ROS should take-over the missing Win32/Win9x flatform

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos » Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:30 pm

I never had problems with NT OS. If any problems were present, 90% of them were related to faulty hardware/bios/firmware/driver/application version. Remaining 10% were pure OS related, but were often fixed by appropriate patch (like Win XP WPA support on native Windows wifi service).
A lots of things thats I used to get done with no time under Win9x, now getting complicated, buggy and undone.
Would you care to elaborate, possibly with examples?

cppm
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:03 pm

Post by cppm » Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:35 pm

please note there has never been a release of windows that, out of the box, has required less hardware resources than the one before it.

Meaning that there has never been a release of windows that will run at the same speed as an earlier version on the same hardware. (possible exception = windows server 2003?)

This is most evident with Vista, although microsoft are promising that the next release of windows will actually reduce it's footprint :shock:

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:55 pm

cppm there is a reason. Almost all versions of windows add more background services. That is where nlite with XP comes in.

To be correct 2003 XP 2000 and NT 4 all can run at almost the same space and speed if striped down.

Cppm is presure from Linux. By year 2000 Linux graphical had bload out to a memory footprint of 256 megs. Problem is since then the Linux Desktop leveled off. Yep 7 years without gain.

Xp has a operation at a small slow operational at under 32 megs windows 95 can only go a little smaller. Reason why XP needs more than 32 megs is services. Ros target is under 32 megs at least.

The 256 megs crappy operation in Vista and 512 at least full operation is just too much. Next version will have to cut back. Compiz with kde 4 is operational inside 256 megs.

65535
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:04 am
Contact:

Post by 65535 » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:50 pm

Sorry, is this a joke here?
There are actually people out there who think that 9x is faster and
*laughs* more stable than NT?
I still remember the time when I was using 9x... Bluescreens out of
nowhere, whole gui hanging, a totally pathetic "taskmanager", installing
a driver that had some issues could f*ck up the whole OS ("Windows
protection fault. Please restart.", anyone?)
Reboot after just changing your NIC's IP address... The list is loooong.
No thanks! Back these days, using a computer really was a big adventure.
Luckily, MS realized that it was the time to release some real OS to the
masses (this means NT based).
And I don't get the part with the speed, my Win2003 is lightning fast
with 2GB of RAM... Which this OS can actually handle, compared to
those joke OSes called Win9x/ME.

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos » Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:46 pm

@65535

In general i agree with you. I know how well 2k3 works on c2d with 2gb ram... substantially faster than my 1gb ddr1/Barton 2500+, which is very fast itself...

Win9x series was still sharing its limitations with earlier windowses. It wasnt anything apart a very complicated win32 layer over DOS.

@oiaohm

Frankly speaking, Win95OSR could work quite well on Amd 486 Dx4 100/133 and 16mb ram (fast simm EDOs).

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:14 am

Note Haos I had early NT 3.5 file server on a 486 dx4 100/133 with 16 mb.

So yep NT cut back can go as light as 9x.

FSX
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:23 am

Post by FSX » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:59 pm

*post was kinda misleading*
Last edited by FSX on Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:48 pm

Guys, the discussion ended a while ago. Why restart this?

counting_pine
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Fallowfield

Post by counting_pine » Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:30 am

@FSX, IIRC, Win9x could give blue screens when you eject a disc that's in use, but it was essentially an abort/retry/fail box. Effectively, it was pausing the system to give you a chance to put the disc back in, so the program that's using it wouldn't go belly up.

Erm, I hope this post isn't seen as continuing the argument, just as a clarification.

I often had this problem, because I used to have a CD drive that, when it was reading a disc, had an interesting habit of occasionally spinning down and ejecting itself.

Carlo Bramix
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Italy

Post by Carlo Bramix » Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:37 am

Is Win9x faster than WinNT? I think it could be, especially when you decrease the system power (MHz/RAM/disk space).
Is Win9x more stable than WinNT? Sorry, but I think it is not.
It is true that if you run a bug free application, it will run smoothly on Win9x too, without crashes.
But since then memory protection on older operating system is almost unexisting, I also believe it is not possible for an user to live with the fear of system crash for a mistake in the software.
That's why the upgrade to an improved kernel is highly recommended, and you can believe me since I use Win9x every day.
It's also true that some drivers for obsolete hardware exist only under Win9x platform, it has been said in several parts of this thread and many others too, but I'm also sure that if you will write a wrapper driver for interfacing VXDs with WMD, well, I'm pretty sure that ReactOS would be proud to include it in its final distribution. :wink:

Sincerely,

Carlo Bramini

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos » Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:38 pm

In my experience, its all the issue of system RAM. With enough of memory onboard, Win2000 is faster than Win98SE. Tested that on P133 with 128MB Simm EDO.

FSX
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:23 am

Post by FSX » Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:57 pm

counting_pine wrote:@FSX, IIRC, Win9x could give blue screens when you eject a disc that's in use, but it was essentially an abort/retry/fail box. Effectively, it was pausing the system to give you a chance to put the disc back in, so the program that's using it wouldn't go belly up.

Erm, I hope this post isn't seen as continuing the argument, just as a clarification.

I often had this problem, because I used to have a CD drive that, when it was reading a disc, had an interesting habit of occasionally spinning down and ejecting itself.
yeah...

etko
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 3:43 am
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Post by etko » Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:20 pm

zydon if you miss win95 get yourself a copy of Windows NT 4.1 and stop talking. It looks the same and it'll beat the sht out of the W9x family.

zydon
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:03 am

Post by zydon » Thu May 01, 2008 11:28 am

etko, yeah I missed Win95 as VERY good gaming platform for some good old Direct3D games. What I need now just a thing which is a driver for new HD Audio hardware. I can't find any old one that compatible enough for it. But, I can find some of NVidia driver to drive the new graphics card.

After some times on WinXp, I laugh it out loud. It even can't render video properly on some very good machine such as dual-core. It goes jumpy and skipping like mad. But not Win95, it goes steady on very good new hardware like a charm. Smooth like a silk. :)

etko, you can keep your Win NT 4.1 for yourself. It only has half decent qualities for my need not like Win95 could provide.

Lol. Now, my Win95 always handy since I was put it in a pendrive. As I said earlier, I just need only a new soundcard hardware driver for it. Then, I need no more than satisfactions that this Windows ancestor nothing short of anything...

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos » Thu May 01, 2008 1:04 pm

Sure... Win95 was a sweetie... Would bugcheck if anything was sent to it on port 135/137:>

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trendiction [Bot] and 5 guests