Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jan 2010 23:09 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Windows As inevitable as the tides rolling in: every time a new Windows version is released, someone with too much time on his hands tries to install it on extremely outdated hardware. Sure, it won't be usable by any standard whatsoever, but it's still a fun thing to do. Of course, Windows 7 couldn't lag behind.
Thread beginning with comment 403212
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why hardware... is outdated?
by dulac on Sat 9th Jan 2010 00:00 UTC
dulac
Member since:
2006-12-27

If it works... it's ok!
Ignoring new uses, and the need to Processing power, it is the OS that is pushing the limit.

I always wondered about the big mess in development.
It is BIG in size... and that is alway a trouble to that hardware leaved behind... and is occasionally has some of the old spaghetti of BASIC in its structure.
Not very clean, to clean later... and later...

---

Still have a Compaq laptop running at 133MHz and 64 MB. Still fast. It used W95 but now uses WME in a LitePC Install from http://www.litepc.com/
Still fast and usefull... but NEVER has touched the internet NOR had any new istalations besides the original intended (compilers and MAME-064)
Even XP can be reduced to be efficient, But needing a 400MHz CPU and 256MB of RAM.

Compare new OSs with DOS (where drivers where used if needed). The predictions of Object coding failed when opened the door to fast and not planned programming.
It would be expected to have Libraries loaded according to the hardware, configuration and occasionally with demands. Did it happen? A bit.

But look at "other OSs" like http://www.menuetos.net/ (now turned to 64bits) and http://kolibrios.org/ (32bits and Menuet based). There are a lot of other examples.

---

It seems it is not as much what we do, but how we build it.

Edited 2010-01-09 00:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Object oriented programming, which is what I assumed you meant by object coding, had more to do with development speed and robustness than high performance code.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dulac Member since:
2006-12-27

Object oriented programming, which is what I assumed you meant by object coding, had more to do with development speed and robustness than high performance code.


Right! OOP was criticized for being BIG and SLOW.

Not really. It can be just the opposite and that was one of the reasons to be designed as it was.

If you use OOP planned as different libraries to be used in different situations... (just like using one set of routines for a CPU and another to a different CPU)... then you have several libraries available but just use what you need at that moment. Very low RAM consumption... and code as efficient as you wrote it.

The organization is very Tree-like. But not used as much as it should. People do not take the problem into account because it is argued that the problem is the code, not organization. The user should get more memory and a faster CPU so the team does not ALSO has to deal with organization.

However:
If such effort was made... we wouldn't have so many dependency problems... and code would be faster.
If such effort was made... the team would not have to deal later with a mess in inter-library connections.
But it would also eventually break at another point... it always does.

The point is: OOP can be faster and smaller. People just do not care after the code shows to work.
C. Moore (creator of the FORTH language) showed how-to in the philosophy of (and tips on using) FORTH. I still believe that it is the best programming language training available. But that is a personal view.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Why hardware... is outdated?
by helf on Sat 9th Jan 2010 00:56 in reply to "Why hardware... is outdated?"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

XP doesn't need "at least a 400mhz cpu and 256mb ram"... Well, guess it depends on your idea of "usable" :p

A stripped down XP ran fairly snappily on my old p75 box with 256mb of ram. used about 40MB on bootup ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I had win xp running comfortably on a pentium 166 with 64 mb memory. By comfortably, I mean, I didn't get bored waiting for applications to start, but your attention span may be shorter than mine. I think those were the specs. It was several years ago, and I had 5-6 computers around with similar specs, So it might have actually been a 233 AMD, instead.


Anyway, I remember having to put more memory in during the installation, then moving it down to 64 mb and having it run ok. Why? Need to test win xp at its worst, to see if our app would run okay. Cause that's the stupid thing one of our biggest customer would do: Spend tons of money on stupid things ( office pool table, jukebox, soda fountain, Beer keg) , but not computers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

krzabr Member since:
2009-09-14

On my old computer P3 550 mhz 64mb ram , I was installed Win Xp and It's Runs that truth Slowly but was possible to Run Firefox and Aimp ;)

For that old machines Bsd's are interesting Options .

Edited 2010-01-12 03:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Compare new OSs with DOS (where drivers where used if needed)


Yes, as opposed to DOS most modern OS' aren't total crap. There was NOTHING good about DOS and I am continually surprised that people bring it out as some example of a good OS in some way. Who the hell want to go back to maintaining 5 billion different config.sys setups for different memory needs?

Reply Parent Score: 2

dulac Member since:
2006-12-27

Yes, as opposed to DOS most modern OS' aren't total crap.


We are using them, not DOS ;)

[p]There was NOTHING good about DOS and I am continually surprised that people bring it out as some example of a good OS in some way. [/q]

Well, DOS IS a reference to simplicity and problem solving by ingenuity. Simplicity leads to keep Problems (and Solutions) very clear and discernable.
That is (maybe) the point in DOS in comparison with today's OS's... besides GUI environment, naturally.

By today's "needs" DOS is indeed a piece of outdated crap... but there's something in it that is appealing, and (at least to me) is the reminder of something that can be changed... and that is small enough to be efficient.

I used {commo} as a COMMs terminal and "jabber" as a fidonet client... Naturally I still miss the convenience of deciding which editor to use in a GUI OS. Not because of the GUI OS but because the way applications are build. Does anyone feel the same?

Seems that with GUIs ingenuity and UNIX philosophy was forgotten. And so... Applications grow like hell. Charles Moore philosophy (creator of FORTH language) has always been the favorite beacon. Opposed is using tools as push-buttons toys.

Configuration needs seem to have nothing to do with simplicity but seems rather a fast hack to avoid solving induced problems. Nothing being perfect, availability seems more relevant than perfection. At least application can be used.

But the final cost grows more that the initial one that that was avoid for the sake of fast solutions (a bit like the old direct programming and debug later instead of planning). OOP could have solved the problem... that was expected... but didn't happen. Except, maybe, in the AMIGA and MACs (and BeOS).

Looking back, we still live in a disguised DOS methodology, but without learning its lessons.

There were lessons: DOS being a one user OS pushed solutions much different that the UNIX corporate needs for a few applications. That is, maybe, why we now have all applications in one place and configuration files all mixed on another. It makes sense for the system but not to individual applications. Lessons seem to have NOT being learned.

And DOS comes to mind, even with all it's defects and primitivism. Solutions are re-discovered again and again... almost as hacks to the problems induced by ignoring the old lessons. I suppose.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

"Compare new OSs with DOS (where drivers where used if needed)


Yes, as opposed to DOS most modern OS' aren't total crap. There was NOTHING good about DOS and I am continually surprised that people bring it out as some example of a good OS in some way. Who the hell want to go back to maintaining 5 billion different config.sys setups for different memory needs?
"

First of all, in fairness, DOS has been around forever, initially just meant as a quick CP/M-ish clone from scratch for 8086 since CP/M-86 hadn't appeared yet. The main reason for its success was because it was there first, light and fast, easy to translate CP/M apps to, and of course because it was cheaper than UCSD Pascal or CP/M-86. (I'm paraphrasing, see link at bottom which explains way more than I ever could.)

The problems with memory management were only apparent much later. It's the legacy (closed source) software that couldn't be fixed that were the big problem. But those were the days where you had to fight hard to get things to work (instead of recompile, like nowadays), e.g. DPMI, VCPI, XMS, raw, conventional, HMA, UMB, etc. Multi-boot configs have been prevalent since MS-DOS 6 (and before, introduced w/ DR-DOS), so that's a non-issue.

And just to be pedantic, there is nothing good about any OS, its only value is in the software, which depends solely on what people do with it. There have been many great DOS apps (IMHO), some still developed. :-)) If you prefer Minix or ELKS or old old Linux on your old clunkers, that's fine too, but that's a personal decision. :-P

(Tim Paterson [not me] explains it all):
http://dosmandrivel.blogspot.com/

Reply Parent Score: 1

echo.ranger Member since:
2007-01-17


Still have a Compaq laptop running at 133MHz and 64 MB. Still fast. It used W95 but now uses WME in a LitePC Install from http://www.litepc.com/
Still fast and usefull... but NEVER has touched the internet NOR had any new istalations besides the original intended (compilers and MAME-064)


Slightly OT, but how well does MAME work on that hardware?

Reply Parent Score: 1

dulac Member since:
2006-12-27

Slightly OT, but how well does MAME work on that hardware?


Very well, if you use the command line... And games limited to the classics (from 1981 to 1986) !!!
Like Pacman, LadyBug, Roller and Pitfall-2 (forgetting a few)

Using 4DOS alias is always a big help, if you keep things simple and straight. There is an impulse to get thing more complex and loose control - just like it happens in OOP - though it is procedural.

I believe that is a tendency of the implementor, not a fault of the tool. You change the tool to enforce rules... but alway create new problems of unmanaged complexity. That's an implementor fault.

We favor immediate problem solving and leave design as secondary. Naturally the opposite also happens with designers.

Edited 2010-01-10 00:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1