On 2011-06-04, at 3:43 PM, Adam wrote:
Many got it pre-installed with their machines. Sure Windows 7 may run on pre-2007 machines if you bought it for over six thousand bucks, but that still doesn't resolve another issue (which i forgot to mention) - compatibility.
Windows 7 has about the same requirements as Windows XP if you do feature parity on both installs. Starting to refer to "over six thousand bucks" is absurd.
A P4 could run Win 7 fine, and those have been around since 2000....
Gotta love that philosophy "who cares about 2.5GB or 8GB" - the operating system starts doing it, and then all the programs follow. Remember MSN Messenger 1.0? That was only a few hundred kilobytes to few megabytes to install. Now its over 180MB to install.
That includes the size of the .NET framework and many other components -- the actual install is much smaller. Much of that is bitmap, picture data as well. Also, MSN Messenger 1.0 did not do things like webcam support, file transfers, etc... so I don't understand the point of the comparison?
Which application do you want to bloat today?
<ps... i think the thread has been derailed>
Yes, it has, I demonstrated how "upgrade to Win7" is not such a strange thing to ask, and instead of accepting defeat to my arguments, you are talking about 6000$ computers and MSN Messenger 1.0.
So I'll quit now.
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:34:20 +1000, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
Windows 7 runs on pre-2007 computers just fine, so that's irrelevant.
Windows 7 is available as a trial, and also for free for students, and also for only 99$ as an upgrade to XP, which came out a decade ago. So there's people who don't have 99$/10 years? How did they get XP then?
Windows 7 does not take up 15GB of disk space. A fresh install of Ultimate uses 8.64GB.
If 8.64GB is too much, you can use Windows 7 for Thin PCs, which is in CTP right now. It uses ~2.7GB of space for a fresh install, only slightly higher than XP's 1.5.
(Also, who the cares about 2.5 or 8GB when you can get a 1TB disk for 100$ these days?)
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On 2011-06-04, at 3:03 PM, Adam wrote:
I am aware of that. I was talking about Microsoft Windows and not ReactOS - and was responding to someone who suggested "Update to Windows Vista+, which has KTM."
Please read the messages that are being replied to as well, other than just the replies.
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:53:43 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo elhoir@gmail.com wrote:
Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam geekdundee@gmail.com wrote:
And what about people with computers older than 2007 and/or people who do not want to (and/or cannot) pay $$$ for an upgrade and/or people who do not want to install an operating system that takes up 15GB of disk space?
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 03:59:46 +1000, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
Update to Windows Vista+, which has KTM.
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On 2011-06-04, at 10:21 AM, Adam wrote:
A number of times (eg. .NET install/AV install) I have had it happen at > the end of the install. Then when I attempt to uninstall it there are errors > produced regarding it (often not just after a fresh install of Windows; I > mean after using the computer for some time - particularly after updating > Windows Installer) then it makes the product difficult (if not impossible) > to uninstall. > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:07:44 +1000, Zachary Gorden < > drakekaizer666@gmail.com> wrote: > > And how many times does the database get corrupted? I've never run into >> it >> and the conditions that would cause a corruption would equally screw any >> other installer, since it would have to be a run that got interrupted >> mid-install. >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Adam geekdundee@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Next will you be suggesting for people to use MMC snapins as opposed to >>> writing standalone applications, because it is shitty standalone >>> applications that do things and not MMC? >>> >>> You can use WIX/MSI to write shitty installers too if I am not >>> mistaken. >>> I've seen brilliant NSIS/InstallShield installers and shitty MSI >>> installers. >>> And vice versa. >>> >>> As an end-user I must say MSI also tends to piss me off, particularly >>> when >>> the database gets corrupted and what not. Good concept though, but I >>> question the way it is implemented. I have written about what I think >>> about >>> MSI in another mail so no need for me to repeat myself. >>> >>> But what I am trying to suggest is that shitty installers will be >>> shitty >>> installers. You can write shitty installers in >>> >>> SuperDuperUltraInstallerLanguageSoGoodItIsGuaranteedToMakeOtherInstallersShitTheirPantsAndGoBankrupt >>> and they will still be shitty installers. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:49:26 +1000, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca >>> wrote: >>> >>> Oh, I do believe shitty software/installers do this. >>> >>>> >>>> Microsoft's technologies do not, however. >>>> >>>> So use WIX/MSI, not NSI/InstallShield. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Alex Ionescu >>>> >>>> On 2011-06-04, at 9:23 AM, Kamil Hornicek wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm in charge of 40+ PCs running mostly XP at work. Believe me when I >>>> >>>>> tell you people do write their own code (or use the available API >>>>> incorrectly) for installers or some online activation bullshit. I >>>>> came >>>>> across several installers/apps that were unable to detect or use our >>>>> proxy >>>>> (we also use wpad for proxy autodiscovery via dns) and I always had >>>>> to >>>>> connect that PC directly to our gateway to make stuff install which >>>>> is >>>>> annoying as hell. I am not making this up, pay me a visit if you >>>>> think >>>>> otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> K. >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Ionescu" < >>>>> ionucu@videotron.ca> >>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:20 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Again all of this is irrelevant: since I think you are a Linux user, >>>>> I >>>>> >>>>>> can understand why you are confused. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Windows, all HTTP communication is done by WinHTTP and/or >>>>>> WinINET, >>>>>> nobody writes their own custom socket code. >>>>>> >>>>>> WinHTTP/WinINET control the proxy settings for the machine. In fact, >>>>>> if >>>>>> you use Google Chrome on Windows (or Safari) and go to the >>>>>> proxy/connection >>>>>> settings, you will see "IE's" proxy connection dialog -- because >>>>>> these >>>>>> settings/dialog are owned by the OS Library, not the individual >>>>>> applications. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, the installer will use 100% the same settings as the web >>>>>> browser, including the same protocol. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, as I stated, if the browser can download foo.exe, so will the >>>>>> online >>>>>> installer. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Alex Ionescu >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2011-06-03, at 1:50 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> whatever you use for downloading the installer has to be configured >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>>> connect throught the proxy and also to use its dns services for >>>>>>> host name >>>>>>> resolving. if the installer itself isn't aware of the need for >>>>>>> proxy server >>>>>>> (or is not able to connect through socks or whatever the proxy >>>>>>> uses) it >>>>>>> won't be usually able to resolve the hostname it's trying to >>>>>>> connect to >>>>>>> (depends on the exact network configuration). also the default >>>>>>> route to the >>>>>>> internet would be missing or direct outgoing connections would be >>>>>>> blocked >>>>>>> (which they usually are otherwise you wouldn't be forced to use the >>>>>>> proxy >>>>>>> server in the first place) so the traffic generated by the >>>>>>> installer >>>>>>> wouldn't have any means to reach its destination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn't want to derail the discussion and I apologize for that. >>>>>>> I'll >>>>>>> shut up next time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kamil >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Ionescu" < >>>>>>> ionucu@videotron.ca >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:03 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since online installers use HTTP, and the user got the installer >>>>>>> off >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HTTP, what would a proxy server change? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> Alex Ionescu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2011-06-03, at 12:33 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I didn't want to spam this discussion but I have to.. What every >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> other software company also does is refusing to believe someone >>>>>>>>> might be >>>>>>>>> behind a proxy server. If you go this way, please make sure the >>>>>>>>> installer >>>>>>>>> doesn't need a direct connection. Also online installers are >>>>>>>>> generally a >>>>>>>>> major pain in the ass if you don't provide an offline installer >>>>>>>>> too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Ionescu >>>>>>>>> To: ReactOS Development List >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:56 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why separate installers for x64/ARM? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just do what every software company this side of the century >>>>>>>>> does: a >>>>>>>>> 400kb installer which lets you select the packages you want, and >>>>>>>>> downloads >>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> Alex Ionescu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2011-06-03, at 11:38 AM, Zachary Gorden wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Spoke with Amine and Daniel. I've agreed to the lesser evil of >>>>>>>>> bundling the FULL cmake. Reasons are if we want the BE to be >>>>>>>>> flexible >>>>>>>>> enough to be used for more than just building ROS, we can't gimp >>>>>>>>> cmake with >>>>>>>>> the belief that no one will need the things we didn't include. >>>>>>>>> This is again >>>>>>>>> on Windows. I remain uninvolved with decisions about the Linux >>>>>>>>> BE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Colin Finck colin@reactos.org >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Timo Kreuzer timo.kreuzer@web.de wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My vote on this: >>>>>>>>> CMake: bundle it, optional on installation >>>>>>>>> x64/arm: create individual installers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * CMake: bundle it, go for the (minimal) version without an >>>>>>>>> installer. It's nothing "exotic" to install after all, just put >>>>>>>>> it together >>>>>>>>> with the other utilities in RosBE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * x64/arm: If build tool sizes are staying like this, create >>>>>>>>> individual installers. Just for testing, I'll try an x86/x64 >>>>>>>>> multilib build >>>>>>>>> of Binutils and GCC though, would be nice to know how much >>>>>>>>> smaller it is >>>>>>>>> compared to separate x86 and x64 compilers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So in general, I agree with Timo :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Colin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ros-dev mailing list >>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>> >>> > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/