'"It's been a long time since we've had a version of Windows that will actually run better [than the previous version] on the hardware that most customers have," Nash said.'
Does this mean 7 will run better or worse? Microsoft should have learned they can't force hardware upgrades to the masses by writing shitty software. With trends actually going backwards (Atom processors being slower and less capable than most PCs even 5 years ago), I think Microsoft is really feeling the heat.
I think it's still up in the air if 7 will accomplish what Microsoft hopes it will, and extending XP doesn't sound very confident on their part.
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom](Atom processors being slower and less capable than most PCs even 5 years ago)...[/citation]
The Atom PC on my EEEPc actually runs pretty good; also thanks to the internal SSD, boots within 50secs.
It also has a lot faster RAM speeds than former pc's. (400/533Mhz DDR2 vs 200Mhz P4 1,4Ghz).
I'm actually running also a trimmed down version of XP, even with a celeron 900Mhz cpu, and get equal results of the older P4 1,2Ghz thanks to the bump in memory speed. So the EeePc actually outperforms any older P4 pc; and the atom outperforms older P4's 1,6Ghz mainly thanks to it's HT capability.
You could almost see the Atom as 2x800Mhz processors, each loading files pretty slow by themselves, but together (with multi threading) they load applications faster than my 1,4Ghz singlecore Athlon processor.
I have no complains about the atom,but it's crappy Intel video chip.
Nvidia's ion platform is the solution (paired with a Geforce 9400) to make many people change their mind about this chip!
My netbook is mainly used as my home stereo and I like iTunes for that so XP is good. As far as my Acer Extensa 4630Z goes, I only run Ubuntu 9.04, Vista is only on a backup DVD now in case I ever want to sell it.