Operating Systems Polls

You are here: Index > Mantar Discussion Board > Technical Knowledge Base > Topic : Operating Systems Polls

News:

Poll

Poll Question : Which OS

Dos (0)	(0%)
Linux Debian (0)	(0%)
Linux Slackware (8)	(44.44%)
Linux (K)ubuntu (3)	(16.66%)
Linux Fedora (0)	(0%)
Linux Other (0)	(0%)
BSD (ALL) (0)	(0%)
AIX (0)	(0%)
Mac OS-X (1)	(5.555%)
Solaris / Sun (0)	(0%)
Windows 2000 (0)	(0%)
Windows 2003 (1)	(5.555%)
Windows Vista (2)	(11.11%)
Window XP (3)	(16.66%)
Other Windows (0)	(0%)
Total Votes : 18

Threaded Mode | Tell a friend | Print

Operating Systems Polls

Mantar	# February 4, 2009, 7:20 am \| Post: 15
Group: Administrator Post Group: Super Member Posts: 8039 Status:	I think you missed what I was saying. The minwin process is to take the bulk out of the kernel and optimise it and inline the code. The kernel version they are using is the same base as vista sure but the one they are using is actually developed from windows 2008 server and vista SP1 which is a more optimised version and they are optimising it further. To build a new kernel would mean that their former drivers wouldn't work anymore and then we'd be seeing all kinds of compatibility issues like we did with vista when it came out which would be horrible. Keep in mind just because Windows 7 has the same system requirements has no bearing on the actually kernel. The kernel although it is a very important part is still a very small part. The ram and processor required is directly dependent on the gui and all those pretty effects they throw it. To cite that take a look at linux. If you don't install x-windows and all the fancy gui junk then you can still run linux on ANY 32 bit processor from a 22mhz to a quad core processor. The kernel for windows 7 is just a more highly developed version of the windows micro kernel which microsoft already admits being not what they wanted it to be for vista. You want lower requirements look into a shell replacement for vista. The problem is not the kernel in that aspec the problem is all the fancy eyecandy garbage they throw in to compete with mac. I run a really high end machine myself but I still run gnome 64bit with no visual effects etc. I don't care how fancy it looks I only care that those fancy effects aren't taking away from my gaming experience. Sorry I should have been more clear in what I was trying to say. So to summarise windows 7 is not the same as the vista kernel it is a more optimised smaller and more efficient version of the windows 2008 server and vista SP1 kernel Edited by Mantar : February 4, 2009, 7:39 am
IP: --

Operating Systems Polls

Mantar	# February 4, 2009, 7:49 am \| Post: 16
Group: Administrator Post Group: Super Member Posts: 8039 Status:	Oh yes before I forget. The main exception I take to windows 7 is the fact they scrapped WinFS. They have their reasons as it was a flop some 3 years ago and it still is. They really need to upgrade from NTFS though. It is slow and bulky I personally think they should switch up to something like ReiserFS. This of course going back to my whole idea that Microsoft should probably just stop making OS's and just build their own windows api for Linux and sell it.....I would buy that.... NTFS is really old and tired. They've been using it since 1993 and windows nt 3.1. Alot of load time bottle necks and transfer bottle necks are your hard drives. Time to upgrade I'd say. Edited by Mantar : February 4, 2009, 7:52 am
IP: --

Operating Systems Polls

tsukubasteve	# June 19, 2009, 11:14 am \| Post: 17
Group: Member Post Group: Newbie Posts: 4 Status:	I think we're all missing the point here.. M$ is still M$.. Go grab a copy of Linux and see what a real kernel looks like. People don't run Windows because they want to. They run it because they don't know about other options, or because they don't have the tech savvy to apply other options. I tried a copy of Windows 7 RC1, and it's a hell of a lot better than Vista. But it's a long way from being a good OS... It's simply better thought out, and is, at least so far, easier to regain control of. (Turning off UAC and other options). I would run it on my parents computers, my girlfriend's computer, my brother's computer.. etc.. It looks nice, it's retarded easy to use for the web surfers, and it's more stable than vista is. Not to mention, that in testing on a system i had previously run with Vista, it had a much smaller memory footprint and better cpu handling. Unfortunately there was a video driver issue from intel, which caused crashes during gaming.. That was where I drew the line. As for my personal machine, I have Windows 2003 Server. Because it was around, works great on my hardware, and I can't be arsed to dick around with Linux atm when all I want to do is play games. ----------------------- --==-- Steve
IP: --

« Previous Next »

Threaded Mode | Tell a friend | Print

Jump To :

Users viewing this topic
	1 guests, 0 users.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is September 8, 2010, 4:22 pm.

Powered By AEF 1.0.8 © 2007-2008 Electron Inc.

Queries: 12 | Page Created In:0.928