blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]K2N hater[/nom]What is ironic is that the outdated XP and its 64-bit variant are way more friendly to tablets' low-end hardware than Win8. All MS had to do was to improve power saving and touch screen support to have a full-featured OS able to run even on smartphones.[/citation]
Not really. Windows 8 is next to XP in memory usage, and it's far better resource management (especially with multiple CPU threads) more than make up for it's somewhat higher resource usage. XP is also not nearly as touch-optimized as 7 and 8. The server version of 8 is probably more touch-optimized than XP (and probably about as resource light as XP). Making a light version of 8 (like the starter versions of Vista/7) would probably use about as many resources as XP does, all while providing far greater functionality and compatibility with newer devices, programs, protocols, etc.
With smart phones getting up to four threads with the next generation of Atoms (and incidentally, also with the quad core ARM processors), XP's poor resource management could really hurt performance.
Not really. Windows 8 is next to XP in memory usage, and it's far better resource management (especially with multiple CPU threads) more than make up for it's somewhat higher resource usage. XP is also not nearly as touch-optimized as 7 and 8. The server version of 8 is probably more touch-optimized than XP (and probably about as resource light as XP). Making a light version of 8 (like the starter versions of Vista/7) would probably use about as many resources as XP does, all while providing far greater functionality and compatibility with newer devices, programs, protocols, etc.
With smart phones getting up to four threads with the next generation of Atoms (and incidentally, also with the quad core ARM processors), XP's poor resource management could really hurt performance.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram