Slashdot Log In
A Quick Look at Longhorn Build 4053
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Mar 07, 2004 04:01 PM
from the look-away-look-away-look-away dept.
from the look-away-look-away-look-away dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Even though the next generation Windows product is not due until late 2005 or even 2006, here is a look at what Microsoft has in store for it's future operating system. 'Without a vast amount of tweaking, this build is a resource hog. At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
A Quick Look at Longhorn Build 4053
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 758 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~MuParadigm/journal/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 09 2003, @06:23AM)
"At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources."
MS typically aims at having the OS consume, or fit into, about a quarter of whatever amount of memory is considered standard at the time.
Now, by the time Longhorn rolls out in 2007 or so, it's likely that 2 GB of RAM, if not 4, will be standard on most new systems. So I'd say MS is probably aiming at a 512 MB base for Longhorn. Maybe 256 or 384, but there's nothing in MS's history to indicate that they would have a problem releasing an OS that consumes 512MB.
Re:prove it (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday February 13 2006, @07:11PM)
Not really. Windows XP was over 2000 though. There are some huge underlying changes -- not a 100% rewrite -- but some major rewrites anyway. For example is the Windows programming API switched from Win32 to WinFX, and a whole lot retrofitted for the
In total, I'd expect Longhorn to bring about as many rewrites as there was from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95.
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
This is crap...
Testing both 4051 and 4053, even with all the 'extra features' turned on, the commit charge is around 240mb.
Additionally, there are about 50-100mb of Services for Microsoft reporting that is running and is used ONLY for reporting to internal servers at Microsoft for the developers at Microsoft. And thse services can and should be turned off, since outside testers are NOT using these services.
Some of our developers are running Longhorn in VMWare and VirtualPC with it set to 196mb and 256mb of RAM for the guest OS. And it runs better than expected for a pre-beta.
Let's dog on Longhorn when it gets to RC1, the current Alphas are so far away from the shipping product it isn't even close.
This reminds me of Windows 2000 when it was Beta 1 back in 1997, it was a TOTALLY different OS than even Beta 2 or RC1. Beta 1 of Windows 2000 had very few features working properly and was slow as hell compared to the release version.
Considering the time table of Longhorn, 2 years is a lot of time for a lot optimization and it already has a solid NT core that the redesigned Windows Subsystem will run on.
If all else fails, I would bet money that when longhorn releases it will run as fast as WindowsXP, even on comperable hardware, although you may have to turn off many of the 'resource intense' features of Longhorn to make it run well on lower end hardware.
TheNetAvenger
Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
They goal is help their customers sell more product. That means give to their customer's customers pretty bright beads and *CAN NOT* work on existing (well slowly at least). This leads to the people buying BIG compters from MS Customers allowing for MS to sell the product twice!!
Can you say "More profit!"
Re:Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Upgrading 1,000,000 customers vs. 80,000,000 - your support and documentation has to be that much better.
Believe it or not, I think Windows 2000 / Windows XP is as stable as linux / Freebsd. I didn't say better, I didn't say more secure... but I think the stablish issue is mute. considering how much more crappy hardware and hardware drivers windows supports - of course more people are going ot have crashes. But on the 10,000 combinations of _good hardware and drivers_ it works fine.
Remember kids, only takes one driver to lockup the PCI bus (IRQ / DMA / etc). I've seen bad USB drivers bring down Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/windows XP - all latest versions with patches.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.alienmelon.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 08 2004, @07:49AM)
I've come to the conclusion it's crappy hardware that renders, otherwise good PCs, into something a wee better than cardboard boxes.
Re:Apple (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I know it may seem like magic to you but there really is always a reason. Computers are deterministic; everything they do has a cause.
My bet would be faulty memory. Just a guess though.
What a strange argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that meant to spoof the old "more Windows viruses because it's more popular" myth?
If a company has to write 2 drivers, which one are they more likely to spend time writing and testing properly: the one that will be used on 95% of desktops or the one that will be used on 5% of desktops? Even the large companies that can write decent drivers often write their Linux drivers in a rush, usually after some big customer asks for it and they're facing the loss of a big sale.
Of course, one could argue that a company that doesn't have the resources to make a decent driver won't even bother with the Linux market. But such no-name companies mostly just use common chipsets anyway, most of which have good drivers.
Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)
I don't really know how modern Windows versions stack up in terms of stability. Win98 and earlier releases were horrible, and some people seem determined to pretend it's still like that five years after the fact, but it's been my experience (with a lot of installations) that Windows XP/2k really don't crash much, except for hardware/power problems, and weirdness with third party programs.
Defending Windows on Slashdot is probably asking for bad karma...
Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://fwarren.homelinux.net/)
Meanwhile over in Windows Land, Joe sixpack can't even load the program because he has about 10% resources free because there are 30 items running in his tray...hmmm how did I get three copies of WeathreBug running? Not to mention spyware and mailware running in the background.
Yup, with the right hardware, and keeping Joes Sixpack off the internet and your windows box will run well. I just fear for the day when all the spyware gets ported to Linux and I have to clean that crap up for folks......
Re:Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
To be sure, they've done WONDERS with the stability. When I was using XP as my home operating system, it wasn't too bad. The problem that I've found with XP is that as load ramps up, it's ability to stay stable and usable trends downward increasingly quickly.
Oh, and its dual-processor support is pretty pathetic. The load balancing seems incredibly naive. (And, this may not be an OS problem, but I find that I have problems scrolling text in VS.NET in a timely fashion. Not all the time, but sometimes it'll just stall when trying to do something that I consider a simplistic task.)
Re:Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Now, I work for a company with sysadmins, and they do a good job of taking care of my machine. We make sure it's patched, that we've got the latest drivers, and that the hardware is all running well.
I have no bizarre third party applications running, besides the usual things that should have nothing to to with stability. I use Emacs, Opera, VS.NET, iTunes and PuTTY throughout the day.
Some days, I have no problems. Other days, the problems just stack up. I occasionally have the machine lock up on shut down. I used to have the machine crash 2 or 3 times a week, but I stopped playing Diablo II so much. For whatever reason, XP REALLY doesn't like me playing Diablo II. Blaming things on Diablo II won't work, though - XP should be more than robust enough to handle something like that.
A while back, it would have been more likely that I would have agreed with you. I was running a shell and desktop replacement, but I've switched back to the ordinary base shell now. Nothing I run should be an issue.
As for Linux, I only had it crash a couple of times. Once, when I was playing around with experimental drivers, and a couple times when I was playing with beta kernels. I also had the windowing system crash a few times, but another networked machine always found the box up and running. (I also had some lockups related to heat when my Celeron 300A was starting to go.)
Considering the amount of work I do, I don't really find there to be much excuse for XP dying on me. I think I'm most willing to blame it on VS.NET which is incredibly unstable on its own, crashing and coredumping and giving me internal compiler errors several times a week. I wouldn't be suprised if it were running wild and occasionally kicking the system out from underneath me.
Like I said, as a home system, XP worked GREAT for me. I was running Dual-Head on an ATI, playing lots of games, etc. As a development system, it's been brutal. I have pretty standard high-end hardware (getting older, so not quite as high-end now, but still, a Ti4400 is not exactly bottom of the barrel) and I run standard XBox dev tools. Most of my colleagues have similar problems, though perhaps a little less often than I do.
I'm not really trying to rag on XP particularily much, merely trying to point out that from a stability point of view, I don't think it holds a candle to any UNIX that I've ever worked with. OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX, AIX, Linux, OS X and even HP-UX (ick, BTW) seem to be more solid.
Re:Everyone does this... look at OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 23 2003, @04:07PM)
OS X will use as much RAM as it can - it caches apps and data you use a lot to cut down on time accessing the disk. I have a gig in my machine and OS X is using 892.8 megs, with 12 days of uptime and ten apps currently running. However, I bet that bits of apps I don't have launched right now, like Photoshop and Preview and Acquisition, are cached, because I tend to launch them a lot.
I'm not saying that modern OSes don't use a lot of RAM, cause they do. But the fact that the OS is using almost a gig of RAM on my machine is not a sign of inefficiency.
Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://nerds.palmdrive.net/)
What is the point of showing these numbers then?
In other news:
Apple is working on a ultra-mini iPod. The pre-beta-alpha version we got our hands on weighted 20 pounds and was bigger than my G5. Of course, the final version will be smaller and lighter. One could still wonder where Apple is heading at with such a bulky product.
Foreword: If you have nothing relevant to say, don't say anything!
Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://nekobox.org/)
Why is it obvious that an OS in two years won't consume 400mb of ram?
What will the base system Microsoft target contain, in terms of memory?
Right now 512mb of ram is $100.
In a year then it might be $50 or $60. Or it might mean a base system will contain 1gb of ram, and everyone will have 64bit CPUs capable of addressing 16gb, or 32gb of ram. We already have desktops today that can address 8gb, and we're only waiting on ram sticks to increase in density.
Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.gentoo.org/)
Bill Gates himself answered this question years ago.
Re:Why is that obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://nekobox.org/)
It's a legitimate point, I asked why it was obvious the final release will take less memory?
I would fully expect all OSes in 2005 to take more than 256mb; possibly even 512mb. Microsoft would just happen to be one of many. If this were a Linux article, I would have asked the same question. I use a Mac, and I *know* how much memory OS X likes, and am under no illusions that 10.5 won't take as much!
Resources (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Resources (Score:5, Informative)
So the 2006 consumer-machines might habe 512MB of RAM. But if 483 are needed just for Windows not much is left..
Re:Resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Resources (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday February 27 2006, @09:54PM)
Re:Resources (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
So the submitter's comment that "Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources" isn't necessarily true.
uhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:uhh (Score:5, Informative)
(http://jesusislife.net/micah/ | Last Journal: Monday November 24 2003, @02:09AM)
I have run Kernel 2.6.2 on a 486 with 16MB RAM. It wasn't doing a lot, mind you, but it had a few megs free. (It was NOT running X.)
Re:uhh (Score:5, Informative)
(http://hivearchive.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 07 2002, @10:39PM)
The other thing to be careful of is top and other memory reporting utilities report X as taking up far more RAM than it actually uses. This is because X mmaps your video card memory. So if you had 128 megs of video RAM, your X would look pretty huge.
Let's get this out of the way (Score:5, Funny)
(http://aliencow.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 04 2004, @05:03PM)
Perhaps it's ready now? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's a lot of builds (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, just feels that way cause they take so long to compile.
Re:That's a lot of builds (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's a lot of builds (Score:5, Informative)
That build number is the build of the overall NT kernel and code branch, not just of Longhorn. For example:
Windows NT 3.1 = build 511
Windows NT 3.5 = build 887
Windows NT 3.51 = build 1057
Windows NT 4.0 = build 1381
Windows 2000 = build 2195
Windows XP = build 2600
Windows Server 2003 = build 3790
(FYI, those are for the original release versions. Betas have earlier build numbers.)
Final Release (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://web.mac.com/crackedbutter | Last Journal: Monday January 01 2007, @07:57PM)
No actually, they have the all important Brushed... I mean Slate look in place, so thats development pretty much wrapped up on this version.
OS "improvements" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OS "improvements" (Score:5, Interesting)
Here read up on what he said at MIT [mit.edu] on computers.
Re:OS "improvements" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. That's why you should switch to Linux. Windows can't just be "simplified", they have created a monster in the form of NT kernel and now they need to deal with it. Switch to a lean, mean POSIX kernel.
Re:OS "improvements" (Score:5, Informative)
This is a myth. NT is not a microkernel, at least not anymore. It was around 3.x (whatever the version number was), but not anymore. IIRC, even the window management functionality is in the kernel now.
And it's not just the kernel - the win32 API is a monster, containing a lot of GUI functionality and whatnot.
Oh well, I guess you should expect nothing less from morons who thought CR/LF, backslash dir seperator and drive letters are good ideas.
Re:OS "improvements" (Score:4, Insightful)
XP. Turn off the Fisher-Price skin and its accompanying hand-holding elements and it's faster than Win2k (from UI improvements as much as software optimisations).
OTOH, if all you're after is an "application launching layer", then I sincerely doubt _any_ version of Windows is appropriate for you.
Re:OS "improvements" (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday October 23 2006, @12:44PM)
As Netscape example has shown, if you deviate from your core business and start re-writing the entire codebase for the sake of "cleanliness" and "efficiency", someone else will step into the market, and by the time your re-written product is capable of running on Casio watches, the market has made several steps forward in terms of functionality.
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.pacificnet.net/~joelinux)
Joe
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil". DK.
Finally proof that Microsoft is stealing GPL code (Score:4, Funny)
I Hear Intel (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday February 18 2004, @11:18PM)
New GUI? (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday April 04 2004, @09:33PM)
What'd they do? Replace the Windows GUI with Gnome?
ducks
Re:New GUI? (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday May 31 2004, @03:41PM)
Look more like a lightweight version of KDE to me.
so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dang, i remember the days when 8 megs of ram was a lot, and 80 meg hard drive would never get filled.
Re:so... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://libtom.org/)
Sorry hate to break it to ya but 8MB of ram is shit for a compiler [that is meant to handle a program of any respectable size]. 80MB of disk space is little space to hold source+builds, etc...
The trick [which most miss] is an acceptable rate of growth.
I imagine 100 years from now a PDA will have a baseline of 1TB of memory [anything less will just be inhuman]. The point is right now that would be insane.
Similarly sure 20 years ago 8MB of ram was godly [cuz quite frankly the average program was of limited appeal and functionality]. You can pick up a 512MB of ram for relatively cheap [~110$ CDN for PC2700].
So it isn't unreasonable to assume a desktop user would have 512MB or even 1GB of ram [it's much I agree but not overly excessive]. If windows required 512MB of ram 10 years ago they would have gone out of business. Right now though it's not asking too much.
That being said I agree with the sentiment against bloat. I run icewm for the sole reason that it takes 10MB of ram. Combined with X my entire "desktop" takes less than 30MB of ram. It would be nice if the next version of windows didn't take 200MB of ram when idle but alas it wouldn't be cool enough if you didn't have a million little things going on all at once.
Tom
Re:so... (Score:4, Insightful)
with Linux if they have already switched.
I have another idea: As soon as things like CPU freq scaling and ACPI really mature in the Linux kernel, you can bet your bottom dollar that people will argue that not only does Linux save you on upgrade costs, but can save you millions on the desktop in power operating costs as well.
Have you noticed how much juice the Prescott sucks up?
vacaum (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday April 30 2004, @12:48AM)
Meanwhile in his deep undersea fortress... (Score:5, Funny)
GATES: "Gentlemen, I'm here to offer you a proposition. With my evil, resource bloating operating system, you can join with Microsoft and we will band together and control all the memory on the planet."
JAPANESE BUSINESSMAN: "I am not comfortable with this."
GATES: "I understand."
(He presses a red button on his arm rest)
(A trap door opens up from the ceiling and 10,000 copies of WordPerfect, Borland C++, Lotus, and Quattro Pro, bludgeon the Japanese semiconductor CEO to death. His lifeless body slumps over.)
GATES: "Anyone else have any problems with my plan?"
C'Mon, It's Pretty Much An Alpha Release (Score:5, Insightful)
Best part is, you can download your own copy! (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday March 14 2004, @08:31PM)
Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday October 23 2006, @12:44PM)
If you want functionality, you have to dedicate resources, if you don't want much functionality, stick to Linux on a floppy [linuxlinks.com] with pre-installed vi and life would be great.
Mozilla Firefox 0.8 is currently taking up 63 MB of RAM, and that's just a browser with no media players, mail clients, task schedulers, etc.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of otherwise perfectly good PIII machines out there with 1+ GHz CPUs that are limited to 1/2 GB of RAM. Adding another 256MB DIMM may not be an option.
Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.holocronology.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 30 2005, @05:04PM)
It will consume more...
Long live Clippy! (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.blogstheme.com/)
Article Text (slashdotted) (Score:5, Informative)
Posted by Team Flexbeta on 05 March 2004 (34135 views) Rating: 4.64
Even though the next generation Windows product is not due until late 2005 or even 2006, we wanted to take a look at what Microsoft has in store for us. We take a quick look at the recently leaked Longhorn Build 4053.
For those of you that are lucky enough to have snagged a copy, remember this, Build 4053 is still a baby, not even in Beta stage yet, so we will not go in depth into subjects such as the theme, sidebar, etc.
The installation wizard has improved greatly from past installers that Windows 2000 and XP had. No more will we see the plain DOS like setup screen, its all graphical now with minimal questions during the installation process, which, has its good and its bad. For a home user upgrading to Longhorn, the installation is a breeze, start the setup, enter the key and go take a nap, by the time you wake up it will be done. If the setup continues on this path towards final release, then the use of an answer file will be necessary to alleviate any post installation changes, especially for a network administrator implementing a company wide roll out, but Microsoft has always provided excellent administrator tools for this very reason. The installation did take an awfully long time, especially during the "Hardware Detection" phase, but I'm sure that this will be improved upon in the months to come.
Even though the initial startup is extremely fast, once logged in the system crawls along, taking a seemingly endless amount of time to get everything up and running. This too will definitely improve over development time.
The layout is clean and clutter free. Minimal icons are presented on the desktop, which is one of my pet peeves; I go to great lengths to maintain an icon-less desktop. The sidebar is definitely going to have its share of protestors, me being one of them. To me, no matter what is docked on the sidebar in the final release, it is a huge waste of space and system resources that a vast majority of users will just turn off. There will be more applets applied to it in the end, search bars, link bars, etc, so as the sidebar comes of age, we will examine it once again.
Without a vast amount of tweaking, this build is a resource hog. At idle, with no applications running, the commit charge is at a whopping 483 MB!! Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources. My test system is an Intel Pentium 4 2.4Ghz with 512 MB of RAM, so it is still running at a good pace, but anything less than this makes the system crawl along at an insanely annoying pace. When the final build is released, the recommended system requirements will be roughly the same as Windows XP, but as anyone that has tried to run XP with multiple users will testify, simply having the recommended requirements is just not enough.
At this point in time, build 4053 is basically Windows XP with a different theme, even though some new technologies are being created and there are dribs and drabs of them in this build. Build 4053 is still a lot different from previous builds where some of the new technologies Microsoft is working on were clearly integrated, such as the Hardware Carousel, WinFS, etc, in this build like Build 4051 (PDC) they are absent or implemented at a minimum.
There are very visible bugs at this stage, but it seems that some of the major pains that plagued previous builds have been worked on or corrected. The infamous Internet Explorer memory leak seems to have disappeared, and that was a huge memory leak, but as I sit here writing this, the commit charge is growing and growing, so there are still memory leaks in some processes and/or services that are running.
Some features previewed in previous builds have been developed to a greater extent such as Contacts, Photos and Videos. The layout and orientation of the windows has been vastly improved. All links and graphical elements have been fine tuned
Re:Article Text (slashdotted) (Score:5, Funny)
The installation wizard has improved greatly from past installers that Windows 2000 and XP had.
That's excellent, since that's the application I use the most when using Windows on my PC...
Reason for Delay (Score:3, Funny)
Longhorn schedule (Score:5, Interesting)
Those who have to use the current build say that it is not stable at all. Apparently, there are new failure modes in the DRM and file systems that are "very difficult to analyze and very non-intuitive to troubleshoot or even understand." The failure modes are reported to totally freeze the computer, prevent rebooting and resist reformatting.
If true, the words "difficult and non-intuitive" are not encouraging, particularly when used by very experienced users at Microsoft .
Re:Longhorn schedule (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow... Windows XP was released in 2001, so that will end up being a 6-7 year interval between OS releases. I'm not sure what that will mean, but that's a really long interval between OS releases.
Of course it uses heaps of resource... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.petesmith.co.nz/)
Historically, when Windows NT received heaps of exactly the same flack about it running extraordinarily slowly from reviewers quite simply because they weren't smart enough to work that basic fact out.
What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://steven-stern.blogspot.com/)
Its a product that won't hit the shelves for 2 years. It was compiled in debug mode - of course its going to be a resource hog.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too horrible.. (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.slashdot.org/)
Come on x86ers, save up for a Mac (even a used one) and get more stuff done more enjoyably. If you're going to spend $ on new hardware (which Longhorn will surely require for 95% of the pop.), don't run the risk of it not working with your setup.. and you can still run *nix or a BSD.
must not post while Bob is involved.
Windows 98 (Score:5, Interesting)
It was weird. It booted quickly, and the whole thing felt snappy. Menus actually popped up on screen immediately. Explorer did things, instead of hanging about "thinking" all the time.
Windows XP doesn't feel like that, even with my brand new 3Ghz, 1Gb RAM machine.
Why is this so? Why are the menus so slow - and what have they done to Windows Explorer to make it so snail-like?
Re:Windows 98 (Score:5, Interesting)
I was asked to help out with a friend of mines company when they purchased a bunch of new computers. He was going to use them for word and e-mail and that was about it. He brought this list of a couple computers he was thinking of purchasing each about $1000, I was like here we can go buy 3 computers at that price that are a little older and you are set. He now running 5 machines with 98 all networked and with a networked printer for what he was planning on spending for 2 new computers. And they work great.
Not sure if people have made this joke before (Score:5, Funny)
micro. soft.
long. horn.
I think that makes my phallic implications painfully obvious. My work here is done.
Hello? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.daemonology.net/)
fafnir# ls -l
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5940286 Feb 26 00:52
fafnir# ls -l
-rwxr-
Enabling debugging options makes the FreeBSD kernel five times as large; if anything, I'd expect Microsoft to have even more debugging code in their pre-release builds.
Re:Hello? (Score:5, Informative)
4053 Tweak Guide (Score:4, Informative)
Found this over at Neowin [neowin.net]
.NET (Score:5, Interesting)
- they are now using components (with
- they use bounds checking all over
- more meta information on objects is stored
- libraries are probably more extensive - makes reuse better
- more things are service-driven, so more is in memory all the time
This all comes down to more memory use. Look at Java. It's fast enough nowadays, but it still uses a lot of memory resources. You get more runtime functionality (reflection etc) in return.
This is a good thing though, it's a one time performance penalty returning huge benefits. It won't favour small/old machines though.
The future is runtime.
Old news and a link to a similar article (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday February 13 2006, @07:11PM)
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4051
There are no apparent differences between that reviewed build (4051) and the one in this article.
Games vs. OS's (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, I am sure it was compiled in degug mode - resource hog.
Secondly, whenever ID Software [idsoftware.com] claims:
-"Our next game, DoomQuad, will require that you travel forward in time and get yourself a system powerful enough to run it. Unless, naturally, you are content at playing the game at -2 FPS".
Now M$ has a product that requires you to have a somewhat beefy system and everyone starts bitching.
Why am I not surprised? This is slashdot after all.
You can buy machines preloaded with longhorn alpha (Score:5, Funny)
My laptop came in this cool aluminum case, and it's running pretty well. Searches were really fast and the new browser (I think they are calling it Jungle or something like that) was really great. Plus I had no viruses even when I connected it to the internet for a minute without thinking!! And in this version they made that huge bar on the side of the screen you could see in the article screenshots resizable. So I think Longhorn will do just fine.
This reminds me of when I visited Ford (Score:3, Insightful)
The most interesting quotes (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://plato.stanford.edu/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 15 2005, @10:46AM)
Here are the most interesting quotes:
All in all, a great article.
SSDP (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://ibbydev.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 20 2004, @06:11PM)
Same Shit Different Package. While m$ windows is busy trying to reinvent a square wheel made of snazzy buzzwords, Apple is moving forward with a strong, stable, lean, mean operating system with very nicely separated yet integrated layers, each of which are subject to exponential innovations: UNIX subsystem powered by collaborative work of the open-source community and Apple developers, journaling filesystem, graphics/video subsystem, user-interface.
meanwhile Apple is also busy developing aspects of computing life people actually care about, meet iLife. Say hello to email with built-in bayesian spam filtering and built-in support for ISP-supplied spam-canning frameworks. Say hello to iSync, Address Book.app, Calendar.app, Mail.app, iChat.app, all insanely intuitive independent applications, yet tightly integrated thru open APIs. Apple is already moving forward with consumer electronics vendors: digital still cameras, digital video cameras, PDAs, cell-phone manufacturers to all get them to adhere to Apple's very-well defined APIs and standards so their products will "just work" with Macs, without installing a single piece of additional software, beyond what comes out of the box with the mac. iSync currently lets me sync my contacts and calendar, to my iPod, my sony ericsson t610 bluetooth phone, my online .MAC account, and my powerbook laptop with built-in bluetooth, all with the single press of a button. If i make a modification to contacts or calendar on any device, the next sync reflects it on all other devices. I could buy a Palm Pilot and have it work in the exact same way, without even using Palm's desktop software.
Apple gets it.
Wtf is "commit charge"?? (Score:3, Interesting)
The user interface sucks. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only good thing about Longhorn is WinFS. Something that the Linux community should embrace. I have said it previously, and I will say it again, that we need to manage information, not binary data. The operating system must be aware of the types of data stored on the disk. It is a task not to be left on the application layer.
Re:That's alotta commit (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @01:01AM)
That could be the most appropriate use of a server I've ever seen.