Question then becomes what are they going to do with the OEM, Upgrade, and Retail versions ? Will the OEM version be useable by a DIY builder or are they actually going to start enforcing the newly worded EULA from Win7 that made OEM use by DIY builders for themselves, family and friends against the EULA ? - so now take those 6 SKus and multiply it by 3 and you'll still have 18 different versions of the product to decide which fits your needs and complies with MS EULA and 18 different prices for the same piece of software.
-
Leakers revise RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 power draw to 575W and 360W respectively — Up to 27% higher than last-generation RTX 40 GPUs
- Status
I actually think these are perfect SKUs, almost.
Why not just have three, and let the user choose whether to install 32 or 64 bit?
/start rant
I hate when people say, get rid of 32bit, move to 64bit already, blah blah blah. Businesses really need to move to 64bit, blah blah blah. Businesses are holding back the move to 64bit blah blah blah. You people do realize that a lot of world is run off 32bit systems? Do you have the money to buy hundreds of thousands of businesses, hundreds of thousands of computers to move them to 64bit? Also like some people of said, a lot of older programs, that work perfectly fine for what the business needs it to do, will only run on a 32bit system. When will people realize that the PC enthusiast is not the majority of computer users in the world? There are also just a lot of older computers "in the wild" that work perfectly fine for that person, and does what it needs to do, but want an upgraded OS, and they have the option to. I wanted to go somewhere else, but will leave it at that
/end rant
Why not just have three, and let the user choose whether to install 32 or 64 bit?
/start rant
I hate when people say, get rid of 32bit, move to 64bit already, blah blah blah. Businesses really need to move to 64bit, blah blah blah. Businesses are holding back the move to 64bit blah blah blah. You people do realize that a lot of world is run off 32bit systems? Do you have the money to buy hundreds of thousands of businesses, hundreds of thousands of computers to move them to 64bit? Also like some people of said, a lot of older programs, that work perfectly fine for what the business needs it to do, will only run on a 32bit system. When will people realize that the PC enthusiast is not the majority of computer users in the world? There are also just a lot of older computers "in the wild" that work perfectly fine for that person, and does what it needs to do, but want an upgraded OS, and they have the option to. I wanted to go somewhere else, but will leave it at that
/end rant
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
[citation][nom]extremepcs[/nom]Should be two SKU's:Windows 8 Home 64Windows 8 Enterprise 64[/citation]
Really? You personally going to re-code hundreds of customized software that doesn't run in 64bit mode... and do it for free or for a low low price? Much of that software is crap, for sure... One of my clients STILL *Fracking STILL* use a POS MS-DOS software to manage her inventory/customers, it run fairly good under WinXP, but runs better on the old 300mhz Win98 box connected to a dot-matrix printer. With some programmers and what-not, we've tried to find someone who could convert the data/DB into something modern. Its horrible... There other software out there with a small but specialized user base in which they don't have the customers and the $$$ to make them run properly under 64bit or the companies have gone out of business.
There is a well used and current MSDOS piece of S-POS system that runs in a DOS Window under WinXP~7 and they sell the crap for $1500~2000. And it's in horrible retina burning blue. Check out stores like FRYs, Microcenter running XP and you'll notice the sales people switching between modern and back to MS-DOS type interface... which is where the real data is. UGH!
A 3rd client of mine finally paid a kid a few bucks for a simple web-based database so now it no longer cares what kind of OS its on, as long as its a browser. Before then, his $1500 system became more and more useless (dead company) as he needed newer PCs.
Its really NOT your problem. your needs as a home USER are not the same as those in business... and for many of them, a 2GB Win7-32 box is more than enough power to get the job done.
Even today, for MY needs - other than a game and rare very heavy multi-tasking do I actually need more than 4GB of RAM.
The END users are going to see this:
Windows 8
Windows 8 Pro
They will have to SPECIFY 32bit versions, if available. And WE Do need a Pro version... that has more features that most end-users don't need... those features would get in the way of your basic home user... But otherwise, just make "PRO" into the consumer version and Enterprise.
But MS likes charging an extra $50 for that PRO version... so why throw that away for users? Your typical end-user who walks into Best Buy doesn't/rarely need Pro.
Hey, at least its not like vista... Starter, Home, Business, Ultimate.
Really? You personally going to re-code hundreds of customized software that doesn't run in 64bit mode... and do it for free or for a low low price? Much of that software is crap, for sure... One of my clients STILL *Fracking STILL* use a POS MS-DOS software to manage her inventory/customers, it run fairly good under WinXP, but runs better on the old 300mhz Win98 box connected to a dot-matrix printer. With some programmers and what-not, we've tried to find someone who could convert the data/DB into something modern. Its horrible... There other software out there with a small but specialized user base in which they don't have the customers and the $$$ to make them run properly under 64bit or the companies have gone out of business.
There is a well used and current MSDOS piece of S-POS system that runs in a DOS Window under WinXP~7 and they sell the crap for $1500~2000. And it's in horrible retina burning blue. Check out stores like FRYs, Microcenter running XP and you'll notice the sales people switching between modern and back to MS-DOS type interface... which is where the real data is. UGH!
A 3rd client of mine finally paid a kid a few bucks for a simple web-based database so now it no longer cares what kind of OS its on, as long as its a browser. Before then, his $1500 system became more and more useless (dead company) as he needed newer PCs.
Its really NOT your problem. your needs as a home USER are not the same as those in business... and for many of them, a 2GB Win7-32 box is more than enough power to get the job done.
Even today, for MY needs - other than a game and rare very heavy multi-tasking do I actually need more than 4GB of RAM.
The END users are going to see this:
Windows 8
Windows 8 Pro
They will have to SPECIFY 32bit versions, if available. And WE Do need a Pro version... that has more features that most end-users don't need... those features would get in the way of your basic home user... But otherwise, just make "PRO" into the consumer version and Enterprise.
But MS likes charging an extra $50 for that PRO version... so why throw that away for users? Your typical end-user who walks into Best Buy doesn't/rarely need Pro.
Hey, at least its not like vista... Starter, Home, Business, Ultimate.
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]There are some cost and performance advantages of 32bit. Win7 isn't the memory hog of vista, so for most people - 64bit and 5+ GB of RAM is severe overkill. Yes 8GB of RAM costs about $30~40 nowadays... but most people won't and don't user it. I do web work, video encoding, photoshop, etc a lot of it at the same time and my Win7 systems very rarely ever runs out of RAM. Only Supreme Commander can wipe out my 4GB on large maps. I'll admit that when I upgrade to Ivy Bridge from my old Core2 - I will most likely go 64bit Win7 with no hurry to move to Win8. But I will be sticking Win8 Preview on one of my test systems and see how it runs... so I may change my mind later... perhaps upgrading later and using Win8Beta. (I used Win7beta as my main OS for months after RTM)There are still some devices, odd-ball stuff out there that DOES NOT work with 64bit OS. Some older games totally bomb with 64bit as well.[/citation]
for me, the standard install of win 7 was 2gb on startup... i didn't reconfigure anything, but if it can get down to my xp which started up at 250-350mb that would help allot, as im constantly hitting the 7.8gb range, and programs do not like that at all.
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Not a question of MB savings; also M& is of course the King of bloatware.But why should I install Media Player and Internet Explorer and Office Trial Promo and Outlook and Screen savers and Games etc. and than later painfully remove them one by one; only to wonder how many DLLs have not been removed and are now sitting around doing nothing - or worse- will be found out to be a perfect backdoor for a hacker.[/citation]
or if you want a really lean install for a boot ssd i can honestly see installing windows to its own drive, mainly due to the whole nature of an os croupting itself randomly (hal.dll killed my xp install i think 3 times) or the os just needs a format and you dont want to deal with a full data wipe too.
if i could have trimmed everything i dont use out of windows 7 when i installed it i would have, i only have 120gb of space and dont want to ever go over 75% drive use on 120gb ssd.
[citation][nom]64bitEnterprise[/nom]enterprise really needs to make the transition to 64bit, are we truly going to try and hold onto 32bit application for another 10 years, if the application will never see 64bit then it's time to initiate a migration to an application that does, if you really need to hold onto your 32bit applications for a little bit longer stick them into a virtual machine running XP, of all places i think the enterprise will reap the benefits of a 64bit OS[/citation]
lets assume that its time to move on, most professional software i find is in the 1000$ per machine license, if not more, and depending on the size of the company the transition could take months, cost millions and so forth, or, make a 32 bit version of the os, something you know will at least play nice with the software, so you can buy something new if necessary and not have to build yourself an old rig.
[citation][nom]DeviceFragmentation[/nom]@matt_band i would love to agree with you but for one thing, netbooks/netops...... the definition of the PC has significantly changed since the windows98 days, the depth and breadth of devices are now pretty amazing, devices like the raspberry pi, it does not makes sense to pay half to a third the price of the device just for the OS[/citation]
most people hold onto an os till the computer breaks, or cant be fixed any more. in most cases its
2 years you can upgrade
4 years you should upgrade
6 years+ the pc is borderline useless (this was the case till dual and quad came around at least)
lets assume people upgrade 5 years later, the most important part of the computer, besides the psu, and hardware, is the os. 200~ ish for the os isnt an unreasonable price, for full os 400+... now that is unreasonable. the full os should only be about 300$, 200 if you are getting it oem.
for me, the standard install of win 7 was 2gb on startup... i didn't reconfigure anything, but if it can get down to my xp which started up at 250-350mb that would help allot, as im constantly hitting the 7.8gb range, and programs do not like that at all.
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Not a question of MB savings; also M& is of course the King of bloatware.But why should I install Media Player and Internet Explorer and Office Trial Promo and Outlook and Screen savers and Games etc. and than later painfully remove them one by one; only to wonder how many DLLs have not been removed and are now sitting around doing nothing - or worse- will be found out to be a perfect backdoor for a hacker.[/citation]
or if you want a really lean install for a boot ssd i can honestly see installing windows to its own drive, mainly due to the whole nature of an os croupting itself randomly (hal.dll killed my xp install i think 3 times) or the os just needs a format and you dont want to deal with a full data wipe too.
if i could have trimmed everything i dont use out of windows 7 when i installed it i would have, i only have 120gb of space and dont want to ever go over 75% drive use on 120gb ssd.
[citation][nom]64bitEnterprise[/nom]enterprise really needs to make the transition to 64bit, are we truly going to try and hold onto 32bit application for another 10 years, if the application will never see 64bit then it's time to initiate a migration to an application that does, if you really need to hold onto your 32bit applications for a little bit longer stick them into a virtual machine running XP, of all places i think the enterprise will reap the benefits of a 64bit OS[/citation]
lets assume that its time to move on, most professional software i find is in the 1000$ per machine license, if not more, and depending on the size of the company the transition could take months, cost millions and so forth, or, make a 32 bit version of the os, something you know will at least play nice with the software, so you can buy something new if necessary and not have to build yourself an old rig.
[citation][nom]DeviceFragmentation[/nom]@matt_band i would love to agree with you but for one thing, netbooks/netops...... the definition of the PC has significantly changed since the windows98 days, the depth and breadth of devices are now pretty amazing, devices like the raspberry pi, it does not makes sense to pay half to a third the price of the device just for the OS[/citation]
most people hold onto an os till the computer breaks, or cant be fixed any more. in most cases its
2 years you can upgrade
4 years you should upgrade
6 years+ the pc is borderline useless (this was the case till dual and quad came around at least)
lets assume people upgrade 5 years later, the most important part of the computer, besides the psu, and hardware, is the os. 200~ ish for the os isnt an unreasonable price, for full os 400+... now that is unreasonable. the full os should only be about 300$, 200 if you are getting it oem.
CaedenV
Splendid
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,829
- 3
- 23,465
[citation][nom]Nakal[/nom]I'll give you an example why there is still 32bit. We use Avaya IP agent for our laptops as part of our Disaster Recovery plan, phone coverage, etc.. Well there is no 64bit version of that software and there will be none. And since we already own a license and they aren't willing to go out and buy a new license due to costs. That is just one of many pieces of software where I work that do not work on 64bit. Many enterprises and other companies still have software that only work on 32bit platforms, so it still behooves Microsoft to produce a 32bit version of the OS.[/citation]
Sure, but how many of these devices will be win8? Wouldn't you just stick with a volume license of XP/7? Win7 still has several years of support left to it, and by the time you would be 'forced' to move to win8/9 you would (hopefully) have found a 64bit program that can do what you are looking for.
Sure, but how many of these devices will be win8? Wouldn't you just stick with a volume license of XP/7? Win7 still has several years of support left to it, and by the time you would be 'forced' to move to win8/9 you would (hopefully) have found a 64bit program that can do what you are looking for.
Branden
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2009
- 598
- 0
- 19,060
They could have further reduced the number of SKUs to 3 if they dropped 32-bit versions, no need for them anymore. I realize they're still offering 32-bit versions so people can upgrade the O/S on their legacy hardware, but come on - who's gonna be putting windows 8 on their pentium 4?
The ONLY 32-bit versions of windows that i know of actually being used in the last 5 years are netbooks that come with Starter pre-installed, and even those would have been 64-bit if Starter had a 64-bit version like the rest.
The ONLY 32-bit versions of windows that i know of actually being used in the last 5 years are netbooks that come with Starter pre-installed, and even those would have been 64-bit if Starter had a 64-bit version like the rest.
killerchickens
Distinguished
- Mar 10, 2010
- 472
- 0
- 18,860
Some people are too quick to denounce the 32-bit version. But then again they don't use their grey matter before they spew their shallow thoughts. Do these people realize that there are still proprietary software/hardware that for reasons beyond their limited thought have chosen their own destination? I for one have real-time control software that I've written that I spent $$$ trying to convert to 64-bit. But as many of the critical timing routines are low-level assembler and .NET is worthless with it's overhead and performance I'll stick with what works best, and cheapest.
CaedenV
Splendid
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,829
- 3
- 23,465
[citation][nom]JDFan[/nom]Question then becomes what are they going to do with the OEM, Upgrade, and Retail versions ? Will the OEM version be useable by a DIY builder or are they actually going to start enforcing the newly worded EULA from Win7 that made OEM use by DIY builders for themselves, family and friends against the EULA ? - so now take those 6 SKus and multiply it by 3 and you'll still have 18 different versions of the product to decide which fits your needs and complies with MS EULA and 18 different prices for the same piece of software.[/citation]
OEM/Retail/Upgrade/Referbisher/Volume is how you license the product, it has nothing to do with what the product is. The OEM/Retail/etc of Home Premium is the same not matter how it is purchased, same with Pro and Ultimate. There will always be OEM for small system builders, OEM for volume builders (dell, hp, etc), volume licencing for large corporations and schools, and Retail copies for those 2-3 people who don't know what OEM is.
But I think that the 3 version move is great, they just need to kill 32bit home and pro. I would also like to see them do something more like Mac and get rid of the upgrade and OEM versions entirely and only charge $50 home, $75 pro, and then volume licensing on enterprise based on the units needed. It's a great dream... but will never happen.
OEM/Retail/Upgrade/Referbisher/Volume is how you license the product, it has nothing to do with what the product is. The OEM/Retail/etc of Home Premium is the same not matter how it is purchased, same with Pro and Ultimate. There will always be OEM for small system builders, OEM for volume builders (dell, hp, etc), volume licencing for large corporations and schools, and Retail copies for those 2-3 people who don't know what OEM is.
But I think that the 3 version move is great, they just need to kill 32bit home and pro. I would also like to see them do something more like Mac and get rid of the upgrade and OEM versions entirely and only charge $50 home, $75 pro, and then volume licensing on enterprise based on the units needed. It's a great dream... but will never happen.
@alidan
i am fully aware of the pains of migration, but i have to just point out that not migrating to newer platforms is a hazard in itself need i point out the y2k bug, the requirement to keep on board an army of legacy software guys (COBOL, FORTRAN et al) is also something you cant overlook, You have to question what is your business, when it cost a significant amount of money to maintain an in house application rather then use an off the shelf but not quiet customized solution, i have worked with alot of these in house applications and i can say they are a mess, hacked and augmented in ways that the technology was never intended for (in the main they were written by folks who's primary job was not in fact software programming), sometimes starting from scratch is the best option, recode the damn thing and make it 64bit or get an off the shelf solution, in the long term it will be cheaper
as for the cost of an OS, devices like netbooks have a far significant shorter shelf life, the cheaper SKU allows for MS to sell a cheap OS which would not cost over one third of the price of a brand new device like a netbook, i would say $200 dollars on top of a device which cost maybe 400 tops is unreasonable, and definitely a no go for emergent devices which have a 200 price point, the modern PC is not your monolithic tower/desktop sitting in the corner humming away with all it's modular components, it has now become a multitudes of fragmented devices excelling at one or more specific aspect/use scenario
i am fully aware of the pains of migration, but i have to just point out that not migrating to newer platforms is a hazard in itself need i point out the y2k bug, the requirement to keep on board an army of legacy software guys (COBOL, FORTRAN et al) is also something you cant overlook, You have to question what is your business, when it cost a significant amount of money to maintain an in house application rather then use an off the shelf but not quiet customized solution, i have worked with alot of these in house applications and i can say they are a mess, hacked and augmented in ways that the technology was never intended for (in the main they were written by folks who's primary job was not in fact software programming), sometimes starting from scratch is the best option, recode the damn thing and make it 64bit or get an off the shelf solution, in the long term it will be cheaper
as for the cost of an OS, devices like netbooks have a far significant shorter shelf life, the cheaper SKU allows for MS to sell a cheap OS which would not cost over one third of the price of a brand new device like a netbook, i would say $200 dollars on top of a device which cost maybe 400 tops is unreasonable, and definitely a no go for emergent devices which have a 200 price point, the modern PC is not your monolithic tower/desktop sitting in the corner humming away with all it's modular components, it has now become a multitudes of fragmented devices excelling at one or more specific aspect/use scenario
[citation][nom]DeviceFragmentation[/nom]@matt_b and i would love to agree with you but for one thing, netbooks/netops...... the definition of the PC has significantly changed since the windows98 days, the depth and breadth of devices are now pretty amazing, devices like the raspberry pi, it does not makes sense to pay half to a third the price of the device just for the OS[/citation]
I agree with you on this, but to say Windows 7 on a netbook/tablet is worthy of calling it "Windows 7" is embarrasing, even if they tack on "starter" to it. I'm not referring to product SKU's for OEM stuff, but no one is going to go out and buy Windows 8 Starter edition for their laptop or desktop - therefore if just will not sell. Furthermore, the netbook and especially the tablet have different purposes from the typical laptop and desktop environments. They should not ship with a Windows 8 title at all for the OS, but rather something built to be light and focused toward these devices (Windows Mobile???). I'm more or less fussing about the pricing structure and how they go about structuring the different versions, not really the need for various OS versions for different kinds of devices. Everyone is buying the same exact Windows these days yet we have like 8 "versions" available; they just disable features according to the version you bought.
I agree with you on this, but to say Windows 7 on a netbook/tablet is worthy of calling it "Windows 7" is embarrasing, even if they tack on "starter" to it. I'm not referring to product SKU's for OEM stuff, but no one is going to go out and buy Windows 8 Starter edition for their laptop or desktop - therefore if just will not sell. Furthermore, the netbook and especially the tablet have different purposes from the typical laptop and desktop environments. They should not ship with a Windows 8 title at all for the OS, but rather something built to be light and focused toward these devices (Windows Mobile???). I'm more or less fussing about the pricing structure and how they go about structuring the different versions, not really the need for various OS versions for different kinds of devices. Everyone is buying the same exact Windows these days yet we have like 8 "versions" available; they just disable features according to the version you bought.
The business side of things one of Microsoft's biggest strengths, and the reason they are so needed, is they support legacy software. Business have custom programs in many cases that cost thousands if not millions to make. They can't just stop supporting these people because the consumer doesn't need 32-bit and many other features that has made Windows more convoluted than it needs to be. This does hurt their consumer side a bit, but that's what they need to do to keep their position.
@matt_b
and again i would agree with you in it's current state windows 7 on a netbook is somewhat painful to watch, but then again i cant help but notice MS seem to have dedicated a significant effort in making win8 ARM compatible, they might just pull a rabbit out of a hat on this one and build a fully modular OS that customizes the install and core components/kernel based upon the device, a truly scalable OS, now that would be interesting. But then in reality it all goes back to your first assessment, that both SKU for all intent and purpose are the same product at different price, maybe in reality MS intend to do as Norton does, allows for multiple install of the OS across different devices, the SKUs purely dedicate to which device and how many, again just pure speculation and there is no evidence MS intend to do that
and again i would agree with you in it's current state windows 7 on a netbook is somewhat painful to watch, but then again i cant help but notice MS seem to have dedicated a significant effort in making win8 ARM compatible, they might just pull a rabbit out of a hat on this one and build a fully modular OS that customizes the install and core components/kernel based upon the device, a truly scalable OS, now that would be interesting. But then in reality it all goes back to your first assessment, that both SKU for all intent and purpose are the same product at different price, maybe in reality MS intend to do as Norton does, allows for multiple install of the OS across different devices, the SKUs purely dedicate to which device and how many, again just pure speculation and there is no evidence MS intend to do that
hannibal
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,926
- 269
- 21,190
Yeah and all those super fast 32bit Intel atom prosessors need new OS... *grin*
But yeah, the enterprice sector needs that 32 bit version for years to come... It is not hard to predict that win9 and win10 allso have 32bit versions... Maybe after that there are only 64 and 128 bit versions...
The thig that there is less versions than before is a good start in anyway!
But yeah, the enterprice sector needs that 32 bit version for years to come... It is not hard to predict that win9 and win10 allso have 32bit versions... Maybe after that there are only 64 and 128 bit versions...
The thig that there is less versions than before is a good start in anyway!
upgrade_1977
Distinguished
- May 5, 2011
- 665
- 0
- 18,990
Just some advice... Combine them all into a single package, Windows 8 Ultimate Total Package 64/32 bit, have a setup screen so you can click checkmark box's to pick what options you want, build in a crapware remover, and drop the price to $100 bucks. In my opinion, it'll loose the confusion and problems with upgrades, ect.. And @ a hundo, they'll be selling like hotcakes...
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]they would even have less SKU's if they got rid of the 32bit Editions. I mean, there is really no point in 32bit Editions anymore. CPU's have been 64bit in the mainstream market for the last 7 years now since AMD's Socket 754 Athlon 64's and Intel's LGA775 Pentium 4 5x1 series. The vast majority of software supports 64bit now, It's time to move on. By continuing to support 32bit, all that days is continue to hold back 64bits full potential.[/citation]
The Core Duo and Core Solo are 32 bits processors and they were released less than 7 years. In fact 7 years back only AMD had a x86-64 processor. Intel's first x86-64 CPU was launched in the middle of 2006. Also first generation Atoms are 32 bits CPUs.
The Core Duo and Core Solo are 32 bits processors and they were released less than 7 years. In fact 7 years back only AMD had a x86-64 processor. Intel's first x86-64 CPU was launched in the middle of 2006. Also first generation Atoms are 32 bits CPUs.
[citation][nom]beardguy[/nom]Microsoft has never understood the principle of keeping things simple. There should be 2 versions of Windows 8, max. Consumers don't want to sit and try and figure out what version of Windows to buy.[/citation]
Yeah - Win7 selection is an abortion! The "upgrade" scam is a major PITA!!!
Which is WHY I did NOT upgrade my XP system to Win 7,but will upgrade to Win 8 - IF Micro$oft doesn't screw over the upgraders again
Yeah - Win7 selection is an abortion! The "upgrade" scam is a major PITA!!!
Which is WHY I did NOT upgrade my XP system to Win 7,but will upgrade to Win 8 - IF Micro$oft doesn't screw over the upgraders again
32 bit? are they kidding? microsoft shouldn't even be making anything in 32 bit any more.
i know alot of companies still run 32 bit applications, those applications will still work on a 64 bit, much like 16 bit still run on 32 bit.
there is no justifiable reason to offer 32 bit windows 8 for hardware that is over 10 years old still running 32 bit software, the hardware requirements will be either too high or run so poorly it will be like running 4 frame per second slow. that will tax those machines so hard alone they should burn up in the first year of trying to operate windows 8.
i know alot of companies still run 32 bit applications, those applications will still work on a 64 bit, much like 16 bit still run on 32 bit.
there is no justifiable reason to offer 32 bit windows 8 for hardware that is over 10 years old still running 32 bit software, the hardware requirements will be either too high or run so poorly it will be like running 4 frame per second slow. that will tax those machines so hard alone they should burn up in the first year of trying to operate windows 8.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]ethaniel[/nom]I'll probably sound crazy, but I just want a real, true, 100-percent, "win98se like" customized install. I want to choose the components manually.[/citation]
I would love to have that. Instead we need to use third party software to modify the installation ISO and then re-burn it to a disk or copy it to a flash drive too do this and I'm sick of that.
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]to save a couple mb of space? pffftt[/citation]
No, to save a few GB of space and get rid of any unnecessary stuff. I never use Windows Media Player nor Internet Explorer and a lot of other stuff in Windows, why do I need to jump through hoops to get rid of them?
You get decreased storage space being used, increased performance, and less resources being wasted when you get rid of stuff that you don't need or want. I once had a super stripped down Windows 7 copy that worked with 256MB of RAM better than Windows 7 usually works with 1GB just by removing the junk I don't use. I don't know about you, but I was very happy to have so much less wasted hard drive space, RAM usage, and CPU usage.
It is a slow and annoying process to get that far. If I could do that at installation time then I wouldn't need to change things around for every computer I want to install Windows on.
I would love to have that. Instead we need to use third party software to modify the installation ISO and then re-burn it to a disk or copy it to a flash drive too do this and I'm sick of that.
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]to save a couple mb of space? pffftt[/citation]
No, to save a few GB of space and get rid of any unnecessary stuff. I never use Windows Media Player nor Internet Explorer and a lot of other stuff in Windows, why do I need to jump through hoops to get rid of them?
You get decreased storage space being used, increased performance, and less resources being wasted when you get rid of stuff that you don't need or want. I once had a super stripped down Windows 7 copy that worked with 256MB of RAM better than Windows 7 usually works with 1GB just by removing the junk I don't use. I don't know about you, but I was very happy to have so much less wasted hard drive space, RAM usage, and CPU usage.
It is a slow and annoying process to get that far. If I could do that at installation time then I wouldn't need to change things around for every computer I want to install Windows on.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]killerchickens[/nom]Could window do some sort of 32bit emulation instead of having a 32bit os?[/citation]
That is what the 64 bit Windows OSs do, 32 bit emulation. I have a 64 bit OS and it runs 32 bit software without a problem. However, there is some software that is not supported by 64 bit OSs despite the emulation.
There could be several reasons why. Perhaps it is software designed for processors that are too old too be supported by 64 bit OSs (64 bit Windows ditches support for some of the oldest processors). The software could have some 16 bit code (to my knowledge, 64 bit Windows drops 16 bit support). A lot of 32 bit software designed for Windows 2000 and Windows XP still has some 16 bit code.
Maybe there are even more reasons, but those are what I can guess without actually doing more research into it.
As for people complaining about the age of 32 bit processing, please be aware that 64 bit CPU processing is also from the 60s and 70s. It just wasn't common for consumer devices until Vista and Windows 7, but it has existed. I could go look around for info on some of the oldest 64 bit CPUs, but meh. Most of them were mainly for math, but it was integer math like current CPU cores, not floating point so it still counts.
[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]I agree with you on this, but to say Windows 7 on a netbook/tablet is worthy of calling it "Windows 7" is embarrasing, even if they tack on "starter" to it. I'm not referring to product SKU's for OEM stuff, but no one is going to go out and buy Windows 8 Starter edition for their laptop or desktop - therefore if just will not sell. Furthermore, the netbook and especially the tablet have different purposes from the typical laptop and desktop environments. They should not ship with a Windows 8 title at all for the OS, but rather something built to be light and focused toward these devices (Windows Mobile???). I'm more or less fussing about the pricing structure and how they go about structuring the different versions, not really the need for various OS versions for different kinds of devices. Everyone is buying the same exact Windows these days yet we have like 8 "versions" available; they just disable features according to the version you bought.[/citation]
If I remember correctly, starter doesn't have a retail version and is only OEM so it doesn't matter if it wouldn't sell or not because it isn't being sold.
That is what the 64 bit Windows OSs do, 32 bit emulation. I have a 64 bit OS and it runs 32 bit software without a problem. However, there is some software that is not supported by 64 bit OSs despite the emulation.
There could be several reasons why. Perhaps it is software designed for processors that are too old too be supported by 64 bit OSs (64 bit Windows ditches support for some of the oldest processors). The software could have some 16 bit code (to my knowledge, 64 bit Windows drops 16 bit support). A lot of 32 bit software designed for Windows 2000 and Windows XP still has some 16 bit code.
Maybe there are even more reasons, but those are what I can guess without actually doing more research into it.
As for people complaining about the age of 32 bit processing, please be aware that 64 bit CPU processing is also from the 60s and 70s. It just wasn't common for consumer devices until Vista and Windows 7, but it has existed. I could go look around for info on some of the oldest 64 bit CPUs, but meh. Most of them were mainly for math, but it was integer math like current CPU cores, not floating point so it still counts.
[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]I agree with you on this, but to say Windows 7 on a netbook/tablet is worthy of calling it "Windows 7" is embarrasing, even if they tack on "starter" to it. I'm not referring to product SKU's for OEM stuff, but no one is going to go out and buy Windows 8 Starter edition for their laptop or desktop - therefore if just will not sell. Furthermore, the netbook and especially the tablet have different purposes from the typical laptop and desktop environments. They should not ship with a Windows 8 title at all for the OS, but rather something built to be light and focused toward these devices (Windows Mobile???). I'm more or less fussing about the pricing structure and how they go about structuring the different versions, not really the need for various OS versions for different kinds of devices. Everyone is buying the same exact Windows these days yet we have like 8 "versions" available; they just disable features according to the version you bought.[/citation]
If I remember correctly, starter doesn't have a retail version and is only OEM so it doesn't matter if it wouldn't sell or not because it isn't being sold.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
I'm sure most people already know if they want a x86 or x64, so in reality this brings down the number of SKUs down to 3 which is very manageable.
K2N hater
Distinguished
- Sep 15, 2009
- 617
- 0
- 18,980
I'm tired of that pointless hype. Microsoft have always preached the latest version is the best in every aspect but with every single release all that I see is that it takes more and more system resources to run. For the sake of comparison here it goes:
Windows NT 4.0 SP6 (with Active Desktop)
Disk usage: 150MB
RAM usage: 25MB
CPU usage idle (Cyrix 6x86MX PR-200): 0~4%
Windows XP SP3 (no other software installed)
Disk usage: 2GB
RAM usage: 220MB
CPU usage idle (AMD Athlon XP 2800+): 0~2%
Windows 8 Developer Preview 64 (no other software installed)
Disk usage: 8GB
RAM usage: 600MB
CPU usage idle (Intel Core i7-2670): 0~2%
Windows NT 4.0 SP6 (with Active Desktop)
Disk usage: 150MB
RAM usage: 25MB
CPU usage idle (Cyrix 6x86MX PR-200): 0~4%
Windows XP SP3 (no other software installed)
Disk usage: 2GB
RAM usage: 220MB
CPU usage idle (AMD Athlon XP 2800+): 0~2%
Windows 8 Developer Preview 64 (no other software installed)
Disk usage: 8GB
RAM usage: 600MB
CPU usage idle (Intel Core i7-2670): 0~2%
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
Windows 8 dev does NOT use that much memory, at least not in my tests. I found it using closer to 400MB on my machines, the 64 bit version that is, and the 32 bit using slightly less.
Considering that we went from Vista using in excess of 1GB and 7 also using much more than Windows 8 dev and XP, Windows 8 dev is a huge step against your claim. You use far too few examples too. If you want to do a comparison, let's also see Windows 2000, Vista, and 7.
EDIT: I have a thumbs down, am I wrong for asking for a comparison that isn't ignoring data that doesn't support a claim? It was my understanding that if data doesn't support a claim that a non-biased person should try to find out why it doesn't support a claim before forming an opinion.
Yes, Microsoft software/OSs are very bloated. However, right now we see a trend in which subsequent OSs have used less memory than their predecessor after Vista happened. We have 7 using less memory than Vista and 8 using less memory than 7. I don't expect this trend to continue with the successor to Windows 8 because by that time we will probably not need to have a lighter OS on even some of the oldest computers. We already have 4, 6, and 8 GB of memory becoming very common and thus an OS needing more than 2GB to be run properly may become a moot point.
Despite that, I would always like my OS to use as few resources as possible as would most other people, but at least I can admit that as of right now we are on that path compared to Vista. Maybe we will have Windows 9 (or whatever it gets named) using even less resources, maybe the same, maybe more than 8, but going from Vista>7>8 shows the opposite of what you suggest and it is to early to make assumptions about 8's successor.
Does anyone think I am wrong to ask for a comparison that doesn't use only the data that supports an apparently biased opinion?
Considering that we went from Vista using in excess of 1GB and 7 also using much more than Windows 8 dev and XP, Windows 8 dev is a huge step against your claim. You use far too few examples too. If you want to do a comparison, let's also see Windows 2000, Vista, and 7.
EDIT: I have a thumbs down, am I wrong for asking for a comparison that isn't ignoring data that doesn't support a claim? It was my understanding that if data doesn't support a claim that a non-biased person should try to find out why it doesn't support a claim before forming an opinion.
Yes, Microsoft software/OSs are very bloated. However, right now we see a trend in which subsequent OSs have used less memory than their predecessor after Vista happened. We have 7 using less memory than Vista and 8 using less memory than 7. I don't expect this trend to continue with the successor to Windows 8 because by that time we will probably not need to have a lighter OS on even some of the oldest computers. We already have 4, 6, and 8 GB of memory becoming very common and thus an OS needing more than 2GB to be run properly may become a moot point.
Despite that, I would always like my OS to use as few resources as possible as would most other people, but at least I can admit that as of right now we are on that path compared to Vista. Maybe we will have Windows 9 (or whatever it gets named) using even less resources, maybe the same, maybe more than 8, but going from Vista>7>8 shows the opposite of what you suggest and it is to early to make assumptions about 8's successor.
Does anyone think I am wrong to ask for a comparison that doesn't use only the data that supports an apparently biased opinion?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 27
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram