A New Operating System?

[Dylang3893]

hey guys...
I saw this on an ad and I really had to tell someone. I know I haven't posted in a long
time, but I had to see what people think of this once I found it.

The ad took me here: http://equinox.factionsoftware.com

And after I looked over it, It sent chills down my spine lol
I like the look of it and hope it'll be good.

They call it a "virtual" operating system, so it's basically written in VB and is an operating system within the true operating system, namely windows. So it's virtual. But this way they say that no programs within it will "not respond" or close unless prompted to. I know VB is pretty stable and I don't see any action like that happening in something written in VB code, so I think this is gonna be big. The functionality is probably very high because it's visual basic, and I like the fast shutdown thing. It looks really cool too. I like that start wheel thing in the bottom-center of the middle
photo. And the computer tutor thing - that's good for like my mom that doesnt no how to work a computer at all lmao

So what do you guys think?
Will it be big? Is it a poor representation of a good idea?
I'm not sure, but you can download and preview it's Alpha Build if you
sign up for their program thru the site. so ill check it out once they release it
on the.. i think it's the 14th not sure.

so let me no what you think
-dylan

[carl33p]

Vista works fine for me.

All I dont need is another resource to eat up RAM.

[RamonGTP]

Yeah, I honestly can't see this thing being very "big" at all.

[outlaw2001it]

Only runs on vista. I can see using this is anybody has problems with vista, or just doesn't like it. How about software issues, DX10 compatibility? Vista requires at least 2GB of ram for it to run stable, they are saying that this only needs 1GB. So if you have a system that is lagging this might be a fix.

[RamonGTP]

Only runs on vista. I can see using this is anybody has problems with vista, or just doesn't like it. How about software issues, DX10 compatibility? Vista requires at least 2GB of ram for it to run stable, they are saying that this only needs 1GB. So if you have a system that is lagging this might be a fix.

You're saying Vista needs 2GB to run stable, and this "OS" is suppose to run on Vista, that would mean you would need ATLEAST 2GB.

[Keymaker]

http://www.vmware.com/

http://www.virtualbox.org/

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...c/default.mspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...rtual_machines

I test live disks in a virtual drive made from Alcohol 120 and then load the .ISO in VMware Workstation.

A known caveat is the product key.

EDIT- A new kind of virus?

[Dylang3893]

http://www.vmware.com/

http://www.virtualbox.org/

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...c/default.mspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...rtual_machines

I test live disks in a virtual drive made from Alcohol 120 and then load the .ISO in VMware Workstation.

A known caveat is the product key.

EDIT- A new kind of virus?

Keymaker, I don't think it's that type of virtual operating system.

Its a faux os just for the fun of it.

[samwichse]

Wait, so you're saying something written in VB is a good idea???

And it runs ON TOP of Vista, meaning it will use even more system resources than Vista alone?

And it will take an extra "recommended 10GB" on top of Vista's 15GB? 25GB tied up just in OS's?

And it's a virtual machine, which is wasteful of CPU cycles. On top of Vista, which is one of the most wasteful operating systems ever made?

And what are the touted benifits?
--Sleek design: just skin your current os
--User accounts: Linux has had fast user switching for ages, windows has had it since XP already, what does this add?
--It just works: "because it's virtual, we've written it with stable code that others couldn't use." This sounds like a translation of "because its run in a virtual machine, we've written it with sloppy coding that others couldn't get away with. In any case, virtual machines are always less stable than a full OS, they just allow hot swapping, snapshotting, etc. You get to rely on the stability of their "os wannabe" relying on the stability of whatever virtual machine it's in, relying on the stability of the underlying Vista. So basically, 3 levels of possible errors to crash you instead of just one.

And guess what, virtual machines rely on your main OS having all the drivers installed and handling that hardware, so you still have to worry about flaky Vista drivers. But also, the virtual machine requires its own set of drivers and the flakiness that introduces. Plus, the virtual machine has to emulate hardware to drive, which also has its own flakiness.

Did I mention writing it in VB is ridiculously stupid.
a) VB is depreciated for .net
b) VB isn't type safe
c) Most hardcore programmers seem to look at VB as AOL is to internet access.

This is probably the biggest non-solution looking for a problem I've ever seen.

Sam

[Dylang3893]

Ur missing the point.. its not a virtual machine

it seems to be a VB application that mimics an OS.
and i mean think about it.. when did u ever see VB panels "not responding" ..
i believe them with that

it says u only need 10GB total.. it doesnt need to add on from ur 25 gb for vista, why would it?

[samwichse]

Ok, so it's a new shell replacing explorer/aero with some VB stuff that can't hook into the OS as well?

And if it requires 10gb space to install, and Vista requires 15, I would guess it does use additional space.

And I have a batch file renaming program I got from Tucows. It's written in VB and it I have to kill it all the dang time when it locks up.

Again, I don't see the point, unless you're going to genuinely do something cool. Hogs resources, adds nothing new in terms of features. Where are the multiple viewpanes al la KDE and Gnome? Where is smart-contexting and window grouping. Heck, what about replacing window tile and cascade functions lost in later windows versions? How about a desktop to run programs from separate machines on the network seamlessly on the same desktop, or partition the screen and have each system have its own virtual desktop?

A waste of opportunity and programming language, IMO.

Sam

[RamonGTP]

What exactly IS the point for such a contraption?

Seems pretty useless IMO.

[samwichse]

Even better, look at the timeline. They started building it in September. They plan to release it 6 months later.

For an entire desktop environment that is supposed to come with all its own custom applications, that's ridiculous.

For instance, KDE 4 started development in mid 2006 and won't be (partially) done untill January 11th, and really done until 4.1 several months after that. And that's just a port from QT3 to QT4 libraries with upgrades to several of the core bits. And QT is probably the most elegant and easy to use GUI toolkit that exists.

If you're looking for something special, don't get your hopes even remotely up.

Sam

[Keymaker]

Keymaker, I don't think it's that type of virtual operating system.

Its a faux os just for the fun of it.

Ahh, reading your other post makes sense now. So why would anyone use it when there's Virtualbox for free! Talk about messing up Vista even more.

I think one of those Virtual programs would be better suited. Vmware is damn good! I haven't tried many USB/serial interfaces though. I suspect problems there.

[excuzzzeme]

I use VMWare on a regular basis. It allows me to test and run Linux while in Windows. Saves me time and no wear/tear with rebooting all the time. It is NOT an operating system. It sits on top of OS and is a shell emulation.

Unless you are testing, I don't find it useful for anything else. I can stay in windows, write my Linux code, test it out and then exit all without leaving Windows. It is built on the concept of VM that IBM tried years ago and still occasionally uses on mainframes.

SO yes, you can run 2 different OS at same time. One in shell, the other on real machine. MS still has this in testing mode and you can get a free evaluation copy from them. I do not use Vista nor have any plans to use it.

[Keymaker]

I use Vista in VMware. Technically your not suppose to, but seen as how this copy is made OEM, why not?