Download TrojanHunter Now
Free 30-day trial!
Latest TrojanHunter Version:
TrojanHunter 5.0
Order Now
License file delivered within minutes.
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 21st, 2008, 5:04pm
   Mischel Internet Security Forum
   Internet Security
   Software (Moderators: Helena, Gavin_Coe, Magnus)
   HyperOS		 « Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply  Notify of replies Notify of replies   Send Topic Send Topic   Print Print
   Author  Topic: HyperOS  (Read 450 times)
Ian
Stole All the Forum Stars
********



Good things come to those who wait ...

   


Posts: 2913
HyperOS
« on: Feb 17th, 2003, 12:33pm »		 Quote Quote  Modify Modify
I haven't tried this yet, but it seems very interesting, especially to those fellow tweakers out there.
 
Check it out at http://www.hyperos2002.com
 
Allows many versions of Windows to be run in separate HDD partitions, with hot-swapping between them, and some versions even allow the OS to run from RAMdisk (as long as there's enough spare, like 768MB installed...). User data (My Documents, etc.) can be common to all installations, as required.
 
Advantages? Well, according to their literature (supported by TP tests), older systems like Win98 fall over if running more than 15 concurrent applications. XP is better, with up to 40 at once, but still not ideal since multi-tasking can knock 50% off the performance of all apps (even the new HyperThreading 3GHz P4 CPUs can be foxed). Simpler and quicker to have separate instances of the OS to run Internet, Office, Games, tweakers paradise, and of course a blank fresh image to restore from when that last one all goes horribly wrong!
 
Running an OS in RAM is also pretty neat - if it fouls up, just reboot and it's as if the crash never happened... (reminds me of when I used to use Acorn PCs at school - their OS is in ROM and therefore ideal in that environment).
 
Interestingly, according to the HyperOS test data, the MS OS's stack up like this:-
 
Number of  Concurrent Apps:
Win98   15
ME        20
Win2k   25
XP         40
 
Which is Fastest?
Win2k
Win98
XP
ME
 
Although there are some variations between individual tests, they "show that 2K is faster than XP, and that 98 is faster than ME. 2k, ME and 98 are consistent in their performance, but XP is not."
« Last Edit: Feb 17th, 2003, 12:34pm by Ian » IP Logged
... but crap arrives pretty much straight away.
maxqnz
Newbie
*




Walekam salaam, noho ora mai!

   
WWW  

Posts: 26
Re: HyperOS
« Reply #1 on: Feb 17th, 2003, 12:40pm »		 Quote Quote  Modify Modify
Quote:
Which is Fastest?
Win2k
Win98
XP
ME

 
Pretty much the order I would have guessed at - XP seems very bloated to me, and ME could not have been more aptly named, at least in Commonwealth countries. I really like Win2K, it's almost good enough to make me think some M$ coders might occasionally stumble perilously close to having some vague idea of what they are trying to do and how to do it. Cheesy
IP Logged
ओ पालनहारे, तुमरे बिन हमरा कौनों नहीं
What's a pieriansipist?
Ian
Stole All the Forum Stars
********



Good things come to those who wait ...

   


Posts: 2913
Re: HyperOS
« Reply #2 on: Feb 17th, 2003, 12:45pm »		 Quote Quote  Modify Modify
Yeah, but it shows a disturbing trend in what MS thinks makes a 'better' OS - with the exception of the top two (which were quite close in the test, but Win2K is easily better on memory and resource management so can handle several things at once with more skill), the results are almost 'oldest is fastest'. They didn't test Win95 because it needs at least OSR2 (aka Win95b) which was OEM-only and therefore not really what any 95 users may be running. Although I did have Win95c on one of my PCs for a few months - that was quite nice since it was a crossover to Win98.
IP Logged
... but crap arrives pretty much straight away.
Pages: 1  Reply Reply  Notify of replies Notify of replies   Send Topic Send Topic   Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Search
Members
Login
Register