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."
standalone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most other programs, however, will run off a central server.
so can this replace old stand-alone machines that aren't connected to any useable server?
why not use it on newer hardware then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows that "runs" or "doesn't suck?" (Score:4, Interesting)
It'll run, but once you try to open an application, you'll wish you hadn't.
"Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device"
Re:Oh geez, thin clients again. (Score:-1, Interesting)
I imagine this "Eiger" implementation will be half-assed, because PC sales have slowed, Bill Gates rushed to the defensive and declared that the PC was not dead, and Microsoft has amped up Longhorn's system requirements to the 3Ghz area just to appease hardware manufacturers. So releasing this conflicts with Microsoft's hardware agenda of getting people to buy new computers to run Windows Longhorn. Expect this to therefor suck and have arbitrary limitations ala Starter Edition.
WinXPs requirements overrated (Score:2, Interesting)
which tends to confirm (Score:2, Interesting)
I think I've seen this before... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm... I think I saw this once, and it was called Windows 2000... I can run Win2K just fine on my 233MHz PII laptop w/64MB of RAM.
Re:Something doesn't make sense here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Something doesn't make sense here... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can only hope Apple sues the hell out of them...
So THATS what happened to it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's see...MS needs something that runs on oldder machines and is more secure than Win95/98...yep, sounds like a version of Unix would work just fine.
Maybe that's what MS bought from Caldera/SCOGroup for $50M...?
Nothing exciting about this at all (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry that won't happen. This new lightweight XP is gonna be the barebones OS, with IE/OE, Media Player and probably a terminal services client. That is ALL it is. They are cutting out features and doing nothing at all (or the barest minumum) of code optimisation. This is MS we are talking about here--they haven't done anything radical with their OS since NT 3.1 came out. Innovation might be BillGs favourite word, but MS rarely does that--they mostly just evolve.
Other apps could probably be installed, but then those old machines would be bogged down just as before. MS' strategy is to try and entice cash-strapped enterprises to keep their MS infrastructure: Instead of buying 30 new workstations, just buy 30 licenses of "barebones XP" and a $5000 server to handle the apps. I don't see much there forcing MS to take the bloat out of their software.
Problem with that idea is that there isn't much cost savings up front (perhaps none at all) vs. upgrading the workstations, because the customer still has to buy a big app server and most likley upgrade ther office suite software, etc. too...in addition to licenses for the barebones XP (unless they give that away with server CALs).
Any admin worth his salt will figure out he could just get the application server and run terminal services on the Win98 boxes without upgrading them...or better yet just convert all the terminals to Linux...and save up front and get all the same TCO benefits in the long run. I don't think this dog of an XP distro will hunt.
Re:Oh geez, thin clients again. (Score:3, Interesting)
The tinfoil hat worry is that, with all the data in a central repository, whoever controls the repository controls the information. If the idea that this could be the government doesn't scare you, imagine if it were Microsoft. Or, if you want to stay up all night in a cold sweat, imagine some Enron or SCO type of company rising to power. It might not actually make 1984 come to fruition, but it could certainly knock down a whole lot of barriers.
Re:Should have been a criterion all along (Score:3, Interesting)
OSX only has to run on 1 evolutionary line of hardware (AKA the Mac from the first with reasonable specs to the latest). Microsoft have to make windows run on ALL system set ups.
More like hardware manufacturers have to make their hardware run under Windows. MS does not code the vast majority of hardware drivers, the hardware companies do, because otherwise no one can use the hardware. MS's monopoly has largely made it much easier for them to obtain driver compatibility, Apple actually has to go out and convince hardware manufacturers to support their software as well by offering incentives or writing the drivers themselves.
It won't help, and here's why... (Score:3, Interesting)
Applications.
You might have a very very thin XP that'll run on a Pentium II, but who cares? As soon as you load Office on it, the only thing it'll do quickly is take a nosedive.
Although the Windows OS is a famous place to look for software bloat, it's only half of the problem. With the API being the way that it is, and the application developers for that platform pushing for more and more useless features as a revenue stream...99% of todays apps will still bomb on a thin XP machine.
Yeh, I read it, and I don't see the advantage... (Score:3, Interesting)
We ran into this. When we got our first WinDD servers (Tektronix' version of the Citrix software that became Windows Terminal Server) I sized them based on our experience with UNIX servers... and thought doubling the per-user RAM and CPU was pretty conservative. Boy was that a shock... and the requirements have only gone UP since then.
Re:Should have been a criterion all along (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but Windows is definitely slower than OS X on comparable hardware for pretty much everything. I have a 1.3 Ghz g4 laptop sitting next to a 1.8 Ghz P4-M laptop. They have similar amounts of RAM and I use many of the same applications on both of them. OS X absolutely destroys Win2k when running multiple tasks and still fares considerably better running only one task. Win XP slows down the Windows box even more (hence it is running Win2K right now). You claim OS X gets faster because the Kernel was slow to start, what then is making Windows so slow and why don't they fix whatever that is?
Legacy hardware? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that modern desktop Linux is not the best choice for older systems, but I think the reasons have to do more with software bloat than hardware support.
Support for new hardware that the manufacturers are loath to release specifications for is IMO much more of a problem.
Noooooooo! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell me about it, a client of mine was just given a quote for a server and a series of thin clients (Maxspeed thin clients I believe). The cost for a server and a set of dumb terminals seemed rather high and I questioned the quote.
Turns out the licensing costs amount to nearly what a full system would.
Check this, they had to pay for the Server 2003 license AND the CAL (Client Access License) AND the Terminal Services License, like buying two licenses for each workstation!
Makes no sense...
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Interesting)
Jaguar (Score:4, Interesting)
Try again.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
This is no help for us. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like MS to miss the mark again!
Re:No wireless networking support... (Score:2, Interesting)
No dail-up means that it wouldnt work very well for users just wanting an internet connection over 56k. It also means that connecting to remote app servers over a 56k connections. However i dont think MS would be able to get a remote app running ever 56k anyway.