allow you to share the console with the person sitting physically in front of the server - to them the console appears locked.
Re:Wait... (Score:1, Informative)
Maybe SuSE + fvwm
Debian + blackbox.
Seems the only wm you've ever seen/used is KDE or Gnome. Time to expand your horizons.
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Informative)
However the mirror display drivers that are out there work very, very well. Unfortunately they're not 100% so I don't really recommend going hog-wild on production systems but they work great - when they work.
UltraVNC & TightVNC both have mirror drivers, there probably are some other VNC branches that support it too. Though I never did get TightVNC's driver to work...
Re:Crap. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh geez, thin clients again. (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely. I work in a school now and am rolling Linux out on servers. The first to go was the CD Server. We already had a CD server that runs on NT4 but requires an upgrade for 2000/2003. A downloaded Linux disk and a 2.4GHz P4 we had laying around sorted that. Cost saved? £800.
Next was print quota software that was £1200 to replace. Pykota and Postgres meant we could re-use old PCs and save the disposal costs that we'd pay otherwise.
The 6 NT servers are going and being replaced with Mandrake running on three dual CPU servers with all the student accounts beiong pushed onto Postfix/Squirrelmail saving 100+ exchange CALs. The administration side will stick with exchange for a while for the calendaring and the ability to generate NTConfig.pol files for policies via Samba.
At the end of this, we have saved a fortune that has allowed us to upgrade every PC in the school. There is no way, repeat NO WAY that a cut down version of Windows could have allowed us to do this as there would still have been licences somewhere along the way and the lack of hassle that Linux gives us means we can spend more time supporting the users.
XP is still on the desktops but I can't help but think that that may not be forever.
Re:Crap. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Crap. (Score:2, Informative)
The credit belongs to the creators of X11; RDP is just your typical "me-too" product from Microsoft, a decade late and proprietary.
VNC is something different from both RDP and X11, but VNC is useful and "done right" in its own way.
Terminal Services/Remote desktop is a nice solution period. Its fast, easily an order of magnitude faster than even TightVNC.
That's an API issue specific to the Windows platform: Microsoft just doesn't make the right hooks available. An X11-based TightVNC server actually performs quite well.
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Informative)
The real reason is that you have absolutely no idea how to use Mac OS X or another OS. Ten minutes with OS X and you'd know that you can use the built-in Apple Remote Desktop or SSH to remotely access the machine or even install VNC or Microsoft's Remote Desktop, which they ported to OS X [microsoft.com].
Re:Something doesn't make sense here... (Score:3, Informative)
were internal codenames that caused a ruckus.
ian