Windows OS support for Hammer?

[glugglug]

I noticed that the new release of Sandra today supports 98/ME/2K/XP/.NET for 32-bit x86 processors, but only .NET for Hammer.

Will there be a Hammer native version of Win2K? or XP even?

I dread the idea of using .NET even more than XP. Too much required M$ spyware garbage built in.

Plus I suspec the overhead of the .NET virtual machine crap is gonna require all the Hammer's horsepower to get Pentium-133 class performance.

 

[Nothinman]

You might be able to run older versions of Windows on Hammer in 32-bit legacy mode, but what would be the point?

Plus I suspec the overhead of the .NET virtual machine crap is gonna require all the Hammer's horsepower to get Pentium-133 class performance.

Right. Windows.NET isn't bytecode, it's machine code just like any other executable.

I just wish they'd release Hammer already so I can get a SMP Hammer box running. I know I'm just a recompile away from full support on Linux =)

 

[glugglug]

Right. Windows.NET isn't bytecode, it's machine code just like any other executable.

No, one of the most touted "features" of .NET is that the same binary will run on x86-32, x86-64, Alpha, Itanium, etc.
This is because it is actually code for a virtual machine, similar to Java, but optimized to support compilers for all popular languages.

It supports native code as well for legacy Win32 apps of course, but large portions of it are not this (otherwise what would be the point...)

 

[Nothinman]

No, one of the most touted "features" of .NET is that the same binary will run on x86-32, x86-64, Alpha, Itanium, etc.

For .NET the java-wannabe it is. But Windows.NET is just a catchy name for XP Server. And there will be no Windows.NET Server for Alpha, last Alpha build was Win2K RC2 (trust me, I have 2 of them).

The OS itself would never be done in bytecode because it would complicate and slow things more than it would help. Mainly because :

A) The bootloader would have to be machine code
B) Drivers can't be written in vm managed code
C) The .Net interpreter needs a host OS
D) Redoing the OS in .Net bytecode would require a nearly total reoganization of the codebase because all the interdependencies will be shuffled around.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Right. Windows.NET isn't bytecode, it's machine code just like any other executable.

No, one of the most touted "features" of .NET is that the same binary will run on x86-32, x86-64, Alpha, Itanium, etc.
This is because it is actually code for a virtual machine, similar to Java, but optimized to support compilers for all popular languages.

It supports native code as well for legacy Win32 apps of course, but large portions of it are not this (otherwise what would be the point...)

You're confusing your .NET's here.

.NET Server, the operating system, is 100% compiled code for the target processor.

Now, the .NET Framework, which includes the Common Runtime Library, is a library that apps can use. These apps are indeed bytecode.

Don't confuse the operating system product with the developer tools product just because they both use the .NET name.

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: glugglug
I noticed that the new release of Sandra today supports 98/ME/2K/XP/.NET for 32-bit x86 processors, but only .NET for Hammer.

Will there be a Hammer native version of Win2K? or XP even?

I dread the idea of using .NET even more than XP. Too much required M$ spyware garbage built in.

Plus I suspec the overhead of the .NET virtual machine crap is gonna require all the Hammer's horsepower to get Pentium-133 class performance.

Funny I have .NET running on a AMD k-62 500 mhz machine and it's faster then XP was and also a lot more stable. It's just my test bed machine but I was surprised that it ran that smooth on such a low powered cpu.