Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 173.48.173.224 - "→Limitation?: " |
Undid revision 1305697344 by 2600:6C42:4F00:2F11:D8A3:90F0:4B96:3EBA (talk) undoing possible vandalism by the same user that vandalized the Windows Server 2025 article |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Computing
{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows
}}
Line 52:
[[Special:Contributions/82.119.7.20|82.119.7.20]] ([[User talk:82.119.7.20|talk]]) 08:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
:: To address the SP3 problem up there, the SP3 for FLP is a separate download. It's slightly different from the XP SP3. It is available here: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=38764 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.48.173.224|173.48.173.224]] ([[User talk:173.48.173.224|talk]]) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Limitation?==
Line 88 ⟶ 90:
:Per the article: "It is exclusively available to [[Software Assurance]] customers." I suspect we might want to make the article clearer on this point. —[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] <small>([[User talk:DragonHawk|talk]])</small> 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:It was leaked on P2P networks three weeks after its official release. But be aware that it is illegal to get it from there.--[[User:87.122.10.198|87.122.10.198]] 08:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::"But be aware that it is illegal to get it from " -- "If they're going to steal, we want them to steal ours" - Bill Gates circa 1998. Microsoft's greatest fear is that you try alternatives like Linux and like them. Note that this doesn't mean I am saying that you should steal FLP, but Microsoft's view is that "at least you're not using that other stuff." Microsoft is well aware that copyright infringement distorts the market in favor of the incumbents. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.48.173.224|173.48.173.224]] ([[User talk:173.48.173.224|talk]]) 14:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== NULL.SYS ==
Line 103 ⟶ 106:
-I think it may be worth noting on the actual article that NULL.SYS, and as such, the NUL device, isn't present. It's the analog of *nixen /dev/null and is used by a number of programs. Cygwin/MinGW applications and *nix ports tend to use it, as does Visual Studio, so its absence disables the use of a large number of applications. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.221.38.195|188.221.38.195]] ([[User talk:188.221.38.195|talk]]) 17:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Solution is documented at http://www.cynosurex.com/Forums/DisplayComments.php?file=Batch/NUL_Missing_on_WinFLP
It involves copying a null.sys driver and adding some reg entries:
<pre>
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
; http://www.cynosurex.com/Forums/DisplayComments.php?file=Batch/NUL_Missing_on_WinFLP
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\{8ECC055D-047F-11D1-A537-0000F8753ED1}]
"Class"="LegacyDriver"
@="Non-Plug and Play Drivers"
"NoDisplayClass"="1"
"SilentInstall"="1"
"NoInstallClass"="1"
"EnumPropPages32"="SysSetup.Dll,LegacyDriverPropPageProvider"
"Icon"="-19"
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_NULL]
"NextInstance"=dword:00000001
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_NULL\0000]
"Service"="Null"
"Legacy"=dword:00000001
"ConfigFlags"=dword:00000020
"Class"="LegacyDriver"
"ClassGUID"="{8ECC055D-047F-11D1-A537-0000F8753ED1}"
"DeviceDesc"="Null"
"Capabilities"=dword:00000000
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_NULL\0000\LogConf]
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\Root\LEGACY_NULL\0000\Control]
"ActiveService"="Null"
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Null]
"ErrorControl"=dword:00000001
"Group"="Base"
"Start"=dword:00000001
"Tag"=dword:00000001
"Type"=dword:00000001
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Null\Enum]
"0"="Root\\LEGACY_NULL\\0000"
"Count"=dword:00000001
"NextInstance"=dword:00000001
</pre>
==Fair use rationale for Image:Flp logo.png==
Line 117 ⟶ 167:
Can Windows fundamentals be installed alongside WinXP as a separate operating system, available upon boot?
Also, do we have any benchmarks on the relative performance of FLP, compared to XP? It is all well and good claiming to have "cut the bloat" and "slimmed the os down", but shouldn't we have palpable evidence to that effect? What kind of improvement can we expect for system boot-up over XP. Or for typical Office2003 usage? Web surfing, etc? Hasn't anyone benchmarked FLP (on modern and legacy systems alike) to discover whether the hype holds? [[Special:Contributions/84.254.12.174|84.254.12.174]] ([[User talk:84.254.12.174|talk]]) 14:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:I believe that you can install WinFLP alongside other versions of Windows, although you can only buy it through [[Software Assurance]]. The system requirements are "similar to Windows XP", so I doubt that you'd see a huge performance gain. — '''[[User:Wenli|<
== Hardware Requirements ==
| |||