Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Links

Windows 95 in 4.47MB 476

Posted by CowboyNeal from the seriously-small-operating-systems dept.
Silvorgold writes "BOFH of MSBetas.net has been able to compress Windows 95 into 4.47 megabytes, making it the world's first sub-5mb bootable, registry editable, command-promptable, usable version of Windows 95. He has written a small description about what he did, and also included screenshots (with his digital camera), and don't worry, these aren't fake screenshots."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 95 in 4.47MB More

Windows 95 in 4.47MB

Comments Filter:

  • I know what this is: (Score:5, Funny)

    by cliffy2000 ( 185461 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:10AM (#6642861) Journal
    PicoBSD made EVIL!

  • Die, server, DIE! (Score:5, Funny)

    by mu_wtfo ( 224511 ) * on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:11AM (#6642866) Homepage
    "Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the screenshots :) Oh, and don't hot-link to them, my host will kill me. Thanks!"

    Yes. Yes, he will.

  • Doesn't seem very solid... (Score:5, Funny)

    by KFK - Wildcat ( 512842 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:12AM (#6642873)
    Already /.ed and not yet 5 comments? Oh wait, it's Windows95.

  • w00t! (Score:4, Funny)

    by GregoryD ( 646395 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:13AM (#6642878)
    Great! Now I can crash my PDA with 8mb of storage space! Thanks!

  • BSOD (Score:5, Funny)

    by MesiahTaz ( 122415 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:14AM (#6642884)
    Does it have a full-featured blue screen of death?

  • Wow, that was fast. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mskfisher ( 22425 ) * on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:15AM (#6642888) Homepage Journal
    Destroyed already...

    Here's a mirror:

  • Famous last words on their message board (Score:5, Funny)

    by loomis ( 141922 ) * on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:15AM (#6642889)
    #126 - Slashdotter - Aug 8, 2003 02:58
    Slashdotting, coming your way....

    #127 - /. - Aug 8, 2003 03:04
    Here comes the flood of Slashdotters....Prepare for server meltdown

    Loomis

  • article text (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:15AM (#6642890)
    ou can discuss this at our official community, over at NeoNerds.net.

    Update: Chat with me in real-time at irc://irc.xbetas.com/Micro95

    A FULL set of configuration files; Win.ini, system.ini, Registry, is available in our IRC channel. If you're thinking of building your own version of Micro95, be sure to head over there to find out more information about the project.

    Okay, over the past couple of days you will have heard plenty of news about the latest Windows 95 in 10mb, created by Richard L. James from over at Wimborne.org. And then, there was redruM69, who managed to get 95 down to 5.35mb.

    However, what you are about to hear is a world first.

    Tonight, I created the world's first sub-5mb bootable, registry editable, command- promptable, usable version of Windows 95. And what's more, you can build the system yourself, if you know how.

    But if I simply made this claim, you might laugh, you might mock. You might even go "hahaha you lamer". So I'm not just going to make this claim. I'm going to prove it. Here's the screenshots (taken with the camera):

    Lemme guess. They're fakes, right? No they're not, but you don't believe me anyway, so here's the directory listing.

    Windows 95 4.47mb Directory Listing

    Well, I'm afraid that's all I can give you. I'm currently working on loading this into RAM, and also an installer for those of you with a legit copy of Windows 95. Aaaand I think that's all I can do :)

    The system uses UPX compression on the main EXEs and DLLs, btw, in case you were wondering how I got it down past redruM69's 5.35mb. I also removed some extra files, and restored functionality which the other micro 95 builds don't have. I'll try UPXing the entire system and windows folders later, see if I can get it down past 4 or 3mb ;)

    My 16mb Office project will continue, as well as myself and Richard's collaboration on the micro 95 with TCP/IP Stack project, for those of you who wish to use this as a small browsing OS, etc. I'll also see if I can restore sound support to this, as I'm aware quite a few of you are interested in using this project as a basis for car MP3 players.

    I'd also like to make it quite clear that none of this would have been possible without the help of Richard L James and his Shrinking Windows project. Also worthy of a big mention is redruM69, who sucessfully brought Windows 95 down to 5.35mb.

    You can discuss this at our official community, over at NeoNerds.net.

    Update: Chat with me in real-time at irc://irc.xbetas.com/Micro95

    A FULL set of configuration files; Win.ini, system.ini, Registry, is available in our IRC channel. If you're thinking of building your own version of Micro95, be sure to head over there to find out more information about the project.

    Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the screenshots :) Oh, and don't hot-link to them, my host will kill me. Thanks!

    BOFH

  • Slashdotted (Score:5, Funny)

    by bazik ( 672335 ) <bazik&gentoo,org> on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:16AM (#6642900) Homepage Journal
    Heh, the Contiki [slashdot.org] server was up for a longer time ;)

  • Mirror? (Score:2, Informative)

    by nutbar ( 138893 )
    Does anyone have a mirror of the site? I can't even get to google's cache of.

  • 4.5 megs, that's nothing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GrodinTierce ( 571882 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:18AM (#6642907) Journal
    I'm still waiting for Windows 95 on a floppy.

    Tierce

  • what's next, DOS 5.0 on a single floppy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by wardk ( 3037 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:19AM (#6642911) Journal
    In other breaking news, the crew at DOSBeta.org have created a fully bootable DOS 5 system on a single 3.5 inch floppy.

  • 5 megs.. that actually means a lot of things.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peculiarmethod ( 301094 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:19AM (#6642915) Journal
    soo.. . why exactly DID they leave all the cabs, secondary software, unused images, back pad programs never intended for public use on a public cd commercial release (150 av megs for those who never tried)? Bigger is better.. lots of extra stuff for control, included room to grow. That means lots will be pruned, so anyone who is suprised by this, go to asm 04 after taking a few machine level programming classes. What I'm really interested in is seeing how small we can get a bootable linux with an independantly and fully function hack *W*ine type program so i can load all my needs onto the newer 128 meg hardrive keychains.. along with my *ORIGINAL* mp3's, artwork, photos, scripts / resumes, etc.. so i might have a bootable navicable computing environment that might be used anywhere near a modern computer.. regardless of resources.. think about it.

    p

  • usable win95? (Score:5, Funny)

    by imipak ( 254310 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:21AM (#6642921) Journal
    This HAS to be a hoax. Windows95 ain't usable by any reasonable definition of the word.

  • Curiously showing the size of apps & OSs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by questamor ( 653018 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:24AM (#6642929)
    This leads to obvious comparisons of the size of Win95 compared to WinXP, and the changes in just 8 years.

    What I find telling as well is that the Mac OSX calculator.app is SIX times the size of the total RAM in the first Mac, and over twice the size of a complete OS install.

    • Re:Curiously showing the size of apps & OSs (Score:5, Informative)

      by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @04:01AM (#6643065) Homepage
      What I find telling as well is that the Mac OSX calculator.app is SIX times the size of the total RAM in the first Mac, and over twice the size of a complete OS install.

      That's the "cruft" of a new software framework... it's a fact of computer life. The original Mac had 128 KB of RAM and a single internal 400 KB 3.5" floppy drive. A few people had an external floppy or hard drive for further storage. These days Apple doesn't even sell a machine with less than 128 MB of RAM and 30 GB of HDD space.

      The original Mac OS and bundled software was written between 1981 - 1983 in assembly as well as heavily optimized compiled higher level languages. Every byte counted. The team's goal was to outgun the Lisa with 1/8 as much ram and no hard drive. (And way less than what the Xerox Star had). They pulled it off, though. With a single floppy a person could have the full OS and a couple apps. By the time postscript support and networking was added in early 1985, two floppy drives were required for enough space for OS, drivers, apps, and storage.

    • The old calculator is 7k. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by solios ( 53048 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @04:08AM (#6643088) Homepage
      7,033 bytes, to be exact. I'm sure the icon for the OS X calculator is at least twice that size- ever mind the UI buttons. o.O

  • Interesting if not important. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Funksaw ( 636954 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:25AM (#6642933)
    Actually, this is interesting, if not particularly important.

    It shows just exactly how much JUNK that a Windows install puts on your system. Crap you don't need... in most cases, crap you don't know about, can't get rid of, or don't want. I'm pissed because my Windows partition is 6 gigs and WinXP takes up nearly 2 gigs of that, while still running slower than my 7 year old computer did back in 1996. Windows is actually a pretty fast operating system, once you take away all the junk. This just shows how much junk there is.

    Although, if someone had come out with this 6 years ago, I'd be clamoring for the code - I would have loved this instead of having to clear out the advertizing junk and IE and Outlook Express manually...

    • Re:Interesting if not important. (Score:5, Informative)

      by superyooser ( 100462 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @06:54AM (#6643520) Homepage Journal
      Here's a trick you may not know about, so you don't have to uninstall some things manually. WinXP will let you uninstall more components than it reveals by default in the Add/Remove Windows Components section of the Control Panel.

      Open the file C:\WINDOWS\inf\sysoc.inf in Notepad. Each line is a Windows component (not Program) that could appear in the Add/Remove list in the Control Panel. Delete the word "hide" for each component you want to show up. Now go back to Add/Remove Windows Components, and look at all the stuff Windows will uninstall for you.

      Of course, if you're really serious about purging as much junk as you can, most of the deleting will still have to be done manually.

  • how soon and EULA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kleine18 ( 675867 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:26AM (#6642940)
    how soon till someone gets around to doing the same to XP. also, is this not a violation of the EULA?

  • Uses (Score:5, Funny)

    by john_smith_45678 ( 607592 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:28AM (#6642946) Journal
    Complete list of uses for this:










    [end list]
  • There were at least three versions of Windows 95, the last (OSR2) of which was very similar to Windows 98. Do we know which version was used, as presumably the later and more functional releases were larger?

  • just think (Score:4, Insightful)

    by headbulb ( 534102 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:36AM (#6642981)
    How Small the people with the source code could make it.

  • Cheated with UPX (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bazik ( 672335 ) <bazik&gentoo,org> on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:37AM (#6642982) Homepage Journal
    From the page:

    The system uses UPX compression on the main EXEs and DLLs, btw, in case you were wondering how I got it down past redruM69's 5.35mb. I also removed some extra files, and restored functionality which the other micro 95 builds don't have. I'll try UPXing the entire system and windows folders later, see if I can get it down past 4 or 3mb ;)

    UPX [sourceforge.net] compresses most executables to 30% of their normal size. But it also makes the system slower (well its Win95 so thats not a big issue ;) ) as the executables/libraries get uncompressed to memory when they get loaded by the Windows PE loader.

    I'd like to see how small you can get the smallest floppy Linux using UPX, `strip` and some size squeezing GCC and linker flags :)

    If you check the UPX examples [sourceforge.net] you'll see that you can even get Emacs [gnu.org] to less than 1 MB 8)
    • If you check the UPX examples you'll see that you can even get Emacs to less than 1 MB 8)

      Err... eine megabyte unt konstantly schwapping? ;-)

      --

  • That's kinda ironic after yesterdays article on Contiki, now isn't it?

  • he thinks that OC12 is enough for /. ;) (Score:5, Funny)

    by radek ( 46921 ) * <{radek} {at} {alter.pl}> on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:42AM (#6642996) Homepage
    From their forum:
    <BLOCKQUOTE>
    #7 - BOFH - Aug 7, 2003 00:52<BR>
    Eek... I think we're on an OC12, though, so we should be okay... :: prays :: I hope that b/w limit doesn't kick in
    </BLOCKQUOTE>

  • *sigh* If only... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Siriaan ( 615378 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:48AM (#6643017)
    This had come out YEARS ago! A sub-5meg Win95 would've been a absolute godsend; I was still using Windows95 on my main computer up until this year even, so a tiny "distro" of it would've been truly excellent and a very good thing.

  • Ah Memories (Score:5, Informative)

    by acxr is wasted ( 653126 ) * on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:50AM (#6643024)
    Reminds me of that tiny copy of Windows 3.1 that came on the Windows 95 disc. Used only during installation, a certain cab file contained all the necessary files to run 3.1 apps. All one needed to do was decompress the file, copy the Program Manager or any other shell program to the same directory, and add it into the win.ini (or was it the system.ini?) file. The entire thing was so small, it fit comfortably onto a 1.44 meg floppy.

    I think the file was user.cab, although I'm not sure. Guess I gotta dig up that old 95 install disc.

  • Use of IRC (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:53AM (#6643032) Journal
    The site says:
    Update: Chat with me in real-time at irc://irc.xbetas.com/Micro95

    A FULL set of configuration files; Win.ini, system.ini, Registry, is available in our IRC channel. If you're thinking of building your own version of Micro95, be sure to head over there to find out more information about the project.

    Interesting use of IRC. To download the thing you gotta join the IRC channel. Then while you are there you will presumably chat. First time I have seen that in a product announcement. And I might mention that irc://irc.xbetas.com/Micro95 worked for me in Mozilla - it placed me in Chatzilla.

  • But 5.35 MB version used no executable packer? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Revolutionary ( 694752 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @03:55AM (#6643037) Homepage Journal
    From this page [wimborne.org], it appears that the previous 'record holder', 5.35 MB, did not use an executable packer or other compression.

    "Apparently only 5.35Mb in size (at the moment.... I'm told this might go down!) - without using UPX / any compression"

    So, is what this fellow has done a superior acheivement, or did he mostly just run an executable packer on a few binaries?

    Certainly if the idea here is to just shrink the physical disk space usage we can do better than either of these entries by compressing all files and hacking the Windows I/O subsystem calls to handle our compression.

    I think all of this raises an interesting question. (ok, so it's not interesting at all, but I've had similar issues come up in a lot of other unofficial sort of 'competitions' like this, and we all just kind of use interest at that point ;). Just what is the purpose of this, and at what point do your modifications, whether extreme, or just running binaries through an executable packer, defeat the purpose of doing this in the first place?

    Is the idea to have the smallest possible OS capable of doing x or y?

    Is the idea to have the smallest possible OS that looks like Windows 95?

    Is the idea to have the smallest possible 'distribution' of Windows 95 attainable by just removing unecessary features?

    Do we want smallest in terms of RAM usage, or smallest in terms of disk space? What do we then if we run it on a RAM disk? Which space counts?

    Surely depending up just what is the goal here, we can do a lot better than 4.47 MB.

    I guess I don't 'get it', what they're doing =)

    That's Windows users for you!

    There is a micro Linux distribution floating around somewhere that provides an X server in under 2 MB of physical disk space (but 4 or 8 MB of RAM), but I can't recall the name of it just now.

  • Small Distributions - Has anyone tried MenuetOS ?? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MadX ( 99132 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @04:09AM (#6643094)
    This little Distribution is actually quite amazing. It runs off a single 1.44 MB disk (Which happens in INCLUDE the source code). I know that they are improving the functionality.

    Menuet Homepage [menuetos.org]

  • Heh, that's cool, but... (Score:4, Funny)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @04:12AM (#6643103) Journal
    several times I've been able to make Windows fit into 0 MB.

  • Netcraft says: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thanjee ( 263266 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @04:21AM (#6643126) Journal
    The site www.msbetas.net is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

    And you all though it was running on the advertised super slim win95.....Leave giants like Contiki to host web sites!

    Should we send them an award for the fastest slashdot time on record?

  • A Friend of Mine Did This (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dupper ( 470576 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @04:27AM (#6643135) Journal
    He used a better method, though: He deleted everything but win.exe, then tried to run it. When it failed, he monitored what file it was trying to process, and added that from a full installation. Repeat until it boots, and you can do this for any OS.

    • Re:Used that method for lots of stuff... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mrb000gus ( 696332 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @07:24AM (#6643597)
      Used this method (usually combined with stacker and 2m format) lots when I was at university, we didn't have access to hard disk storage so we'd squash things onto disk to use; I got the following working off single disks :
      Win3.11
      Win3.11 booting into netscape
      Win3.11 booting into Mirc/Pirch
      X-wing (without cutscenes/movies)
      Lemmings 2
      Borland C (dos ver)
      Turbo pascal 7 (dos ver)

      A few others, including shareware doom off a single disk so that we could play it across the (novell) network without having to log in and be traced :) Although for doom a friend of mine wrote a program that hacked the .wad file and ripped out all the sound files 'cos those didn't compress with stacker.

  • Short short description (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @04:49AM (#6643184) Homepage

    "I took redruM69's 5.35Mb version and upx'd it. W00t! 1 4r 1337!!!!!! f33r m33!!!!"

    Hmm. Not exactly ground breaking stuff.

  • making windows 95 useable (Score:5, Funny)

    by tychoS ( 200282 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @05:04AM (#6643223)

    making it the world's first sub-5mb bootable, registry editable, command-promptable, usable version of Windows 95


    Making Windozz 95 useable - now that is an accomplishment!

  • system stripping was SOP for high level embedded (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mungkie ( 632052 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @05:13AM (#6643244) Homepage
    It's all about cost really. Smaller software requires cheaper hardware to run. If you are producing highlevel embedded software applications (e.g. for epos or media devices), you require a reasonable graphical user interface to optimize HCI. Many older operating systems were used before OS developers realized high level embedded OS were a large market. Then came embedded linux distributions followed by embedded windows. Now there is little need to strip down an older OS when you can have all the new features in roughly the same size as a stripped older OS.

    Incidently Mungkie used win95 at one point for a number of epos projects. Using win95 we managed to create an uncompressed OS image of ~3.9Mb which meant we could normally fit our entire system and application on a 32Mbit ROM (we can half that size with compression but more system RAM is then required). Now using linux we can get the system in the same ROM but we get far far better features, security and a more stable system. We have now switched to linux only development on all work (unless a customer insists on a MS platform).

    Now just to reiterate the exact reasons for reducing system size!!!. SMALLER SYSTEMS ARE CHEAPER AND SIMPLER TO DEVELOP, PRODUCE, AND MAINTAIN.

    The savings made in development time mean we have more time to eat bananas.

    The savings made on hardware costs make our systems (that we sell!) more competetive and increase our profit margins.

    The savings made in maintenance mean our products are reliable and our customers want to buy from us again, and saves us time and money in supporting customers and paying for call centers.


    Win95 was OK in its time but things have changed.

  • True Windows 95 is... (Score:4, Funny)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @05:14AM (#6643248) Journal
    5 MB of proper code, and
    645 MB of added junk.

    -

  • 4,470,000 bytes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ken Broadfoot ( 3675 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @05:16AM (#6643252) Homepage Journal

    Lets see. Bill was worth about 50,000,000,000 dollars at this time too..

    That is: 11,185 dollars and 68 cents PER BYTE.

    I think he did pretty good, eh?

    --ken

    George, tell me about the rabbits...

  • Bah, here's Win95 in 33K! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kaz Riprock ( 590115 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @05:19AM (#6643257)

    Here [bbspot.com] is Win95 reduced to about 33K..and if I reduce the color palette, I think I can get it under 25K at the same resolution...

  • D'OH! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @07:08AM (#6643552) Homepage Journal
    Looks like he tried to use Win95 to run the site maybe?

    Error: No site configured at this address. /.'d

  • Bloated (Score:5, Funny)

    by Michael_Burton ( 608237 ) <michaelburton@brainrow.com> on Friday August 08, 2003 @09:46AM (#6644296) Homepage

    4.47 megabytes? Some guy told me I'd never need more than 640K!

  • Could you imagine if MS had originally released Win95 with such a small footprint?

    I imagine I would have liked the OS a lot more. When it first came out, I stuck with 3.11 (until I found out about Diablo) because it ran much faster and had a smaller footprint. I remember being thoroughly disappointed at the performance hit when I first booted into Win95...

    Now I know that a smaller footprint doesn't automatically mean more better performance. However, there seems to be an unofficial connection between the two, because the programmer who strives for a small footprint is probably a better programmer, and is looking for ways to best optimize his/her code. Also, with such a small footprint there is quite likely less bugs. Cutting down that much bloat probably means that identical pieces of code could be cut down to one instance, and if that one instance has a bug, it will not only be more noticeable (since it gets executed more often) but also easier to fix.

    But I think I know why MS didn't take this approach - money. Sloppier code = less development costs, and bigger bloat means more hardware upgrades, which means more Windows licenses (and Office licenses, etc.). Not to mention the general public would be more impressed with a gigantic OS than a tiny one. So I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

    I wonder how much bloat could be removed from XP while still maintaining 90% of the features.

  • Win 95 can be STABLE (Score:3, Informative)

    by lcsjk ( 143581 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @10:15AM (#6644552)
    I have a Win-95 computer, used for all my engineering work until last year and now only 2-4 times per week. I never loaded games, and was very careful about programs I added. However I used it for circuit analysis, PCBoard layout and other complex programs including photoshop. Except for Netscape and LView open at the same time, it almost never crashes or hangs-up. It is one of the earlier WIN-95 versions, and I never upgraded or added patches. I run Norton's crashguard and Zonealarm and Karenware PTCookie to keep most junk off.
    Since I have the same problem free performance on that particular Win-95 with Cyrix P166 as I do on Win-2000(Athlon1.8G)at work, I am convinced that a small version of W-95 might be a very good idea for those people who only use their computer for email and for searching/buying on the internet.
    Am I the only one who still used Win-95?
    • Am I the only one who still used Win-95?
      Nope. I used -95 to run a small business until late last year, and my home machine is still -98.

      The problem here is the /. Articles of Faith:
      • II.A.1 On Operating Systems

        No operating system is worth considering unless it is the latest and most obscure distro of Linux available as of 0000 GMT on the day of the post

  • litePC / EOS (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mitchell Mebane ( 594797 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @11:13AM (#6645275) Homepage Journal
    I find it rather interesting that nobody has yet mentioned litePC [litepc.com] and their EOS [embeddingwindows.com] product - they got Windows ME down to less than 32MB _with_ Internet Explorer. They also make 98lite, which lets you easily install stripped down, but fully functional builds of Win98 and ME. I hear ME is actually pretty good after "liteing" it. XPlite is still in progress.

  • bah. (Score:4, Funny)

    by pb ( 1020 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @11:27AM (#6645498)
    I'm both saddened and relieved to hear this. I never managed to get a stripped-down version of win95 onto a floppy. However, I did manage to get win31 on a single 1.44mb floppy, back in the day; (using a self-extracting rar archive that uncompressed to a RAM drive, of course) I even had sound support, via the PC Speaker Driver for win31, so it could go 'tada' on boot-up! ;)

  • Interesting Use (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zone-MR ( 631588 ) <slashdot@NoSPam.zone-mr.net> on Friday August 08, 2003 @05:21PM (#6650081) Homepage
    Every other comment bitches about how there are no uses for this. I can think of one interesting application straight away.

    USB pendrives are becomming cheaper and more popular. Most of them support booting. Copying a mini distro of windows 95 would be quite a useful feature - you pop your stick into any PC, and have your own customised GUI with a few programs you use regularly, programs you need to open documents stored on your pendrive preinstalled, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close