I still have my 5 1/4" original floppy distro of Windows NT 3.51. We bought a brand spanking new Zeos P90 for it when they first came out. Ah, installing the first Windows build of Oracle RDBMS on it -- without an installer ... or install scripts. Just copy this here, edit this file, etc. The bad old days
unthinkable in the good old dos days where viruses where only a "proof of concept"
(at least compared to these new ones....)
the only one that as destrutive was the ransom trojan where it encrypted your hdd
(forgot how it worked.....) and unless you knew a key everything was going to be deleted...
edit: forgot to mention 5lo...
now that was a nasty one...
There was the lizard virus, one that was around in the days of DOS but kept resurrecting itself when Windows 3.1 and then later on Windows 95 came out - it wasn't *very* harmful, in that it acted like a typical virus, replicating itself ad inifinitum. I basically infected the command.com and created a .DLL for command.com to use to infect any executable file - and it did so with a passion.
Good news - was easily cleaned and left files working, didn't erase HD, etc...
Bad news - it infected every single executable that was ever run on the system. I had the (unfortunate) habit back then of creating self-extracting archives to make life 'easier' for me - I got hit with it, and in the process of moving all my archives to a new drive, every single, last one of them got infected.
All 1300+ files.
Only thing that saved my derriere was Norton AV 4.5 for DOS....(and *that* came on a whopping 4 floppies, one of which was simply used to make a recovery diskette)....
I suppose we must presume that the OS's under test were all used before installing software. Third party software, with its associated DLL's etc, slows down the performance considerably.
In my own case, as I said in a much earlier thread, I have a well tuned and customised Vista ultimate (64 bit). Applying the same customisation to 7 does not improve it, so far, to any benching figures I try privately. In several cases my Vista outperforms 7. I can see no way, with my existing hardware, I can get any close to Adrian Hughes' (unimportant) startup figures.
I think I have just about covered everything that is possible in 7. It is, after all, very similar to Vista. All the reg hacks and other customising tricks I applied to Vista, also work in 7. In fact, with a couple of very marked exceptions, there is little of new interest.
I am not disappointed. This is not yet a Beta and I have high hopes. But, my own point of view, right or wrong, is that most of the "new" features could easily have been incorporated into Vista. As an addicted customiser, I have to agree with many comments that I have seen, that 7 is looking, for the moment, like a ready customised Vista - in other words, what Vista should have been.
I have erased 7 as it is wasting space on my computer, but I will certainly be trying future releases with enthusiasm.
Last edited by davehc; 14 Dec 2008 at 05:44.
yes i remember "dll hell"
it was utterly horrible in the those days....
there was a time (when i had WinMe) that i wanted to break the computer because how slow it turned on...(well again i had a duron cpu, but hey it was slow...)
my anwser to this issue of the bloat would be to write every piece of code in windows in assembly language...
but the time needed to create such thing would take ages...
well a guy could wish....lol
Wll be installing Beta Build 6936 X64Bit as of Sunday night...will keep you guys up to date.
Lovin' the progress of Windows 7 X64 ♥
That can be taken as a good thing or a bad thing.
I agree, Adrian must be performing benchmarks on an OS that has absolutely no apps installed, along with those drives and what not - and I *wholeheartedly* agree that the 'speed' benchmarks are unimportant - however, I do appreciate the fact that he performed them because so many people screamed about XP being much faster than Vista - I'll agree that it is 'faster' but not much faster, because after all is said and done, the average XP machine has way too many apps running to make it a contender in the 'fast' OS category. Comparatively speaking (and I have hashed this over and over time and again) The number of apps I pretty much *needed* to have running in XP to keep it safe and secure was triple that of Vista. Add to that the fact that the Vista OS is so much larger - I mean, for crying out loud, run some benchmarks on *most* newer software, and I mean major revisions, especially those separated by 4+ years, and *every* software not only takes longer ***on the same platform / testbed*** but will require (or, at the very least, benefit) from newer hardware.
Anyhoo, his benches only show that virgin systems are faster - but the good news is that, with W7 needing less in the way of Security software than XP, it will push it even further beyond the XP limit.
DLL Hell - cyclic dependencies. Gotta love them.
On a brighter note, the good news is that Vista has prepared those of us using it for W7. We have a really good idea of what to expect from it when it *does* bark at us.
Good luck m8
yes it is agreed that
this is a almost irrelevant test...
meaning that sure it shows the speed but what about with a few apps installed....
i remember when they were talking about the differences between Win95 and WinNT...(in my job i joined in (i was 18))
i learned a lot there....
then i knew that i was going into Computer Science...
at least then they knew that WinNT was only for a "fast" pc (relative term for a fast pc at the time 486 16 mb compared to a 386 and 8 mb...)
well at least the customers had to know this...
wow its been a long time since those times....
the times of jumpers (i get old hardware that has been thrown away for some reason or does not work.... good old jumpers...lol)
At least then they knew the capabilities of the hardware....lol
those were old times...
As for the dll issue it could have been repaired beging with standard OS dlls that get updated by ms only meaning that OS wide dlls (that other apps use) should be standardize so that dll hell would not have happen...
i really do hate their workaround for this which is to create thousands of almost equal dlls with sometimes a few lines of code changed.....
i wish they were dll standards (sounds ridiculous huh)
