Sorry for the off-topic, but... it's so incredible that I couldn't help it!

Vista forum

When I think that some poeple here are still trying to slim down w98... some succeeding in running windows on 20 Mb...

LOL holy crap

Hot sh.t & spit, you've got to be kidding, I can & have mulit booted 95, 98fe, 98se, ME, 2K in less room than that! 10gb hdd & had room left, tho not much

ever heard the old joke...
Q: how does Microsoft change a light-bulb?
A: They don't, they change the standard to dark

Wow... that is a lot of hard disk space!!
According to the theory of probability, the bigger the volume, the bigger is the chance of bugs too!!

In the following website:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvi...e/vistarpc.mspx
Microsoft mentioned a.o. about the hardware Minimum Supported Requirements as follows:

Processor
800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor2
System Memory
512 MB
GPU
SVGA (800x600)
Graphics Memory
(empty)
HDD
20 GB
HDD Free Space
15 GB
Optical Drive
CD-ROM Drive

In one of my PC with Pentium III running at 800, the WinXP is VERY slow, let alone with Windows Vista, so I doubt the statement on the "Processor" above.

Someone with 800 MHz Processor would be better off to stay with Win98SE. I do that!!

Haha o wow...

I heard a large portion of Vista was written in .NET... maybe that explains it.

Here's a 4.38Mb Win98: http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e8gus/nano98/

That's almost two thousandths the size Vista is taking.

My Windows directory is 970Mb, and that's after 6 years of use and much software being installed. I'm sure much of that is duplicated (backup) files of files that I've customised in one way or another.

M$ software is in a state of decline... definitely.

Someone said that M$ lacks of imagination...
I don't agree: they must have A LOT of imagination to fill so much space.

OS Vista should be classified as "monster OS" or something...

Seriousely, what could be that is so necessary, in 7Gb+...?

lol, another great reason why Windows 98 has a rite to live on!

I love that one.


And I think I will backup nano98. This website and its contents must live on. It's really incredible and wonderful.


And Longhorn is mainly written in .Net. On the other hand Longhorn includes WinFS.
Vista was to be written mainly in .Net but I don't know how things evolved. Interface uses .Net Framework3.


@Fredledingue, maybe we will have 256x256 icons at last.


Here is a quick list of things that take place:
-.Net Framework3/WinFX (WinFX, WinFS, Wingneugneugneu... it's gonna be hard)
-TabletPC and WMP11 with lots of "cool" graphics and eye-candy
-games, games, games

>7.17Gb

If the final release of Vista gets much larger, you will need an HD-DVD drive to install it.

BTW, nano Windows could become even smaller with a rebuilt vmm32.vxd. But without ESDI-506.PDR or SMARTDRV.EXE it is going to be slow. Personally, I would use the Via IDE Miniport drivers to avoid problems with PATA disks > 137 GB. (I have a Via motherboard).

All you guys have major project coming up Enlighetening your Vista , sorry nLiteing Vista.

I'm afraid it will take years before the XP/Vista geeks nlight vista to a sub Gb install.



That's what I think too.
A software company that create a monster of 7Gb cannot be efficient itself. The mere fact that the directors accepted to release such a thing without shame is insane.

The fact that many Gb installs are not an issue on today's large HDD, doesn't mean that they should feel obliged to fill it.
M$ should stop thinking that new hardware performances are there for the sole purpose of running windows!

No respect for the basic rules of programing, no respect for the hardware, no respect for the poeple.
That's where they go.

Just for the record, this "edition" of 98, though a bit bigger, has far better capabilities than the original "nano98", which is really minimal:
http://winimize.com/

Some more ideas/ways/links here:
http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=12326

jaclaz

One needs to look outside of "code". While it's very likely there is huge swathes of not-so-veryily-optimized code in Vista - much like everything else being produced today it is overladen with graphical candy.

When you consider downloaded video takes up GIGS of space, and each MP3 is 4+ Megs --- and people don't bat an eye when installing a game that will eat up 2-5 Gigs...

Is it really so suprising that the enhanced graphics of Vista consumes so much hard drive real estate?

Thats because Vista is supposed to be an OS, i.e. it's not supposed to consume the resources, but rather only provide services for the apps that *are* supposed to be using the majority of the system resources. A game being 2-5Gb is understandable, as it contains a lot of graphics and textures, and games are supposed to have those. An OS is not a game... it doesn't require any fancy graphics and textures.

A video is already compressed with lossy compression, a sacrifice of quality vs size. The same with MP3s. But those are simply data and not programs.

With nlite I learned something : Windows is a distribution just like linux distros.
It has a kernel (currently NT kernel) and apps. Unlike *nix distros you can not decide (exactly) what to install. Of course, you have optionnal components but among the softwares that come with Windows the vast majority installs anyway (WMP, IE, OE).

NT kernel is really nice and is far from being heavy imho.

Additional softwares are different : they are made to be seen and come with lots of graphics, themes (WMP is particularly registry-hungry on this side), sounds (remember the first logon music, welcome/shutdown sounds, music samples that come with WMP...).
Btw, my WinSxS folder is 7 or 8MB on XP SP1a without .Net Framework.


Drivers may also take a lot of space. An possibility would be not to copy all drivers to hard drive but only the most likely to be used after installation. If you buy a new USB-mouse, you want it to work immediately. Now, imagine you install a new graphic card and don't want to bother finding the latest drivers; shutdown, open case, unplug old card, plug new card, reboot. Is it so annoying to have windows ask for a CD ? It took you 10 minutes to install the card, you can search your CD during 20seconds.
Moreover, it is likely to search the drivers on the internet on its own.
No need to have all drivers (especially graphic cards, chipset, audio)stored on the computer.

Exactely. Or maybe M$ already consider that an OS is a web browser and a multimedia player. Maybe now they consider it also as a multimedia library, and a game pack?

Seriousely, what "eye and ear candy" stuffs could take room?
Video and audio can be easily compressed... and even uncompressed, 1 Gb is way enough for splash screens, bitmaps and other ding-dongs.

...so what's in the remaining 6Gb?

It seems they duplicate the whole OS everytime they added a functionality.
Probably because they outsourced developement among dispersed teams around the third world. Each team coming up with a "full package" no matter what is already preinstalled or what the others did.

Unefficient developement management at its best!

LLXX you said: "An OS is not a game"

You hit the nail on the head. When XP was released, first thing I noticed was all the colors, almost neon in their intensity. The window bars were over sized, all the buttons were huge and illustrated, there was even an animated dog in the search window! My first thought was: how clownish! It looked like a toy OS, something for kids to play with. Then I noticed the bugs, lack of performance, and lack of software and hardware compatibility. It was a toy alright, not even a good one.

Actually Video Games, is the next big thing for Home PCs. This is why, many are
upgrading their 32 bit systems to 64 bit systems, and installing the Vista Platforms.

Being very familiar with Audio, I'm more than positive, Vista, is steered primarily
for Video purposes than XP, 98, & of course, 95. You just don't need an OS housing
7 GB for Audio purposes.

This is why I can use 98SE for DJing audio in 2006. It's not that I don't have an XP
Computer available. It's because, all the extras that XP offers, doesn't justify the
need for playback pre-recorded music.

But for Video, more graphics, clarity, and, effects, increases the operating size
tremendously! And, this is where XP shines over 98SE.

It will come to a point, that we (Consumers) will need to stop, think, and, decide if
all these extras are really necessary for our needs.

Vista is a graphical operating system. For a gamer, this is great. For a video editor,
this is fantastic. For the person who has no intrest in neither, it's overkill on your PCs
Hard Drive.

Atmosphere XP, aside from quite obviously misquoting me, your post proves my point better than I could ever.

I appologize for quoting you wrong.

It was just that piece, that solved the puzzle.

At least we're on the same track

What XP or Vista offers about video editing that w98 don't?

There's also the fact that Vista was built on a modular structure, instead of the integrated design process that Windows 98, Me, and XP were built with. That modularity requires that each part be self sustaining, meaning that there might be some duplication in the code. It's a trade off there.


Did everyone also forget the fact that the only install sizes we've seen so far are for the Ultimate edition - the largest and most feature-filled of the Vista lineup? I'm sure that the basic version, which doesn't have Media Center, Aero, bla bla blah in it will be considerably smaller.

@Lunac - did you also think about the people who've never used a computer before? Sit them down in front of Windows98 and then sit them in front of XP. If they take their time to look at the screen, they'll probably find what they need easier in XP. Same goes for Vista. Pretty much everything you need is only a couple of clicks away. You might not like the Luna theme, but most "newbies" do.


How many of you have actually used Vista instead of just bashing it?

If you're doing MPEG, or AVI editing, you won't have that much problems.

However, if you're trying to edit DVDs in terms of effects, and surround
sound, you'll find 98SE is the limiting factor for not only the software, but the
Video card as well.

With Blue Ray Disks being the latest craze, Vista's 64 Bit platform will benefit
over Windows XP.

You can read more about Blu Ray here if you're not familiar with it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

Yes, I tried it for a few days... horribly slow and the experience just wasn't that good at all.

IMHO deciding to write most of the OS in .NET was already a bad move...

Zxian, hallucinogenic color themes and LEGO-like shell is the least of it.

For more information see my posts in: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=76515

Or the old "Why run 98?" thread (300+ replies): http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=60251

In short, HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) found in NT operating systems is seriously flawed and simply inadequate when it comes to what it was designed to do.

It was supposed to assist developers in creating drivers much faster by writing less code and letting HAL itself deal with any portability and compatibility issues. One way HAL does this is by emulating hardware and/or hardware features that are not even there to begin with. In theory this was a dream come true. You could write minimal code with maximum results in record time. In theory of course.

For basic information on what HAL is and what it does go here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hardware-abstraction-layer

To me XP is higly modular. Just look at nlite and at how we can restore some components. To restore a component, you need to find the proper inf, copy all needed files to your hard drive, install the inf. That's all and that's probably how windows installs itself. Pretty modular isn't it ?

As for the modularity, windows is probably compiled so it runs with shared libraries.
Main drawback for shared libraries is with versions : if I dynamically link to a lib and the version on the target-computer does not offer the thing I want my program will not run.
If you used *nux you probably know there are tens different version of a single library unlike under Windows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linker#Dynamic_linking and this from an older rev of the article : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...17199#Criticism
( I think I'll have to correct this page : "If an error in a library function is corrected by replacing the library, all programs using it dynamically will immediately benefit from the correction. Programs that included this function by static linking would have to be re-linked first. ", this is clear propaganda for shared linking)

(there is also this link but it is not so interesting in the end : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Library#Shared_library )

Sharing libs is good under windows because if the needed dll is present, it also has the correct version. So using it will reduce memory usage without the stability cost.



Not yet, but I'm not bashing it either, at least, not yet.
I'll try to see Vista beta2 and find why it is so huge.
Btw, it is maybe ultimate edition but beta2 is not feature complete yet.

I confess I never edited DVD. But the only limitation I can see about DVD editing is the file size limited to 4Gb.
But I don't know if you need files over 4Gb to edit DVD.

The scond disadvantage is that softwares are written to work on XP only, but that's not a problem with the OS, it's a problem of the software.

About Blue Ray CD why it wouldn't be compatible with w98? No driver?



Sure! You can remove pinball and paint. You will save 300 Kb. LOL

Now just one technical question: how long it takes for a Vista platform to find a piece of information among 7GB of datas?

I take your own example : Pinball is approx. 9MB, 30 times what you estimated.

Fredledingue,

I would say the limitation on 98 goes back to Fat 32. When you are editing Audio/Video hard drive space is used up rather quickly. When you take into consideration the plugins to enhance quality, comparing the original to the finished work, you'll need alot space.

Sure! 4 GB is what you start off with. However, once you begin your work, the size is much larger than that.

Blu Ray discs can hold up to 200 GB. This could be easily used for the best video quality, and, surround sound. Video and Audio holds no boundaries in size, when quality is the objective.

If I record an audio file @ 24 Bit 96 Khz, I'll reach the 2 GB limit (Fat 32) under an hour.

Today, 192 Khz 24 bit, is the new standard for professional audio recording.

If a Blu - Ray Disc is using High Definition Video, and, Surround sound, I can't say Windows 98 would be strong enough to handle such a file, when editing is concerned. If by chance it's encoded in 64 Bit, it will eliminate Windows 98 altogether.

Bare in mind, I'm speaking sheerly on a Audio/Video Professional level. The Home Consumer could well indeed operate a Blu Ray Disc Drive on Windows 98. Provided it is not encoded @ 64 Bit of course!

Although, as you mentioned, drivers will probably be non existent, unless some one is skilled enough to design one on their own.

When I see Vista, I see a whole new meaning to Windows. One that will create a new standard, on a lot of things, and, restrict users that don't have computers operating on At Least Windows XP.

While I do love my Windows 98/98SE, technology is moving very rapid these days. When 64 Bit computers become the standard as far as society goes, Windows 98SE/98 & 95 will be what Windows 3.1 is today.............. Non existent.

i realy never ever heared of so mutch BS in my life....

i know there are lots of guys and girls who dont have the money for a better computer ....

but thinking that 98 has a better HAL than for example windows 2k xp or vista is like saying that a toad will outrun an antilope or a sail plain wil better manourvre than an F15 tomcat....

windows 98 a 32 bit extention tot a 16bit implempentation of an 8 bit os
that was initialy designed for a computer that didn't work for 1 bit?????

ever tried multi-treaded aplications (true multi-treading like cad).

ow yeah what happends if some extention card fails, hmmz whatsn't that somthing with a bleuscreen thingy ...
now a GOOD os would just ignore and disable it if id wasn't part of the core req to run the os....

ow and yournaling FS right??????

thank god MS finaly stops wasting time on 98 suppport so we can finaly get faster response time for OS's that DO deserve it...

^ Has read too much from Link21

Atmosphere,

I agree. What will kill w98 is the new technologies like 64bit that are flat out uncompatible with this old OS.
Also increasing audio/video quality/resolution/sampling, HDTV etc are making also w98 a bit limited because of the FAT32 4Gb limit.

But, it's not Vista or XP that are causing thiis move. It's the new hardware technologies.

Vista and XP64 just appaer to be able to handle new hardwares.
If one day someone decide to create an alternative windows compatible 64 bit OS, the world will rush in on it.

Because XP and Vista are realy POS. XP was a bloat monster comparing to 2000 (but 2000 was only the first version fo XP) or w98, now Vista is amonster of bloat comparing to XP. The w98 comparison is even not made anymore.

Fredledingue,

I agree as well. Hardware Requirements have catapulted throughout the years.


I'll reserve my opinion on Vista, until I purchase a new computer. Seeing that it's pointless, upgrading my XP Computer (32 Bit) to Vista, I'll just wait a few years, when the "beta stage" should be over.


Have A Great Weekend.

Im not a linux fanboi or anything, but linux installs take up sometimes as much as 15 GBs and none of the linux people complain.
(then again, linux comes with just about every app most ppl would need... browser, office suite, etc)

Yeah, but most of these 15+ GBs on Linux are sources.

...and there are thousands of Linux distros ranging from micro-installs of a few Mb to the full bells-and-whisles ones.

By contrast there are only ONE version of desktop OS sold by M$ and it's XP. And one day it will be Vista.
That's the problem.

Which distro installs all programs sources by default? Sure some distros include kernel sources in /usr/src but it doesn't take much space.

Watch the "Search" video here. It's pretty freakin quick IMO. Even when you haven't just created the files, the search is very fast.

Also - a point to note - that's the Portege M400 tablet. It only comes with integrated shared graphics, and yet the Aero interface is still that responsive

Probably none. But which distro is 15GB as standard install ?

In my case, it takes much longer to find newer files, as they aren't in the index (just a list of
files on a number of computers and file systems) yet.

For an OS never intended to be ported to other architectures (Alpha, MIPS, etc.),
W98 has a reasonable HAL (hardware abstraction layer) - most hardware
dependencies are isolated to particular VxDs that could be amended or replaced
with relative ease. The same is true for MS-DOS - the traditional design had all
hw-deps in IO.SYS - OEMs were given the source code for customisation to their
hardware (whereas MSDOS.SYS was provided in object form only)... but both
DOS and W3.x/9x were always closely tied to the x86 CPU architecture, largely
written in assembly language (making them more efficient and compact).

The NT designers, however, tried hard to make the OS portable even to
alien architectures (RISCs in particular) - with C++ as the implementation
language, and the famous"HAL" for shielding the rest of the system from
hardware dependencies, and as a matter of fact they went as far as
building a 286-emulator into the system for running DOS/Win16 software
on the other (non-PC) architectures. Such effort was expended in the
hope of seriously competing with Unix in workstation and server markets.
Fortunately Linux and the free BSDs arrived just on time to thwart those
sinister plans, hopefully for ever.

Or perhaps you weren't thinking of "abstraction" but of "virtualisation",
which is actually a specialty of the Win3.x/9x series - no other OS(*),
whether NT/XP/2K or Unix-like, comes close to matching the level of
virtualisation implemented in W9x VxDs. From the trival tasks of routing
keystrokes and mouse movement to the proper VM (one of of which is
the 16-bit shell - known as the desktop), to the rather more impressive
archievements of simulating the display device, sound card and DMA
channels well enough to allow applications written with almost exclusive
access to the machine in mind, to run properly.
(* VMware, Qemu and similar virtual machine applications do exceed the
virtualisation in Win9x, but they are applications dedicated to that task,
rather than general purpose operating systems)

NT/2K/XP falls short, after all the years they've had to get the job done,
and with full access to tried and tested reference implementations (namely
the Win9x source code)! Perhaps we're supposed to view these
deficiencies, whether due to lack of ambition or lack of skill, as reasons
for "upgrading" to one of those systems, just as we're supposed to
regard an ever richer "legacy" as a bad thing.

Not that Win9x or any other OS from Redmond or other sources is
perfect. For example, the limitations of the 16-bit core Win3.x/9x
components are real, bugs are hiding in all layers of the system,
the hardware support is rapidly getting outdated (as others have
mentioned), an additional or reivsed file system is needed, many
parameters that should be configurable are actually fixed, and so on...
but that's still a lot easier to fix than Microsoft's supposed successor
OSes would be - imagine weeding through 7 GB to find the scattered
pieces that might be worth preserving!



I tried Autocad once... whether it was multi-threaded I don't know.

I also wrote my own multi-threading kernel, resulting in an ~820 byte
DOS .COM-file that I successfully verified the proper operation of in a
Win98 DOS box. Vista would certainly crumble under such heavy load.

Furthermore, if you load a kernel debugger, such as Soft-Ice or
WDEB386 (comes with the DDK), you can view system state
information about active threads and VM (each VM contains at
least one thread, in addition to other resources).

Sounds more like a state of inflation to me... much like the concept
of "inflation" of currencies (the decline of currency value per unit).
In the good old days 10 floppies would suffice, now 10 CDs...



Text also takes a lot of space compared to code - especially
the modern bad habit of using 16 bits to store 7 bits. 16-bit
code is almost amazingly compact. Try invoking DEBUG.COM
on WIN.COM, and use the U command (repeatedly) and note
the increase of memory addresses to the left.



I've heard Vista requires a 3D card, which seems rather absurd.
Sounds more like Quake XII (or whatever) than MS-windows (NT 7?).

Besides, the "cool graphics" don't buy much in terms of usability...
As a beginner, I found the DOSSHELL more or less immediately
obvious how to navigate, with either the mouse or keyboard,
and the same was true for Win3.x. In fact, I would say the pull-
down menus and program groups you'd see on the desktop when
starting Win3.x are more obvious than the start button, or even
worse, the trash bin,"online services", "network" and other weird
"system"-icons appearing in Win95.

Additionally, the meaning of icons are often far from obvious, and
I find myself waiting for the "tooltip" on a daily basis, so unless
I'm especially bad at the task, beginners can be expected to have
even greater difficulties.

I read there would be a no-display version of Vista Server to spare some memory and let it run on older computers. Does anyone have more infos ?

just a comparison, how much space does mac os x take?

theres really no reason for it to be so huge im gonna have to stop splitting partitions at 10 GB

Gentoo does, and then compiles them

Code for RISC processors is inherently more "loose" and of a lower density, so it is not a good comparison. The Mac version of most software is often much larger than the PC version. But I wouldn't doubt it if most of the space was filled by all the graphics and icons.

Aww, it's nice to see a windows installation that is actually 14 times greater than the hard drive on my old computer.