Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

raymii.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#31

Post by xenophonf »

baron3dl wrote: post #14
andrewjf wrote: post #9

This is pretty cool, it brings back memories. Thanks for posting. I used to manage Tru64 (Alpha) and OpenVMS (VAX and Alpha). Mostly Oracle DB and whatever they called their App development suite (horrible, horrible software) for a University's ERP system (called Banner) and infrastructure (Multinet on OpenVMS/VAX for DNS, DHCP, mail, etc). After that I moved on to AIX on Power5 for Oracle on HACMP and Veritas Cluste…

When I last got the VMS nostalgia bite, I picked up a DS10, on account of the power and space advantages over the ES line, not having a garage and all. I forget that what I miss was not the system, but the community on the system. Solo VMS is a lonely experience.

> I forget that what I miss was not the system, but the community on the system.

Same. I had VMS running on an AS200 next to a beautiful X terminal, just like the computer lab at school. But my dad wasn't sitting next to me, hunting and pecking away at his old C.Itoh terminal. None of the usual suspects were across the table, locked into their favorite MUDD. And so on. I miss them all so much.

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#32

Post by crmd »

This put a smile on my face. I have a random, vivid memory from college of being in a university IT cave trying and failing to install Windows 2000 RC3 on a DEC Alphastation 600. My friends and I were scratching our heads when somebody figured out that RC2 (the build referenced in this blog post) was the last Windows build to support Alpha.

If I remember correctly we installed Red Hat Linux ~5-6.0 on the DEC and used it for various shenanigans. In retrospect it would have been fun to get Tru64 running on it instead…

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#33

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

gosub100 wrote: post #25
roadbuster wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It really wasn't a bad operating system It was a wonderful operating system. It provided consumer desktop essentials (Plug & Play, DirectX 7, ACPI power management, Windows Driver Model (WDM), and support for consumer I/O interfaces like USB and Firewire) alongside a modernized UI, all running atop the NT kernel. I was extremely lucky to receive a free copy of Windows 2000 Pro as a student, because I rode that hors…

the drawback for me was the startup time. it really seemed to hang out on the splash screen for quite a while (just as NT4 did, and ofc they were from the same core)

IIRC, Win2000 would wait for most/all services to complete startup before showing the login UI. XP would allow login as soon as enough of the system was started to support it. The tradeoff is that you might have slow performance from HDD thrashing while everything else finishes starting up.

It's been 20+ years so it's possible I had it wrong then, or remember it wrong now.

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#35

Post by jeffbee »

spyrja wrote: post #19
bartvk wrote: post #13

Somehow, Windows 2000 does not look dated to me. It looks functional and usable, and maybe even somewhat fresh. I never actually used it long-term (during college, started using Linux), so it can't be nostalgic. Anyone else feel the same?

It really wasn't a bad operating system. In fact it kind of blew its (lame) Win9X predecessors out of the water! I ran on Win2000 for years before finally switching to Linux. Of course Microsoft ended up going a different course with its newer "offerings" and I have nothing but pity for those who still have to use their products on a day-to-day basis.

Win9X wasn't Win2k's ancestor. Win2k was from the house of Windows NT. WinXP was the merger of the two lines.

Probably very few people switched from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. That wasn't considered an upgrade path. That was installing a different operating system.

Technically Windows ME existed, I guess.

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#37

Post by imoverclocked »

crmd wrote: post #32

This put a smile on my face. I have a random, vivid memory from college of being in a university IT cave trying and failing to install Windows 2000 RC3 on a DEC Alphastation 600. My friends and I were scratching our heads when somebody figured out that RC2 (the build referenced in this blog post) was the last Windows build to support Alpha. If I remember correctly we installed Red Hat Linux ~5-6.0 on the DEC and used…

AFAICR, Linux was far easier to run stuff on by that point. Playing with different variants of Unix was certainly fun though! I remember being blown away by an Irix+OpenGL demo on “deprecated hardware” that a friend had access to in the late 90s. After growing up with a Borland compiler in dos and programming graphics in the most naive of manners possible, seeing accelerated graphics that outmoded any xscreensaver on my fancy 200Mhz Pentium Linux box opened my eyes a little more!

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#38

Post by classichasclass »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #33
gosub100 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the drawback for me was the startup time. it really seemed to hang out on the splash screen for quite a while (just as NT4 did, and ofc they were from the same core)

IIRC, Win2000 would wait for most/all services to complete startup before showing the login UI. XP would allow login as soon as enough of the system was started to support it. The tradeoff is that you might have slow performance from HDD thrashing while everything else finishes starting up. It's been 20+ years so it's possible I had it wrong then, or remember it wrong now.

No, that's pretty accurate as I recall. Windows 2000 took a bit, but when it was up, it was up. Windows XP would pop you into what appeared to be a functional desktop quickly, but it was still loading in the background, and some things just sort of sat there for awhile. Win2K was much more predictable. When I wasn't on a Mac during my consultant days, it was on Windows 2000, because it was much more stable than the 98 clients.

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#39

Post by projektfu »

bartvk wrote: post #13

Somehow, Windows 2000 does not look dated to me. It looks functional and usable, and maybe even somewhat fresh. I never actually used it long-term (during college, started using Linux), so it can't be nostalgic. Anyone else feel the same?

There are a few APIs from Windows 7 that are great improvements over Win32, such as DirectWrite and Direct2D.

Re: Run Windows 2000 on a DEC Alpha with a new es40 fork

#40

Post by toast0 »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #33
gosub100 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the drawback for me was the startup time. it really seemed to hang out on the splash screen for quite a while (just as NT4 did, and ofc they were from the same core)

IIRC, Win2000 would wait for most/all services to complete startup before showing the login UI. XP would allow login as soon as enough of the system was started to support it. The tradeoff is that you might have slow performance from HDD thrashing while everything else finishes starting up. It's been 20+ years so it's possible I had it wrong then, or remember it wrong now.

> The tradeoff is that you might have slow performance from HDD thrashing while everything else finishes starting up.

You would often get audio buffer underuns on the startup sound, if enabled, especially if you had auto login.

Post reply on HN