General > General Technical Chat
Take a look at these NASA Apollo Mission Control Console close-up view displays.
BrianHG:
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on March 28, 2021, 07:51:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: Tomorokoshi on March 28, 2021, 07:20:03 pm ---What gets me is that it took them only 2 years to put it into operation. And they didn't even have the benefit of Agile.
--- End quote ---
Systems were simpler/easier to understand.
Last w/e, I powered up an instance of Windows Server 2003 just for fun, virtualized on decently powerful modern hardware. I was amazed at the response speed: anything you clicked on in the File Explorer or anywhere else responded explosively fast... beating the sound of the mouse click travelling to your ear! :)
I tried running a few applications... same thing: unbelievable performance.
Comparing this with a lardy Windows 10 system that can barely get out of its own way... the old 2003 Windows pretty much ran the same tasks with no issues, and ran them significantly faster. It feels like all we have been doing for the last several decades is adding bloat to our products, with only a few genuine wins in there...
--- End quote ---
Win2K pro SP3 is still faster and stable, but, WinNT4 SP5 beats them all hands down. We are talking an OS which can fit on a few 1.4mb flippies and still offer some of the exact core system capability to run 90% of the software today if they just wouldn't check for the OS version, or use that stupid .NET garbage.
SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: BrianHG on March 30, 2021, 01:11:12 am ---
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on March 28, 2021, 07:51:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: Tomorokoshi on March 28, 2021, 07:20:03 pm ---What gets me is that it took them only 2 years to put it into operation. And they didn't even have the benefit of Agile.
--- End quote ---
Systems were simpler/easier to understand.
Last w/e, I powered up an instance of Windows Server 2003 just for fun, virtualized on decently powerful modern hardware. I was amazed at the response speed: anything you clicked on in the File Explorer or anywhere else responded explosively fast... beating the sound of the mouse click travelling to your ear! :)
I tried running a few applications... same thing: unbelievable performance.
Comparing this with a lardy Windows 10 system that can barely get out of its own way... the old 2003 Windows pretty much ran the same tasks with no issues, and ran them significantly faster. It feels like all we have been doing for the last several decades is adding bloat to our products, with only a few genuine wins in there...
--- End quote ---
Win2K pro SP3 is still faster and stable, but, WinNT4 SP5 beats them all hands down. We are talking an OS which can fit on a few 1.4mb flippies and still offer some of the exact core system capability to run 90% of the software today if they just wouldn't check for the OS version, or use that stupid .NET garbage.
--- End quote ---
Server 2003 still fit on a CD - and includes .NET! :D
Great for a web server, for example.
It was all downhill from there... although Win 7 / Server 2008 is probably as far back as you'd want to go, if you want any hope of running modern software.
Amazing, the days before you were expected to subscribe to your computer...
james_s:
--- Quote from: BrianHG on March 30, 2021, 01:11:12 am ---Win2K pro SP3 is still faster and stable, but, WinNT4 SP5 beats them all hands down. We are talking an OS which can fit on a few 1.4mb flippies and still offer some of the exact core system capability to run 90% of the software today if they just wouldn't check for the OS version, or use that stupid .NET garbage.
--- End quote ---
I remember running NT4 on my work desktop in the late 90s. It worked well and was rock solid for the most part, except on one, or possibly two occasions it somehow got so borked that I had to completely reformat and reinstall. I don't remember what happened, but after some troubleshooting we ended up deciding that reformat was the easiest way to get it back up and running. This was *at* Microsoft too so there was no shortage of people with Windows experience. Win2k was always one of my favorite desktop OS's, I ran that on my main PC until probably 2006 when I finally moved to XP because some game I wanted to play required it.
PlainName:
I am running W2K in a VM here. The entire live c:\windows folder takes up 658MB.
Of course, it doesn't have a lot of the fripperies that make later Windows nice to use - aero, for instance - but at least the windows have actual borders and scrolling windows show the damn scrollbars without having to have the mouse cursor over them. I can't imagine how deliberately hiding useful user interface clues can add 52.5GB!
SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 01, 2021, 11:16:27 am ---I am running W2K in a VM here. The entire live c:\windows folder takes up 658MB.
Of course, it doesn't have a lot of the fripperies that make later Windows nice to use - aero, for instance - but at least the windows have actual borders and scrolling windows show the damn scrollbars without having to have the mouse cursor over them. I can't imagine how deliberately hiding useful user interface clues can add 52.5GB!
--- End quote ---
I think there was a push to make it take up more space, so they could keep charging more for it and make it all look like progress!
The more I use Server 2003, the more stoked I get over how good it is... you can run the entire Datacenter Edition with full NUMA clustering in a couple of GB, incredible!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version