Windows 98, In 16MB Of Flash?

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS2426241007.html?foo=Development%20suite%20embeds%20Windows%2098%20in%2016MB%20Flash%2005-27' target='_blank'>http://www.windowsfordevices.com/ne...20Flash%2005-27</a><br /><br /></div>This is kind of cool, and has interesting implications. A company called <a href="http://www.embedded-ware.com/home.htm">Embedded Ware</a> has developed a Windows 98 solution that fits in only 16MB of flash -- they call it, appropriately, TinyWin98.<br /><br />From the Windows CE device perspective, this serves as interesting competition. TinyWin98 supposedly boasts very fast boot times and instant-on/instant-off. At the same time, you've got a full Windows 98 operating system in a small form factor, with minimal power drain. Windows 98 has relatively minimal system requirements, as well. Developers don't need to learn different APIs. On the other hand, Windows 98 doesn't have the stability of more modern operating systems, including CE and XP Embedded, and requires an x86 processor, which is still more power hungry than ARM solutions. In practice, I don't see this taking off in the mass market (a la Pocket PC), but it may be valuable for specific embedded applications.

[HTK]

I would like a handheld with this! plenty of software to run in it :mrgreen:

[rmasinag]

I want one! I want one! Begone PPC2K3! Hello Win98! 8O

Does this mean PPC's could potentially hook up devices to it as long it can run in win98 drivers?

[Cameron_Talley]

While I can see lots of reasons to do this, is it really all that feasible? Certainly there must be HUGE amounts of compromises in order to fit WIN98 onto 16MB. And I remeber crashes happening several times a day, instead of maybe once a week with XP, and (so far, for me) only once every month or so with Pocket PC 2002.

I would rather see more development with PPC 2002 dedicated solutions, instead of rehashing an outdated OS that is five years old.

[Lday]

Not to mention the problems installing programs and data. I can see trying to run Office 97 on a PPC, install it and you're probably out of storage.

[acronym]

haven't people been installing win98 lite on 16meg DOCs in hacked internet appliances for the past couple _years_?

[Ed Hansberry]

This looks like a very specific applicatoin to get it that small. It seems you load Win98 on a PC, load your app on it, then run their analyzers and then from a WinXP host machine, it kicks out only the bare essentials to run your app. And note that it says it can fit on as little as 16MB CF. I'd wager that if your applicatoin was as complex as something like Excel or Photoshop (I use those as examples, I bet this thing needs your source code to work correctly) there is no way it would fit in 16MB.

I agree with other comments here - this is a very very specific market. I don't understand why you wouldn't use WinCE or Embedded XP - both are far more stable and CE can be as small as 64KB if you like and XP can be as complex as a multiuser headless system if desired.

[Cameron_Talley]

This is probably the result of Guys sitting around thinking of bizzare things to do with software/hardware that was never intended to be done...

Somewhat similar to Running Windows 1.01 apps in WinXP (http://toastytech.com/guis/misc2.html)

[ctmagnus]

OS always startup as it was brand new from factory

That's one way to reduce the gunky buildup that most Win98 systems incur.

[jeffmd]

dude, id love a win98 install for my laptop. it would be instant on, and just fine for browsing and stuff. I never had problems with win9x crashing unless you have it bogged down with all kinds of startup programs.

[krisbrown]

This is the way forward for all OS's, we need instant start, and get rid of that ridiculous business of scandisk when you lock up, why aren't Microsoft trying to improve this? They seem hell bent on more code, we need less!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wxrman]

I have a Virgin Webplayer Internet Appliance that I hacked a while back. It's got a 2gig hd and win98lite on it...

runs fine... win98 on the DOC and a collection of mp3's on the 2gig hd.

It's my workshop mp3 player...

[Ed Hansberry]

This is the way forward for all OS's, we need instant start, and get rid of that ridiculous business of scandisk when you lock up, why aren't Microsoft trying to improve this?
That was fixed in 1992 when Windows NT 3.1 was released. The last time I saw a system do a scandisk when it locked up was over at a friends house. I chastised him for staying with such a lame OS. NT based systems don't do this, at least not with the NTFS file system. FAT/FAT32 systems just aren't as reliable.

Windows XP isn't instant start, but it is much much faster to boot up than Win98/ME/2K on similar hardware. See http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/planning/performance/startup.asp for a great overview on how XP has been optimized to start faster. My laptop too 2+ minutes from power on to a login screen if I was booting or about 30-45 seconds if I was resuming from standby with Windows 2K. With XP, and this is a PII-366 laptop, it takes about 45 seconds to boot and about 7 seconds to resume.

[HTK]

On my libretto and on my Thinkpad I use only Hibernate to shutdown the system... the machine start in less then 15 seconds... far from instant-boot but encourages me to turn them on more often then I was used to with the normal shutdown.

[Janak Parekh]

That was fixed in 1992 when Windows NT 3.1 was released. The last time I saw a system do a scandisk when it locked up was over at a friends house. I chastised him for staying with such a lame OS. NT based systems don't do this, at least not with the NTFS file system. FAT/FAT32 systems just aren't as reliable.
Agreed, although you are encouraged to run CHKDSK or CHKDSK /F if you encounter crashes. While NTFS is journaling, it's worth checking the structures for consistency sometimes.

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

Agreed, although you are encouraged to run CHKDSK or CHKDSK /F if you encounter crashes. While NTFS is journaling, it's worth checking the structures for consistency sometimes.
After a blue screen, maybe, which I've never had on my XP system. We had it happen on my wife's once and the online crash dump analysis tool pointed us to an updated ethernet card driver. Fixed that problem right up. I can honestly say I have never had a bluescreen since 1996 (when I got NT4) that wasn't eventually tracked back to a hardware issue (1mobo, 1 memstick) or that an updated driver didn't fix. It isn't strictly necessary though to do a full chkdsk. However, I do run a CHKDSK /F once a month on my servers just to ensure they are healthy but that is overboard probably.

Why in the world people cling to Win9x/ME is beyond me. :roll: It has always been a toy OS based on DOS and 16bit code with a big Win32API precariously balanced on top of it. Worthless. Win2K/XP with reasonable apps loaded (not every piece of junk you can get from download.com) can run for weeks and months without reboots. Rock solid.

[Janak Parekh]

After a blue screen, maybe, which I've never had on my XP system.
Or a power failure or hard crash in my case (the latter is, admittedly, very, very rare, usually a driver or mainboard issue).

Why in the world people cling to Win9x/ME is beyond me. :roll: It has always been a toy OS based on DOS and 16bit code with a big Win32API precariously balanced on top of it. Worthless. Win2K/XP with reasonable apps loaded (not every piece of junk you can get from download.com) can run for weeks and months without reboots. Rock solid.
Agreed. I used to even use NT4 back in the days when lots of apps (DX5 in particular) didn't support it, instead of 98 which supported everything, because it was just so much more stable. I've been very happy with 2k and XP. Quite frankly, I wish Microsoft didn't bother releasing ME in the first place.

--janak

[Server]

I want one! I want one! Begone PPC2K3! Hello Win98! 8O

Does this mean PPC's could potentially hook up devices to it as long it can run in win98 drivers?

This would be completely unfeasible, as there would be way
too much resource overhead for generic win98 drivers to load
let alone function. Everything would still have to be proprietarily
written if it was at all possible....


wishful thinking...

http://65.113.117.18/themes/preview/0/140.gif

[Don't Panic!]

This thread (http://www.pocketpcpassion.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24399) is over at Pocket PC Passion. I wonder if they're the same guys?

Don't Panic!
Bobby

[Janak Parekh]

This thread (http://www.pocketpcpassion.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24399) is over at Pocket PC Passion. I wonder if they're the same guys?
Nah, that post is utter BS -- '98 requires an x86-compatible processor, which the MIPS R4000 is not. This is a tangible product.

--janak