Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @04:31AM from the just-a-little-slower dept.

Stoobalou writes "Microsoft exec Tami Reller told attendees at the company's Worldwide Partner Conference 2011 taking place in Los Angeles yesterday that any PC capable of running Windows 7 today would be capable of running Windows 8 when it is released, towards the end of the year."

385 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

so Windows 8 is going to be released this year? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:32 · Score: 0

hrm?
1. Re:so Windows 8 is going to be released this year? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  any PC capable of running Windows 7 today would be capable of running Windows 8
  How about those capable of running Windows 7 yeaterday (or even tomorrow)?
Why hello there! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:33 · Score: 0

It's Windows ME 2
1. Re:Why hello there! by MightyMartian · 2011-07-12 04:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think more likely it's Vista SP5. Between Microsoft and Firefox, version numbers have been rendered meaningless.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Why hello there! by tripleevenfall · 2011-07-12 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  All you need to know is that it's worth buying a new license for!
3. Re:Why hello there! by liquidweaver · 2011-07-12 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  I wish I had points to mod parent up. Vista was the Beta we all purchased for Windows 7. It's ok when you know you are buying an unfinished product and it's $8 vis a vis Minecraft, not so cool when it hundreds of dollars, it's from the biggest software company in the world and sold as a finished product, and all your relatives are calling your because their printers don't work and they can't find their way around. Of course, YMMV :)
  
  --
  mov ah, 4ch
  int 21h
4. Re:Why hello there! by recoiledsnake · 2011-07-12 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that the reason for the printers failing to work is the manufacturer's fault and had nothing whatsoever to do with the OS being unfinished right?
  
  --
  This space for rent.
5. Re:Why hello there! by recoiledsnake · 2011-07-12 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  There's a completely new radical default interface coming and we have people here claiming it's Vista SP5. Typical Slashdot ignorance.
  ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p92QfWOw88I
  
  --
  This space for rent.
6. Re:Why hello there! by ron_ivi · 2011-07-12 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Vista was the Beta we all purchased for Windows 7.
  Yet you keep doing it?!? Why?
7. Re:Why hello there! by BoberFett · 2011-07-12 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  So it's Windows Phone Desktop Edition?
8. Re:Why hello there! by beelsebob · 2011-07-12 05:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's actually the first time I've seen the new UI, and I had two responses...
  Initially I thought "wow, that's such a massive change they should drop the windows name, windows 8 doesn't do the change justice". Then when I saw that normal Windows apps dump you straight down to a windows 7 desktop I thought "wow, all they've done is a motorola... They've tacked an additional UI layer on top of the existing one and created an ugly cludge that doesn't work right in either scenario".
  If I had been MS I honestly would have taken the opportunity to start again with Windows – call it something new, make it their OS X. Some of the stuff in there is cool – like the fact that in the Windows 8 UI you can easily access "files" stored in another application's DB, but it doesn't seem to fit together right – what happens when you want to access that "file" in the windows 7 layer?
  All in all, it's very MS – it's a cool idea, but they've not gone the whole hog and rejigged everything, they've tried to maintain compatibility and in doing so created something that doesn't work right.
9. Re:Why hello there! by hal2814 · 2011-07-12 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  So that makes it... what... MS-DOS 33 1/3?
10. Re:Why hello there! by Brad1138 · 2011-07-12 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  There's a completely new radical default interface coming...
  Unity?
  
  --
  If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
11. Re:Why hello there! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  a completely new radical default interface
  
  I just imagined using a computer with an interface like that and...
  ...threw up a little in my mouth.
12. Re:Why hello there! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's the version with multiple user support. The single user version is MS-DOS 45.
13. Re:Why hello there! by liquidweaver · 2011-07-12 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Of course. I also realize that MS forces you to upgrade to their next OS regardless if the current one you have work - creating a whole class of problems; manufacturers unwilling to upgrade their drivers to MS' non-backwards compatible new DDK included. I have appliances, my car, all sorts of other things that I am not synthetically required to upgrade. My car is almost as old as XP, my wife' is older - both work fine. Make a better OS so people want to upgrade. Don't artifically exclude things like DX10, or the next version of your browser, etc. This is called abusing your market position.
  
  --
  mov ah, 4ch
  int 21h
14. Re:Why hello there! by b.emile · 2011-07-12 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  My car is almost as old as XP, my wife' is older - both work fine.
  I'd certainly hope that your wife is older than XP!
  
  --
  this space intentionally left blank
15. Re:Why hello there! by liquidweaver · 2011-07-12 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Haha - I see what you did there.
  
  --
  mov ah, 4ch
  int 21h
16. Re:Why hello there! by 0123456 · 2011-07-12 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  If I had been MS I honestly would have taken the opportunity to start again with Windows – call it something new, make it their OS X.
  
  Why would anyone buy Windows if it didn't run all their old Windows apps?
17. Re:Why hello there! by beelsebob · 2011-07-12 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  Why would anyone buy a new version of Windows if the all the things that are new in it require them to dump old windows apps?
18. Re:Why hello there! by man_of_mr_e · 2011-07-12 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft doesn't force you to upgrade to their next OS, though they sometimes try to force you to upgrade to every other new version of the OS.
  There was no reason you had to upgrade from XP to Vista, unless you wanted the new features. Upgrading to Windows 7 is a bit more useful, for instance you can't ugrade to IE9 in XP, you need to buy Windows 7. There wasn't anything for Vista that wouldn't work on XP.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
19. Re:Why hello there! by man_of_mr_e · 2011-07-12 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if it will be the default interface. Maybe for tablets.. but I don't see it catching on for desktops. I think most desktop vendors will default to the original UI. Even if MS tries to force them, they'll make it very easy to switch back.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
20. Re:Why hello there! by Moryath · 2011-07-12 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Depends. If he's in Afghanistan...
21. Re:Why hello there! by AvitarX · 2011-07-12 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Do service packs generally completely redo the UI (Window Manager at least)?
  Windows 7 was a major upgrade to Vista in that regard (in the sense that they actually tried to make the UI better than the one from Win 95).
  Windows 8 looks to have significant changes too.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
22. Re:Why hello there! by Thud457 · 2011-07-12 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't they just admit mediocrity and do what Apple did, go with *BSD. They can install Wine for idiot^W backward compatibility.
  Of course instead of slapping a sleek and shiny UI on top, they can stay true to form and krufty and broken.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
23. Re:Why hello there! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  Don't insult this interface by comparing it to Unity...
24. Re:Why hello there! by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-07-12 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think the interface is stupid. Touch-oriented? Who the hell wants to sit there jabbing their finger into their monitor? That requires that the monitor be close to you - most of us like it farther away - and it requires that you get greasy fingerprints all over your shiny >21" screen. The reason touch works on smartphones and tablets is because physical buttons are too small, annoying to use, and add needless bulk and weight. None of this is a concern for using a desktop, and at the end of the day you're still gonna hook the damn thing up to a keyboard and mouse because it's more ergonomic to use those than it is to try to type 100wpm on a touchpad.
  I call Win8 a gimicky kludge that's meant to appeal to Star Trek fans who haven't thought about the pitfalls of touch-centric interfaces.
  
  --
  "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
25. Re:Why hello there! by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-12 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  The new UI is... well... pretty much a toy UI for single-taskers... or at the best, serial multi-taskers. For anyone that does work that requires parrallel multi-taskers (doing more than one major task at once that are all related, and thus require that you be able to easily see the output of more than one application at once)... well frankly the Windows 7 UI is the windows UI better suited to that. By far. And generally, that's all I ever do on my desktop computers... browser on one side, with video running underneath, a couple of other applications on the other side of the screen... working with all of it at once. My other desktop... well, that's in my home studio, so this new UI is getting removed as soon as Windows 8 gets on that machine. MAYBE I'll use it on my laptop, because frankly I never do much significant with my laptop... but... I dunno. I'm generally not a fan of these new UI paradigms from both Apple [Full screen apps are the future! Look, our tablet UI as yet another task switching interface!] and Microsoft [Metro UI for every device!] that just seem... to actually take AWAY the power from the user. Or at least regress us to the 1980s where full screen applications were king, and screens were all 640x480 at the best of times so running one thing at a time made sense...
26. Re:Why hello there! by man_of_mr_e · 2011-07-12 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if you watch the video, they show screen sharing of multiple apps concurrently using something vaguely similar to Aero Snap, but adjustable.. If you can do that without the new UI, then it would be very useful.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
27. Re:Why hello there! by tverbeek · 2011-07-12 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  I call Win8 a gimicky kludge that's meant to appeal to Star Trek fans who haven't thought about the pitfalls of touch-centric interfaces.
  At least they aren't trying to appeal to Star Trek fans who haven't thought about the pitfalls of voice-centric interfaces. I'd much rather deal with Windows LCARS than Windows Holodeck.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
28. Re:Why hello there! by newcastlejon · 2011-07-12 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  There wasn't anything for Vista that wouldn't work on XP.
  There was, but I think most people had played it already.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
29. Re:Why hello there! by hairyfeet · 2011-07-12 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhhh...who EXACTLY forced you? Did a MSFT rep come and put a 38 to your head? You DO realize WinXP is STILL supported yes? hell Win2k only went out of support last year!
  You can find a lot of things to bitch at MSFT about, such as a bad case of the "me too!"s, a mobile strategy that consists of flinging poo at a wall, etc but one thing you can NO bitch about is length of support. Your office, friends, family could be on WinXP right now if Vista or 7 didn't work for you. If you bought pro (a whole $30 difference) then you had downgrade rights you could have used at ANY time, no hassle. I actually invoked those downgrade rights a couple of time for customers on Vista, it took a single phone call and reading off the code, no big whoop.
  So if there is anyone to blame here if printers don't work that would be YOU sir. Both Vista and 7 had compatibility lists, the websites of the manufacturers often listed whether or not they supported Vista or 7, and of course there was the Winflag on the box telling you in black and white. Frankly with decade plus support cycles and so many resources to check compatibility I don't see how anyone could find a fault with MSFT over that.
  Out of ALL the hardware (and I do have a lot) that I had to deal with when I switched my family from XP to 7 I found ONE, just one mind you, thing that didn't work. my no name CCC PCI capture card. That cost me a whole $30 to replace. With my customers I told them to let me install the trial version and dual boot and within the month I was getting all clears to install Windows 7.
  So if you like XP so much why aren't you still using it? You have another THREE YEARS you know. By then most of the software will most likely be Vista/7 or better and you'd be a fool to run unpatched software on the net. Now MSFT has given you 14 years, the guys that wrote WinXP have long since moved on. The guys here at /. know that you just can't support an old version forever, especially when they have three newer versions they will be supporting by then. Stick with XP until 2014, by then your printer will be dead or you can pick up a cheapo network laser. This gives you plenty of time to plan a migration and if you don't? That would be YOUR fault.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
30. Re:Why hello there! by hairyfeet · 2011-07-12 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Do you call Apple system 13 and a quarter? if you want to insult MSFT there are plenty of targets, the big dumb sweaty monkey, the completely clueless mobile "strategy" if there even is one, the giant attack of the "Me toos!" under Ballmer like Zune and Kin and the Win 8 aka WinPad UI, killing PlaysForSure that was quite popular for monthly subscriptions for the crapola ZunePass which was incompatible.
  But MSDOS has officially been dead since 1995 dude, unofficially 2000 if you count the DOS bootstrapping that was in Win9x. To keep bringing up DOS like it is still relevant not only isn't funny it is kinda pointless when there are plenty of more topical potshots you could enjoy.
  Maybe the next Linux article that comes around you can write about how Linux is stuck on the 0.x kernel and it doesn't even support your daisy wheel printer or have a GUI, since that is how far behind the times the DOS jokes are. But I will give you credit for one thing, at least you didn't trot out the "M$" lameness like some here are known to do and which the majority I doubt even remembers far enough back to know where that came from.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
31. Re:Why hello there! by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-07-12 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I should clarify that Star Trek got the interface mostly right, but their audience didn't always understand why. They talked to the computer when convenient ( "Lights/Tea, Earl Grey, Hot) but still tapped on PADDs or desktops for other functions. You didn't hear the Captain saying "page down" when reading data on his desktop display.
  And I think that in certain situations, touch interfaces were the right solution - such as on the PADDs. But you'll notice that there was a physical button on the desktop display (only 1, but who's counting) that they'd press rather than jabbing at the screen.
  Where they messed up (and this was actually addressed in Voyager) was in designing touch interfaces for vital ship controls. Anyone who's tried to use a vibrating touch interface, such as when your cell phone is in a car holder, knows that hitting the right button is pretty damned hard. It's a pretty stupid design to require people to precisely target a nonphysical "fire phasers / get the hell out of here" button when the ship is shaking from incoming fire.
  Other than that, a Star Trek style interface would be 90% appropriate for most of our computing needs. But Star Trek never had them sitting at a desk looking at a display, and having to reach way over the desk to touch the screen. I would guess that in such situations, some future version of a mouse would still be in use.
  
  --
  "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
32. Re:Why hello there! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft has a YouTube account?
  I can only imagine that quite a few chairs were thrown that day.
33. Re:Why hello there! by perryizgr8 · 2011-07-12 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  unity has nothing radical about it. its just a cheap imitation of osx.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
34. Re:Why hello there! by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-12 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, so it's decent-ish for two applications side by side I guess... but currently I'm tagging my video collection and I have a browser window open, my media library open, Notepad++ which I have set up with several macros to reformat data to an acceptable format, and outlook open, monitoring e-mail, all on one screen. And it works well, because I have a high resolution, large 4:3 screen. The new system seems very much focused on widescreen monitors, and I have yet to see a review address how this system holds up across multiple monitors - which is what I have on my other computer. I can hardly wait to try it and see what I can make of it - but as far as multi-tasking goes, I really like what Windows 7 gives me. Snap an app to the side, then adjust the height, works great for me.
35. Re:Why hello there! by tverbeek · 2011-07-13 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  "You didn't hear the Captain saying "page down" when reading data on his desktop display."
  However, Data was in the habit of saying "increase speed" when reading from console displays. :)
  (You know, Soong really should have included a Bluetooth transceiver, perhaps in one of Data's molars, to save him from all that "reading". Or was low-bandwidth Bluetooth the reason for the brief "accessing" delay whenever Data had to look up an uncommon vocabulary word?)
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
36. Re:Why hello there! by RockDoctor · 2011-07-13 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  There's a completely new radical default interface coming
  
  Oh fuck, not another fucking new radical fucking inter-fucking-face. That is so the fuck likely to make me give a shit about learning another new fucking inter-fucking-face when this fucking shit fucking heap lands on today's computer. I'm so the fuck enthused by this.
  Didn't they learn their lesson from the fucking Ribbon shit storm. Oh, sorry, I forgot, they're Microsoft ; they don't "do" "learning" any more than they do "listen to customers".
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
37. Re:Why hello there! by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-07-13 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  I always found Data to be a study in inconsistency. He's an almost human android who can write himself programs that allow him to have a complicated sexual relationship with a crew member, but he can't write a simple subroutine that says "whenever you're about to say "cannot," say "can't" instead."
  Then he can quote on command and without delay the most obscure trivia about anything in the universe, but doesn't know who Pinocchio is without booting up the spare hard drive.
  Based on that, I think it's totally consistent with my interface argument that Data would verbalize commands when it's easier to hit a button. Just another of his inexplicable idiosyncrasies. ;)
  (I always wondered why they bothered staffing the bridge with anything but the Captain, F/O, and Data. Hook data up to the ship with that blinky brain cable of his and let him drive and shoot).
  
  --
  "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
38. Re:Why hello there! by tverbeek · 2011-07-13 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Since the First Officer's job consists almost entirely of translating the captain's quiet musings into orders, and saying it loudly enough for the crew to hear, if Data is the only other bridge crew, they wouldn't really need Riker, either,.
  Picard: "Will. We should get out of here."
  Riker: "Lay in a course out of here! Bearing 253 mark 15! Maximum warp!"
  Data: "We are already underway at warp 9.6, Commander."
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
39. Re:Why hello there! by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-07-13 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's true, but it's always good to have someone to bounce ideas off of when you're dealing with a pissed off Nausicaan.
  
  --
  "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
40. Re:Why hello there! by treeves · 2011-07-13 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Depends, are you measuring in human years or OS years? OS years are like dog years but instead of 7:1 they're about 10:1.
  I just made that up of course.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
41. Re:Why hello there! by tverbeek · 2011-07-13 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  "That is not a problem. I have been developing a new feedback subroutine for just such a situation, and I predict a 92.3% probability that my input will result in the captain taking the correct course of action."
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Windows 8 in my pants by slashpot · 2011-07-12 04:33 · Score: 0

I have Windows 8 running in my pants!
1. Re:Windows 8 in my pants by tripleevenfall · 2011-07-12 04:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Does that explain all the performance issues? :)
2. Re:Windows 8 in my pants by SilentStaid · 2011-07-12 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  It at least explains why it stinks...
3. Re:Windows 8 in my pants by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Blue balls of death?
Please by ledow · 2011-07-12 04:33 · Score: 1

Please, somebody, print this in 2000pt Helvetica and place it on a banner opposite every international MS HQ for at least the next year and preferably until they *actually* release Windows 8.
Chances are that if you don't, someone will try to backtrack on this before the month is out.
1. Re:Please by interkin3tic · 2011-07-12 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Please, somebody, print this in 2000pt Helvetica and place it on a banner opposite every international MS HQ for at least the next year and preferably until they *actually* release Windows 8.
  2000pt papyrus might make them go faster. I understand there are people who have strong feelings about that particular font. Seems like such people whining at the water cooler might speed things along.
  
  "We at MS are happy to finally release windows 8, a full nine months ahead of schedule. We are also happy to announce that it will work on all current PCs, and does not support the use of certain typesets. NOW CHERYL WILL YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THAT BANNER AND GODDAMN PAPYRUS!?!?"
2. Re:Please by NJRoadfan · 2011-07-12 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, they'll just switch to Comic Sans.
3. Re:Please by Sylak · 2011-07-12 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's Microsoft, so it should be Arial: their Helvetica knock-off ;P
4. Re:Please by lennier · 2011-07-12 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  2000pt papyrus might make them go faster. I understand there are people who have strong feelings about that particular font.
  
  Dear Internet, I just made a billion dollars putting Papyrus on merchandising all over the world. And yes, I did it on purpose just to annoy you all. I'm slowly talking Peter Jackson around to using Arial for The Hobbit. Love, James Cameron.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Windows 8 by Dyinobal · 2011-07-12 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

I just upgraded from Window XP to WIndows 7 now you want to tell me you're planning windows 8 already with in the year? It's not like windows seven is another vista, it's a solid OS and is remarkably stable, why do I want Windows 8?
1. Re:Windows 8 by joocemann · 2011-07-12 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Windows8 is windows 7 sp3.
2. Re:Windows 8 by jo42 · 2011-07-12 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  why do I want Windows 8?
  Because Microsoft wants your hard earned shekels, pesos and dinars.
3. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Odds are you don't want it. Based on Microsoft's track record, Windows 8 will be a terrible iteration of their OS and should be skipped over. Just wait for the next release after 8, it will be rock solid... well as rock solid as anything rolling out of Redmond.
4. Re:Windows 8 by RazzleFrog · 2011-07-12 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  Well if you are on a two year lag of upgrades then why are you even asking? Just wait until 2013 and then see if you want to upgrade.
5. Re:Windows 8 by Kenja · 2011-07-12 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  If the add a UAC white list I'll buy it just to stop the annoying pop-ups.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
6. Re:Windows 8 by Rinnon · 2011-07-12 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  If the add a UAC white list I'll buy it just to stop the annoying pop-ups.
  You know you can just turn off UAC, right? Control Panel > User Accounts > Change User Access Control settings.
7. Re:Windows 8 by Locutus · 2011-07-12 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  it is not about "why you would _want_ it" it's about why you'll _need_ to upgrade to run any new Microsoft software.
  
  To answer why Microsoft is releasing yet another OS; it's because they didn't make Vista(yet another MS OS "written from the ground up") very efficient, portable nor scalable so Windows 7 was hacked out to solve the first problem. Hey, it's better than Vista is what I keep hearing regarding its performance. So now there's Linux still running on netbooks but not too much of a threat anymore but Apple and Google are moving into Windows territory on ARM processors. So, Windows 8 is Windows 7 made portable and supposedly able to yank it apart so it's somewhat scalable. That is if you think a quad core ARM CPU running at 1.5GHz with 2GB of RAM is low end.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
8. Re:Windows 8 by Kenja · 2011-07-12 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  UAC is a good thing for security. Its just annoying in its current implementation when compared to how others such as Apple have done it. Turning it off is like disabling anti-virus because it keeps stopping you from downloading that sara-palin-nude.jpg.exe file you want.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
9. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:56 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Windows 7 is Windows Vista SP3
10. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, this is getting ridiculous. Do they expect us mugs to pay a fortune every single year for a 'new' Windows, which is no better than the last one, and often worse? (Looking at the ridiculous 'interface' of Windows 8 makes me think it's going to be worse than Windows 7).
  What's wrong with bringing out a solid product like XP, once every TEN years?
11. Re:Windows 8 by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-12 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Traditionally, MS has released a new retail OS every year to two years. the huge gap between XP and Vista was the oddity, not the rule.
  Windows 3.0 was 1990
  3.1 was 1992
  3.11 and NT 3.1 were both in 1993
  NT 3.5 was 1994
  95 was... 1995.
  NT 4.0 was 1996
  98 was 1998
  98se was 1999
  ME and 2000 were both in 2000
  XP was 2001 ...
  Vista was 2006
  Windows 7 was 2009
  seems to me that they're right on schedule for windows 8.
12. Re:Windows 8 by toastar · 2011-07-12 04:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I just upgraded from Window XP to WIndows 7 now you want to tell me you're planning windows 8 already with in the year? It's not like windows seven is another vista, it's a solid OS and is remarkably stable, why do I want Windows 8?
  What you've never heard of the every other windows curse? It''s like the star trek movie curse
  Win 2k was great
  Win Me Sucked balls
  Win Xp was pretty good
  Win Vista was smoking crack
  Win 7 is usable
  
  you might as well not even bother checking out 8
13. Re:Windows 8 by VGPowerlord · 2011-07-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Odds are you don't want it. Based on Microsoft's track record, Windows 8 will be a terrible iteration of their OS and should be skipped over. Just wait for the next release after 8, it will be rock solid... well as rock solid as anything rolling out of Redmond.
  The track record depends on which OS you consider to be the predecessor of Windows XP.
  Windows 2000 was a solid OS.
  Windows ME was a toy that broke at the slightest touch.
  So, if you go WinMe / WinXP / Vista / 7 / 8, then yes, 8 would be one to skip.
  If you go Win2K / WinXP / Vista / 7 / 8, I'm not sure how you'd get that 8 will be bad.
  Personally, I hate the whole "touch interface" look for non-touch devices (read: desktop PCs), so I intend to pass on 8.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
14. Re:Windows 8 by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-12 05:01 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  XP was just a theme for windows 2000, and look how well it did.
  Hell 7 isn't much more than a theme/ui upgrade for a bugfixed vista, and everybody loves it nonetheless.
15. Re:Windows 8 by DrgnDancer · 2011-07-12 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It'd be nice if they adopted Apple's more recent model for OS upgrades. They are relatively more frequent than they used to, less revolutionary than evolutionary, and extremely inexpensive for upgraders ($35 or so). There's nothing so OMG Awesome about Lion that I have to have it, but it's got a few nice features, and for less than the price of most app software I'll upgrade the Macbook (once I figure out if it's second gen or first gen Intel). Similarly I doubt Windows 8 is revolutionarily different from Windows 7, but if it's got a decent number of useful upgrades and is only going to cost me $30-50, I'll do it. If it's going to cost $150, forget it till they force the issue.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
16. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  I'm confused; does that make Win8 = Vista SP6, or SP9?
17. Re:Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You'll want it for an ARM-based tablet.
18. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Windows8 is windows 7 sp3.
  So supporting new processor architecture (ARM) and introducing completely new application model (HTML5/JS) and user interface (touch) is just a Service Pack to you? Do then ever any OS upgrades qualify as non-SP?
19. Re:Windows 8 by Riceballsan · 2011-07-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  You know there's a difference between white listing one application, and granting every java applet that your web browser might scroll over administrative access to your entire system right?
20. Re:Windows 8 by interkin3tic · 2011-07-12 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  You're saying you're happy with your product and then asking why you should buy another product?
  
  Man, they've trained you well.
21. Re:Windows 8 by TemporalBeing · 2011-07-12 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  Windows8 is windows 7 sp3.
  So supporting new processor architecture (ARM) and introducing completely new application model (HTML5/JS) and user interface (touch) is just a Service Pack to you? Do then ever any OS upgrades qualify as non-SP?
  WinNT has supported ARM for a long time. Just not publically. So nothing new there. The Metro interface that will be used by Win8 is hogwash and will probably be another WinME/Vista - both good products in many respects, but completely public failures for many reasons.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
22. Re:Windows 8 by jawtheshark · 2011-07-12 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's not entirely true. XP did add wireless support out of the box, even though every wireless driver seems to come with it's own crappy interface, but on Windows 2000 you had to use the crappy interfaces while on XP you can avoid them entirely. Also, there is fast user switching which is invaluable on home systems. Furthermore you neglect the compatibility layer added for older games. Windows 2000 was often a hassle to install (older) games on. Most of them worked, but you had to jump though hoop.
  Sure, there is no reason Windows 2000 couldn't have had these improvements, but it didn't get them.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
23. Re:Windows 8 by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-12 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I just upgraded from Window XP to WIndows 7 now you want to tell me you're planning windows 8 already with in the year?
  
  TFA has incorrectly quoted a different article. They say this:
  
  Microsoft exec Tami Reller told attendees at the company's Worldwide Partner Conference 2011 taking place in Los Angeles yesterday that any PC capable of running Windows 7 today would be capable of running Windows 8 when it is released, towards the end of the year if Steve Ballmer's ramblings are to be believed.
  Note the link - it is copied as is from TFA. But if you follow it, it goes to an article titled "Evidence mounts for a Windows 8 release in 2012", and specifically:
  
  Lewin, corporate vice president for strategic and emerging business development, has suggested a timescale for the Windows 8 launch process - the first version of Windows to support the ARM architecture - that would see the new operating system released towards the end of 2012.
  Lewin spoke at his company's LAUNCH event for start-ups and let slip a few informed guesses as to Microsoft's plans for Windows 8. "If you look at the crystal ball and just say what happened in the past is a reasonable indicator of what our forward looking timelines will be and just speculate," Lewin circuitously explained. "We've made the point about having a developer conference later this year, and then typically we enter a beta phase, and then in 12 months we're in the market. So, let's make that assumption."
  So they're a year off. Even then, of course, it's not an official release date, hence why all the talk about "crystal ball" etc.
24. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  If you are no longer using your XP license can I get the key? Thanks.
25. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Why did you want Windows 7? It's just Windows XP R3. It's a far cry from the fresh start Long Horn was supposed to be, and there is no technical reason why everything they did since Vista couldn't have been done in XP.
26. Re:Windows 8 by armanox · 2011-07-12 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Apple Menu -> About this Mac. Intel Core proc is the first gen (no Lion for you), everything else will work. If you need more information, Hit more info. The Line you want is labeled "Model Identifier" and will read something like MacbookPro1,1.
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
27. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  So Win8 aka NT6.2 is just like WinNT, back when they called it WinNT?
28. Re:Windows 8 by irreverentdiscourse · 2011-07-12 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  UAC actually stops nothing but "user stupidity". No amount of spyware or malware is inhibited in any way by UAC.
29. Re:Windows 8 by Talderas · 2011-07-12 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  And your hard earn gil, goth, and isk.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
30. Re:Windows 8 by zill · 2011-07-12 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting.
  
  Maybe I should abort my second child and go straight for the third one instead.
31. Re:Windows 8 by im_thatoneguy · 2011-07-12 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well seeing as you seem to wait until an OS is obsolete before upgrading this just means you can wait another 3 years before upgrading to 8!
  Thankfully nobody is holding a gun to your head or depriving you of security updates to force you to upgrade.
32. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Vista is just NT4.0 SP26.
33. Re:Windows 8 by DrgnDancer · 2011-07-12 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. I actually know how to check, but the Mac is up with my wife in Boston and I keep forgetting to look when I visit (or to ask her to do it, which is a little more complicated). Unless something falls through in the next few days though I'll be on my way up permanently in a few weeks
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
34. Re:Windows 8 by WaffleMonster · 2011-07-12 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  To answer why Microsoft is releasing yet another OS; it's because they didn't make Vista(yet another MS OS "written from the ground up") very efficient, portable nor scalable so Windows 7 was hacked out to solve the first problem. Hey, it's better than Vista is what I keep hearing regarding its performance. So now there's Linux still running on netbooks but not too much of a threat anymore but Apple and Google are moving into Windows territory on ARM processors. So, Windows 8 is Windows 7 made portable and supposedly able to yank it apart so it's somewhat scalable. That is if you think a quad core ARM CPU running at 1.5GHz with 2GB of RAM is low end.
  All they did was move background processes from the service manager to the task manager demand loading them as needed. This reduced the memory footprint enough for those people with a marginal amount of RAM to think Windows 7 is a million times better than Vista.
  Finally they scraped off the old sticker, replaced it with "Windows 7" and called it a day.
  The moral of the story there is still quite a lot of low hanging fruit to improve effeciency where there is market incentive.
35. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  You know you can just turn off the screen saver, right?
  It has as much relevance to white listing some executables to not trigger UAC pop-ups as turning UAC off completely after all.
36. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks but I already have Android for that and it's fantastic. Why would I want to replace it with Windows?
37. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  I've used MacOS, Linux, and Windows 7 for a few years now, and they all seem to be about the same in terms of level of annoyingnes in when they want you to authenticate. With Linux you need to sudo anything that needs admin, and MacOS pops up an authentication dialog every time I want to install something. Seems about the same as UAC on Windows 7.
38. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  There is absolutely no reason at all to run windows on ARM. Why use an inferior OS on a hardware that cannot run your legacy apps anyway?
39. Re:Windows 8 by TWX · 2011-07-12 05:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  But back then there were two separate product lines:
  Windows 3.0 1990
  Windows 3.1/3.11 1992-1993
  Windows 95 1995
  Windows 98 1998
  Windows ME 2000
  Windows XP 2001
  Windows Vista 2006
  Windows 7 2009
  Windows NT 3.1 1992
  Windows NT 3.5 1994
  Windows NT 4.0 1996
  Windows 2000 2000
  Windows XP 2001
  Windows Vista 2006
  Windows 7 2009
  The other consideration is the relationship between the OSes in these channels. Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 are substantially similar, and Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 are as well, sort of blending into 4.0. Windows 95, 98, and ME were also similar enough to be the same product family with incremental changes. Windows 2000 and XP are the same product family. Windows Vista and 7 are the same family.
  I'm probably going to skip 8. I've got too many XP-running computers to upgrade, and Microsoft's three-seat volume packs for home users bring the cost down to between $35 and $50 a PC for Win7 Home Premium (depending on the vendor and any deals at the time) makes it easy to justify buying two or three sets of three, and the benefits in the UI scaling, newer APIs for newer programs, and better multicore support seem worthwhile. It also was eight years from the release of XP to the release of 7, so there's probably been some actual real improvement there, even with the new bugs. 8, coming this quickly on the heels of 7, is probably going to only screw up the UI again, without having any real reason under the hood to compel me to change. I figure if I go to 7, I can probably wait to upgrade OSes until 2017 or so before it becomes a real issue.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
40. Re:Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Apps can be recompiled for different target architectures without being rewritten. There is as much reason to run windows on ARM as there is to run it on x86. A computer needs an OS. At the moment, ARM chips offer a huge power savings when compared to x86 chips. An ARM-based laptop/tablet is going to last a lot longer than an i3.
41. Re:Windows 8 by rtobyr · 2011-07-12 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Win 2k *was* great, wasn't it? I installed it, upgraded my domain, and said to myself, "Microsoft hit the nail square on the head with this one!" The thig would happily run on my desktop with 128K RAM. It was stable. Everything's been downhill from there. Now Windows 7 needs 2 GB, and I've got a 50 GB WinSxS folder.
42. Re:Windows 8 by brian0918 · 2011-07-12 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 7 is Windows Vista: A New Hope.
43. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  You really should branch again in the server line:
  Windows NT 3.1 1992
  Windows NT 3.5 1994
  Windows NT 4.0 1996
  Windows 2000 2000
  Windows XP 2001
  Windows Vista 2006
  Windows 7 2009
  Windows NT 3.1 1992
  Windows NT 3.5 1994
  Windows NT 4.0 1996
  Windows 2000 2000
  Windows Server 2003 2003
  Windows Server 2003R2 2005
  Windows Server 2008 2008
  Windows Server 2008R2 2009
  I suppose Windows 2011/2012 will parallel Windows 8 for the desktop.
  (I really hate R2 releases)
44. Re:Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Stylus input for OneNote and PhotoShop maybe? Outlook for email? Safari for web browsing? Itunes to sync your iphone? The javascript/html5 app platform? I don't know, maybe all you do check the weather. Regardless, it'll add choice and alternatives into the marketplace and drive UI enhancements.
  Of course most users won't change from one OS to the other. They'll keep whatever comes with it when they buy it.
45. Re:Windows 8 by Asmodae · 2011-07-12 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Strictly speaking, the user in question is trained to just click yes every time they see the window. They don't know or understand most of the pop ups and do the action most likely to let them keep on doing whatever it is their doing. UAC does nothing to help them either, it is worse than useless.
46. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  ....downloading that sara-palin-nude.jpg.exe file you want.
  Dude, send that pic my way!!
47. Re:Windows 8 by Miseph · 2011-07-12 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  It was a minor theme and a bundle of, mostly minor, usability upgrades to Windows 2000, most of which could be worked around by a savvy user. Many people didn't like Windows 2000 because of a few, mostly minor, usability issues, most of which could be worked around by a savvy user.
  If you're saying it would have been stupid for somebody to pay full price to move from 2000 to XP, you're right. The number of people who had any reason to do so, however, was fairly small, especially since 2000 was marketed as an enterprise product intended to replace the NT line, which saw virtually no use on consumer machines. The consumer counterpart to 2000 was actually ME, which was such a horrific mess in large part because they did a hack job trying to merge the popular-but-obsolete Win98 interface and use conventions onto the NT base. XP was, in truth, a merger of the two product lines, wherein they moved to the superior NT model, but provided a solid and reliable framework for home users to continue using DOS-based software and concepts, along with a level of polish and slickness that made low-confidence home users feel comfortable with the changes.
  Similarly, Vista tried to move onto a new (and this time mostly untested) technology base, but preserve certain aspects of the then-antiquated XP experience, but did a hack job of it. Windows 7 provides a solid and reliable framework for handling XP-era software and concepts, along with a level of polish and slickness that made low-confidence home users feel comfortable with the changes. Gee, that sounds familiar... Anyway, Vista didn't have a business/enterprise version ship with it, something truer to the core of 7 but without the coddling niceties end-users expect from their computers. If it did, I would imagine it would still be fairly popular within the techie community, much like 2000 stayed with us long after the release of XP (I myself didn't bother switching over until Vista was in public testing).
  Anyway, 8 looks like a new-and-improved to include the latest Internet stuff that all the kids are doing these days, which reminds me of what changed between 95 and 98. Basically, the UI got a significant upgrade and it added support for modern networking. 8 looks like it is adding inherent support for html5 and other post-90s web standards (out-of-the-box Flash support without any Adobe software?), touch screens, ADHD multi-tasking (I have enough trouble focusing on one thing at a time, how does anyone manage to have that many things going on in front of their face without losing track of everything?) and sundry other developments and expectations of the current generation of technology. I'll hold out cautious optimism that it won't suck, though I'm still giving it about 6 months to a year of release before I'll believe it's really ready for every day use by people who don't like to troubleshoot.
  
  --
  Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
48. Re:Windows 8 by Miseph · 2011-07-12 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  "here is no reason Windows 2000 couldn't have had these improvements, but it didn't get them"
  Sure it did, they called it XP. Seriously though, the service packs introduced most of the upgrades, but in the manner of all things 2000 did so in a somewhat ad hoc and un-user friendly manner.
  
  --
  Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
49. Re:Windows 8 by ElmoGonzo · 2011-07-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  The objective is to catch up with the Apple OS version numbers -- Firefox uses the same release strategy.
50. Re:Windows 8 by TWX · 2011-07-12 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I had forgotten about the server line.
  As far as server connectivity goes, the NT domain model of 3.5/4/2000 versus the AD model for 2003+ seem to currently be the big split beyond UI. I wouldn't be surprised if the underpinnings changed between 2003R2 and 2008, as they reflect the regular NT-derived OSes they're based from.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
51. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  So why charge $30-50, when they can character $150 and just force the issue?
52. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Stylus input
  You've already lost.
  
  PhotoShop
  On a tablet class CPU? Yeah right.
  
  Outlook for email?
  No, thanks. I'll keep using GMail.
  
  Itunes to sync your iphone?
  iPhones can be synced wirelessly now.
  
  Regardless, it'll add choice and alternatives into the marketplace and drive UI enhancements.
  I look forward to this latest in the long line of illustrious MS tablet devices.
53. Re:Windows 8 by guspasho · 2011-07-12 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  If that's what you think of it already, you might as well.
54. Re:Windows 8 by tepples · 2011-07-12 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  There's nothing so OMG Awesome about Lion that I have to have it, but it's got a few nice features
  Lion doesn't have Rosetta. This means it can't run games and other applications released before 2006. Make sure to take that into account if you still use these applications.
55. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  You want it because an upgrade costs $100.00, and spending money makes you feel warm and special inside.
56. Re:Windows 8 by Scoth · 2011-07-12 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say it's more like they usually get it on the third try.
  Windows 3.0 was the first version of Windows that gained any traction.
  WFW311 was (sorta) the third of the Win3x line and was popular and long-lived
  98SE was the third in the 9x line and was reasonably well-liked.
  NT 3.51 was the third version of NT, and was probably the first version of NT to gain traction.
  XP SP2 was where it really hit its stride, as the third version of XP.
  It doesn't always work though. NT4 and Win2k were both fairly well-liked, XP was hated first but loved now...
57. Re:Windows 8 by BungeBash · 2011-07-12 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Windows 2k "was great" only if you didn't plan on gaming or using a floppy between other OS's. I thought the only thing 8 is pushing is cloud applications which will help enforce their anti-piracy agenda.
58. Re:Windows 8 by leadfoot · 2011-07-12 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  1st Gen Macbooks were 32bit Core Duo's. 2nd gen and higher are 64bit Core 2 Duo or the latest Core i processors.
  
  --
  "We're gonna need a bigger boat"
59. Re:Windows 8 by X3J11 · 2011-07-12 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  WinNT has supported ARM for a long time. Just not publically. So nothing new there.
  [citation needed]
  I was under the impression that only Windows CE and its brethren supported ARM. Back in the day NT4 could run on x86, MIPS, PowerPC and DEC Alpha, but at the time ARM wasn't a feasible architecture for running Windows NT.
60. Re:Windows 8 by MrMacman2u · 2011-07-12 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  You'll want it for an ARM-based tablet.
  No. No I won't.
  Not when other OS's that were designed to be tablet OS's are available in lieu of MS's rushed bastard child that's going to attempt to be relevant in a market that has shown again and again a full desktop OS has no place in.
  
  --
  This signature is lame.
61. Re:Windows 8 by 0123456 · 2011-07-12 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Apps can be recompiled for different target architectures without being rewritten.
  Again, why would people buy Windows to run on ARM when it won't run all their old Windows programs unless they buy them a second time?
62. Re:Windows 8 by X3J11 · 2011-07-12 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  The thig would happily run on my desktop with 128K RAM. It was stable.
  128K RAM?
  Wow, Win2K musta been amazing! Pity I went from 98 to XP, coulda saved a lot of cash in hardware upgrades.
63. Re:Windows 8 by Scoth · 2011-07-12 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, as a bit of a gamer (don't have the time I used to, but ah well) I was interested in the newer DirectX versions. Also, the 64 bit versions so I could use all my RAM. I don't even mind the "superbar" thing now that I'm used to it.
  You can argue yourself in circles that Microsoft "could" have implemented everything in XP, but they didn't. So as a user, my choice is either to upgrade to get the new features or accept the limitations of the old version.
  And like it or not, it's just the way OSes have been handled. Add some new features to a new version, sell it as new. There's no technical reason Microsoft couldn't have written a full Win32 implementation for Windows 3.1. Or written DirectX 11 for Windows 95. But at some point a developer has to make a decision to cut off the old and write for the new.
  I suppose we could all be using Windows 1.0 SP56.
64. Re:Windows 8 by bberens · 2011-07-12 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  There's a big difference between "It will run on ARM" and "We spent some not insignificant time optimizing the platform on ARM." I'm generally not a huge fan of MSFT but it will be nice and somewhat revolutionary to be able to have the same exact OS/applications on the desktop/laptop and tablet platforms. AFAIK no one else has compatible binaries between those two platforms. As always, the implementation may be garbage, but it sounds like they've got some pretty revolutionary stuff going on. I hope it works out for us (consumers).
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
65. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  No, I'll want Android or iOS for that. They have more touch-enabled apps available.
66. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Windows Vista is remarkably stable as well. It was just a lack of (good) drivers because of its new driver model that it crashed for the people it crashed. My last PC that came with Vista and all of its components were released after Vista hasn't crashed not even once, a feat that Windows XP could not even dream of when you do everything you can do with a PC such as playing games, heavy multitasking etc.. Other people with modern hardware I know that run Vista report similar positive experiences with it.
  And Windows 7 is just as stable; since you can't really get more stable than that.
67. Re:Windows 8 by operagost · 2011-07-12 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 8 is Windows NT 3.1 SP 14.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
68. Re:Windows 8 by Hatta · 2011-07-12 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but I don't have the source code so I can't do that.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
69. Re:Windows 8 by man_of_mr_e · 2011-07-12 07:02 · Score: 2
  
  FYI, winsxs isn't really as big as you think it is. A lot of those files are hardlinked from different folders, so they only take up space once, but are counted multiple times.
  http://www.davidlenihan.com/2008/11/winsxs_disk_space_usage_its_no.html
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
70. Re:Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  iOS and Android were both developed from full desktop OSes and are both still full desktop OSes at their core. Android is linux. iOS is OSX (which was mostly freebsd). They each simply added a new UI for touch and a sandboxed app model. Neither were "designed to be a tablet OS." They were designed to be appropriate for multiple platforms. That's the exact same model as win 8.
71. Re:Windows 8 by bberens · 2011-07-12 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  You expect the hardware to be outdated by the time it makes it to the store. It's reasonable to be disappointed if the operating system is outdated within a few months.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
72. Re:Windows 8 by Miseph · 2011-07-12 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  7 is better than XP, and if anything Vista was hacked out because people were getting impatient waiting for 7. 7 is also better than Vista, of course, but I suspect that the reason people keep making that comparison is because you keep insisting it must be bad because Vista was bad.
  Beyond that, yeah, you're probably right. I suspect Microsoft would very much like to continue being a part of the software market, even when that market moves toward devices based on architectures and user-interfaces other than the ones they established themselves. if you want to see that as sinister, go right ahead. Personally, I've spent the last decade watching Microsoft, and I find it hard to hold a grudge against them any more. Yes, they were abusive pricks for a long time, no they didn't get punished for it as harshly as I think they should have... but at this point their abuses are largely moot and they are more or less playing well with others. The market has opened up, and they're still doing quite well. if their product didn't have any strengths, that wouldn't be the case.
  
  --
  Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
73. Re:Windows 8 by VGPowerlord · 2011-07-12 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  The WinSxS directory actually contains the master copy of every file in the original operating system and all its patches and service packs.
  The files in the other directories are actually hard links to these files.
  I believe service packs come with a file that removes the pre-SP versions of the files it updated at the expense of making the service pack not uninstallable.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
74. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  Because they'll release DirectX 12 only for Win8 ... because of technical limitations of Win7 or some such bullshit.
75. Re:Windows 8 by man_of_mr_e · 2011-07-12 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 7 was released on October 22, 2009. Even if Windows 8 is released this year, which it won't be.. that is 2 years between versions. It will be a lot closer to 3 years. Vista was released on January 20th, 2007. Again, almost 3 years between releases. So where do you get this "every year" business?
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
76. Re:Windows 8 by rtobyr · 2011-07-12 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  I know that they're hard links. I don't care. What I care about is that I used to run servers on VMware with 12 GB of storage each. I've had to quintuple that since Win2K8. SAN storage is not cheap.
77. Re:Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's touch+stylus. If that loses to touch-only, I think you failed math.
  PhotoShop? On a "tablet-class CPU"? Yes. The biggest slowdown in photoshop is disk IO. That's MUCH faster on an SSD. Adobe is constantly working to improve their hardware acceleration, etc. Another example: the ipad companion app. Adobe clearly likes touch and stylus (watcom). It's what graphical artists crave.
  Sure, use gmail. It won't work for anyone with an exchange account. It's okay if that isn't you. But let's accept that it's a huge market. After all, that's why android supports it. Outlook is the work horse of the corporate office though.
  Sweet. I didn't know iphones can be wirelessly synced to android tablets. :P
78. Re:Windows 8 by nabsltd · 2011-07-12 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  8 looks like it is adding inherent support for html5 and other post-90s web standards (out-of-the-box Flash support without any Adobe software?), touch screens, ADHD multi-tasking
  I don't really understand why any of those things require a new OS. All seem to be things that can either be handled by drivers, the web browser, or maybe a shell extension or two (unless the underlying scheduler is being changed).
79. Re:Windows 8 by couchslug · 2011-07-12 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  "why do I want Windows 8?"
  You may not, but it will come bundled with enough new PCs that what you want doesn't factor in the decision to bring it to market.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
80. Re:Windows 8 by ultranova · 2011-07-12 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 7 provides a solid and reliable framework for handling XP-era software and concepts, along with a level of polish and slickness that made low-confidence home users feel comfortable with the changes.
  No, it doesn't. It provides a downright horrible framework for dealing with "XP-era" software; in fact, running any software in "combatibility mode" requires admin privileges (Why?!?) and is likely not to work.
  Windows 7 is a good system; it hasn't bluescreened on me more than a few times, and even then most likely because of drivers. And even then it shutdown nicely (as in, the filesystem was okay the next time I rebooted (as opposed to Win98 which lost every fucking file in the whole drive once)). But please don't try to pretend it's "compatible" with software that's not at least Vista-aware, okay?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
81. Re:Windows 8 by Jello+B. · 2011-07-12 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  The K and M are, actually, right next to each other. Maybe that's all it was.
82. Re:Windows 8 by djdanlib · 2011-07-12 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  XP was more like Windows 2003 than 2000 under the hood, actually. The same patches usually apply to both platforms, whereas Win2k has a different set.
83. Re:Windows 8 by Darinbob · 2011-07-12 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Also don't forget that many of those releases were utter garbage. Windows ME was a joke. Also many of these were very long lived; Windows 2000 was probably still in use long after even Vista was released.
  It's only been relatively recently though that the idea of forcible upgrades has been popular: that is something that is working perfectly fine is dropped from support without there being a suitable replacement ready. People are still running XP today, less than two years after they purchased it new. The customer is left in a bad position, to stick with a good OS but forgo security patches or spend a lot of time and money to upgrade hardware and software that you don't really need.
84. Re:Windows 8 by Darinbob · 2011-07-12 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Which I don't have and almost no one has. You should not buy a new OS unless you have a need for it. Being told to jump by Redmond is not a valid reason to jump.
85. Re:Windows 8 by djdanlib · 2011-07-12 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Which one equates to Galaxy Quest, then? :)
86. Re:Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  I can't think of a single piece of legacy software I'd want to run on a tablet. Maybe there's some game from the 90s which doesn't get recompiled and won't work on ARM. I'm okay with that. Everything I actually use is maintained. Even the proprietary stuff I use at work can be recompiled. It would be different if you were upgrading an existing machine and lost functionality. There are pros and cons to every platform and hardware choice. But win8 on ARM will surely be supported by major software vendors. And the app-store XAP apps (see windows phone's app model) will be hardware agnostic from the start..
87. Re:Windows 8 by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-12 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  That's because Server 2003 was built off of the XP codebase. under the hood they're the same OS.
  They did the same thing with vista & server 2008, and windows 7 & server 2008 r2.
88. Re:Windows 8 by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-12 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  This is how Windows use to be upgraded. Remember? Windows 7 is almost 2 years old. Want to keep it? Go ahead. Besides Metro the only other thing for it besides IE 10. You can download that for Windows 7. My hunch is corporate America will stick with Windows 7 because it has service pack 1. Or they still will run Xp until 2014 and then will exodus to Windows 8. Does Windows 8 have anything at all exciting besides IE 10 and jtml 5 applets? Its safe to stick with Windows 7
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
89. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  See that's where I disagree.
  The problems that both Windows 2000 and Windows Vista suffered are largely due to them both being released unfinished.
  What do I mean by this?
  Ok, so lets say their goal in the late 90's was to build a feature equivalent to XP.
  A great goal, and one they ultimately achieved. The problem was that they got to about the 85% mark and decided to release it.
  Naturally, once they finished it (XP) it was for the most part excellent.
  Same thing happened with Vista. They were aiming for 7, but fell short. In both cases, time was a driving factor. With 2000, it was the Y2K hype, with Vista it was simply the sheer time between releases and probably a certain amount of developer fatigue.
  The interesting thing about Windows NT versions is that the best versions have an embedded offshoot. Windows NT embedded still lurks in the shadows running specialised hardware, POS terminals, and other devices. XP embedded still runs a lot of ATM's and much the same things as NT's and again, Windows 7 has "Windows embedded standard" which will continue in this important niche role.
  You won't ever find a 2000 or Vista machine lurking in the shadows. They just weren't good enough to release an embedded variant.
  These variants also have a much much longer supported life cycle. Windows XP embedded extended support doesn't end until 1/12/2016.
  It'll be 15 years old!
  Similarly with WES, you can expect quite a lengthy life. I doubt Windows 8 will get an embedded version, but that depends on the release date.
  What surprises me about Microsoft is that when they make shitty versions, like Vista which runs like a dog on anything (Win 7, astonishingly runs fine on my eee701 [600mhz 500mb, 4gb]) but they continue to support them once they're superseded by something far superior.
  This ultimately leads to fragmented code bases, and differing troubleshooting requirements.
  In my mind, the best thing Microsoft could do for themselves and for the poor sufferers of Vista is to upgrade Vista users to 7 for free with a service pack.
  Even if they kept some of the style of Vista, at least bring the core code bases together.
  A lot of support nightmares would be solved and it would go part of the way to a decent apology for their mistake.
  Will Windows 8 live up to expectations?
  I doubt it. The functionality seen so far looks like nothing more than a secondary shell environment or permanently open browser window for apps.
  Maybe it'll be cool. Maybe they'll throw in some more interesting goodies, but it doesn't look revolutionary enough to call for a new embedded or even a server offshoot. A refresh sure (mainly for terminal services) but that's it.
90. Re:Windows 8 by AngryDeuce · 2011-07-12 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  So does that make Windows 8 Windows Vista: The Empire Strikes Back?
  Or, God forbid, Windows Vista: The Phantom Menace?
91. Re:Windows 8 by TemporalBeing · 2011-07-12 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  There's a big difference between "It will run on ARM" and "We spent some not insignificant time optimizing the platform on ARM." I'm generally not a huge fan of MSFT but it will be nice and somewhat revolutionary to be able to have the same exact OS/applications on the desktop/laptop and tablet platforms. AFAIK no one else has compatible binaries between those two platforms. As always, the implementation may be garbage, but it sounds like they've got some pretty revolutionary stuff going on. I hope it works out for us (consumers).
  Microsoft won't have compatible binaries either, at least not without also bundling an battery+CPU+Memory expensive Virtual Machine as well. So you'll have to buy separate versions for WinNT/Intel and WinNT/ARM. And no, .Net will not resolve the issue - most of the builds are generally tied to a specific compiler, not built to CLR byte-code like most binary Java applications are to the Java byte-code.
  
  Yes, WinNT/ARM will mean leaving behind all your applications, etc that you have on WinNT/Intel. But then, the interface won't be friendly for them either.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
92. Re:Windows 8 by DrgnDancer · 2011-07-12 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because they can't force the issue. At least not effectively. Sales on Vista sucked, not many people upgraded until 7. Lots of businesses are still on XP (I'm typing this from my XP box at work, we're going to move to 7 in the next three months).
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
93. Re:Windows 8 by dave562 · 2011-07-12 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  But please don't try to pretend it's "compatible" with software that's not at least Vista-aware, okay?
  It is not truly compatible, but you can sandbox your XP apps inside the built in VM.
94. Re:Windows 8 by ericloewe · 2011-07-12 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  It provides a downright horrible framework for dealing with "XP-era" software; in fact, running any software in "combatibility mode" requires admin privileges (Why?!?) and is likely not to work.
  Quite simple: UAC - Win 9x programs made a lot of assumptions about access to stuff no well-written program should access routinely. Same goes, albeit in a far more controlled manner, for XP programs. They just expect access to some stuff that under vista or 7 requires elevated priviliges. And it's not mandatory: you aren't forced to start the programs with admin priviledges, you have that choice.
95. Re:Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they've shown much in regards to their desktop enhancements. At this point, I think the focus has been entirely on the tablet. And for that, you'd get the OS with the hardware as you say.
96. Re:Windows 8 by gknoy · 2011-07-12 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about Android being designed as a desktop OS. I'm sure it'd work for one, but the central application design principle of an "app" being a collection of activities -- that can be paused, abandoned, swapped to disk, etc at any time -- was very heavily influenced by the way we want to use our mobile devices. One might argue that we'll want to do the same with our desktops, of course, and would probably be right.
97. Re:Windows 8 by tunapez · 2011-07-12 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  tell that to my malware scanners...
  
  --
  Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
98. Re:Windows 8 by RazzleFrog · 2011-07-12 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  My point is that Windows 7 came out 2 years ago. I hardly would call that a few months ago.
99. Re:Windows 8 by gmueckl · 2011-07-12 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  No. Both iOS and Android threw a lot of the traditional desktop user space away in order to make the OS fit in the device. Android's libc isn't a full POSIX implementation, for example (they're not using glibc). So both OS kernels come from the desktop, but the finished result is no longer comparable. This is where MS will fail.
  
  --
  http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
100. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  ...because, ya know, Windows.
101. Re:Windows 8 by MrMacman2u · 2011-07-12 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you! You saved me from the reply :)
  
  --
  This signature is lame.
102. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  Not familiar with Mac, but in Linux you can set commonly needed actions to not require a password after you get tired of typing it. GGP's (or whoever's) complaint is that you can't do that in NT6.x (Vista or 7).
103. Re:Windows 8 by geekoid · 2011-07-12 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  You do't. But the way this trends, it comes out this year, starts getting adopted, your computer isn't as powerful as you would like it, and yo get it with a new computer.
  So, more like 3 years.
  Of course it also depends on features. Personally I think MS is starting to bite it's corporate customers on the ass with woo frequent OSs. Many business are just now getting settled into 7.
  I expect 8 sales to be lackluster simply because people don't want to spend money on another upgrade so soon.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
104. Re:Windows 8 by geekoid · 2011-07-12 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  "No, it doesn't. It provides a downright horrible framework for dealing with "XP-era" software; in fact, running any software in "combatibility mode" requires admin privileges (Why?!?) and is likely not to work."
  haha, don't blame you ignorance on MS. It runs XP and older era software like a champ. Trust me, I have to support Access 97 on the things, and it runs far better then it did on XP. IT also handle the variety of in house application hacked to gather by some Jr wannabe to run on 95. Fortunately I have gotten rid f most of those.
  "But please don't try to pretend it's "compatible" with software that's not at least Vista-aware, okay?"
  How about you stop pretending you know what the fuck you are talking about, okay?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
105. Re:Windows 8 by geekoid · 2011-07-12 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  and kwatlu's.
  I really can't believe you forgot kwatlu.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
106. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 14:40 · Score: 0
  
  It seems like both lines are about to meet in a couple of years.
107. Re:Windows 8 by WuphonsReach · 2011-07-12 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  XP was just a theme for windows 2000, and look how well it did.
  
  Much more then that. Remember back before 802.11(abcdef...) was built into every machine? Well that was the situation back in 2000 when Windows 2000 rolled out. Most of the time you had to install add-in cards, or the manufacturer had some brain-dead, completely proprietary way of connecting to the access point and for managing the WiFi radio.
  
  Windows 2000, was completely clueless about it all and treated it like a dumb network device.
  
  Windows XP got rid of all of that (except for the NIH Thinkpad people...) and centralized connecting to a wireless access point into a standard GUI interface. Sure, it didn't have all of the bells and whistles of the proprietary tools - but it was a darned bit more convenient when you didn't have to train users on three different makes and models of WiFi software.
  
  (Just one of the many improvements between Win2000 and WinXP. Not to mention things like better compatibility with Win9x era programs then Win2000 had. A lot of games wouldn't run on Win2000, while they ran find on XP and Win9x. And a bunch of other little improvements over Win2k.)
  
  --
  Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
108. Re:Windows 8 by perryizgr8 · 2011-07-12 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  lol!
  its rare that something on the innernet results in a literal lol.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
109. Re:Windows 8 by Your.Master · 2011-07-12 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  It won't be outdated within a few months. It was released almost 2 years ago and won't be replaced until ... well the summary says "end of the year" but it links to something that Microsoft already repudiated. There isn't even a Beta yet as far as I know so I'm skeptical.
110. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's an infrastructural security improvement. The principle of least privilege is one of the cornerstones of being secure by design.
111. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 19:35 · Score: 0
  
  -- HURL --
112. Re:Windows 8 by bingoUV · 2011-07-13 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Why does a new scheduler need a new OS release? I have for years changed scheduler by a simple reboot (in linux, of course). I hear it can be changed by an even simpler echo into some system file.
  Just illustrating that nothing needs a new OS. It's just a business decision about which features to club together in a new OS to give an impression of being nice to their customers while making good profits. With Microsoft, their (near) monopoly is also considered while making this decision.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
113. Re:Windows 8 by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-13 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 8 strikes me are more like Android 3.0 - a version bump to add tablet features on top. Most phones still run Android 2.3 and there is no real reason to upgrade them to 3.x at this stage. Most likely there will be further 2.x releases.
  So Windows 8 will have tablet stuff on it but most likely won't be very attractive to desktop users looking at upgrading. Win7 will go on being supported with any new versions of DirectX and the like being available for it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
114. Re:Windows 8 by CSMoran · 2011-07-13 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Win 2k *was* great, wasn't it? I installed it, upgraded my domain, and said to myself, "Microsoft hit the nail square on the head with this one!" The thig would happily run on my desktop with 128K RAM.
  
  Even Windows 3.1 would not run with 128K RAM.
  
  --
  Every end has half a stick.
115. Re:Windows 8 by joocemann · 2011-07-13 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Money!
116. Re:Windows 8 by godefroi · 2011-07-13 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  And no, .Net will not resolve the issue - most of the builds are generally tied to a specific compiler, not built to CLR byte-code like most binary Java applications are to the Java byte-code.
  Huh? .NET compilers produce MSIL, which is equivalent to Java bytecode. This MSIL is JIT-compiled at runtime into machine language. There is a tool known as "ngen" which does this JIT step and stores the resulting machine code and therefore eliminates the JIT step for each startup, but this is done at install time, not at compile time (and, of course, it must be this way, because ngen needs to know what machine it's building native images for...).
  When you compile .NET code, you can set a CPU architecture flag (x86/x64/Itanium/AnyCPU), but this is nothing but a flag. It does not change the MSIL, and in fact, there is a tool, "corflags" that can change this flag in an arbitrary assembly (.exe). This flag is useful for situations where you're running non-.net code and you need your process to be set up in a specific way. It's useful, for example, when you need to call out to sqlite3.dll and therefore need to control the "bitness" of your process.
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
117. Re:Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-13 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  As with Java - depends on how you compile it.
118. Re:Windows 8 by Miseph · 2011-07-13 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  YMMV, I suppose. I have a penchant for older games, and I've had no significant issues running anything on 7. Certainly nothing that was any harder than on XP.
  I tend not to think of myself as a 1337 h4ckz0r, so aside from basic familiarity with how computers work and the willingness to try clicking around a bit, I haven't had to take extraordinary measures for anything.
  
  --
  Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
119. Re:Windows 8 by calzakk · 2011-07-13 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  While the intentions were commendable, UAC fails because quite frankly the average Windows user simply doesn't have a clue and will just click yes without understanding the implications. Because of this - well, mainly - malware will likely continue to be a problem on Windows for a very long time.
120. Re:Windows 8 by Anzya · 2011-07-13 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand it effectively stops the user from being smart as well. First thing I want to do when I get a suspicious pop up from UAC is the check the disc for the programs properties and so on and check the internet if it is a well known file or not. And what does UAC do? It blocks me from doing anything until I have pressed Yes or No.
  
  --
  "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
121. Re:Windows 8 by godefroi · 2011-07-14 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no, you failed to comprehend anything I wrote. The output of the compiler is *ALWAYS* MSIL, which is architecture-independent. The compiler additionally has the option of placing a flag into the resulting assembly that will determine whether or not it will run on a given architecture (and, in the case of .exes on x64, whether it'll run in a 32-bit process or a 64-bit process), but it's only a flag. The output of the compiler doesn't change and is not tied to a given architecture.
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
122. Re:Windows 8 by nabsltd · 2011-07-15 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Why does a new scheduler need a new OS release? I have for years changed scheduler by a simple reboot (in linux, of course). I hear it can be changed by an even simpler echo into some system file.
  So, you're saying that you can institute an arbitrary scheduling algorithm with a config value change, even if the code for the new algorithm isn't part of the system?
  In general, you don't get things like a new scheduler without a new OS. In the case of Linux, that's a new kernel version (since Linux is just the kernel with a bunch of optional programs that make life easier for users). It would be the same in Windows, but because of Microsoft's version of "compatibility", they tend to need to change a lot more than just NTOSKRNL.EXE for such updates, so it's either a major service pack or a completely new version.
123. Re:Windows 8 by bingoUV · 2011-07-16 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  So, you're saying that you can institute an arbitrary scheduling algorithm with a config value change, even if the code for the new algorithm isn't part of the system?
  Not sure what you mean by "the system". For the linux example I was talking about, the kernel is compiled with multiple scheduling algorithms and the config values switch between them. Some algorithms themselves are parametrized, so config values also specify the parameters.
  
  they tend to need to change a lot more than just NTOSKRNL.EXE for such updates, so it's either a major service pack or a completely new version.
  It is completely legal to change the "lot more than just NTOSKRNL.EXE" that is required, even with a free update. It is also not illegal to name the update anything other than "major service pack". Likewise, it is totally constitutional to supply these scheduling algorithm changes without charging for it.
  So it comes down to a business decision, calculated to maximize profits. Which is what I said. Your response is irrelevant - doesn't matter which EXE and which $SYS$ file is changed.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
124. Re:Windows 8 by tunapez · 2011-07-20 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm holding out for 11. Hopefully they follow the ST timeline and reboot the franchise.
  
  --
  Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
It's almost like by jdpars · 2011-07-12 04:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's almost like an operating system doesn't need to amp up its requirements with every new release. Once it gets to a certain point, really, there's no need for an increase in necessary resources. Sure, you can make it scale well and perform better, but it really shouldn't be hard to keep the minimum fairly low.
1. Re:It's almost like by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  [Citation Needed]
2. Re:It's almost like by tripleevenfall · 2011-07-12 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  "Aero" also was to blame.
  But yes, it's mostly been due to DRM and useless bells/whistles/eyecandy
3. Re:It's almost like by jawtheshark · 2011-07-12 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in some cases, the extra requirements even come within the release. Consider Windows XP pre-SP2. It would run easily on a 512MB machine. After SP2, 512MB became low-end, you needed 1GB to run smoothly (beyond 1GB, the advantage became less visible. I've rarely had a XP machine use up more than 2GB, unless you ran a shebang of development programs on it. For normal use, 1GB was enough).
  Now, I still am very fond of XP and it runs well on pretty much all hardware in use today. (Just use Administrator/Limited User separation and you'll be fine... and no, that's not hard) I use a dumpster diven P-IV-Mobile 1.6GHz, which I upgraded to 2GB RAM. XP runs very well. I wouldn't dare to run Vista on it, 7 would probably be a joke too. Sure, it is not "current" hardware... but current hardware even on the low end, we're talking multi-core madness and at least 3GB RAM, but often more. Unless we're talking Netbooks: the aforementioned P-IV-Mobile, ranks about the same as a Atom Z515, and let's be frank.... That's an "old" netbook processor. What's
  modern these days? Atom N570 or so?
  So that Windows 8 will "run" on hardware of today? No surprise, as we already know what "run" means for Microsoft....
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
4. Re:It's almost like by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit. The DRM system does absolutely nothing unless you're using it, using the protected audio paths.
5. Re:It's almost like by DadLeopard · 2011-07-12 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  OH, Heresy! You are trying to take away Microsoft's Biggest money maker of all times. Every version of Windows needs a new machine for it to run acceptably and every new machine comes with Windows pre-installed! New version, new flood of cash! Though now it seems that some sneaky people are building low powered devices that can't run full versions of Windows, so the Softies have to do some backtracking to pick up all the Users they have lost to iOS, Android and Linux, since they are killing XP, and Windows CE doesn't cut it anymore! Wouldn't want them to get accustomed to the idea that they can actually get along without Windows, now would we!
6. Re:It's almost like by westlake · 2011-07-12 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, most of the extra resource requirements for Vista were due to the new DRM subsystem.
  
  This is nonsense.
  
  No one pokes more fun at Slashdot than Slashdot, as often its editors and readers behave as if they had fallen off the tomato truck yesterday. Tell them anything, anything at all, regardless of how improbable or insane it may be, and not only will they instantly accept it as Gospel, they'll burn up the Internet proselytizing their myths and fantasies.
  
  Oh, the humanity: Windows 7's draconian DRM? [Posted as a comment by WaltC in 2009]
7. Re:It's almost like by Locutus · 2011-07-12 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  is that why we're hearing ARM SoC vendors talking about quad core SoC's running at over 1.5Ghz for Windows 8?
  
  Funny thing is, I was saying what you said in 1996 when the OS/2 Warp was released and for the 3rd time it was faster and more efficient than the previous release. 15 years later and this is a possibility with a version of Windows not yet released and promised to be such? Again, funny that I remember all kinds of promises from Microsoft since the 1990s which were never seen.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
8. Re:It's almost like by jandrese · 2011-07-12 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Aero was optional though, on slow systems it would revert back to basically XP level graphics.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
9. Re:It's almost like by TWX · 2011-07-12 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Then why did they explain Windows 7 Starter's lack of ability to change background images as a resource issue?
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
10. Re:It's almost like by nschubach · 2011-07-12 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Duh, backgrounds are terribly complicated. It literally took everything in Windows 95's power to render that thing.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
11. Re:It's almost like by Scoth · 2011-07-12 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Screw 512 megs, I ran pre-sp2 on an ancient P-233MMX tablet PC with 96 megs of ram usably. Served as a ethernet-wireless bridge in a remote part of my house for years.
  Incidentally, I run Win7 quite well on a P4M-2ghz with 2 gigs of RAM. It's a little sluggish in spots but I mostly blame that on the slow HD. Very usable though.
12. Re:It's almost like by ShavedOrangutan · 2011-07-12 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  The reality of locking down the screen background is too much of an insult to the end user to explain it any other way.
  
  Oh, you can change the background by copying a new .bmp over the existing one, but Windows Update will detect the change in checksum and brick the computer. F*ck Microsoft and everything about them.
  
  --
  Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
13. Re:It's almost like by jawtheshark · 2011-07-12 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I know that were usualy configs back then. 512MB was high-end machines. I took 512MB as something that would be "unacceptable" these days. I'm a dumpster diver, but if a machine can't support 1GB RAM, it's not worth my time. It will be impossible to refurbish for anyone.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
14. Re:It's almost like by Scoth · 2011-07-12 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  I used to be the anything-goes sort of dumpster-diver/old stuff-taker and I ended up with a lot of junk in the name of "collecting" or "preservation". I got rid of a ton of stuff not too long ago (95% of it boring beige box stuff with nothing particular interesting about it). I kept a few interesting curiosities like a Fujtisu Stylistic 1000 tablet just because it was neat. Bought it for $10 new in box a few years ago. I just don't have the time or interest to mess with lots of junk anymore, and most of my actual needs/wants for vintage hardware is well-covered by emulation these days.
15. Re:It's almost like by jawtheshark · 2011-07-12 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  My main problem is that back five years ago, if you had a lucky find you could refurbish it and make someone with lesser funds a happy computer owner. Now? Heck, I'm even typing this on a 199€ machine, which has 2GB RAM and a 320GB HDD... Bought new. While back in the day, it was perhaps not financially viable to put time in it and sell the computer (which I never did), but to do good it made sense. Now, computers are so cheap, you really need to have an insanely lucky find. Who is going to take this AMD Athlon 2800+ laptop (Got it a month ago, prime condition), I have lying here? I upgraded it to 2GB with a 160GB HDD? It even has a Windows XP Home license sticker. I'll tell you who it will take: nobody, because it makes no sense to reuse it. Yes, I'm a bit bitter ;-)
  I stopped the "preserving" a few years ago. I donated anything exotic I had to a teacher who was collecting for a museum. (Nice finds were a Sinclair QL and a Sun SparcClassic)
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
16. Re:It's almost like by Kuruk · 2011-07-13 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 8 is a phone OS UI on top of windows 7.
  
  Of course if runs on windows 7 machines.
Xbox Games on Windows 8 by odin84gk · 2011-07-12 04:37 · Score: 1

While that is good to know, I'm more interested in the rumor that xbox 360 games may run on Windows 8. Unfortunately, it may include a monthly fee like XBL.
http://www.insideris.com/more-xbox-360-games-on-windows-8-details/
1. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by Kenja · 2011-07-12 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  This is a bad thing. It stops developers from having a reason to make a PC version of a game.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
2. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-07-12 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly is Windows 8 going to make emulating a specific triple-core PPC chip and GPU combination any more tractable on x86 hardware?
  
  Some heavier xbox-tie-in for the generally execrable "Games for Windows Live", and encouraging publishers to make everything available cross platform? Possible. Extension of some sort of "Pay for things that you used to get for free" patch and multiplay service to the PC? Conceivable.
  
  Play xbox 360 games on an x86? Srsly?
3. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  If it's a pay service, maybe the main executable is recompiled for x86? You just need the disc for copy-protection? It seems reasonable from a technical perspective. The 360 is around five years old. Modern PCs can smoke it in terms of performance. A recompiled executable is probably enough on any modern gaming rig. The tough part would be building the infrastructure to enable/deploy/integrate it all.
4. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-12 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  I guess anything electronic inside a beige box (well, black nowadays) is magic, and the people who make it are wizards. They can do it!
5. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by TWX · 2011-07-12 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because they went through millions of dollars to develop a proprietary console gaming system whose games specifically can't play on a run-of-the-mill PC and specifically make piracy difficult so that some thirteen year old could start loading the game, let it download all of the components it needs to run, then pull the plug and boot into another OS to copy the game files down...
  I don't think they'll have any interest in changing how their gaming consoles work or how their system for the consoles work unless profitability drops and there's a real need to make such a change. Right now they make plenty of money and have a fairly secure system, as far as networked systems go. There's no reason for them to make a change.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
6. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think most of the speculation includes an "xbox-compatible" graphics processor which won't run an unlicensed xbox game. I agree though, it's a stretch and doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. However, if it's on a game-by-game basis, older titles could have PC-support added later without ever hurting the all-important launch sales.
7. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  But still... you gotta admit it would make for a nice feature-add for a tablet/laptop. Even the ability to log into xbox live and play the live arcade titles with a controller would be a cool feature. We see lots of xbox live integration on the phone.. I would have to assume the model/design for win 8 will be similar to wp7 until I hear differently, just replace mobile games with PC and possibly some xbox ports.
8. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-12 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Xbox compatible" graphics processor is called an Nvidia GTS 8800.
  Actually, the 8800 is faster than the 360 by a good margin. Really the 360 is sporting something more like a 7900 with the unified shaders of the 8x00 series.
9. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by tepples · 2011-07-12 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly is Windows 8 going to make emulating a specific triple-core PPC chip and GPU combination any more tractable on x86 hardware?
  All the Indie Games and (I've been told) some of the XBLA games are written in C# using the XNA framework. C# compiles to .NET bytecode, and XNA is ported to Windows.
10. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah the 360 doesn't run Direct X, it's totally different.
11. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by gman003 · 2011-07-12 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  I came across this rumor on another forum, and I'm disappointed that I'm going to have to disprove it here as well.
  I did some quick, back-of-the-napkin estimates of what you'd need to play a full-power 360 game on a PC:
  First, let's assume the GPU is not the bottleneck. It rarely is, in emulators. So we're left with the CPU.
  The Wii uses a processor similar in architecture to the 360, but running at ~1/4 the clock, and having only a single-core, not three SMT-enabled cores (that would be "triple-core with Hyper-Threading", or about the performance of a quad-core). So a 360 emulator would run ~1/16 to 1/20 the speed of a Wii emulator.
  An i7 860 (only reliable numbers I could find) can run Mario Kart Wii at ~200FPS. That game doesn't exactly stress even the Wii - I'll assume for the worst-case that it only uses ~50% the Wii's power.
  So, worst-case, an i7 860 would run a high-end 360 game at... 5 FPS.
  Ouch.
  Best-case, it could run ~12 FPS. Still not nearly playable.
  And the 860's not a bad processor, either - a top-of-the-line i7 990X or i5 2500K is only 2-3x the power. So, using the best possible commercially-available processor, you could expect to get, perhaps, 30FPS.
  So, the question is, "would Microsoft spend a huge amount of effort making a 360 emulator, when only the highest-end PCs can only barely run it playably?". Especially when you remember their audience - the average XBox gamer doesn't understand that not all PCs are created equal, would be mystified as to why Halo won't run on their Pentium IV and 8400GS.
  Sure, years down the line, perhaps, when the average computer could run it. But by that logic, they would be releasing Windows with compatibility for the original XBox about now, and I see no sign, no indication, not even a half-assed sensationalist rumor of that.
* Disclaimer by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:38 · Score: 1

Please be assured that Windows 8 will run all any current hardware that runs Windows 7. However, Windows 8 will run in a special 'Compatibility Mode', in which all Windows 8 features are deactivated and only Windows 7 features remain. Also, Windows 8 will appear visually to be Windows 7. It will identify itself as Windows 7. While the box the OS arrives in will say Windows 8, the disc may say Windows 7 - this is intentional.
1. Re:* Disclaimer by tripleevenfall · 2011-07-12 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  But can I run it in WINE?
2. Re:* Disclaimer by gknoy · 2011-07-12 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but you may want to stock up on scotch.
Yeah, right! by loftwyr · 2011-07-12 04:38 · Score: 1

I remember these announcements for XP and previous generations of Windows. It would run, all right. It would take 20 minutes to boot and the run like a diseased snail.
1. Re:Yeah, right! by the_fat_kid · 2011-07-12 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  "and the run like a diseased snail."
  congrats, you just renamed my desktop machine.
  
  --
  -- Sig under construction...
2. Re:Yeah, right! by DadLeopard · 2011-07-12 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  All part of the larger plan! To get it to run right, you need that shiny new machine that comes with Windows pre-installed! OEMs make money, Microsoft makes money, and you are still a productive serf in the Microsoft world!
3. Re:Yeah, right! by hoggoth · 2011-07-12 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Coincidentally, an upcoming Ubuntu release will be named 'Sickly Snail'.
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
Innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:38 · Score: 0

Woohoo! Another way to pay for Windows 2000 again! What'll Microsoft think of next?
But ... by rlp · 2011-07-12 04:39 · Score: 1

How WELL will it run Windows 8? Microsoft always adds new bloat... um ... features to their OS's in each new release. So it will run in existing machines, but will it be usable?

--
[Insert pithy quote here]
1. Re:But ... by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-12 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  you mean like the huge speed loss going from vista to windows 7?
  oh... wait...
2. Re:But ... by QuantumRiff · 2011-07-12 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  If they are targeting ARM chips, the fastest of which are around 1GHz.. then i would guess they probably spent a large amount of effort optimizing and getting rid of bloat... Tablets are limited by CPU speed and battery.
  
  --
  
  What are we going to do tonight Brain?
3. Re:But ... by oakgrove · 2011-07-12 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  No, he's probably thinking of the huge speed loss going from C++/.net as a standard way of developing applications to a javascript/html5 abortion. I'm inclined to agree.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
4. Re:But ... by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  But also have the advantages of an SSD. You get to disable background fragmenting, prefetch, etc.. Even with a slow cpu, an ssd can make a machine feel a lot faster with more consistent behavior (fewer disk thrashing 'hangs').
5. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  The bluray install disks will only need 100GB of your hard drive!
6. Re:But ... by 0123456 · 2011-07-12 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Even with a slow cpu, an ssd can make a machine feel a lot faster with more consistent behavior (fewer disk thrashing 'hangs').
  With a crappy OS like Windows that swaps out the programs you're running in order to increase the size of the disk cache, perhaps. Not with a sane OS where it will only really improve program startup times (most obviously boot times) or loading large files from disk.
7. Re:But ... by nschubach · 2011-07-12 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly enough, I noticed no speed difference between Windows XP and Windows 7 except that now Windows 7 wanted me to use my GPU for fancy stuff and if I turned it off, the whole UI felt sluggish, looked terrible, and wasn't at all faster than the good old Win2K looking XP Classic shell.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
8. Re:But ... by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-12 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  The classic shell is still in windows 7, I'm pretty sure. I know it was in vista and server 2008 uses it by default.
  I like the windows7 interface personally. It is pretty ugly with aero off, but with aero on it's pretty snazzy.
  I've got more gpu horsepower than I know what to do with anyway, so why not?
  Actually, in all honesty, the business-class moble gpu on my work laptop handles aero without any problems. it's really not that intensive.
9. Re:But ... by nschubach · 2011-07-12 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  The classic shell in Windows 7 is a theme built atop of Windows 7's non-aero UI. It's dimensions are all wrong, it doesn't line up with anything properly. Spacing/margins/padding are all off by enough to make it bastard ugly. The Classic Shell that was included in Vista was leaps and bounds better because it was actually a classic shell that followed all the old dimensioning rules. There are enough parts that are totally skipped over when dealing with the classic theme that it hardly makes it worth using anymore (all the good parts of the simple theme were stomped on by the "theme" aspect of it.)
  The fact that a low end GPU can handle Aero makes me wonder why they couldn't handle the simplified version better. It almost feels like non-GPU was deliberately made as ugly and unworkable as all sin.
  I am a minimalist at home anyway so the Aero task bar up on the secondary monitor with Steam as the only thing I really use on that machine makes the whole Windows interface moot anyway. It was a bastard to setup, but after I got everything out of the way I can get back to doing what I need it for.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
10. Re:But ... by BlueScreenO'Life · 2011-07-12 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  The classic shell in Windows 7 is a theme built atop of Windows 7's non-aero UI. It's dimensions are all wrong, it doesn't line up with anything properly. Spacing/margins/padding are all off by enough to make it bastard ugly.
  Funny. To me, it looks pretty much like XP's classic theme (I completely skipped Vista) after changing the large icons on desktop and task bar, and setting the "Number of Recent Programs" to 20 so that the Start menu takes up all vertical space.
  The Aero themes on the other hand, make stuff look a bit jostled out of place, especially for pre-Vista applications.
Already? by gubers33 · 2011-07-12 04:39 · Score: 2

They are not going to get many businesses jumping on board quickly, many companies are just upgrading from XP to Windows 7 while many are still running XP. Trying to rush a new release will just cause another Vista disaster.

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
1. Re:Already? by ledow · 2011-07-12 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  And XP still has three more years of Extended Support. Way to kill Windows 7 off early, Microsoft!
2. Re:Already? by painandgreed · 2011-07-12 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  They are not going to get many businesses jumping on board quickly, many companies are just upgrading from XP to Windows 7 while many are still running XP. Trying to rush a new release will just cause another Vista disaster.
  It doesn't matter. Licensing will be the same and result in the same inflow of money. MS will claim everybody is installing Win8 because that's what MS is selling while the license will let the companies actually install the lower version of XP or 7.
3. Re:Already? by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  They need a quick release to get into the ipad market. Win7 isn't doing too well there..
4. Re:Already? by toddestan · 2011-07-13 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  And XP still has three more years of Extended Support. Way to kill Windows 7 off early, Microsoft!
  Hey, Microsoft hasn't even announced the end of support of Windows 7, but as Vista is supported until 2017 it's probably going to be a ways off.
That's easy... by backwardMechanic · 2011-07-12 04:41 · Score: 1

...nobody has yet found a PC capable of running Windows 7 today.

(I upgraded from XP last month. I upgraded the PC at the same time, to what sounded like quite a fast machine. But Win7 destroyed that advantage. How I wish I didn't need proprietary packages - then I'd switch everything to Linux and shout less at my computer)
1. Re:That's easy... by trunicated · 2011-07-12 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Netbooks run Windows 7. What on earth did you upgrade to?
  
  --
  There's a reason there is no "Disagree" mod...
2. Re:That's easy... by smudj · 2011-07-12 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a PEBKAC issue. I've got dozens of installations of Windows 7 on older Dell D620 and D630 notebooks with only 2GB of RAM and onboard Intel Video.
3. Re:That's easy... by ferongr · 2011-07-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm running Windows 7 on a 2005 single-core Sempron 3100+ with 1GB for RAM and an outdated nVidia 6800 AGP GPU and I have not noticed any noticable performance degradation when I switched from XP, so clearly, you must be doing something wrong.
4. Re:That's easy... by Amouth · 2011-07-12 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 7 is quite smooth - and is not that much of a resource hog - yes it uses more than XP but i've found it does more with what it takes..
  now Vista on the other hand.. that is crap
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
5. Re:That's easy... by DrgnDancer · 2011-07-12 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Gotta say, you're doing something wrong. Windows 7 runs fine on anything remotely resembling new hardware. It's not going to run on the earliest XP era hardware, but anything from say 2005-2006 on seems to be fine (you want at least a gig and half to two gigs of RAM, but that's both cheap and trivial to upgrade). I love a good MS bash as much as the next guys, but they did OK with Windows 7. It would have been better if Vista had been as capable, but they got 7 more or less right. There's stuff to complain about; but as a regular user of Linux, MacOS, and Windows going back 15 years or so, there's always *something* to complain about.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
6. Re:That's easy... by Skarecrow77 · 2011-07-12 05:18 · Score: 2
  
  Netbooks run Windows 7. What on earth did you upgrade to?
  A: "i3" and "Pentium3" are part of the same model line, right?
7. Re:That's easy... by QuantumRiff · 2011-07-12 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I did measurements of XP vs. Windows 7 for my last employer. We did our builds of both on Lenovo T400, T61, and Dell D620 laptops. In every single one, Windows 7 was dramatically faster. Both boot time, and once the system was running. The T400 is about 3 years old now, and the D620 is probably about 4? so perhaps you need an objective measure.. The improved caching algorithms are very good, but lead to lots of co-workers that feel their power users complaining that all their ram is used up (thats the point, just like linux)
  What kind of antivirus software are you running? You should re-evaluate.
  
  --
  
  What are we going to do tonight Brain?
8. Re:That's easy... by puto · 2011-07-12 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I am typing this in a core2duo 1.8 with two gigs of ram bought in 2007. It originally ran XP, then vista, but pulled Vista cause it was a a dog, and then two years ago put a win 7 service candidate on it, and it still runs well. It smoked vista and xp. September 2009 without a reinstall. I have a thinkpad laptop running win 7 64, got it in jan 2010, no reinstall. sounds like you do not know how to admin a system.
  
  --
  The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
9. Re:That's easy... by TWX · 2011-07-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Works great on the wife's Thinkpad X301, a single-core Centrino if memory serves. Runs fine on my Ideapad S10-2. Worked decent on a Dell Latitude D410 (Core Duo 32bit) that I had laying around, though some more RAM would have been nice. Works quite nicely on the Pentium Dual Core-based Dell Optiplex 780 with 3gb RAM at my desk.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
10. Re:That's easy... by Mia'cova · 2011-07-12 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  The sad thing is, you'd have been +5 funny if you had left out the bit in parenthesis :)
11. Re:That's easy... by socz · 2011-07-12 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I run 7 on an 2003 sony POS vaio with a p4 2.4ghz 512MB ram and 16MB video. Only upgrade possible is HDD, and it has a 7200. It runs ok! No lie!
  
  --
  My abilities are only limited by my imagination
12. Re:That's easy... by Miseph · 2011-07-12 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  My first installation of 7 was a dual-boot with XP. The 7 partition smoked it in terms of performance. Same exact hardware.
  You're doing it wrong.
  
  --
  Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
13. Re:That's easy... by Rockoon · 2011-07-12 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  sounds like you do not know how to admin a system.
  Windows is fine for those that know how to admin, as well as those that know that they don't know how to admin. The people that think that they know how to admin, but really don't.. they are the ones that mess up their own system voluntarily (but then blame Windows when they do.)
  
  Every time you see someone complain about their messed up windows system where really strange stuff is broken.. they did it themselves almost every time, by either removing things willy-nilly or installing things willy-nilly.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
14. Re:That's easy... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  I've ran xp, vista and 7 on my machines. I've noticed no difference between vista and 7, in fact... they seem like the same OS with a slightly different look and 7 didn't come with all the extra crap turned on by default.
  XP is too old, but it runs the fastest of the 3(for me anyways). I just got a netbook for work with windows 7 on it.... damn it's slow on that.
  I wouldn't call Vista crap without calling 7 crap at the same time...... Of course I'll stick to BSD anyways :)
Can or Will? by PPH · 2011-07-12 04:43 · Score: 2

Windows 8 will run on my PC over my dead body!

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Can or Will? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  That's okay... if they can't arrange that, they'll simply wait for nature to take its course.
2. Re:Can or Will? by Dog-Cow · 2011-07-12 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think there are any real objections to those terms.
3. Re:Can or Will? by ShavedOrangutan · 2011-07-12 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 8 will run on my PC over my dead body!
  That's probably somewhere in the EULA.
  
  --
  Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
What about 32 Bit Systems? by rtobyr · 2011-07-12 04:43 · Score: 2

Didn't Microsoft say that Windows Server 2008 (without "R2") was the last 32 bit OS that they'd make? It's likely that the vast majority of Windows 7 Home/Business edition users have a CPU that can handle 64 bits, but what about all those people running Windows 7 Starter on netbooks that can't do 64 bit? It seems to me that they need to come out and say whether there will be a 32 bit version of Windows 8 or not.
1. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by Amouth · 2011-07-12 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  you would be surprised - alot of the Atom cpu's are 64-bit .. but they just released them with 32bit os's..
  all but your true bottom end Atom's are 64bit.. and most of the bottom ends stuck to xp..
  also i don't count "Starter Edition" as win 7.. it was a mistake they should never have done.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
2. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'm willing to bet if you look up your statement you will find that they are refering to server operating systems. Windows 7 came out after 2008 and all the editions are available in 32 bit.
3. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-12 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  Didn't Microsoft say that Windows Server 2008 (without "R2") was the last 32 bit OS that they'd make?
  No, not really, given that 2008 was released before Win7, and Win7 has a 32-bit version.
  What was said is that 2008 is the last 32-bit server OS in the line.
4. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by tlhIngan · 2011-07-12 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  you would be surprised - alot of the Atom cpu's are 64-bit .. but they just released them with 32bit os's..
  Considering that the Atom chipsets typically don't support more than 2GB of RAM, running 64bit isn't a terribly useful proposition - you get the advantage of slightly more speed (because of increased registers) but that's about it. You lose out on caches when pointer lengths double (Windows - they have pointers everywhere).
  Sure an Atom can run 64-bit code, but it's probably just as happy running a 32-bit OS since the benefits of the slightly increased performance are washed out because of limited RAM and cache.
5. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by WaffleMonster · 2011-07-12 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that the Atom chipsets typically don't support more than 2GB of RAM, running 64bit isn't a terribly useful proposition - you get the advantage of slightly more speed (because of increased registers) but that's about it. You lose out on caches when pointer lengths double (Windows - they have pointers everywhere).
  Sure an Atom can run 64-bit code, but it's probably just as happy running a 32-bit OS since the benefits of the slightly increased performance are washed out because of limited RAM and cache.
  The low memory limits for atom were lifted a while ago. The only atom I own has 4GB ram and runs 64-bit linux.
6. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by 0123456 · 2011-07-12 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  You lose out on caches when pointer lengths double (Windows - they have pointers everywhere).
  Pointers are an insignificant overhead in most applications that use a lot of RAM; if you're using that RAM you're probably dealing with video or images or filling up a big disk cache, so the pointer size is irrelevant to you.
  Unless you're doing something really dumb like creating a new object for each pixel rather than storing the color values in an array.
7. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by tepples · 2011-07-12 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  A tree data structure will use at least a couple pointers for each element unless it's a tree-in-a-vector.
8. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by 0123456 · 2011-07-12 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  A tree data structure will use at least a couple pointers for each element unless it's a tree-in-a-vector.
  Again, why would any sensible program be using a tree structure to process pixels?
  The vast majority of RAM use on the average PC is not pointers. It's bitmaps and other data that is the same size regardless of whether you're running a 32-bit OS or a 64-bit OS.
9. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by EXrider · 2011-07-12 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure you can't get 2008 R2 in 32-bit. [Citation Needed]
  
  --
  grep -iw skynet /etc/services
10. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by Darinbob · 2011-07-12 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  I assume that if they can't run Windows 8 that they can continue running Windows 7 and Windows XP.
  This may be complicated to some people, but you are not required by law to upgrade your OS just because a new version comes out.
11. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by djdanlib · 2011-07-12 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct, sir/madam.
  I recall a job posting for MS a while back, where they discussed developing a 128-bit OS. I wonder if that's making it in, and if so, which CPU(s) they are targeting with it...?
12. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-12 07:55 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, that's because 2008 R2 the next major release in server line after 2008 - not a service pack (despite the confusing name). 2008 had a 32-bit version, 2008 R2 does not.
  (2008 = "Vista Server", 2008 R2 = "Win7 Server")
13. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Last 32 Bit SERVER OS...
14. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Majority of Win7 users don't have 64 bit CPU? You realize that last major CPU's that were 32 bit were Northwood (and some Prescott) based Pentium 4s, relased in 2002-2004 according to Wikipedia. That's 7-9 years ago. My guess is that majority of those users are running XP happily, and vast majority of Win7 users are actually running 64bit CPU.
15. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by lennier · 2011-07-12 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that's because 2008 R2 the next major release in server line after 2008 - not a service pack
  
  So why didn't they just call it Windows Server 2010? I mildly dislike confusing "R" numbers when there's a perfectly good version numbering scheme already there.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
16. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by lennier · 2011-07-12 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  I recall a job posting for MS a while back, where they discussed developing a 128-bit OS.
  Screw everything, we're going to 256 bits!
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
17. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-12 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know. Probably for the same reason why someone came up with a bright idea of naming "3.5 SP1" what was, effectively, a major .NET release (it added a bunch of new massive libraries, such as Entity Framework and Data Services, and featured significant changes in the CLR which broke a bunch of stuff). I guess marketing guys think it gives an image of stability, or somesuch.
18. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by marcosdumay · 2011-07-12 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  "Unless you're doing something really dumb like programming for Windows."
  There, FIFY. The GP has a point, Windows API uses pointers everywhere. If you are doing some hardcore stuff you are probably ok with that, but if you are just doing a GUI, those pointers will hurt. And people don't do much hard core stuff on an atom.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
But... by SwedishChef · 2011-07-12 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

You won't be able to find anything until you either take a certification course or spend hours clicking on buttons searching for the simple commands you used to be able to find instantly.
Bwhahahaha!

--
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
1. Re:But... by ginbot462 · 2011-07-12 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I was JUST talking about this with differences between Vista/Win7 ... I forget the feature (group policy screen saver,power save or some such). But jeezz, sometimes configurations should be declared good enough and fuck quit mucking with it ... Similar to DVORAK, but that is user adjustable nowadays so doesn't count. I am ALL for user controlled moving shit around. But, then they'll probably move that too **cough** "Folder and search options" **end cough**
  
  --
  Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  You won't be able to find anything until you:
  1. hit the windows key
  2. type a keyword related to what you want to do
  3. pick the option closest to what you want to do
  4. ???
  5. profit
  There, fixed it for you.
  Thank you Microsoft, for not forcing me to remember where every single option can be found.
  Can you now also update your certification exams, so they won't ask me the exact order of menu's to reach a particular option? I honestly don't know, don't want to know, and don't see what value it adds to the exam.
3. Re:But... by irreverentdiscourse · 2011-07-12 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Clicking the start button and typing in "group policy", "power options", or "screensaver" are way more difficult than complaining about it... right? No coughs necessary.
4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  Cause terminal commands are easy for everyone, AMIRITE?
5. Re:But... by gubers33 · 2011-07-12 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I am Windows 7 certified, but I can't figure out how to get Windows to stop moving my icons on reboot. I turned off the auto arrange and auto align and it still does it luckily the old Windows 3.1 hot key of holding shift down saves my desktop the way it was, but I have to redo everytime I create a shortcut or add something to my desktop....annoying!
  
  --
  Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
6. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  That is a problem with so many causes, it appears that the official advice from Microsoft is: try to find a program that remembers your icon positions.
7. Re:But... by Chemisor · 2011-07-12 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  On Linux we've been doing that for years
8. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  To be honest, the best improvement that has happened in windows is the findability of most stuff, thanks to search added in vista, and vastly improved in 7.
9. Re:But... by VortexCortex · 2011-07-12 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  I upgraded someone from XP to Vista -- Click start menu, type "Add and remove programs" -- No results; It's called "Programs and features" now... How hard would it have been to create a shortcut called "Add and remove programs" that opens "Programs and features" in some nested folder of the start menu called "XP Terms" or something? Don't want the cruft, delete that folder (or have an option for its creation during firstboot: "[x] Include shortcuts for features that have changed names since XP"
  I did just this very thing for a few items -- Then, once it was discovered that a userland exploit can silently disable UAC, 64bit signed drivers, and add rouge Root Cert Authorities just via running a .reg (see: banker rootkit), we "upgraded" to Linux. (Srsly MS? No giant "WARNING: DISABLE ALL SECURITY [y/N]" msg?!) I had said: "You know, Instead of re-installing Vista, we could upgrade to Win7; However, right now there is no malware problem for Linux, and you're re-learning the UI anyhow... so now's your chance to try Linux"
  (Fortunately we went with XFCE, because now Ubuntu(Unity), KDE and Gnome all seem to be adding a
  * clusterfuck
  bulletpoint to their feature lists -- KDE less than the others -- Can't ANYONE just leave the damn UI alone?)
  I've found that unless a person has some essential proprietary windows program with no FOSS replacement or Linux version, and WINE can't be used -- They have just as much problems adapting to Vista or W7 than they do to Linux, after XP -- After the adjustment period I've found that Linux is the clear winner in terms of user satisfaction (Less wanting to switch back to the old OS, dialogs that are understandable {Win: UAC keeps your computer secure! [allow/cancel]; Lin: You need to authenticate because this program is changing system settings}, seamless one-button upgrades that don't require a tech to perform), and OS stability/security (less malware, better legacy hardware support, patches before or the week of news about zero-day exploit -- not half a month or years later).
10. Re:But... by marcosdumay · 2011-07-12 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  With the added advantaje that the location of everything changes from distro to distro, and instalation type to instalation type. Up to the point that now files are completely overwritten every time so, if you decided to not even memorize some GUI and got directly to the files you'll still be lost trying to find where is the configuration of the script that updates the configuration file you are trying to edit. Microsoft and its monoculture will never up that one.
  Now, does somebody know how I stop KDE 4 for going into another level and relocating the icons at the notification bar while I'm using them? The fact that the volume is promoted to the right every time I interact with it and some other program gets its place is anoying...
  
  --
  Rethinking email
How about make it run well on ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-12 04:45 · Score: 2

How about make it run well on on all hardware capable of running XP SP3? You may not get the fancy display bells and whistles (Aero), but the core APIs and should still be the same. This would actually get a lot of people to upgrade. I don't expect fancy display features to work on old hardware, but it would be nice since I have a perfectly good windows machine that I am not going to upgrade since it does what I want for a windows box but would like the added security updates of a more modern OS.

--
Time to offend someone
1. Re:How about make it run well on ... by tokul · 2011-07-12 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  How about make it run well on on all hardware capable of running XP SP3?
  
  They will build highway between Seattle and Honolulu first. It is easier.
2. Re:How about make it run well on ... by Colonel+Korn · 2011-07-12 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  How about make it run well on on all hardware capable of running XP SP3? You may not get the fancy display bells and whistles (Aero), but the core APIs and should still be the same. This would actually get a lot of people to upgrade. I don't expect fancy display features to work on old hardware, but it would be nice since I have a perfectly good windows machine that I am not going to upgrade since it does what I want for a windows box but would like the added security updates of a more modern OS.
  If you have at least 2 GB of RAM, 7 already runs better than XP on the same system.
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
3. Re:How about make it run well on ... by Bengie · 2011-07-12 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  They're current gutting the core API to clean it up. Lots of new and better API is being added. New APIs are geared towards threading and all that fun new stuff to keep performance scaling with cores.
4. Re:How about make it run well on ... by tepples · 2011-07-12 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  If you have at least 2 GB of RAM, 7 already runs better than XP on the same system.
  And a lot of PCs running Windows XP have really old motherboards whose maximum supported RAM is 2 GB or less. A decade-old PC would probably have to be replaced entirely, as far as I know.
5. Re:How about make it run well on ... by Just+Some+Guy · 2011-07-12 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  How about make it run well on on all hardware capable of running XP SP3? You may not get the fancy display bells and whistles (Aero), but the core APIs and should still be the same. This would actually get a lot of people to upgrade.
  No, it wouldn't. Almost no one (in relative terms) upgrades the OS on the PC beyond what Software Update offers, and even that's not a sure thing. The people most likely to upgrade their PC's OS are also the people most likely to upgrade their PC.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
6. Re:How about make it run well on ... by Beorytis · 2011-07-12 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  This would actually get a lot of people to upgrade.
  Upgraders are not who MS is aiming to please. It's manufacturers.
7. Re:How about make it run well on ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  How about make it run well on on all hardware capable of running windows 3.1? You may not get the fancy display bells and whistles (Aero), but the core APIs and should still be the same. This would actually get a lot of people to upgrade. I don't expect fancy display features to work on old hardware, but it would be nice since I have a perfectly good windows machine that I am not going to upgrade since it does what I want for a windows box but would like the added security updates of a more modern OS.
  Fixed. Why would this be a necessity? Upgrade already!
8. Re:How about make it run well on ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  You really think that people running XP era computers *and* are willing to spend 150 dollars (or something) to buy new version of Windows is a large market for MS?
9. Re:How about make it run well on ... by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-12 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the video card driver will be the next problem. Windows 7 BSODs and very poor Firefox 4 and IE 9 performance related to hardware acceleration show this. It is fine on a modern system with a decent graphics card and driver. Like I mentioned to another poster you are doing a crapshoot installing Windows 7 on a 5 or 6 year old system even it has dual core processors and decent 4 gigs of ddr1 ram. It will work or will be a nightmare making you want to run back to Windows XP.
  The old saying is true, just replace the whole platform and save money by having it come with an OEM version of Windows x. Upgrading your OS is so 1990s these days. Of course during Vista and even with Windows XP brand new pc's were not Vista or XP ready at the time of the OS launch. It seems Dells were the only ones you could make sure XP ran well for the first few months. Same is true with Vista.
  Either way I will install Windows 8 if my job requires me to eventually support it, if not I am going to wait. I do not trust a newer pc nor the one I have will work right with it.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
Not quite accurate by hawguy · 2011-07-12 04:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

The article title is not quite accurate:

Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware
Then it goes on to say

any PC capable of running Windows 7 today would be capable of running Windows 8
I have a lot of PC's in regular use that run XP quite happily but won't run Win7. I guess the next OS for that hardware will be Xubuntu.
1. Re:Not quite accurate by Aladrin · 2011-07-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  There's a disconnect on the word 'current'. For many people, 'current' means 'recent' and not just 'still working'.
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
2. Re:Not quite accurate by s_p_oneil · 2011-07-12 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure "current" means "currently being sold", not "hasn't died yet".
  I have a 7-year old PC that Windows 7 runs great on. I had to replace the video card at some point, but it was because the video card died (not because it wouldn't run 7). I also have a 10-year old PC that Windows 7 will run on, but the machine runs XP so slowly that I wouldn't want to try it. As a side note, I tried Ubuntu on it, and it ran more slowly than XP, so you may want to stick with XP.
3. Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  the hardware you're using for XP that will not accommodate Win7 is not current. its not that the article is wrong its that your hardware is obsolete.
4. Re:Not quite accurate by irreverentdiscourse · 2011-07-12 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  You mean 10 year old hardware will run a 10 year old operating system better than a 2 year old operating system? Shocking.
5. Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  Somebody got Windows 7 running on a PII 266Mhz, 128MB ram and 4MB video card. It took a faster PIII seventeen minutes to boot. This is only for those who like coffee breaks when work refuses to buy new hardware ;-)
6. Re:Not quite accurate by Medievalist · 2011-07-12 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  There's a disconnect on the word 'current'. For many people, 'current' means 'recent' and not just 'still working'.
  For Microsoft and any other tech company releasing an OS, 'current' can be read to mean 'available right this very moment from IBM as a mass market product'.
  So 'current' does not include any item you bought before the announcement that is no longer shipping - that would be 'in the past'.
  Less obviously, 'current' also does not include 'niche' products like low-powered factory automation computers, phones, mp3 players, or embedded systems, or 'off-brand' products (such as anything made by Apple).
7. Re:Not quite accurate by Bengie · 2011-07-12 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I would have to agree. If it can't out-perform an i3 Netbook, it's not recent. Those things are FAST.
  But yes, Linux. I've been waiting a long time for DX11 support, and DX12 is a round the corner. After watching a very information AMD keynote, I have a feeling games will be developed differently over the next decade. Maybe I'll be able to play the newest games with the newest hardware on Linux in 10 years.
8. Re:Not quite accurate by toddestan · 2011-07-13 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  I would think most any computer that can run WIndows XP SP3 comfortably can run Windows 7. Note that I said SP3 - Windows XP has gotten pretty bloated over the years. A P3 with 256MB can run Windows XP SP0 pretty well, but SP3 absolutely crawls on a P4 with 512MB.
Of course... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:52 · Score: 0

Windows 8 is a tablet OS. Any hardware capable of running table OSs will surely run it. I'll run Windows 7, like I ran Windows XP, until it is justifiable to upgrade. Getting the latest junk is not justifiable.
Driver support by seifried · 2011-07-12 04:54 · Score: 1

I'm sure it will "run" in the sense that it boots up and is functional. But "run" in the sense of running well... who knows. Also what compelling reason is there to upgrade from 7 to 8? The only reason I know most people are using 7 is for the 64 bit support, now that we have that we're good for another couple of years.
1. Re:Driver support by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry, they'll get Creative to cripple some drivers and make DirectX 12 Windows 8 exclusive. That way they hook the enthusiast gamer crowd.
But my 386 with Windows 3.11 for workgroups by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 04:55 · Score: 0

Now you read the geeky subject, get the only OS that will give you the slashdot experience.
HAL-LA-LOO-YA !! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:02 · Score: 0

Praise God !! for making it all possible
Praise Ballmer !! for helping out the modern man fulfill his destiny
Praie Torvalus !! for extending an obsolete OS to keep the heathens happy
WINDOZE 8 WILL RUN ON ALL +3, Incendiary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:04 · Score: 0

subject to customer Alpha Testing.
Yours In Russia,
Kilgore Trout
P.S.: Steve Ballmer is a cocaine addict !
Dell Won't like that by ISoldat53 · 2011-07-12 05:05 · Score: 2

Dell has made a fortune selling hardware to keep up with the requirements of Windows.
1. Re:Dell Won't like that by sootman · 2011-07-12 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Intel Giveth, and Microsoft Taketh Away. :-)
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
2. Re:Dell Won't like that by Nimey · 2011-07-12 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's kind of nice: a decent Optiplex 270 or 280, given enough RAM and a video-card upgrade, can run Win7 32-bit quite ably for office tasks. These machines are six to seven years old.
  The GX620s can often run the 64-bit variant on the built-in Intel IGP.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
3. Re:Dell Won't like that by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-12 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  You are playing a crapshoot with older hardware. Ask any Windows 7 hatter? They will ramble about BSODs with their usually Dell computers and then go rant on how IE 9 is slower than IE 8. This shows usually flaky non certified drivers. The engineers designed the hardware to work for XP, not vista or 7. I had a roomate who had a laptop that crashed with 7 every few hours. After going back to XP the problem went away. If I were an I.T. Manager I would keep XP til the systems died and replace os with new hardware at the same time.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
4. Re:Dell Won't like that by Nimey · 2011-07-12 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I've had some of that old kit in service with Win7 for over a year now and no more problems than other stuff.
  They get upgraded to Win7 when they're otherwise in for service that would need a wipe/reinstall.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
No way! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:08 · Score: 0

> Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware
It won't ever run on mine!
Meaning by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-07-12 05:10 · Score: 1

Old wine in new bottles.
1. Re:Meaning by gilbert644 · 2011-07-12 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like how wine is kept in barrels to age well and then put in new bottles before being shipped out?
2. Re:Meaning by Un+pobre+guey · 2011-07-12 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, more like the same wine as last year (and the year before) that has stopped selling very well so they put it in a differently colored bottle with a cool new label and do a new ad campaign to bump up sales.
3. Re:Meaning by FirstNoel · 2011-07-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  "Special Edition" wine....
  Works surprisingly well.
  
  --
  "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
End of the year... by Nick+Fel · 2011-07-12 05:10 · Score: 1

...means end of 2012. That's a year and half away. Windows 7 is already about two years old.
Hallelujah! by Un+pobre+guey · 2011-07-12 05:11 · Score: 1

Glory Be! This has to be a first! You don't have to go out and replace all of your computing equipment for a Windows upgrade! Unbelievable! Unprecedented!

Now all they have to do is explain why anyone would want to spend a couple hundred dollars on it, and tell us whether we still need to replace all of our existing software.
No... by recoiledsnake · 2011-07-12 05:13 · Score: 1

The article is just regurgitating old information and then referring to Ballmer's quote(which was subsequently withdrawn) which said it would released in 2012. There's no indication where they got the 'this year' from.
That said, the current rumors place the release in April 2012. The earlier date was Holiday Season 2012.

--
This space for rent.
1. Re:No... by Z00L00K · 2011-07-12 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  And when Windows 8 comes companies are still struggling to migrate from XP.
  But Microsoft has control.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
2. Re:No... by hairyfeet · 2011-07-12 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  I just don't get what the rush is for. Windows 7 just came out in Oct 09, that isn't even 2 years ago! WinXP will be supported until 2014, they are contractually obligated to stick to that date and IIRC they will pull the plug on WinME II (aka Vista) on the same date which is 7 years for a loser OS, so why not release it then? It isn't like Windows 7 isn't selling quite well, the reviews have been great, everyone is happy, and certainly those that have recently bought a Win 7 PC aren't gonna just toss it because win 8 came out. So what's the rush?
  This does however point out one thing which IMHO makes MSFT OSes better than others for the common man ATM and that is support. WinXP will be supported until 2014 which is nearly 14 years of support. Win2K? Got a decade of support. Windows 7 will be supported until 2020 according to their EOL roadmap which means another 11 years of support. This means if you don't want to upgrade? Then don't. It isn't like you won't still be getting security fixes for a very loooong time.
  So I don't understand the mad rush when Win 7 is still selling well thanks to the long support times I say fuck it MSFT, if you want to jump the gun you go right ahead. After the Vista debacle me and my customers won't be touching Windows 8 for 2 years after release, just to see if it is another Windows 7 plate of goodness or a Vista pile of shite on a crusty roll. I bought the Win 7 family pack last year when it was on sale and it runs great on even my boys hand me downs, which are two Pentium Ds, one with 1Gb the other 2Gb,
  So thanks MSFT for putting out Windows 7 but unless you can offer me and my customers something more than a cheap cell phone touch UI ripoff (who needs touch on a desktop? Nobody that's who, as outside of kiosks hardly anyone wants to put their cheeto stained fingers on their screen!) I'm afraid me and my customers will have to pass. I just hope you don't cock up Win 8 so bad I have to spend a year and a half ripping it out for Win 7 like I did giving people upgrades from Vista to XP. That was a looooong year and a half MSFT, and even though it was profitable I don't fancy repeating it, kay?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
3. Re:No... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-07-12 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Apple.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
4. Re:No... by godefroi · 2011-07-13 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  The mad rush is to get (back to) a Windows that will run on multiple architectures (nowdays, ARM and x86/x64... back in the old days, it was x86, Alpha, and MIPS).
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Why not? by Joshua+Fan · 2011-07-12 05:15 · Score: 1

Windows 8 is probably gonna be a reskin of Windows 7 with some new file system "magic". Look at how rapidly Windows 8 is coming out after Windows 7. It's plausible because they didn't have time to change that much.

Also, CPUs haven't gained in power since before Windows 7 came out due to the current limits of silicone.
1. Re:Why not? by Un+pobre+guey · 2011-07-12 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  CPUs haven't gained in power since before Windows 7 came out due to the current limits of silicone.
  
  So CPUs need big fake tits to be more powerful?
2. Re:Why not? by gtall · 2011-07-12 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Silicone? You'd be surprised at the latest shapes and sizes recently available for butt implants, and there are many more in store.
3. Re:Why not? by Joshua+Fan · 2011-07-12 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, my mistake, we've all had our laugh now.
4. Re:Why not? by nschubach · 2011-07-12 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that really depends on what you use your computer for. Adding that to a PC mainly used to look at porn would make it a more powerful machine for some folks.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
5. Re:Why not? by rubycodez · 2011-07-12 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  the high end expensive CPUs are still increasing in power per core, Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 990x is 27,000 Dhrystone MIPS per core.
6. Re:Why not? by perryizgr8 · 2011-07-12 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  the high end expensive CPUs are still increasing in power per core, Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 990x is 27,000 Dhrystone MIPS per core.
  the next one is called Ultra Xtra Xtreme Edition 666x
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Why is that news? by devent · 2011-07-12 05:17 · Score: 1

Why is that even news? Is Windows some kind of game that needs the newest Nvidia DirectX11 to be playable? Is Windows not some kind of operating system, and as such should have absolute minimum system requirements, so it doesn't steal valuable CPU and GPU cycles from more important things, like the Office program you are using to do your fucking job?

--
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
so it will still run on 32bit systems? should 64 by Joe_Dragon · 2011-07-12 05:19 · Score: 1

so it will still run on 32bit systems? should go 64 bit only.
Upgrade? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:19 · Score: 0

I have Windows XP SP3 on this machine, but it also came with Vista. CPU is 2310Mhz dual core, 3GB RAM and a terabyte hard drive.
Would there be any advantage in upgrading to either Win 7 or 8 ?
I don't give a fsck about themes, screensavers aero and the like.
1. Re:Upgrade? by perryizgr8 · 2011-07-12 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  if win7 works on your setup, it will work better than xp. you might even see a minor improvement in fps. that's a significant 'if', though.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Microsoft said the same with "Vista Capable" by tlhIngan · 2011-07-12 05:22 · Score: 1

Just before Vista came out, Microsoft said the same thing, and people bought it up because it meant a free Vista upgrade.
The problem was, the machines that ran it were so low-spec that they really shouldn't be running Vista in the first place and the experience sucked. Horribly.
So I'd take this with a grain of salt - sure it *can* run Windows 8, but would you want to? Just like Windows 95 would run on a 386 with 4MB of RAM - yes, it did, but ... yes, that's about it.
1. Re:Microsoft said the same with "Vista Capable" by kcbnac · 2011-07-12 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Heh...I remember that. 4-8MB of RAM on 95 meant a huge hole got dug into your HD for swap. 16MB was the minimum target for our refurbished machines at my high school...but when your budget is between nothing and $50 a year, you take and scavenge what you can.
Where have I heard that before? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:38 · Score: 0

"Capable?" So we'll have "Windows 8 Capable" and "Windows 8 Premium Ready?"
Yes, there were differences by Benfea · 2011-07-12 05:38 · Score: 1
In addition to what you said, USB devices work much better under Windows XP than Windows 2000, but that is because Windows XP came with more and better drivers, not because of radical changes to the under-the-hood crap.
Microsoft seems to follow a similar pattern to Intel (every other release involves minor architecture changes), they just break the pattern more often
1. Windows 95 ==> Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME
2. Windows 2000 ==> Windows XP
3. Windows Vista ==> Windows 7
1. Re:Yes, there were differences by jawtheshark · 2011-07-12 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  If you want under the hood changes, XP did know about Hyperthreading and acted accordingly. 2000 would consider the machind tn have two CPUs, which could result in reduced peformance because of the (incorrect) assumptions made.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
2. Re:Yes, there were differences by toddestan · 2011-07-13 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that came in a service pack, as the initial release of Windows XP predated the P4 HT by a couple of years. I want to say it was SP2 that added the Hyperthreading support, but it might have been SP1 as that's closer to the right time frame.
3. Re:Yes, there were differences by jawtheshark · 2011-07-13 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  You're probably even right. I must admit I wasn't 100% certain.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
But, I haven't wasted time converting to Win7 yet! by Ngarrang · 2011-07-12 05:42 · Score: 1

Still running XP SP3, and happily so. Vista, Win7...not a single feature I've seen has been compelling enough to encourage an upgrade. Office 2000...guess what, it writes text documents just as well as Office 2010. Upgrade-itis. It isn't always a good thing. The factory floor is humming along with no crashes. I would like to keep it that way.

--
Bearded Dragon
they've said that before by v1 · 2011-07-12 05:46 · Score: 1

How about all those "Windows Vista Ready" stickers plastered all over those computers with slow processors and 512mb ram that ran like absolute crap? Lowering the listed system requirements doesn't really make outdated hardware "run" the new software, not the way it was supposed to anyway.
Then we get into the magical auto disable of Aero. If you have to disable features in an OS to make the thing usable, it didn't meet system specs. Quit the BS.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Yes and they said this too... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:47 · Score: 0

...when they introduced XP, and yes it could run... but you didn't have the time for it.
I miss service packs... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 05:52 · Score: 0

Now MS needs to cash in AGAIN with what amounts to Vista SP3 and everybody's fine with it. :(
Yes, but, like... by roc97007 · 2011-07-12 05:53 · Score: 1

...how well?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
What does MS-Gates mean? by OldHawk777 · 2011-07-12 06:01 · Score: 1

Is Win8 a label change?
Is Win8 a marketing scheme?
Will Win8 have any new code/changes?
Will Win8 be a Win7 Clone?
MS-Gates and hardware-OEMs have had a marketing falling-out?
What other questions can be inferred from MS-Gates comment?

--
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
And if you plan ahead then by RobertLTux · 2011-07-12 06:07 · Score: 1

all you need is a handy folder with GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C} as the name and you will get most of the control panel functions in a nice scrolling list.
Note you may want to have this folder on a flashkey in a folder for the times you are running Win7 64bit (there may be issues)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
But by PsyciatricHelp · 2011-07-12 06:13 · Score: 1

I thought I read windows 7 was the last 32 bit OS. I have 2 single core 32bit Laptops running widows 7. What about them?
1. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  sucks to be you.
An expectation of more years of patches by tepples · 2011-07-12 06:19 · Score: 1

So why charge $30-50, when they can character $150 and just force the issue?
There's an expectation of more years of patches at $150 than at $30-$50.
Happy until patches cease by tepples · 2011-07-12 06:22 · Score: 1

I'm happy with a product now, but there comes a date after which I will no longer be happy with the product. In some cases, I can even predict this date in advance: the day Microsoft stops issuing patches for newly discovered vulnerabilities in this product.
Home theater PC users by tepples · 2011-07-12 06:26 · Score: 1

Compatibility with Xbox 360 games also stops developers from failing to consider home theater PC users. HTPC users need a multiplayer mode that splits or otherwise shares the screen, as opposed to the assumption that each player will have his own PC, monitor, mouse, keyboard, and copy of the game.
...slowly by PinchDuck · 2011-07-12 06:35 · Score: 1

I last believed this crap when I bought OS/2 Warp. Yeah, it ran on my 1 mg 386sx. Like a snail.
About the only OS that actually runs decently on hardware when it is upgraded is Linux, for about 2 years from hardware purchase date. That is my experience, YMMV.
OK I'll bite by DarthVain · 2011-07-12 06:39 · Score: 1

I'll add
Win3.1 OMFG this is way better than DOS!
Win95 OMFG this is way better than 3.1!
Win98 Hmmm... well it doesn't crash quite as often as 95...
Also I run Vista right now. It is perfectly fine and I have no problems with it. Was it holy god hell when I first installed it? Yes. This was because A) it was released a bit too early, and B) too many 3rd parties relied too heavily on XP. So what happened was all the drivers were borked. Now that 3rd parties have all created drivers that work with Vista, and Vista has had a few (ok alot) of patches, it works just fine.
I have used 7 and it is good also, but I don't see the huge divide you allude to. Do I wish I waited the few months it was before 7 came out? Yes, it would have saved me a few head aches. However in the end it doesn't matter all that much.
That said, I have used all the Windows OS.
Windows ME was by far the worst, most horrible, excuse for an OS that ever was. I had a Dell that was pre-installed with it. I don't think it lasted 3 months before I get rid of it. It was slow, bloated, and basically didn't work. I know at one point I was at my parents place over Christmas, and they needed some help with their computer (which was my sisters old one apparently), and it was running Windows ME. I nearly died.
1. Re:OK I'll bite by ultranova · 2011-07-12 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Windows ME was by far the worst, most horrible, excuse for an OS that ever was. I had a Dell that was pre-installed with it.
  
  Don't judge based on that. After all, "Dell" rhymes with "Hell" for a reason.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
2. Re:OK I'll bite by DarthVain · 2011-07-12 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  No No No. That Dell is awesome. It was a dimension 4200. Cost me 2800$ when I bought the thing back in 2000 I think it was. Still runs today. I actually dusted it off a few months ago to save some photos off some corrupted HD's of a friend, as they were on serial IDE drives. No fancy SATA cables allowed! Has a P3 800Mhz and something like 256MB of RAM. Using a Live version of Ubuntu I transferred all his photos to an external USB HD. It took about 48 hours to move something like a 160GB and a 40GB! Though I expect running the LiveCD probably made it even slower. Hmm now that I think about it, it was probably the old USB standard which wouldn't help either.
  In addition to ME, I have had Win2K, XP, and about a dozen different distributions of linux on it. The thing is a tank (and weighs about as much as one too). Back then the tech support was also NA even for non-business clients (not that I ever used it). Anyway I have no doubt things have gone downhill since then, but say what you will, it is still kicking today, they built those 4200's like beasts. Of course they did originally install Windows ME on it which was kinda a dick thing to do...
3. Re:OK I'll bite by DarthVain · 2011-07-12 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually now I remember, the HD were fine (other than being IDE), is was his PC that was dead an no other way to access the drives.
4. Re:OK I'll bite by lennier · 2011-07-12 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Win3.1 OMFG this is way better than DOS!
  No. No, it really wasn't.
  When I had 3.11 I only ever booted it up to run Office (it was a neat "printer driver and font support toolkit" but so much less for anything else). For all the real work, I used DOS. Wasn't until 95 that a Windows became my primary shell and was actually pleasant and productive to use, and that's because you could still shell out to DOS to run your "essential productivity apps" (cough Doom cough).
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
5. Re:OK I'll bite by DarthVain · 2011-07-13 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes I played all my games in DOS also. I only mean going from a straight command line or crummy shell (actually like the file system shell), you got icons, and whatnot...
6. Re:OK I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  Serial IDE? The old IDE drives used a 40-wire parallel cable, they weren't serial, and today people generally refer to them as PATA (parallel ATA) to differentiate them from the newer SATA (serial ATA) drives.
  And unless the drive had serious problems dragging it's read speed down to a ridiculously low level, it was certainly the USB, USB 1 (low speed) was only about 1.5Mbit/s (I think) and USB 1.1 (full speed) was 12Mbit/s. What you should have done (if you don't have a newer computer with IDE connections) was get a USB to IDE adapter to hook it up, then you'd be able to at least get USB2 speeds (480Mbit/s or around 30MB/s real-world speed because of USB overheads). I doubt the LiveCD made any difference to speeds.
running on... by Sfing_ter · 2011-07-12 06:39 · Score: 1

Running on and being usable are 2 different things...
what greatly bloated wonders are in store for us... sigh.

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
OSX level updates with Windows update prices? by thetoadwarrior · 2011-07-12 06:57 · Score: 1

I suspect MS is trying to do the same thing as Apple and release smaller more frequent releases but what are the odds they'll not be priced £30 like an Apple update and instead be more like ranging anywhere between £100 and £200 depending on whether you get the real version or some handicapped version.
Things other than pixels by tepples · 2011-07-12 07:07 · Score: 1

Again, why would any sensible program be using a tree structure to process pixels?
Because things other than pixels are being processed, such as the tree of elements in a DOM or game world or the associative array of variables in a scripting language.
1. Re:Things other than pixels by CSMoran · 2011-07-13 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Again, why would any sensible program be using a tree structure to process pixels?
  Because things other than pixels are being processed, such as the tree of elements in a DOM or game world or the associative array of variables in a scripting language.
  Right, but these are probably not cache-friendly anyway.
  
  --
  Every end has half a stick.
MS always keeps it vague ! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 07:12 · Score: 0

MS will make enough editions like ultimate, super ultimate, professional, unprofessional, home etc. that you will need new hardware for the top end edition with all fancy features. Only the basic edition which will be a stripped down version of Win 8 will run on current hardware.
Death of Wintel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 07:16 · Score: 0

The Wintel world has died. Intel used to cater to Microsoft so they could both sell more product.
Intel has branched out to Mac, Linux, etc. where a smaller and smaller percentage of sales are tied to Windows. And they are still losing significant business to small embedded processors.
Microsoft is also getting hurt by innovative OSes running on very light hardware.
The stranglehold the Wintel alliance once enjoyed has been largely destroyed. As a result, you see the alliance also disintegrating. There is no longer much incentive for Intel to cater to MS. There is also not much incentive for MS to drive hardware sales up for Intel. Both actions lead to business failure for the other party.
We have finally reached a point where MS has to concentrate on making better software for same or lesser hardware, and Intel has to scramble to build energy efficient lightweight hardware with just enough muscle at rock bottom prices. And the market has healthy competition from iOS, Android, Linux, OSX, NVidia, TI, Samsung, etc. Life is getting better.
Dell Will Love It: Here's the *Translation* by rubycodez · 2011-07-12 07:38 · Score: 1

S.B. "Windows 8 will Run On All Current PC Hardware."

Customer in Dress (in Graham Chapman's "Woman Voice"): "But, I tried to upgrade from 7, but 8 is not able to run on mine!"

S.B.: "Well, then your PC isn't current"
binary translation is possible by Chirs · 2011-07-12 07:44 · Score: 1

Conceivably you could translate ppc code to run on a sandy bridge core at reasonable speeds. The GPU might be harder to deal with.
Translation ... by JonStewartMill · 2011-07-12 07:52 · Score: 1

Windows 8 will be nothing but a bug-fixed Windows 7, but we're going to charge you for it.
It has been tried before by SmallFurryCreature · 2011-07-12 08:00 · Score: 1

There was an obscure attempt in history to make expansion cards for the PC that would do much the same. It has always been a bother for the console industry that their is this large group of potential customers with at least part of the hardware they just can't seem to reach (well they could port their games but most console coders couldn't code their way out of a paper bag).
The install base for computers even just the powerful ones is far far larger then all the consoles combined. But it is a very hard market to develop for. Different configs, different OS versions.
MS itself doesn't know how to deal with it. Then it is games for windows, then it is gone again. Then they push DirectX then they cancel a PC release of a X-box exclusive. I wouldn't be surprised if someone within Redmond has thought to combine the two. There really isn't that much to stop it apart from the X-box division.
It even makes sense. The x-box would be the baseline, the minimum requirement and the fully supported platform, the PC is for the hardcore crowd who don't mind a more finicky platform in exchange for perceived higher performance. No more min or recommended spec. Just buy an x-box or you are on your own. Both of MS platforms serviced, an installed base Sony and Nintendo can't hope to reach. As for piracy? The xbox is so openly cracked it ain't funny anymore. Doesn't seem to hurt it one bit. The PS3 wasn't cracked. Doesn't seem to help it one bit.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Like nVidia? by Hamsterdan · 2011-07-12 08:04 · Score: 1

nForce3 will be supported with Vista, was even stated on their website. Until they withdrew support. So Win7 runs with only one cpu core if you happen to have an ATI AGP card. The reason stated is they never intended NF3 to be used with dual-cores. (of course, an nVidia card will work with both cores).
Vista came out what? 2-3 years after that chipset? Thank you very much for support nVidia...

--
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
1. Re:Like nVidia? by Billly+Gates · 2011-07-12 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  After bad experiences with some nVidia's I decided to switch to an ATI 5750 HD as my new system. I made sure it has an AMD chipset and CPU. It just seems like of course Nvidia would work best with their own chipsets and ATI is going to work the best with AMD chipsets and processors. So far my system is quite stable.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
I'm starting to see a beethoven-like pattern here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 08:22 · Score: 1

Beethoven's symphonies were numbered based on their style. Even numbered were mild tempered, stable and quiet, usually. Odd numbered were unstable and heroic.
Starting from 1, at Microsoft's answer to the new generation of overpriced and underpowered operating systems:
1. Windows 3.0/3.1 - Not too shabby. Pretty decent.
2. Windows 95 - Crashes every two seconds, about as innovative as a bayonet for attack helicopters (in case you run out of ammo and need a good knife to take out people up close and personal)
3. Windows 98 - Not great but not bad. Could be worse.
4. Windows ME - Why is my monitor blue and my computer on fire? About as innovative as a hand grenade with a built-in level (so you can make sure the obsessive compulsive enemies don't run).
5. Windows 2000 - Not too shabby. Pretty decent.
5. Windows XP - No change. It's Windows 2000 with the buttons replaced and a different sticker slapped on the version number.
6. Windows Vista - You need a two thousand dollar computer to run it and it still crashes. About as innovative as a knife with a sniper scope (for that accurate stab you've always needed).
7. Windows 7 - Not too shabby. Pretty decent.
8. Windows 8 - I'm expecting it to be about as innovative as a stealth suit with built-in bicycle reflectors (so you don't get hit by cars while sneaking around).
You can see where this is going to go. If it lands on an even number, it is going to suck.
Run on all current pc's by mightyanonymouse · 2011-07-12 08:50 · Score: 1

Yea right....... Heard that broken record promise one two many times. I still have licenses all the way up to XP and osx 4.x, I stopped paying the microsoft and apple taxes after that. I still use pentium II's for servers and other home automation projects. Still use my single core p4 equivalents for desktops. All my equipment run some kind of nix variant except for a token machine that still runs XP. It usually sits in the closet. So a pII is still current equipment for me. I would dare M$ to get w8 to run on a p2. I know it will never happen. Except for purchasing a chumby and a router. I have not bought a new computer in years, Everything works as I need it too. I will eventually need to get new equipment, but it will be my choice not Redmond's.
You'll want it for quadrupled size of "winsxs" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 09:26 · Score: 0

I was already planning to finally leave XP behind and move to Win7, but then I learned about "winsxs".
"winsxs" is a folder that, over time, will grow to tens of GB and you cannot remove it, otherwise your Windows install will break.
First Vista had "accidental" hunger for RAM.
Now Win7 has "accidental" hunger for HD space.
What will be the trick in Win8 to make users buy Win9 when it comes out?
But what will run on Windows 8? by John+Allsup · 2011-07-12 09:33 · Score: 1

Personally, when the release date for Win8 is annouced, I plan to purchase a copy of Windows 7 for an as yet unobtained PC because I know all my current Win software runs on Win7, but I fear M$ are going to break legacy compatibility (as they must do sooner or later) in order to move the Windows platform on. I hope they make fundamental changes to Windows with Win8, but hope the give Win7 long term support as well. (I guess I can dream.)

--
John_Chalisque
Uhm, sure... by RLU486983 · 2011-07-12 09:50 · Score: 1

Bill Gates is laughing his ass off right now!
so ghetto by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 18:50 · Score: 0

Windows 8 looks so ghetto I bet it runs on anything
Re:I'm starting to see a beethoven-like pattern he by treeves · 2011-07-13 12:06 · Score: 1

So 9 should be awesome and an entirely new recording medium will have its size determined by its ability to hold one copy.
CD ~700 MB ~74 minutes @44.1 kHz 16bit =The Choral Symphony (see http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw-sony-ohga-20110423,0,590843.story)
___ ~ X GB = Windows 9

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.