Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Mar 2006 22:00 UTC
Windows Microsoft has delayed a special slimmed-down version of Windows XP for legacy PCs, which is based on the Windows Embedded code base. The Redmond company had expected to make the operating system available to Software Assurance customers this month, but now says Windows Fundamentals will ship 'in late 2006.' Windows Fundamentals can run on older machines that do not support XP while providing the same level of security.
Thread beginning with comment 104178
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Celerate
Member since:
2005-06-29

"Bottom line is that you need to use Citrix or equivalent -- i.e. a client / server "solution". "

I suspected that might be the case as it was mentioned once before. I believe Microsoft admitted this up front when they announced the product.

I'm still hoping for a dirt cheap version of Windows stripped down to the point where it's little more than the kernel, drivers, direct X and a shell just usefull enough to serve as a launcher for my favourite Windows games. All in a neat ~250 MB package. It would be great for those who only use Windows as a gaming platform, or who build systems specifically for gaming, that way no other parts of the OS would be using up the processor and people would be able to get it for 25 to 50 bucks. The cheapo 3rd world version of Windows would almost do, but the resolution is locked too low and it doesn't support high end processors which gamers would use.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ecko Member since:
2005-07-08

This is just silly and this is why gamers play games and not design operating systems. If you had a properly designed OS then "stripping it down" wouldn't be necessary.

While it may sound stupid at first, your game get's 100% of the cpu if it's the only thing contending for the cpu. Unless something is processing in the background(anti virus, defrag, whatever), every single app on the desktop should be on the wait queue waiting for input(mouse over, mouse click, etc) before it ever even gets an oportunity to use any CPU time ever again.

The other thing that happens is any memory other apps are using is swapped out to the disk and into the swap file where it waits until the program requests that memory again, hence your game should get as much memory as is available to the system. This is of course assumes that haven't done something brilliant like disable the swap file. Unfortunately Windows does a crappy job of managing memory and it's vm system seems(I have no scientific proof) a bit slower than the linux vm system. You could in theory have 80 thousand firefox windows open using 99.9% of all your memory in windows and the only affect it would have on a game is it would take some extra time to copy the memory firefox is using onto the disk and back when the game is done.

If your system is fast enough to run XP at an acceptable pace your system will not benefit a lick from being "slimmed down"

Reply Parent Score: 2

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

um, not quite. It's a little thing called "premptive multitasking". Unless you set a games thread priority in NT to "realtime" it will NOT get 100% of the cpu at all times.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"This is just silly and this is why gamers play games and not design operating systems."

I'm also very much into programming, you never know what I'll be doing in a few years :-) .

Oh, and I'm hardly a gamer. I suck at games but I still play them for fun on occasion. I also get good grades in school and I'm doing a fine job of learning how to program independently with nothing more than books. The reason I want a stripped down version of Windows for gaming only is because I can use Linux for everything else, I could get Cadega but that takes a while to become compatible with games and doesn't always get there with some.

"your game get's 100% of the cpu if it's the only thing contending for the cpu"

The other guy replying mentioned the pre-emptive multi-tasking taking away processor time, and I doubt many people use Windows without a firewall and Anti-virus software. I for one don't trust it that much.

"If your system is fast enough to run XP at an acceptable pace your system will not benefit a lick from being "slimmed down""

That only deals with one point, the others being that it would be much more affordable, it would need much fewer Windows updates, it would take a few minutes to install and it would take a fraction of the maintenance. It would also be advantageous to Microsoft since I've met my share of real gamers (or at least far more into gaming than I) who did pirate Windows because they thought the 200$+ CAD price tag for something they only see when starting up or shutting down their computer was too much to pay. If those people could get Windows stripped down to being no more than a game launcher for 25 to 50$ CAD they'd be much more likely to pay for it, and if they still pirated it at least it would only be a stripped down Windows XP that's useless beyond the scope of gaming.

Reply Parent Score: 1