The breakdown for the various editions of Windows Server 2008 was revealed this morning by Microsoft, and the big news there is the almost total lack of change: Retail server software editions for the next Windows Server will fall right in line with the current Windows Server 2003 R2 editions, including the number of client access licenses provided in the basic package.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-22
The article you're linking to states 40MB in runtime memory, 25 MB on disc (divided among 100 files).
Besides, Minwin is not meant to run on its lonesome -- although, it would be a neat challenge to wrap as small of a wrapper as possible around it while still keeping it functional and create a "D*** Small Windows."
EDIT: Silly quoting system.
Edited 2007-11-13 00:54 UTC
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
"""
Yes. I know it does. But the video clearly shows 61MB of virtual in use. View it and watch carefully. The virtual machine is allocated 39MB of *RAM*. But with plenty of swap to fill in. And minwin is eating generous portions of that.
Of *course* minwin was not meant to run on its own. But as a very limited capability "minimal" core, it is consuming resources that should allow for a full featured server. What's up with that?
I note with amusement your other post criticizing the Unix model's use of memory. I can run a monolithic Linux kernel and lighttpd on a little over 8MB total.
Though it is in multiuser environments, with many users running multiple copies of the same applications that the Unix model really shines.
Member since:2006-01-02
After our discussion last time, I spent some time playing around with the MinWin ISO image. You have to understand that MinWin is not a product and it is not really an attempt to squeeze Windows or to make an embedded system. For instance, many of the files in the MinWin image are actually language files. MinWin is more of a division of the existing Windows into a minimal bootable component for internal organizational purposes. I would forget about comparing MinWin with your minimalistic Linux router stack.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
I would forget about comparing MinWin with your minimalistic Linux router stack.
"""
Well, in the context of a thread entitled "Hope its based on Minwin", give me some rope^Wslack. ;-)
I can do the same on my desktop with 24MB. But not less. It won't boot on 23MB. With 24MB it boots and runs the webserver and has plenty of free/cache/buffer memory. As an efficiency fiend, I find that disappointing. It's a 2.6 thing, I guess.
Edited 2007-11-13 01:22
Member since:
2005-07-24
"""
"""
I am not an MS fan. But I was actually pretty excited about the Minwin concept... at first. I really liked the sentiment. But then I took a look at what MS's idea of "min" actually is:
http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?280016
61MB, and it can... just... barely... run an in-kernel web server. The video the story that post is attached to emphasizes just how limited minwin's capabilities actually are. So what is it doing with all that virtual memory?
As another poster pointed out, NT nominally had a POSIX personality, for all the use it was without comprehensive support from MS. POSIX compatibility is and always was a checkbox for the marketing department.
Edited 2007-11-13 00:34