Status of 6.0 for production systems

Michael Vince mv at
Sat Nov 12 00:02:50 GMT 2005

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>>Admittedly if Microsoft were trying to make Windows XP run well
>>on a 486
>>it wouldn't be nearly as a likable OS it is today.
>That's not true either.  If Microsoft were trying to make it work on a
>486 it
>would run a lot better on bigger hardware because they would have to
>all the fat off it.
>Haven't you ever noticed with Windows that the user interface speed is
>still the same today, with brand new hardware, as it was 10 years ago
>on older versions of Windows?
>Try running Windows 98 one day on brand new hardware - it is almost a
>religious experience.  Open a window and Bang - it's there, completely
>drawn in, so fast you can't even see it draw.  THAT is how it's supposed
>to be.  The problem is the stupid consumers don't understand that every
>year that they buy newer and faster hardware it just helps Microsoft to
>make their stuff slower.  So they never get ahead.
Windows 98 is what made MS famous for instability and its not even a 
comparable OS in terms of stability of Windows XP.
I believe most tech people have thought the same way in terms of every 
new versions of MS windows needs a faster PC, and it has a good side of 
MS as far as I am concerned because without the demand for faster CPUs 
to run MS Windows the CPU industry would still be sitting around Pentium 
2 performance today.

Its the same for the Internet if Gates had not put a 'get on the 
Internet now' icon on all those win95 and 98 during the pc boom days to 
trigger peoples interest the Internet it wouldn't be as cheap or as fast 
as it is for end consumers.
And if web pages had been only made for dial up to keep modem users 
happy broadband wouldn't exist or be nearly as cheap.

>>AMD64/EMT64 appears to be the mainstream high performance future and
>>should get the most support, although some technologists are
>>saying that
>>Itanium is going to make a come back believe it or not, check out the
>>latest anandtech article for example
>>If theres some guy who uses a 386sx 25mhz to run his water gardening
>>sprinkler system he should let go of demanding 6.x work on his system
>>and just use what he needs such as 4.x
>6.x will not boot on a 386, the math coprocessor emulator is not in
>the generic kernel anymore.
I know I used it as an example.

>>And if he needs say the latest perl 6 to control his sprinkler system
>>and its not available in 4.x any more then he should just use NetBSD,
>>NetBSD is for all types of hardware and is a fine OS.
>That is not a FreeBSD issue, that is an issue with the Perl development
>team and what -they- choose to support.  You frankly sound like you have
>never compiled anything from scratch.  
I used it as another mere possible example in the future.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list