Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Standard vs Archive


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 04 September 2006 - 08:42 AM

Currently both "Standard" and "Archive" hold scripts that supposed to be used in other projects.

We have two choices:

1. Move "Build-" scripts from "Standard" to "Archive" and replace them with links in "Standard".

2. Consider "Standard" to be not just sample project, but basis for other projects.

I believe, we need to to make our decision on that now to prevent possible incompatibilities in the future.

:P everybody

Alexei

#2 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10616 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 04 September 2006 - 10:03 AM

Nice idea..

I think that it should likely be wiser to add the standard scripts into the archive folder and replace the ones on standard with link files.

This should be a good help for those who need a project similar to the standard only with different definitions or build options.

:P

#3 smiley

smiley

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 905 posts
  •  
    Greece

Posted 04 September 2006 - 10:08 AM

Currently both "Standard" and "Archive" hold scripts that supposed to be used in other projects.

We have two choices:

1. Move "Build-" scripts from "Standard" to "Archive" and replace them with links in "Standard".

2. Consider "Standard" to be not just sample project, but basis for other projects.

I believe, we need to to make our decision on that now to prevent possible incompatibilities in the future.

:P everybody

Alexei



Interesting idea....


Smiley

#4 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 04 September 2006 - 10:23 AM

On my WinBuilder implementation I do this since a while.
No duplicate scripts in the projects, just links whenever possible.
Should I upload this structure to the upload area?

Maybe this is the right place to put a different suggestion:
As we now know very well (after long time of troubles) the WinSxS stuff is very different depending on the source OS.
I suggest to create a separate script (in Archive of course) for WinSxS including move some lines from MakeDirs to the new script.

Peter

#5 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10616 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 04 September 2006 - 10:34 AM

Should I upload this structure to the upload area?


Sure!


Maybe this is the right place to put a different suggestion:
As we now know very well (after long time of troubles) the WinSxS stuff is very different depending on the source OS.
I suggest to create a separate script (in Archive of course) for WinSxS including move some lines from MakeDirs to the new script.


That seems to be a more complete solution! :P

#6 TheHive

TheHive

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 4199 posts

Posted 04 September 2006 - 11:26 AM

Dang you all seem to be on a roll here. I like the ideas.

That way we can have 2 or more Standard Prebuilt Projects included with the Released Final versions without having alot of the actual bloat.

We could include Drifferent Standard Projects based on Smallest amount of RAM needed. Just the Shell.

So one would Just have the basic Explorer shell no Compression. The least amount of RAM as possible. No apps. Just the Smallest Standard build to get the Explore Shell running. It should run with 128MB RAM.
A minimalist striped version where a peson can build from.

Another Standard Project can be For example: 256MB RAM, Explorer Shell, Compression on, apps on. Im describing the Standard Project we have now. lol. Basically Bootlands Standard build.

We can go from there.

#7 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10616 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 04 September 2006 - 11:44 AM

Seems fun, bring it on! :P

#8 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 04 September 2006 - 11:55 AM

I just sent my actual WinBuilder folder (Scripts only) to the upload area.

More in the corresponding thread

Peter

#9 Draugen

Draugen

    Frequent Member

  • .script developer
  • 147 posts
  • Location:South of Heaven

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:21 PM

We could include Drifferent Standard Projects based on Smallest amount of RAM needed. Just the Shell.

So one would Just have the basic Explorer shell no Compression. The least amount of RAM as possible. No apps. Just the Smallest Standard build to get the Explore Shell running. It should run with 128MB RAM.
A minimalist striped version where a peson can build from.


Micro/ModPE actually boots (with bblean, no less!) in 32 megs of ram :P

it did NOT want to start a43 though. Complained about my pagefile being too small (i.e, nonexistent).

How's THAT for minimal :P

(the downside, ofcourse, is that it is so minimal that hardly anything will work without al lot of trial and error. But that's the fun part, right? :P )

//martin

#10 Brito

Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10616 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:28 PM

...
(the downside, of course, is that it is so minimal that hardly anything will work without al lot of trial and error. But that's the fun part, right? :P )


You bet!

There also a couple of tools that help along the way sometimes..
:P :P

Would your project boot on 16Mb of RAM (or even less)? :P :P

#11 Draugen

Draugen

    Frequent Member

  • .script developer
  • 147 posts
  • Location:South of Heaven

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:36 PM

As-is, probably not 16. 24 maybe. MAYBE.

But perhaps stealing some files from reactios will help.. i remember the lead kernel dev there have ROS boot in 6 or 8 megs :P

#12 TheHive

TheHive

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 4199 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 04:08 AM

If we can have that lower RAM base, then most bases would be covered if a person wants to use a Shell with lowest requirements.

If we could get Windows 98 or Me Shell Project also. It would all be gravy. All Aboard The Gravy Train

#13 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 06:13 AM

If we can have that lower RAM base, then most bases would be covered if a person wants to use a Shell with lowest requirements.

If we could get Windows 98 or Me Shell Project also. It would all be gravy. All Aboard The Gravy Train


I think win98, can be done, but in my opinion it should be completely separate WinBuilder tree.
It would be rather hard to support and test it we begin modifying current scripts to support both NT and win98.
However scripts in win98 tree can import (copy) scripts from main (NT) three and modify them with Txt-commands.

#14 TheHive

TheHive

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 4199 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 10:25 AM

I think win98, can be done, but in my opinion it should be completely separate WinBuilder tree.
It would be rather hard to support and test it we begin modifying current scripts to support both NT and win98.
However scripts in win98 tree can import (copy) scripts from main (NT) three and modify them with Txt-commands.


Yes! too statements.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users