Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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]
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.
...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)
Windows 8 will run on my PC over my dead body!
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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!
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
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.
All you need to know is that it's worth buying a new license for!
Does that explain all the performance issues? :)
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.
Dell has made a fortune selling hardware to keep up with the requirements of Windows.
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.
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.
It at least explains why it stinks...
Old wine in new bottles.
...means end of 2012. That's a year and half away. Windows 7 is already about two years old.
Vista was the Beta we all purchased for Windows 7.
Yet you keep doing it?!? Why?
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.
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.
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.
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 go 64 bit only.
So it's Windows Phone Desktop Edition?
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.
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.
So that makes it... what... MS-DOS 33 1/3?
There's a completely new radical default interface coming...
Unity?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
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
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
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.
That's the version with multiple user support. The single user version is MS-DOS 45.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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
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?
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
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?
Haha - I see what you did there.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
Depends. If he's in Afghanistan...
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
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
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"
Conceivably you could translate ppc code to run on a sandy bridge core at reasonable speeds. The GPU might be harder to deal with.
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."
Windows 8 will be nothing but a bug-fixed Windows 7, but we're going to charge you for it.
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.
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...
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.
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
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/
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.
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.
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 $30 to replace. With my customers I told them to let me install the trial version and dual boot and within the month I was getting all clears to install Windows 7.
So if you like XP so much why aren't you still using it? You have another THREE YEARS you know. By then most of the software will most likely be Vista/7 or better and you'd be a fool to run unpatched software on the net. Now MSFT has given you 14 years, the guys that wrote WinXP have long since moved on. The guys here at /. know that you just can't support an old version forever, especially when they have three newer versions they will be supporting by then. Stick with XP until 2014, by then your printer will be dead or you can pick up a cheapo network laser. This gives you plenty of time to plan a migration and if you don't? That would be YOUR fault.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Do you call Apple system 13 and a quarter? if you want to insult MSFT there are plenty of targets, the big dumb sweaty monkey, the completely clueless mobile "strategy" if there even is one, the giant attack of the "Me toos!" under Ballmer like Zune and Kin and the Win 8 aka WinPad UI, killing PlaysForSure that was quite popular for monthly subscriptions for the crapola ZunePass which was incompatible.
But MSDOS has officially been dead since 1995 dude, unofficially 2000 if you count the DOS bootstrapping that was in Win9x. To keep bringing up DOS like it is still relevant not only isn't funny it is kinda pointless when there are plenty of more topical potshots you could enjoy.
Maybe the next Linux article that comes around you can write about how Linux is stuck on the 0.x kernel and it doesn't even support your daisy wheel printer or have a GUI, since that is how far behind the times the DOS jokes are. But I will give you credit for one thing, at least you didn't trot out the "M$" 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.
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.
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
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."
Bill Gates is laughing his ass off right now!
unity has nothing radical about it. its just a cheap imitation of osx.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
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.
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.
"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/
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"
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."
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/
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."
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.
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.
"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/