We <3 Windows

[Maes]

CODOR said:

Just about every Atom-based netbook has a processor that's 32-bit only...

And they still sell Celeron-class single core CPU for low-end markets.

And as I said before, you can't ignore the installed base of Pentium 4 or even Pentium 2/3-class machines that's still in active use in businesses, government etc. by pretending that everyone has a multi-core and 64-bit machine.

Businesses != cutting-edge hardware hobbyism, as any IT dungeon worker can tell you ;-) Right, Jamie? :-p

[Super Jamie]

Most definitely.

I worked for an international mining company during the commodity boom when cash literally grew on trees - I've never seen such blatant disregard for dollar efficiency - but we still had to justify our spending. Both international corporate IT and our local department decided to skip Vista entirely as the outlay wasn't worth the result.

Other businesses I've worked at or with or my friends have worked at or I have seen usually get by with far less resources than you would expect, and often to do critical functions like credit/cheque transactions. No way they're going to drop coin on new PCs for everyone.

Even businesses which spend big on servers often do so for the purposes of not spending big on desktops. Citrix and other terminal services is a much more cost effective and productive environment than buying a bunch of 64-bit PCs, plus short-warranty hardware upgrades, and Windows 7 licensing just to keep up with technology.

There are definitely cases where 64-bit will be an advantage for businesses (CAD engineering comes to mind, when you're paying a guy $80/hr and with a $2000 outlay he can do his job 20% faster, that's a definite and quick TCO return) and those departments will upgrade accordingly but the vast majority of business desktops will be a 64-bit Purchase Order that will not get signed for a long time.

32-bit is not going away any time soon.

[Ninjalah]

My IQ went up 10 points reading all that. In other words...

VEESTAH SAWKX GET WINDOZE S3V3N!!11

[Nomad]

CODOR said:

Just about every Atom-based netbook has a processor that's 32-bit only...

Honestly, netbooks completely slipped my mind during my rant. But either way, you're probably not going to be installing Windows 7 on one of these anyway because something more lightweight and efficient is going to be a better solution. On topic of this thread, that's what Google is aiming for with the Chrome OS.

Maes said:

And as I said before, you can't ignore the installed base of Pentium 4 or even Pentium 2/3-class machines that's still in active use in businesses, government etc. by pretending that everyone has a multi-core and 64-bit machine.

Er, are you suggesting that Windows 7 is aimed at being installed on those Pentium 2/3-class machines? Celerons and P4's I can maybe understand, but from what I've noticed most businesses are pretty lucky if they're using XP. Most I've experienced in the last couple years are still using 2000 which does them just fine. Making it impossible to install Windows 7 on these machines isn't going to be hurting anyone because they don't need it anyway.

Maes said:

But software support isn't there yet. To take truly advantage of a 64-bit OS, you also need 64-bit apps, which are still a minority.

That is true. However the only reason that is true at this moment is because XP-64 is a steaming pile of buggy shit, and with all the hullabaloo with Vista allegedly also being a steaming pile of buggy shit, no one has really put forth the effort to start supporting 64-bit applications. It's a shame, really. But hopefully the trend will pick up with 7's potential success.

[Super Jamie]

Nomad said:

Honestly, netbooks completely slipped my mind during my rant. But either way, you're probably not going to be installing Windows 7 on one of these anyway because something more lightweight and efficient is going to be a better solution.

Yet Microsoft still need to compete in this marketspace, and to say their flagship product from 2001 is still the best thing is not exactly a good marketing proposition for Windows 7 as we approach the end of 2009.

XP is already End of Sale for PCs and Laptops - you cannot buy a new desktop with XP today - and it dies halfway through 2010 for netbooks (Microsoft's "Ultra Low Cost PC" marketing channel) so Windows 7 had damn well better be able to run on netbooks, and run well, or there's a whole bunch of products which will get poor press reviews and directly result in sales MS will lose out on.

[Nomad]

I never suggested that XP would be the appropriate choice for netbooks. Knowing Microsoft, they will probably release a version of Windows 7 specifically for netbooks and other smaller low powered mobile devices (PDAs, tablets, etc) to compete with Google Chrome OS, and probably a few other Linux flavors. But what I'm saying is that you're not going to really be seeing typical Windows 7 installs on these platforms.

Actually, I remember seeing a list of the SKUs for Win7, and I think it mentioned that 7 Basic will be used for these platforms so perhaps I misspoke.

[Super Jamie]

They've canned Basic for most places, it's only available in what MS call "emerging markets" which seems to be a PC way of saying "poor places where only rich people have access to a toilet never mind a computer" like India.

The spot in "developed markets" has been filled by Starter, which is 32-bit only and can't even do multiple monitors or change the desktop wallpaper. I guess that's your solution if you want to run W7 on a P200MMX :P

I am guessing that Starter will remain mostly unknown and unused like WinFLP is to Windows XP.

[david_a]

Maes said:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2096943,00.asp

And that's just for starters. Trust me, you don't want the be the one having to prove that he's not an elephant in this matter, but it seems you just did. Good luck reversing that, heh.

That article is 2.5 years old. Did you mean to link to the updated article on the same site where Vista and XP are neck-and-neck?

[Nomad]

I wanted to ask about the age of that article but the difference is so negligible in the article I'm surprised he brought it up in the first place. Glad to know it's BS anyway. :P

[Super Jamie]

Like all Microsoft OSes, they cop alot of flak when they come out but a few Service Packs later they're not so bad. I've read in places that Vista SP1 is okay, but I still feel the Windows product itself is fundamentally flawed.

[Jodwin]

re Vista bashing:
Having used Vista for two years on my laptop, I can say this: Vista is slower than XP. UAC can be turned off easily so that you'll get no more nagging. Other than that the only significant difference with XP is incompatibilities with some older software.

Vista's problem isn't that it "sucks", its problem is that it's redundant: It doesn't actually add anything new to XP that would warrant changing your OS. But at the same time, it's not really fucked up either (unlike ME was) as long as you turn off UAC.

[DuckReconMajor]

I've heard with UAC off, there's no way to elevate yourself to Administrator rights in a program. Just about any source you pull up will tell you that it's better to learn to live with UAC than disable it. I doubt so many people would be complaining about UAC if it was okay to just shut it off. It's not that hard to do.

P.S. If you're not running a Home version of Vista, there is a way to eliminate the dialog box when running as Administrator. You can do it on a home version too, but you'll have to edit the registry.

[Breadrobber]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't this thread start out about GOOGLE's OS?

[Maes]

Nomad said:

Er, are you suggesting that Windows 7 is aimed at being installed on those Pentium 2/3-class machines?

Not really, but as Jamie said, I just made the point to illustrate how businesses in general have to make do with much less than what you'd consider "cutting edge". Hell, even an Athlon 64 from 2005 or anything using DDR RAM would be a luxury in most settings.

Nomad said:

Making it impossible to install Windows 7 on these machines isn't going to be hurting anyone because they don't need it anyway.

Windows XP has an absolute lower installation threshold of 64 MB RAM, and a Pentium-class CPU (will not install on 486 even if you have the RAM). Even such a machine has practical uses (surfing with 2 or 3 explorer windows, can run Word 97, 2000 or even XP, can print, can serve files etc) and I even had to set and service about half a dozen such machines in the last year so why impose arbitrary limitations instead of making a flexible OS that can work literally on anything made the last 15 years?

Nomad &
david_a said:

2.5 yo benchmark

Remember the "getting the rattlesnake out of its hole" think I was talking before? That's exactly it.

OK, so what if they are barely on par now, tested on hardware and with drivers which has been the very least been better optimized with Vista?

The fact remains that when it came out Vista sucked ass on pretty much every available hardware and driver combination, and early adopters took a log the size of a millenary sequoia up their sorry and unhappy rectum for the past 3 years. And it will still suck unless you finetune it and strip it down to the bone. And, fuck, they still didn't address that fucking Intel Wireless issue. And no, if they fix it next year I won't give a damn ;-)

[fraggle]

Breadrobber said:

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't this thread start out about GOOGLE's OS?

Certainly not.

[Breadrobber]

Huh? Whoa... How did that get posted in this thread? Someone can delete that post.

[KuriKai]

I would just like to say, I have five win7 keys already and they are all legal. and no they are not beta or rc keys

[Bucket]

DuckReconMajor said:

I've heard with UAC off, there's no way to elevate yourself to Administrator rights in a program. Just about any source you pull up will tell you that it's better to learn to live with UAC than disable it. I doubt so many people would be complaining about UAC if it was okay to just shut it off. It's not that hard to do.

I wouldn't know. I've always logged on as an admin. I suppose I should stop doing that but I probably won't.

[pavera]

KuriKai said:

I would just like to say, I have five win7 keys already and they are all legal. and no they are not beta or rc keys

Where did you get those?

[Maes]

KuriKai said:

I would just like to say, I have five win7 keys already and they are all legal. and no they are not beta or rc keys

Are you t3h w4r3z d00d?

[kristus]

Only reason I use Windows is because none of the programs and few of the games I use are on Linux.

[exp(x)]

kristus said:

Only reason I use Windows is because none of the programs and few of the games I use are on Linux.

Hell, I'd use Windows if I was in the same situation. Fortunately, I'm not.

[GreyGhost]

Breadrobber said:

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't this thread start out about GOOGLE's OS?

It did before being split, we can now bash Microsoft with a clear conscience.

Maes said:

Intel Wireless issue.

That's the biggest single issue I've encountered with laptops running Vista, even know some people who've replaced their access points in the forlorn hope of being able to secure their home networks.

[Maes]

Yup, it just can't work consistently unless you revert to WEP (bleh) or unsecured.

With WPA security, it only connected after I also plugged in the LAN cable to my router, which apparently was enough to "bootstrap" it, but even that trick only worked like half of the time.

Otherwise, it would only repeatedly attempt to connect and fail.

[Nomad]

RE: Turning off UAC
Enjoy your viruses and spyware. It's there for a reason. And if you cant' stand clicking a button occasionally to approve an application, I hope you never use Linux. Some flavors require you to input your password for EVERY system related activity you do.

Super Jamie said:

Like all Microsoft OSes, they cop alot of flak when they come out but a few Service Packs later they're not so bad. I've read in places that Vista SP1 is okay, but I still feel the Windows product itself is fundamentally flawed.

Hence why i said "Most of the people I've heard bitching about it have only really used it pre-SP1 for maybe a few days before they ragequit and installed XP." I've only had vista for a little over a year, right after SP1 came out and I've had zero qualms with it. That is all I am saying.

Maes said:

The fact remains that when it came out Vista sucked ass on pretty much every available hardware and driver combination, and early adopters took a log the size of a millenary sequoia up their sorry and unhappy rectum for the past 3 years. And it will still suck unless you finetune it and strip it down to the bone. And, fuck, they still didn't address that fucking Intel Wireless issue. And no, if they fix it next year I won't give a damn ;-)

Whoa, wait. Are you forgetting that XP was pretty much also a pile of crap until SP2? I constantly got BSODs and errors when I first got XP. People bitching about Vista also seem to have forgotten that XP wasn't perfect at first either, which is one of the biggest reasons it pisses me off.

[Use]

KuriKai said:

I would just like to say, I have five win7 keys already and they are all legal. and no they are not beta or rc keys

Get with it guys, saying stuff you can't possibly back up IS cool.

[Bucket]

My penis is FIVE MILES LONG. And I've killed a man.

[Maes]

Nomad said:

Of XP, SP2 and BSODS.

True enough, it came with its own share of problems, but even pre-SP2 it was stabler and more secure than any of the 16-bit/DOS based Windows had ever been. It also was the first version of Windows to ever seriously feel alternatives like Linux breathing on its neck, so security and feature issues became more prominent than ever (if you recall, Windows 98 didn't even have a proper user account and security system for that matter).

The bottom line? All in all XP was a major improvement over its predecessors. Vista was just not that much of an improvement over XP. UAC? DX10? Gimme a break...I wish they had at least kept the driver architecture unchanged.

I used the term "was" because, surprise surprise, it's already being phased out before it has been even given a fair chance to mature. Speaking of which, it was surprising how slowly the software/hardware industry reacted to the new OS, despite MS having allegedly opened the specs way before even betas made it to the public. Seriously, what was up with that ?

XP was pimped as the "next big thing" compared to its predecessors, and it eventually lived up to that expectation.

Vista was pimped in the same way, but it turned out to be a mediocre and by many points of view, inferior product. The very fact that MS is saying "Hey, check out Windows 7 instead, the Next Big Thing!" and that the "downgrade to XP" became a serious business praxis is really saying a lot.

That being said...I'm sure that there must be someone, somewhere, still using Windows ME and claiming that it was "the BEST Windows ever made, it was just severely misunderstood!".

[TheDarkArchon]

Nomad said:

RE: Turning off UAC[/b]
Enjoy your viruses and spyware.

I will thanks. Oh, wait, I don't have any.

[Maes]

I had already written about it on the above post, but since I'm actually defending Vista with this statement, I felt it warranted its own post :-p

For some obscure reason, despite driver manufacturers being given specs about the new driver model way before the definitive release of Vista (and I presume software manufacturers being given guidelines for software compatibility), the industry as a whole just fucked up massively once Vista actually hit the shelves.

Seriously, why? Had they not got enough time to prepare/adapt? Issues like the Intel Wireless and the lack of advanced X-Fi functionality on Creative sound cards are STILL not fully addressed, almost 3 years after the initial backlash.

It's weird, because even if manufacturers were made aware of the fact that Vista was just a transient and Windows 7 would be the real deal, still, they use the same driver architecture, so it would make no sense to freeze/ignore development until then. Beats me :-/