|
-
February 24th, 2006, 03:23 AM
#1
MicroWindows
This has nothing to do with Windows but when I saw this I was like WHOA! This looks AWESOME.
http://www.microwindows.org/
http://www.microwindows.org/SSPixil.html
This looks awesome to me....
http://www.microwindows.org/SSWin32.html
Win32, it even has transparency!
http://www.microwindows.org/SSNanoXDist.html
It's own terminal!
http://www.microwindows.org/SSNanoXOther.html
Running Mozilla!
Anyone who knows me knows my love of low resource computing..... Anyone else think this is awesome?
EDIT:
OMG OMG OMG OMG:
How big is Nano-X?
On 16 bit systems, the entire system, including screen, mouse and keyboard drivers runs in less than 64k. On 32-bit systems, support includes proportional fonts and applications are typically less than 100k.
http://www.microwindows.org/faq.html
-
February 24th, 2006, 04:57 AM
#2
Question: Could this be a replacement for X-Windows on Linux desktops? (I know they say it is intended for smaller devices).
Another question: How much overhead does X-Windows have running on a typical desktop? I'm sure it's a lot more than 100k. Would around 30 megs (or more) sound about right? (trying to make sense of my top read out).
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Romans 6:23, WEB)
-
February 24th, 2006, 05:22 AM
#3
I'm not sure if I'd trust someone who took almost two years to figure out that naming your graphical window environment "Microwindows" probably isn't the best idea in the world 
-
February 24th, 2006, 10:21 AM
#4
I'm not sure if I'd trust someone who took almost two years to figure out that naming your graphical window environment "Microwindows" probably isn't the best idea in the world
ROFLMAO... Good point... I didn't notice the two years bit...
Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
\"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides
-
February 24th, 2006, 02:47 PM
#5
Another company named one of their products "Windows" which when you think about it are holes covered by see through glass you can easily break and said it's "secure". You trust a company that named their product after a portion of a house used most often to break in 
-
February 24th, 2006, 03:08 PM
#6
Reminds me of that kid, Mike Row, who named his website mikerowsoft.com.
Gore > He should have named it after himself. "Gates" sounds more secure than "Windows"... although there's still a bunch of jokes that can be made about an OS calling itself "Gates". Someone should make a "Gates Linux"...
-
February 24th, 2006, 03:12 PM
#7
Dude he'd sue. Remember "Lindows" ? Even when Microsoft was over charging to hell and California won, Lindows offered to give those people Lindows and Microsoft had that stopped as well.
and yea I member Mike Not the same Mike Roe who does the show "Dirty jobs" but I think they both shovel ****
-
February 24th, 2006, 05:13 PM
#8
Wasn't Lindows more about the look at feel versus the name?
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
-
February 24th, 2006, 05:15 PM
#9
Hmmm,
Lindows became "Linspire" and is still around:
http://www.linspire.com/
And this doesn't look like a "victory" to me:
http://www.out-law.com/page-4723
What surprises me is that the MS/Lindows thing had been going on since 2001, so these guys should really have known better?
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
