Graal's Future With Microsoft ;)

NovaNET · #1 02-24-2003, 11:44 PM

Will good news you wont be having any problems with Graal running on Windows 2003 which is Microsoft's Newest Operating System. My work got 8 copies today and i got to keep one and tested it out and unlike the issues with Graal and Windows XP ... Windows 2003 seems to be 100% Error Free when it comes to graal and in general

.

Nova - Posing with Windows 2003 Server CD.
----

Nova - Taking a break at work to play graal on one of our new Windows 2003 Servers.

tlf288 · #2 02-24-2003, 11:54 PM

Pretty....

I can't wait untill I get Windows 2003!

_0AfTeRsHoCk0_ · #3 02-25-2003, 07:30 AM

Dude, that looks exactly like windows 95 or 98 or something. Nothing special there, not to mention I've never even heard of this windows 2003

ZanderX · #4 02-25-2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by _0AfTeRsHoCk0_
Dude, that looks exactly like windows 95 or 98 or something. Nothing special there, not to mention I've never even heard of this windows 2003

He has it on Classic mode. 2003, also known somewhat disparagingly now as ".NET". It's the next generation server OS; I have Release Candidate 1 and 2 (should be coming soon), as I was a tester, but I never got around to installing 1 and probably will never install 2 either... I dunno.

daboo · #5 02-25-2003, 08:05 AM

From what I understand, Windows2003 is the next generation of WindowsNT for servers and more proffesional stuff (ala Win2k), and thus doesn't need a fancy GUI taking up resources. I'm sure the next generation of Windows NT for desktops will look more like XP does. I personaly don't care much if Graal works will on the next version of Windows, I'm hoping withing a year or two, I'll be using Linux %95 of the time.

Edit: not to say that I really think he actually has Win2k3

NovaNET · #6 02-25-2003, 08:21 AM

Its the nex generation for all Windows Platforms. Its has a totally rebuilt robust NT Kernal and new file system among about 3000 some odd other nice new fixes and add-ons. It even supports posix :P

The next release of a Windows based platform for "end-users" not professionals will use the same file system and kernal and core files. Also the new Microsoft Office 11 will only run on the new kernal from what i hear.

ZanderX · #7 02-25-2003, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NovaNET
Its the nex generation for all Windows Platforms. Its has a totally rebuilt robust NT Kernal and new file system among about 3000 some odd other nice new fixes and add-ons. It even supports posix :P

The next release of a Windows based platform for "end-users" not professionals will use the same file system and kernal and core files. Also the new Microsoft Office 11 will only run on the new kernal from what i hear.

So RC2 introduced the SQL file system then? I remember RC1 of .NET still being NTFS-based, and then they transitioned to the entired Windows 2003 thing and kept going with the old .NET RC's under the new name...

NovaNET · #8 02-25-2003, 08:40 AM

Nope RC2 is still using NTFS but i never heard anything about SQL. At comdex Steve Palmer (CEO @ MS) said that stable release would include WFS (Windows File System) a new technology not simply a database but a new robust fast and easy file system that could support reading several other file systems and many other things.

It is funny though how some people are so behind on technology. Windows 2003 (or .NET Server If you prefer) has been news for like 2 and half years now.

ZanderX · #9 02-25-2003, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NovaNET
Nope RC2 is still using NTFS but i never heard anything about SQL. At comdex Steve Palmer (CEO @ MS) said that stable release would include WFS (Windows File System) a new technology not simply a database but a new robust fast and easy file system that could support reading several other file systems and many other things.

It is funny though how some people are so behind on technology. Windows 2003 (or .NET Server If you prefer) has been news for like 2 and half years now.

it's SQL-based, that's why I refer to it was the SQL file system. ^__^;

but I am sad that RC2 is still using NTFS. :[ I want to try out WFS damnit.

tlf288 · #10 02-25-2003, 08:51 AM

I just ordered RC2 from Microsofts site. $8 for shipping and thats all I had to pay. I have a 120gb HD. If I partition that into 2 can I dual boot my Windows XP and Windows 2k3?

ZanderX · #11 02-25-2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tlf288
I just ordered RC2 from Microsofts site. $8 for shipping and thats all I had to pay. I have a 120gb HD. If I partition that into 2 can I dual boot my Windows XP and Windows 2k3?

you'll be fine, you'll have more than enough space. :]

NovaNET · #12 02-25-2003, 08:55 AM

Our you can just become a MCP and then get Free TechNET and Partner Releases

like me.

tlf288 · #13 02-25-2003, 08:56 AM

I mean will that work ok?

If so, What program can I use to split my HD into 2 so I can do this and not loose any information.

And, Would it be better to have split my HD into 3 and have XP on one part, Windows 2k3 on another, and then my files on the other?

Quote:

Our you can just become a MCP and then get Free TechNET and Partner Releases like me.

How?

melissa1988 · #14 02-25-2003, 09:29 AM

I've known about .NET for a long time too...just haven't tried it out or anything...The WFS...would it *gasp* support UNIX file systems like ext3 and ufs? :P It'd be neato if it did, but probably not likely because Microsoft is anti-Linux for obvious reasons.

As far as partitioning goes...Windows 2000 and XP have a built-in partition tool in the administrative options that can set partitions, etc., but you'd be better off with a third party program like Partition Magic because if your whole drive is set as one large partition, I don't think that the thing included with windows can split partitions. Partition Magic can be purchased, or pirated...your choice of course. With it you can safely split your large partition into several smaller ones. For instance, I have one Windows partition, a Linux swap partition, and an ext3 partition on my 20gb drive...
As far as MCP...I think it's a certification that you can take at an authorized Microsoft Testing Center...I forget what it means...probably Microsoft Certified Programmer or Partner..I forget

NovaNET · #15 02-25-2003, 09:44 AM

MCP - Microsoft Certified Professional
You have to have one of any of Microsoft's certs.

Spark910 · #16 02-25-2003, 12:09 PM

Can you take it off lassic mode and show us the cool stuff? Or is that as fancy as 2003 gets, I want to see an XP style layout/design.

Darlene159 · #17 02-25-2003, 02:11 PM

As long as Windows 2003 doesnt work like Windows ME.......
It would be nice to have a new operating system, updated with the latest cool stuff, that actually work

Questa · #18 02-25-2003, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darlene159
As long as Windows 2003 doesnt work like Windows ME.......

Pretty sure it won't, pal.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spark910
Can you take it off lassic mode and show us the cool stuff? Or is that as fancy as 2003 gets, I want to see an XP style layout/design.

There isn't fancy designs on Windows 2003...

DarkHero · #19 02-25-2003, 04:40 PM

i am all confused about everything you are talking about, can someone just tell me, is it better than windows xp and why? like what is new about it

melissa1988 · #20 02-25-2003, 05:41 PM

read the thread...it was already mentioned that the kernel has been rewritten, there's a new file system, and about 3000 other new/fixed things (according to NovaNET). The version he has is Windows .NET Server (did they officially change the name to Windows Server 2003)? It is a Network operating system designed to be the next generation NOS after the Windows 2000 server suites. The desktop/worstation next gen OS will be based on the new kernel and probably have the file system. There's supposed to be a 64 bit version too...

BTW, that reminds me, is this new server OS gonna have different versions like Windows 2000 had? For instance, there was Server, Advanced Server, Datacenter, etc...Another thing...is there a 64 bit version?

tlf288 · #21 02-25-2003, 07:28 PM

So, Would I be ok splitting my 120gb HD into 3 40gb partitions and have one partition for Windows XP, the other for Windows 2k1, and the last one for my files?

I have heard from some people that it is better to have your operating system on one HD and your files on another. Is this true?

melissa1988 · #22 02-26-2003, 12:53 AM

You can split it as many times as you want. It doesn't really matter. Just make sure to have at least two, one for XP and one for 2003

MedievalSmurf · #23 02-26-2003, 01:50 AM

Noooooo , it that time again when the fait of the world would hangs and wondering if it’s the end of the world , the apocalypse or maybe in this case some thing even worse
the release of another windows operating system. Noooooooooo, dam you god why don’t you show use any mercy, how could you let Microsoft design another high prised peace of crap.
I have use every windows operating system from windows 3.1 and its NT version 3.11 up to Xp home edition and Xp professional edition, but I have never used xp 64 bit since that is designed for big time engineering companies. to give you a example of this , I have been told by a friend that some company used Xp 64 bit for testing air dynamics on there designs. I have also been told it takes 3 computers to operate.
Anyway ill get back to the subject, I found windows2000 NT professional was the best windows operating system, for once the user hand full control of his “windows” operating system , I thought Microsoft actually did some thing right for once . But then they messed up by designing Xp , a very bug system that requires a lot of ram
and has no problem using 100% of a 1.3Gb athlon cpu . Windows really messed up on there last 16bit operating system “Windows ME”, that was the most buggiest operating system I have ever used . But one thing that I notice about windows Me and corel Linux , they were both b**hed about when they where released because they both sucked Lol . But anyway I can guess that windows 2003 is and 32 bit operating system like Windows2000 NT professional and windows Xp home edition and professional edition which is not such a bad thing , but it would be very cool if they designed windows2003 to support games that are only designed to run on 16 bit operating system like rainbow six to run on windows 2003. I hope this operating system is not based on any other windows operating system so at least they have a clean start not like Xp that’s based on Windows2000 NT professional , and messing up every thing that made Windows2000 NT professional seem cool.
After typing all this I don’t see the point why this forum has anything to do with Graal!
(Note that you would want at lest 256ram for any windows from Windows2000 NT professional upwards)

MedievalSmurf · #24 02-26-2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by NovaNETWill good news you wont be having any problems with Graal running on Windows 2003 which is Microsoft's Newest Operating System. My work got 8 copies today and i got to keep one and tested it out and unlike the issues with Graal and Windows XP ... Windows 2003 seems to be 100% Error Free when it comes to graal and in general

.

Hay, sense you got a few beta copy of windows 2003, would be possible to send my a copy, or a copy of a copy?
I don’t think ill be able to try it out until this other wise summer when my friend goes back to china for the summer and send me back a copy from the black market.

“God do I love the Russian and chine’s black market” lol

ZanderX · #25 02-26-2003, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MedievalSmurf
I But then they messed up by designing Xp , a very bug system that requires a lot of ram
and has no problem using 100% of a 1.3Gb athlon cpu

Sucks that you don't know how to configure a system right. I'm running an AthlonXP 1700+, overclocked to 333mhz FSB and 1833mhz, and even on default settings I rarely, if ever, hit even 50% CPU usage. XP isn't buggy unless you're using a beta, or unless you don't know jack about system configuration.

Which is my conclusion about you. :]

SingleChance · #26 02-26-2003, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

Sucks that you don't know how to configure a system right. I'm running an AthlonXP 1700+, overclocked to 333mhz FSB and 1833mhz, and even on default settings I rarely, if ever, hit even 50% CPU usage. XP isn't buggy unless you're using a beta, or unless you don't know jack about system configuration.

Which is my conclusion about you. :]

I think your conclusion about him is wrong because I have windows XP professional and the person that installed it knows about everything there is to know about computers and right now the cpu usage is at 98%

Questa · #27 02-26-2003, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NovaNET
unlike the issues with Graal and Windows XP

Wait a minute, there are issues? I haven't noticed any.

MedievalSmurf · #28 02-26-2003, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZanderX

Sucks that you don't know how to configure a system right. I'm running an AthlonXP 1700+, overclocked to 333mhz FSB and 1833mhz, and even on default settings I rarely, if ever, hit even 50% CPU usage. XP isn't buggy unless you're using a beta, or unless you don't know jack about system configuration.

Which is my conclusion about you. :]

Will actually most of the time when there is a good few programs running in the back ground the CPU around 25% to 55%, but if I run a game that demands a bit of power
100% of my CPU gets used.
Anyway, it not just me that dose not like Xp`s , I have easily talked to over 50 people that used xp and they all disliked it , and some of these people work in online companies , and one or two of them are network administrators in there companies and despise xp completely. Beside me talking to other people my friends have also talk to a lot of people about xp and no one except the odd few like it. Sure xp is filled
With nice graphics and pretty colours but that dose not make it a good operating system. I am just going to down grade my computers to windows2000 professional and get a newer version of Mandrex as well. and no I don’t have any problem configuring my system , I just hate nearly very aspect about it from its networking features , its built in spy-wear that can easily be disabled but still and the list of my dislike and other people dislikes keeps going on. I have to say when I tried it first like a lot of other people did, I Thought it was cool , until a few weeks later when it started to piss me off. But anyway that is my opinion and you are equally entitled to you own opinion about xp.
:o

Questa · #29 02-26-2003, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MedievalSmurf

Will actually most of the time when there is a good few programs running in the back ground the CPU around 25% to 55%, but if I run a game that demands a bit of power
100% of my CPU gets used.
Anyway, it not just me that dose not like Xp`s , I have easily talked to over 50 people that used xp and they all disliked it , and some of these people work in online companies , and one or two of them are network administrators in there companies and despise xp completely. Beside me talking to other people my friends have also talk to a lot of people about xp and no one except the odd few like it. Sure xp is filled
With nice graphics and pretty colours but that dose not make it a good operating system. I am just going to down grade my computers to windows2000 professional and get a newer version of Mandrex as well. and no I don’t have any problem configuring my system , I just hate nearly very aspect about it from its networking features , its built in spy-wear that can easily be disabled but still and the list of my dislike and other people dislikes keeps going on. I have to say when I tried it first like a lot of other people did, I Thought it was cool , until a few weeks later when it started to piss me off. But anyway that is my opinion and you are equally entitled to you own opinion about xp.
:o

Doesn't matter if CPU is 100%. RAM / Swap usage is more important

melissa1988 · #30 02-26-2003, 05:20 AM

Windows Me was the last of the 16/32-bit hybrids...not just 16bit...
It runs 16-bit apps in cooperative mode and 32-bit apps in preemptive mode. One of the reasons Windows 2000 and up perform better is because they employ true preemptive multitasking, multithreading, and a kernel that runs in privileged mode. Anyway, I expect Windows 2003 to perform much better than Win2000/XP because of the kernel rewrite...generally (like when NT became 2000) a kernel rewrite can improve performance an average of 30% so it should be nice. Of course the home version's probably gonna suck if they do it how they did XP home...lol

Answer my questions about 2003!

Questa · #31 02-26-2003, 03:43 PM

Windows ME was Windows 98 with a few visual changes. There was nothing different between the two versions other than cosmic changes. Windows ME came with a lot more though, for instance the useless System Restore. That thing was always in the background running, taking up so many resources.

adam · #32 02-26-2003, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spark910
Can you take it off lassic mode and show us the cool stuff? Or is that as fancy as 2003 gets, I want to see an XP style layout/design.

When will people realize the only impressive part is the stuff you can't see.

It could be command-line based and still be revolutionary.

NovaNET · #33 02-26-2003, 09:48 PM

and my box is doing great 72 hours (100%) uptime so far i am going for 30 days solid without any errors and lockups etc. we shall see how Windows 2003 Server Enterprise stands up to Redhat which i run on my other box.

melissa1988 · #34 02-26-2003, 11:29 PM

I bet Redhat wins :P Though I think SuSe and Slackware are better

Griffyn · #35 02-27-2003, 03:31 AM

Son of a *****. I was thinking about getting XP, and they are already talking about a new OS. :P

LilNiglet · #36 02-27-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Griffyn
Son of a *****. I was thinking about getting XP, and they are already talking about a new OS. :P

Don't worry, unless you're a power user (eg, servers, compiling code), you'll be able to keep XP for a while.

Darlene159 · #37 02-27-2003, 03:28 PM

lol, I use Windows SE, and I love it...I used ME for a very short time, loved the layout, but hate the buggy system..what a mess it was, so I went back to SE, which I have no problems with at all.
I would love to see a Windows version come out that has a very nice layout, and WORKS like SE does, otherwise they can keep it

Ibonic · #38 02-27-2003, 05:30 PM

when I use Windows (not that I prefer to), I use 2000 or XP because previous versions (such as 95, 98(SE), Me) crash whenever I try to do anything that requires resources; and when they don't crash immediately, eventually just run very low on resources until a reboot is needed--which is much too often

Windows 2000 and XP boot much slower than 95/98(SE), but they keep running stably for weeks or even months+ unlike the others

the main problem with Windows Me's that it doesn't run as stable as it should unless you cleanly install it (upgrading creates a disaster) -- I used Me over 98 SE for a while because it had more hardware support built-in, and ran much more stably for me (maybe it depends on your hardware -- I know that a lot of people had problems with it)

I believe that Windows 2003 is (going to be) much better than 2000/XP, but I'm not one to support the .NET idea

___

wow, this hardly makes sense.. what am I drugged on?

melissa1988 · #39 02-27-2003, 05:36 PM

heh a former teacher of mine loves .NET. It was a Project Management class, yet he always managed to mention something about it..jeez hehe

Ib! You're not on Trillian! How'd the reformat go man? I got a new GUI! wee

PS: Win2000 boots faster than XP and 98 :P 25 seconds (on my PC)

Milkdude99 · #40 02-27-2003, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tlf288
I mean will that work ok?

If so, What program can I use to split my HD into 2 so I can do this and not loose any information.

And, Would it be better to have split my HD into 3 and have XP on one part, Windows 2k3 on another, and then my files on the other?

How?

If you have a Maxtor HD you can use their software for the HD to do it or get it from their website, BUT it will only work with Maxtor drives. There is Partition Magic , it is software designed to do nothing but that.