Searching \ for '[OT]: Fitting Win2k onto embedded devices' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=fitting+win2k+onto
Search entire site for: 'Fitting Win2k onto embedded devices'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Fitting Win2k onto embedded devices'
2002\09\10@051348 by ichard Phillips

flavicon
face
Hi,

Has anyone ever tried to reduce the footprint of Win2K (or NT4, XP) to fit
onto small solid state drives - e.g. 256MB?

I'm interested in finding out if anyone has published info on what files can
be removed from a base Win2K install without affecting system functionality,
or affecting it in a way that doesn't alter critical functionality.  Or any
other helpful information.  I've already taken a look around Google, but
nothing seems to be forthcoming.

In the past, i've been able to reduce NT4 down to around 24MB - but with an
initial installation footprint of around 650mb, 2K is quite a bit more
daunting.

(Incidentially, i'm already aware of Embedded NT and XP, but would like to
consider using a plain desktop OS)

Richard

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\09\10@055128 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>In the past, i've been able to reduce NT4 down to around 24MB
>- but with an initial installation footprint of around 650mb,
>2K is quite a bit more daunting.

I suspect that if you were to ask Microsoft, they would refer you to Win CE,
but then who wants a "Crippled Edition" :)

I applied for a job with the company that does the ticket machines for the
London Underground at one stage. Each of those ticket machines has a Pentium
running Win NT4 in it :)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\09\11@030435 by john

flavicon
face
hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them ;)

On Tuesday 10 September 2002 10:20 am, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
Thank-you for your time.

John Ward

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\11@050022 by ichard Phillips

flavicon
face
> hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them ;)

Funny, i have several windows based systems that run 24/7 with no problems,
in office and domestic environments.  These are, in any case, for
non-production prototype systems.

I tend to believe that people who can't get windows running with any
stability have to look at themselves first.. ; )

*nix does have advantages, but the development time (imho) required does not
(imho) lend itself to RAD prototyping.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\11@053024 by john

flavicon
face
touche! ;)

On Wednesday 11 September 2002 09:58 am, you wrote:
> > hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> > Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them ;)
>
> Funny, i have several windows based systems that run 24/7 with no problems,
> in office and domestic environments.  These are, in any case, for
> non-production prototype systems.
>
> I tend to believe that people who can't get windows running with any
> stability have to look at themselves first.. ; )
>
> *nix does have advantages, but the development time (imho) required does
> not (imho) lend itself to RAD prototyping.

--
Thank-you for your time.

John Ward

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\11@065452 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Ward [SMTP:spam_OUTjohnTakeThisOuTspamagent-j.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:50 AM
> To:   .....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [OT]: Fitting Win2k onto embedded devices
>
> hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them ;)
>
I guess you haven't used many of Agilents recent equipment then?  We have
Digital Communication Analysers that run Windows 98!  It's surprisingly
reliable, due mainly to only having the instruments software installed and
not the reams of other junk you typically find on a desktop machine. We also
have some Agilent kit that runs NT4.

Regards

Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\11@111837 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> > hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> > Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them ;)
>
> Funny, i have several windows based systems that run 24/7 with no
> problems,
> in office and domestic environments.  These are, in any case, for
> non-production prototype systems.

       For NT based systems (NT, XP, 2K), I'd agree, however for 9x stuff (95, 98,
Me) it doesn't matter WHAT you do, they are inherently flawed and will
crashed if used.

> I tend to believe that people who can't get windows running with any
> stability have to look at themselves first.. ; )

       Not true, Windows 9x are inherently flawed when it comes to stability.

> *nix does have advantages, but the development time (imho)
> required does not
> (imho) lend itself to RAD prototyping.

       Guess you've never programmed for *nix or else you wouldn't say that. I can
develop something just as fast in Linux as I can in Windows, and I've done
both, often. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\11@114058 by ichard Phillips

flavicon
face
> > > hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> > > Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear
> of them ;)
> >
> > Funny, i have several windows based systems that run 24/7 with no
> > problems,
> > in office and domestic environments.  These are, in any case, for
> > non-production prototype systems.
>
>         For NT based systems (NT, XP, 2K), I'd agree, however for
> 9x stuff (95, 98,
> Me) it doesn't matter WHAT you do, they are inherently flawed and will
> crashed if used.

definetely.  9x kernel is utterly useless, and while it is capable of
running office apps, it's not good for much else.  Certainly not for control
applications.

> > I tend to believe that people who can't get windows running with any
> > stability have to look at themselves first.. ; )
>
>         Not true, Windows 9x are inherently flawed when it comes
> to stability.

I wasn't referring to Win9x, but to 'proper' windows (i.e. NT kernel)

> > *nix does have advantages, but the development time (imho)
> > required does not
> > (imho) lend itself to RAD prototyping.
>
>         Guess you've never programmed for *nix or else you
> wouldn't say that. I can
> develop something just as fast in Linux as I can in Windows, and I've done
> both, often. TTYL

possibly - but *nix has a lack of RAD IDE environments, slowing down
development.  Kylix and Kylic C++ seem to be the best options i've seen so
far, aside from something like codewarrior.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\11@115315 by 4HAZ

flavicon
face
----- From: "Herbert Graf" <mailinglist@

> > > hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> > > Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them
;)
> >
> > Funny, i have several windows based systems that run 24/7 with no
> > problems,
> > in office and domestic environments.  These are, in any case, for
> > non-production prototype systems.
>
>         For NT based systems (NT, XP, 2K), I'd agree, however for 9x stuff
(95, 98,
> Me) it doesn't matter WHAT you do, they are inherently flawed and will
> crashed if used.
>
> > I tend to believe that people who can't get windows running with any
> > stability have to look at themselves first.. ; )
>
>         Not true, Windows 9x are inherently flawed when it comes to
stability.
We have a full mix here, including DOS, WIN95(OSR2), WIN98,Me,2K et.al.
The stability seems to have more to do with the hardware and the operator.
Some hardware will crash during setup, this is a sure sign of a computer
that will never be stable with an os that uses its full potential, get the
hardware stabilized first!
Then there are some operators that can crash an abacus while adding 2+2.
If on the other hand a good computer is not overloaded with junk programs
(like 17 midi file players that all try to launch every time a midi file is
encountered) any system can be reliable.

$.02  - Lonnie - KF4HAZ -

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\11@130149 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herbert Graf [SMTP:mailinglistspamKILLspamFARCITE.NET]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:18 PM
> To:   .....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [OT]: Fitting Win2k onto embedded devices
>
> > > hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> > > Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them
> ;)
> >
> > Funny, i have several windows based systems that run 24/7 with no
> > problems,
> > in office and domestic environments.  These are, in any case, for
> > non-production prototype systems.
>
>         For NT based systems (NT, XP, 2K), I'd agree, however for 9x stuff
> (95, 98,
> Me) it doesn't matter WHAT you do, they are inherently flawed and will
> crashed if used.
>
You'd better explain that to Agilent.  We have some of thier Win98 based
instruments that are switched on 24hours day, 7 days a week.  The only
problems we have with them were software related (rather than OS) and have
been quickly fixed by updates.  I was extrememly dubious when we recieved
these instruments, but my fears have been completely unfounded.  They also
use AMD proccessors that many people maintain are less stable than Intel.

I still maintain that it's not the OS that is at fault as much as the piles
of garbage software that most people have running on their systems.  In this
respect the true 32 BIT OS's such as NT4, 2000 and XP are considerably more
robust.  In the case when just one, well written, program is running on the
system and people aren't playing with the settings everyday, Win98 can be
reliable.

Regards

Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\11@152212 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Somewhat agreed, any system can be made stable, but I have found that
for my public systems, I have the exact opposite reaction.

Windows takes up four to six times the amount of time to *secure*
properly than do my *nix boxes.  I can hand a *nix box to a customer
where they'll have a very hard time making changes that will affect the
system adversely.  Doing the same on Windows either requires lots of
research and effort or purchasing software where someone else has done
that for me.

Time fiddling with Microsoft patches (no automation of updates
availalble without installing SMS or similar), having to to poke
manually through registry settings that aren't sane from a
security-standpoint and change them... lots of other things.

My *nix boxes, I can run or customize a shell script I wrote long ago
and 99.999% of what I want done for network security is completed.

When it comes to prototyping, I can whip up a Perl/TK or Perl menu type
app a heck of a lot faster than I can fire up even the tools to do a GUI
app on the Windows machine.

I think it's all in what a person is comfortable with.

Nate

On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 01:58, Richard Phillips wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
Nate Duehr, EraseMEnatespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTnatetech.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\09\12@021345 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herbert Graf [SMTP:mailinglistspamspam_OUTFARCITE.NET]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:18 PM
> To:   @spam@PICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [OT]: Fitting Win2k onto embedded devices
>
> > > hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> > > Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them
> ;)
> >
> > Funny, i have several windows based systems that run 24/7 with no
> > problems,
> > in office and domestic environments.  These are, in any case, for
> > non-production prototype systems.
>
>         For NT based systems (NT, XP, 2K), I'd agree, however for 9x stuff
> (95, 98,
> Me) it doesn't matter WHAT you do, they are inherently flawed and will
> crashed if used.
>
You'd better explain that to Agilent.  We have some of thier Win98 based
instruments that are switched on 24hours day, 7 days a week.  The only
problems we have with them were software related (rather than OS) and have
been quickly fixed by updates.  I was extrememly dubious when we recieved
these instruments, but my fears have been completely unfounded.  They also
use AMD proccessors that many people maintain are less stable than Intel.

I still maintain that it's not the OS that is at fault as much as the piles
of garbage software that most people have running on their systems.  In this
respect the true 32 BIT OS's such as NT4, 2000 and XP are considerably more
robust.  In the case when just one, well written, program is running on the
system and people aren't playing with the settings everyday, Win98 can be
reliable.

Regards

Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\09\12@021401 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Ward [SMTP:RemoveMEjohnTakeThisOuTspamagent-j.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:50 AM
> To:   spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [OT]: Fitting Win2k onto embedded devices
>
> hmmm...... i guess youre not a high reliability fan ?
> Let me know what products you make so that i can steer clear of them ;)
>
I guess you haven't used many of Agilents recent equipment then?  We have
Digital Communication Analysers that run Windows 98!  It's surprisingly
reliable, due mainly to only having the instruments software installed and
not the reams of other junk you typically find on a desktop machine. We also
have some Agilent kit that runs NT4.

Regards

Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\09\12@044401 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>You'd better explain that to Agilent.  We have some of thier Win98 based
>instruments that are switched on 24hours day, 7 days a week.  The only
>problems we have with them were software related (rather than OS) and have
>been quickly fixed by updates.  I was extrememly dubious when we recieved
>these instruments, but my fears have been completely unfounded.  They also
>use AMD proccessors that many people maintain are less stable than Intel.
>
>I still maintain that it's not the OS that is at fault as much as the piles
>of garbage software that most people have running on their systems.  In
this
>respect the true 32 BIT OS's such as NT4, 2000 and XP are considerably more
>robust.  In the case when just one, well written, program is running on the
>system and people aren't playing with the settings everyday, Win98 can be
>reliable.

I suspect this may be a case of Agilent being "big enough and ugly enough"
to go digging inside the code and find any stability problems, with or
without getting source code from Microsoft. After all Agilent have in the
past made some pretty good logic analysers, I would guess there would be the
odd one lying around the development lab to check on some of these things :)

You may also find that DLL's and the like used in these instruments are
written for the purpose by Agilent, and not using standard ones from
Microsoft.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\09\12@044409 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> I still maintain that it's not the OS that is at fault...
> In the case when just one, well written, program is running on the
> system and people aren't playing with the settings everyday, Win98 can be
> reliable.


Ha ha ha hee hee! Isn't that just the ultimate
testimony to an *operating system*??

If it only runs the ONE good program and people
don't use it much, it's almost reliable... <grin>

Where next? The M$ automobile -
Drive on the same straight road and don't change
gears, and it hardly ever crashes!

More seriously, isn't it a commonly accepted
"truth" that M$ have alway built in a deliberate
error percentage and used it to sell "upgrades"
and "improved versions" of the operating system?
I can understand that, if they made a good operating
system it gets very hard to keep selling you a new
one every year or so.
;o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\09\12@163251 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Roman Black wrote:

>More seriously, isn't it a commonly accepted
>"truth" that M$ have alway built in a deliberate
>error percentage and used it to sell "upgrades"
>and "improved versions" of the operating system?
>I can understand that, if they made a good operating
>system it gets very hard to keep selling you a new
>one every year or so.

There is no need to try hard to 'build in' anything in a program of that
complexity. It's enough if you do not spend enough money on integration
testing and/or QC. Where enough is that obscene timespan of 6-7
man-milennia it would take to test the integration between the OS and the
several million applications available for it (most of them written by
something far worse than blind monkeys using typewriters in a dark cave
imho). The fact that they focused their resources on eye candy and not on
the gears under the hood is no secret (until recently when they made a
major effort in that direction). Relax, in 10-20 versions it will be as
stable, reliable and full-featured as Unix is today. Except Unix won't be
waiting for it ... it's this thing of man-hours put into the respective
products and systems, reflected in efficiency, feature sets, and
reliability.  Assuming all other things are equal 'legacy' Unix leads by
about 15 years. But things are not equal.

The only thing that is nagging me is, what is the maximum size of the box
for Windows 2010 ? Is a 2.5 ton pickup large enough to take it home ?
(this is a pun on the immense display boxes for Windows XP).

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...