Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your views on an efficient OSs and WinOSs

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Your views on an efficient OSs and WinOSs

    My view is that an OS should be written to run on current hardware smoothly and any upgrade/update should improve on the efficiency etc, use of lesser memory to do the same task or faster loading or less crashes. The OS should allow for expandability so that support for new hardware can be seamlessly added on.

    Now i read online that WinXP require faster processor/more resources (in fact the hint was a GigaPC would be comfortable, I dont have that link sorry!). I find this disturbing as I find I still havent made full use of my own modestly configured PC and upgrading it just to run WinXP.

    I would rather take the Win98SE->Win2000 upgrade path.(I still dont count WinMe as a viable OS). With Linux for example being able to run on a 486 or pentium (it may run on a 386 but finding a funtional 386 PC in my country is very rare) it is getting me to look at it as an alternative.

    I have suse running on my pc but i am currently using it more to learn about linux rather than actually using it. It has a lot of good things going for it (I believe most of MURC has tried using it) and it may be a major OS in the future.

    I mourn the loss of OS/2 (It is still around but has got behind in time but it was THE 'true' multitasking OS back when MS had only win3.11 for workgroups). I will not be using WinXP (at least at my home) until I will have no other choice but to join the massively brainwashed general public using it.(Bound to happen knowing MS)

    I am not totally against Microsoft as they do turn out stable OSs (WinNT and Win2K) time to time but i hope they stop producing bloatware which take up more resources each time they announce something new.

    Please comment..

    I believe that OSs should be written according to public demand and usage and resources rather than what is happening now at MS. OSs is forced upon the public and changing hardware to keep up is becoming mandatory.

    ------------------
    config of my rig :^)
    Viewsonic PS775 17"(non-flat) G400DH 32MB Duron650MHz ASUS A7V PC133 128MB SDRAM SBLiveValue AltecLansing ACS45.1 Spkrs
    "It does not matter how many times you fall down as long as you get up and go on."
    Life is a bed of roses. Everyone else sees the roses, you are the one being gored by the thorns.

    AMD PhenomII555@B55(Quadcore-3.2GHz) Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 Kingston 1x2GB Generic 8400GS512MB WD1.5TB LGMulti-Drive Dell2407WFP
    ***Matrox G400DH 32MB still chugging along happily in my other pc***
    Tags: None
  • #2
    I've tryed win2k server and XP server and for me it was taking less ressources and XP ran a lot faster than 2k under the test i made. I'll do more test when i'll have some time.

    Spazm
    P3-667@810 retail, Asus CUSL2-C, 2*128 mb PC-133(generic), G400DH 16mb, SBLive value, HollyWood+, 1*Realtek 8029(AS) and 1*Realtek 8039C, Quantum 30g, Pioneer DVD-115f

    Comment

    • #3
      Well, i don't know where yo read those stuff about winxp, it's a lot faster than win2k, it's stable ! most of the time runs games like in win98se. It's very pleasant to use, actually with 128MB you are impressed the time it takes to boot and give you what you need ! (compared to same settings under 2k !)

      If i were you give it a try ! this is obviously the replacement for my Win2k Pro !

      Ken

      Comment

      • #4
        Spazm and ken , thanks for your views.. like i said i am not against MS and if XP is very stable i might use it .. however so far what i have read is contradictory ..

        So Spazm can you post your findings after you tests.. i havent had any chance to try XP myslef..

        ------------------
        config of my rig :^)
        Viewsonic PS775 17"(non-flat) G400DH 32MB Duron650MHz ASUS A7V PC133 128MB SDRAM SBLiveValue AltecLansing ACS45.1 Spkrs
        "It does not matter how many times you fall down as long as you get up and go on."
        Life is a bed of roses. Everyone else sees the roses, you are the one being gored by the thorns.

        AMD PhenomII555@B55(Quadcore-3.2GHz) Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 Kingston 1x2GB Generic 8400GS512MB WD1.5TB LGMulti-Drive Dell2407WFP
        ***Matrox G400DH 32MB still chugging along happily in my other pc***

        Comment

        • #5
          No problem for that, but it might take a week or two since i'm working on XP server right now but so far it work's really great. All things i've ran on both goes about 5-25% faster on XP and it takes a little less ram, maybe 15-25mb for the same thing.

          Spazm
          P3-667@810 retail, Asus CUSL2-C, 2*128 mb PC-133(generic), G400DH 16mb, SBLive value, HollyWood+, 1*Realtek 8029(AS) and 1*Realtek 8039C, Quantum 30g, Pioneer DVD-115f

          Comment

          • #6
            Sorry for the delay, but i had lots of things to do lately.

            Ok i've just tested XP Home Beta 2.¸

            I've ran 3Dmark2k and Quake 3 on it.

            98/XP
            -------

            3Dmark - 1022/1209
            Quake 3 - 12fps/18fps
            Used ram right after boot - 82mb/56mb
            Page file - 60mb/8mb

            Alright the game performance is still better on 98SE, but ram usage is lots better on XP.

            To conclude i'll stay with 98SE in that pc, but if it was one of my pcs i'd stay with XP for more stability and more security. Anyway if u have the chance try it, it's a really interessing OS.

            ---------
            Test machine
            celeron 400
            Shuttle mobo
            92mb of ram
            5gb maxtor hd
            8mb TNT2
            ...

            Note. I used the drivers that came with XP for everything, maybe updating the drivers for the video card would had give a boost but i really doubt that the driver was old enough to change something.
            P3-667@810 retail, Asus CUSL2-C, 2*128 mb PC-133(generic), G400DH 16mb, SBLive value, HollyWood+, 1*Realtek 8029(AS) and 1*Realtek 8039C, Quantum 30g, Pioneer DVD-115f

            Comment

            • #7
              The best working OS in my system up to this day is..... (drum roll).... WINDOWS ME!

              It´s true... I reckon an OS´s efficiency depends (up to a certain extent) upon the machine that you have...

              About general OSing, my philosophy is, instead of "inventing" a new OS every year (Microsoft), there should be a release of a new operating system without any rush (4-5 year gap), so that the bugs would be significatively less. Evolution (kernel, corrections, cosmetic, new drivers) should come on big service packs about twice a year). Of course, emergency patches should come out rapidly, and should be small, anyway. This way, things would mature, instead of spending our lives instaling and reinstalling OSes.

              Money rules, though...

              Comment

              • #8
                ms dont invent new os's every year, ME is just an upgrade to 95/98/98se, just like 2k is an update to nt X.

                on my pc, ME was the best working os as well, i always wondered why noone liked it. guess i just had a lucky configuration

                Comment

                • #9
                  <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Alec:
                  The best working OS in my system up to this day is..... (drum roll).... WINDOWS ME!

                  It´s true... I reckon an OS´s efficiency depends (up to a certain extent) upon the machine that you have...

                  About general OSing, my philosophy is, instead of "inventing" a new OS every year (Microsoft), there should be a release of a new operating system without any rush (4-5 year gap), so that the bugs would be significatively less. Evolution (kernel, corrections, cosmetic, new drivers) should come on big service packs about twice a year). Of course, emergency patches should come out rapidly, and should be small, anyway. This way, things would mature, instead of spending our lives instaling and reinstalling OSes.

                  Money rules, though...                  </font>

                  This is actually kind of what MS is committing to at the moment. Each particular OS is to have a 5-year life cycle, with 3 years of full support and 2 years of diminishing support. If you look at the versioning for Windows XP, it is effectively NT 5.1 (note that 2000 was NT 5). Service Packs have been commited to approximately every six months, with no new features being introduced in the Service Pack.

                  If you really want to complain about quick OS upgrade cycles, talk to folks in the Mac world. In the year and a half I worked in a print services bureau, our resident Mac geek went from OS 8.0 to 9.1 That's a full version upgrade, PLUS point releases, with some point releases breaking critical applications (DAVE, a Mac-Windows TCP/IP translator, broke going from 9.0.4 to 9.1)

                  Comment

                  Previous template Next
                  Working...
                  X