New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
They killed Vista the very same time they killed XP. There were at least a handful of people pissed about that.
I don't think an OS exists that can abuse what resources it are given as much as Windows 8+. It's amazingly painful, even when you try to strip it down. Of course the fact your system will be sending updates and other network goodies transparent to you while wrapped deeply within the system is no reason to be alarmed - just watch the pretty shiny candy-like loading screen (When I saw the 8 installer, the first thing that came to mind was Idiocracy).
..as long as nothing on it talks to the world without being expressly manually permitted, it's fine. Getting SAMBowned would suck.
An increasing number of things don't work any more with xp. I frequently see that w7+ is the minimum and sometimes even w8+ is required. That's why I took the new installation upon me. sigh
I can see 64 bit builds not working- easily. Most of XP was never made 64 bit, especially noting drivers. 7, however, was just ducky with most devices (that didn't date from XP pre-SP2 era), and many "You need Windows 8" is either a serving suggestion (implied faster computer with more RAM/CPU), or some preinstalled goodies in 8 that you need to download and register for 7.
I have yet to build/find anything that won't work on 7- but then again, that's nothing I care about, so..
See, this is why I have this thing, one VM->one task whenever possible. One for compiling, one for old games, with Reboot Restore Rx just in case...
Virtualization FTW, once you hold a hammer, everything around looks like nails.
My [whatever version] windows is installed in a vm.
@bsdguy you'll be much happier with either 7 or 10. Windows 8 was horrible.
I mean, they're all horrible, but Win 8 was widely panned and pretty bad.
That's docker, not VMs :-)
Fuck! One of the reasons for w8.1 was that w10 was said to be utterly shitty and that 8.1 was so much better than 8.0.
Oh well, now I'll stick to it. In the end it boils anyway "just" down to the question which kind of dog poop smells the least vile.
You can't seriously compare Windows to a *nix operating system. How they (Microsoft) ever became so dominate is mind boggling. Every time my spouse wants me to use the work laptop to help with stuff I spend every breath criticizing how it puts roadblock after roadblock in front of me. It takes so long to accomplish anything and the amount of ram and cpu power needed to do it is equally crazy.
That is not what i meant, I meant I use one VM for one task, you said there are things that dont work on XP, fine, but the point is when there is a thing that does work on XP, then one VM to do only that is very OK and XP is the choice because it uses so little resources, with some 50 MB overhead for the actual task and binaries loaded. You can just put up a general purpose (insert version here) in another VM, they wont even compete for resources most of the time unless you are THAT multitasking and when they do compete, the actual VM framework and the OS itself wont add too much weight on the shoulders of the physical machine, even more, due to the 64 bit framework of the more modern OSes, it is possible that the actual task running on the general purpose VM to actually use more resources than running on the XP VM and the OS and virtualization layer together, or, at least, very close.
I prefer full isolation, so VM it is (at least for now).
KVM > docker
Signed.
Yes, that's what I feel too. Well put.
Look, if there is just 1 thing that requires w7, 8, ... then I'll waste those resources anyway. Adding yet another vm with xp wouldn't save resources. And btw, there is just 1 thing, namely to compile stuff and to test run it.
Xp needs some 5 GB of disk to have 4.5 left for a apps on a bare-bone install and if needed attaching an extra disk is done in a few clicks or one line. The virtualization layer including the video and XP OS taken memory can be as low as 50 MB and use 1% of the CPU as overhead. If you cannot waste 5 GB for the sake of isolation and security, plus having a spare XP to test just in case since many people are still using it adding 50-100 MB of ram overhead, then you are cheaper than me and this is very rare.
And, as i said, if you run anything that can run on 32 over an 64 OS, it will probably use more resources anyway, negating the savings you do by using only one VM for "windowsing".
Of course, your preferences are your own, I was just motivating my choice.