Few people know it, but when you boot off the Vista install DVD, you're booting into a different version of Windows altogether: Windows PE 2.0. It's based on the Vista kernel, but it's extremely compact. It provides read/write access to NTFS filesystems, a wide range of 32- and 64-bit hardware drivers, network connectivity and the ability to run both 32- and 64-bit applications.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-22
"i hate to say this, but vista is starting to get interesting. ill probably have to run it in "classic" but thats a minor issue..."
I don't know what is that people find interesting in Vista that Linux doesn't have already. Security? Speed? Memory consumption? Price? Freedom? A modern and good looking OS?
The major push for Vista is its new/refurbished user interface. Why on earth would you run Vista in classic mode then? Just use Windows XP and save big money, time, headaches and problems.
Member since:2006-06-08
Member since:2005-12-28
Member since:2005-07-22
"The future of Windows is .NET3, Win32 is in legacy mode - which means that fewer and fewer new Win32 applications will be made."
And who's going to write those applications? I mean, most people code with Win32 already and most products are Win32 based. Do they expect all products to start a migration to .NET? If developers are thinking on migrating products, they better think twice if it would be more convenient to go Java or C++/Python with Qt/Gtk or some other multiplatform framework, given they are going to rewrite, and not jump right into monoplatform and with uncertain future .NET.
Member since:2005-12-28
Win32 applications will run in the Connectix VM - so there will be support for Win32 for quite some time.
The new generation have happily embraced .NET (and the Redmond development tools) and I do not think it will be a major problem for Redmond to migrate the world to their new platform - or should I rather say the world will happily migrate themselves.
Some smartport tools would help though.
Member since:2005-07-06
And who's going to write those applications? I mean, most people code with Win32 already and most products are Win32 based.
Quite right too. Win32 applications will be around for a very long time to come, simply because there's so many of them and people aren't feeling the need to rewrite them in the latest uber technology. Win32 will be around for some years yet, but make no mistake, at some point Microsoft want the only application to be using the Win32 API to be the .Net framework and runtime.
This is something I've spoken about several years ago when .Net was first developed. Microsoft want to deprecate Win32, COM and native development so that they can crush alternative methods of development on Windows, particularly those that are cross platform, such as Qt and Java. Of course, you can probably write Qt and Java on .Net, but it adds a whole level of complexity that makes the task that much more difficult. You could use Mono on other platforms, but that really depends on the completeness of it, the APIs that it can copy and replicate and that Microsoft will continue to be a nice boy regarding openness. It's a pretty safe bet that won't continue, and those that tell us things like ".Net is a reality, Microsoft is using it and we have to replicate it" are going to be left in the middle of nowhere.
Interestingly, the usage of .Net as the main, and only, development avenue on Windows potentially gives a great deal more control over what applications and software can be developed. It also gives them the ability to control, through the .Net runtime, at runtime, what an application is allowed or not allowed to do.
People laugh at this, but as time goes on I'm more convinced that this is where they are heading Vista and onwards, it's the sort of thing they've practiced in the past where they play about with APIs (Dr DOS anyone?) and I see no evidence whatsoever that I'm wrong.
Edited 2006-09-05 09:46
Member since:2005-07-06
.NET is the future of Windows application development mainly for security. As long as unverified code is allowed to run on the system, the system can be compromised. Running .NET code today pushes the attack surface to the runtime which is built using unmanaged code. In the future, an environment closer to that of Singularity virtually eliminates the attack surface area altogether as the system itself is built using largely verifiable code and, where necssary, a small amount of unverifiable code which is subject to attack, but is small enough to be adequately reviewed and maintained.
For the application developer, the verified nature of managed code allows for more flexibility running code in situations where unverified code couldn't be trusted.
There is no difference in the cross-platform story for .NET vs. Win32. There are many third-party libraries available for both APIs and will continue to be.
Member since:2005-07-06
.NET is the future of Windows application development mainly for security. As long as unverified code is allowed to run on the system, the system can be compromised.
That's what Microsoft will pretend it is for ;-). It says nothing for what the sideffects will actually be, as described.
Besides, if you're running all your critical code in a virtual machine then you can still compromise a system through an exploit or hole somewhere. It's not the promised land.
Running .NET code today pushes the attack surface to the runtime...
You don't work for Microsoft do you? They seem to be full of security buzz phrases like attack surfaces and attack vectors.
There is no difference in the cross-platform story for .NET vs. Win32.
Another Microsoft buzzword. Everything is a story, or should have one apparently ;-).
Besides, this is a pretty meaningless phrase. There may be no difference in the cross-platform story (sorry, I have to stop myself from gagging as I write that) from Microsoft's point of view, but there most certainly is from everyone elses'.
I think I've hit a bit of a nerve there.
Member since:2005-07-06
That's what Microsoft will pretend it is for ;-). It says nothing for what the sideffects will actually be, as described.
No need to pretend, it's fact. The side-effects will be a more secure platform as you can actually know what code is doing. Legacy code will likely still run, but it'll be in a VM.
Besides, if you're running all your critical code in a virtual machine then you can still compromise a system through an exploit or hole somewhere. It's not the promised land.
I never said it was. It is a lot safer than the current situation however. If the verification mechanisms work, it'll be a lot harder to compromise the system.
You don't work for Microsoft do you? They seem to be full of security buzz phrases like attack surfaces and attack vectors.
You don't work/shill for an MS competitor, do you? They always seem to focus on attacking MS instead of focusing on content.
Another Microsoft buzzword. Everything is a story, or should have one apparently ;-).
Right, because absolutely no one in the industry uses similar terminology. Are you going to actually look at what is being said rather than the words to describe it?
Besides, this is a pretty meaningless phrase. There may be no difference in the cross-platform story (sorry, I have to stop myself from gagging as I write that) from Microsoft's point of view, but there most certainly is from everyone elses'.
Yeah, because everyone else would rather MS just releases everything for free, and often uses double standards whenever they're involved. If you think the ability to create and use libraries that work on Windows and other platforms is meaningless, so be it. There are many writing code that believe otherwise.
I think I've hit a bit of a nerve there.
Think again.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
And who's going to write those applications?
The same people who currently write software for Windows, most likely. Microsoft is all about making everything as convenient as possible for developers (often at the expense of the convenience of end-users) - the people at Microsoft aren't stupid, I'm sure they've gone out of their way to make sure that moving to .NET development is the path-of-least-resistance for existing Win32 developers.
Member since:2005-12-18
Vista is a memory hog. Atleast the version for the desktop is. It would be interesting to see how it is accepted by the general public when it is released.
If I had any say in how Microsoft takes decisions regarding OSes, I would have strongly rooted for a shift to using a Linux kernel or a BSD kernel and building the Vista UI on top of it. Something similar to what Apple has done.
RE[3]: im guessing...
Member since:2005-07-12
If I had any say in how Microsoft takes decisions regarding OSes, I would have strongly rooted for a shift to using a Linux kernel or a BSD kernel and building the Vista UI on top of it. Something similar to what Apple has done.
Bleh. There is absolutely no reason to do so, other than to appease the anti-Microsoft crowd. Windows is a modern operating system with modern features.
MacOS 9 was a different story. There was no SMP, protected memory, or security. Multi-tasking was a joke, as was it's memory subsystem. OS 9 was a piece of crap and was long overdue for a replacement.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2006-03-12
Absolutely. I have Windows for exactly two reasons at this point: my considerable investment in PC games and the odd education-related app. I've been wishing for some time they'd release a "gaming edition" that's pretty much a "just works" game console with a desktop DirectX. I don't want Outlook Express or Movie Maker; why do I have to resort to hacks to delete them?
Member since:2005-07-18
One of the things I find mildly irritating about the Wine project (which runs Win32 programs under GNU/Linux) is that they are constantly reporting how they have made games work better. But on second thought, if they can help guys like you make the final transition, that would be good.
The few Windows games that I use under Wine make very low video demand and they run so perfectly that you can't tell you aren't running Windows. I'm hopeful the same will be true in time for more demanding games.
Member since:2005-07-06
I care only about chess games. I have virtually all of them. Only the least demanding one, Deep Fritz 8, runs somehow under Wine/Crossover. All the others fail.
Of course I know that Linux has plenty of native interfaces and engines, but they have too few features, they are in fact boring.
Member since:2006-02-11
The few Windows games that I use under Wine make very low video demand and they run so perfectly that you can't tell you aren't running Windows. I'm hopeful the same will be true in time for more demanding games.
You live in '90 and still play digger? Now try to run these games in your Ubuntu+Wine, and give the report:
http://www.mmorpg.com/
http://www.easports.com/
http://www.eidos.com/
http://www.capcom.com/games_main.xpml
I bet none of those games are playable with Wine.
Member since:2005-07-18
None of those games look the slightest bit interesting to me. But I'm going to try to install something from the mmorpg.com site tonight anyway to see.
BTW, the eidos.com site is a very poorly designed web site--some of the text is underneath some graphics. Look at all the coding errors it has: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eido....
If their game code has the same level of errors as their website, it's a wonder their games even run on Windows.
Member since:2006-02-11
BTW, the eidos.com site is a very poorly designed web site--some of the text is underneath some graphics. Look at all the coding errors it has: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eido......
If their game code has the same level of errors as their website, it's a wonder their games even run on Windows.
May be some game producers' site are nice and comply to HTML specification, but please keep in mind that their business is not web authoring. BTW, have you got the Tomb Raider demo run in Ubuntu?
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:2006-02-11
BTW, the eidos.com site is a very poorly designed web site--some of the text is underneath some graphics. Look at all the coding errors it has: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eido......
If their game code has the same level of errors as their website, it's a wonder their games even run on Windows.[1]
Hmm. You are correct. I never would have thought to check them because they look good, with no graphics overlapping text like eidos.com has.[2]
So your statement also implies that you believe if linux code has the same level of errors as their website, and wonder if their software even run correctly.
Or may be you just blindly assume that every linux softwares are good, and windows' are bad, despite that linux softwares are developed in leisure time after spending full time in Windows project?
j/k 
but "developed in leisure time" still apply.
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2005-06-29
People would not be happy with it
Contrary to what many people think - Microsoft does not just 'do' something and hope it works out, it does perform market research just like any other company and bases its future products largely on it.
You also seem to forget that a lot of Windows is just infrastructure (DirectX, .NET, MFC, MSHTML, etc) for application developers to build their programs upon - using a very stripped down version of Windows will make those applications unusable
If a PE edition would be the exact thing the general public wants, it would release this version as a retail version, but if people want all sorts of bells and whistles - they will sell it.
Guess what - most people want bells and whistles, other people can always toy with Windows Embeded - http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/windowsxpembedded/default.aspx - which helps you build the same stuff for your particular setup
Member since:
2006-03-01
That sounds perfect. Finally a non-bloated windows. The problem with windows is not that there is anything wrong with the NT kernel. In fact, it is quite a good kernel.
The problem is all the bloat they keep adding. A current NT kernel without all the bloat but with decent driver support would be almost perfect!
Member since:
2005-07-06
Booting from WinPE, starting thunderbird en firefox, maybe a tool or two like a filemanager, and off you go. It sounds perfect, and fixing PC's would be a lot easier that way.
Wait - wasn't there something similar already? Bart has created something similar:
http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-06-01
Member since:
2005-07-06
...has been around for a long time. It first came to real fruition with XP (we've used it at work since 2002 ish).
Bart's PE is a novelty though, PE is technically far, far different from a full version of Windows. Before you get too excited, review the following:
http://www.appdeploy.com/tools/detail.asp?id=4
* To prevent its use as a pirated operating system, WinPE automatically exits whatever shell it is running and reboots after 24 hours of continuous use.
* A computer running WinPE can make a maximum of four network connections. From a WinPE computer, you can directly access servers and shares across the network, based on the required network credentials.
* However, you cannot access any files or folders located on a WinPE computer from another location on your network.
* You cannot access any files or folders located on a DFS share. The tested methods of gaining network connectivity to file servers are TCP/IP and NetBIOS over TCP/IP. Other methods, such as the SPX/IPX network protocol, are untested and unsupported.
* WinPE requires a VGA-compatible device and will attempt to use the highest screen resolution possible, up to 800x600, 24-bit.
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2006-01-19
And I might add: It's shitty on purpose.
It's not often that I see the advantage of free software as clearly as when someone dumbs down one of his own products on purpose.
Free software is assembled to do the job, but nobody restricts anyone to use the same assembly in a totally unintended way. That is why free software will win the commodity software market in the long run.
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2006-02-02
Member since:
2006-09-05
Member since:
2005-07-20
Member since:
2006-06-30
Regarding the .NET "monoplatform" comment. Maybe I got it wrong, but last time I checked, MS .NET FrameWork is just simply that, a FrameWork, built upon the CLR specifications. It is technically possible to run C# code on other platforms too. Oh, guess, what, somebody already has done it. Mono is doing a wonderful job in that regard. C# crossplatform apps do work like a charm.
It's only a matter of choice, really. If win32 is indeed going to become legacy (I wouldn't be so sure), then developers will have to adapt, if they want to program windows applications.
Just because a language is "easier" too use, doens't mean writing code becomes less interesting. It's not like we all are going back to assembler, or are we?
Edited 2006-09-05 12:59
Member since:
2005-12-18
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-15
Someone else already pointed BarPE (http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/) but, as some readers here are admins and perhaps don't know it yet (even though it is out for a couple of years), I'm going to give some reasons you should expend some time learning about it:
- You can recover from tough virus and spywares with it using some of the plugins available (my favourites right now are clamwin, mcafee, adaware and Spybot);
- You can use Symantec Ghost (you must have if of course) to rollout images of your system installation back to its pristine (or almost) state. There are also freeware plugins that can do almost the same;
- You can setup a samba plugin to transfer your files from a severe crashed system before you go to the boring and risk forensics actvities (you can also setup ftp and http servers to do that).
You can do all that, and way more, booting from a cd or usb key, what is pretty common, but what really impressed me is even more interesting:
- You can setup a tftp server to fire a remote boot through PXE capable hardware (pretty common today) in environments where there are no cd or floppy readers (common on schools and libraries) to bring the system back to life.
Actually, is possible to setup a kind of diskless client but it is not legal I think.
My US$ 0.02
Member since:
2005-09-17
Member since:
2006-07-11
Since alot more people want to switch to linux, why doesnt microcrap continue with there windows for unix but switch it to linux. Since most people would be willing to pay for windows then so that way they can run it in a window and still be able to use kde or even gnome and have all the options of windows and not to do dual booting
Member since:
2006-02-24
BartPE is basically a winpe customization environment to make your own cd's theirs evena premade bart/winpe environemtn cd called the supercd that comes with just about everything...
The fact is the only people that want stripped down versions of windows with 0 visual effects are people sitting on here whining that vista isnt more linuxish... The vast majority of the world gets oooh'd and aawwwed over glass and transitional effects
Have you guys never seen microsofts customer testing, the guys have entire buildings devoted to testing the simplest of things to see how people are affected, that little orb ball start menu, trust me probably 1000-2000 people all were surveyed and tested to see if they liked it in comparison to porbably a dozen others.
Theirs a reason so many people see linux even the latest kde and gnome as "work in progress" even when they are final releases, they dont look nice to the majority, ignoring memory bloat the fact is Windows vista in its latest iteration RC1 looks very nice and clean, and consistent (beyond some hidden windows that remain dated beyond belief) And thats what people want from a new version of their OS, a nice new presentation that looks better, ya its gotta be safer as well and some other catchy stuff but looks are the #1 factor people see, that and catch phrases.
If you want no graphical effects and sheer speed go back to windows 3.1 on a modern processor lol.
Oh btw for those that are against the bloat, their is a version of windows apparently GUIless to really boost speed its part of Longhorn Server not vista though.
Member since:
2006-09-05
For those of you that want a stripped down Windows XP, a sort of embedded Windows XP without having to use WinXPe or WinPE or BartsPE, look up TinyXP, its a heavily stripped down version of Windows XP that a lot of CarPC people use, or if you want to make your own custom stripped down version, for say gaming, or carpc's or whatever, you can use an application called nLite.
nLite also supports Windows 2000, XP x86/x64 and 2003 x86/x64, http://www.nliteos.com/index.html
I have heard of people replacing the regular XP components etc.. with XPe ones to get the size down even farther, i've heard of people getting the entire XP image down to 380mb, if you ever need help in determining what to get rid of, or what to keep, go to the forums on www.mp3car.com, there is a section for Software -> OS Optimization
Edited 2006-09-05 20:59
