Exactly. Unfortunately the average WIndows XP diehard will install win7, not wait for the background indexing to perform its initial index, note that it seems to thrash the disk, and give up.
Somehow, pelicans of this (in)competence level appear to be running IT departments.
Windows XP SP3 support from microsoft ends in mid 2011
Branchcache
DirectAccess
Powershell 2.0 and WinRM on all your desktops as standard
You can bet your arse that future MS offerings will not support Windows XP
If you have hardware that was even half reasonably specc'd in the past 3 years, Windows 7 is fine. And it is not always slower than XP. Try doing a search through your email in XP vs Win7 (you know, something that actually MATTERS in reality) and compare.
Your hardware must really suck, or you didn't wait for the first boot to finish its initial index. Once indexed, a Pentium M with 1GB is FINE running office 2007 on a Windows 7 x86 SOE.
I know, because I've used that combination last week (D510 latitude) whilst waiting for Dell to repair my E6500.
Have you done testing for this, or are you just basing your opinion on looking at the memory usage in task manager in Windows XP? New machines, sure 4gb is the sweet spot in terms of bang for buck. But normal user office usage on win7 - 1gb is baseline and performs well enough for most office users.
Windows 7 and your average suite of corporate crapware (anti-virus, monitoring tools, Outlook and Word, etc) will burn through 1G of memory just getting started.
Actually, no it won't.
We're halfway through rolling out Win7 and for normal office drone use, Win7 + Office 2007 + Forefront Client security is FINE on 1gb of ram once the initial indexing process has finished.
Power users, or new machines - sure, you'd be retarded to get less than 4gb on a new box - but upgrading old machines, 1gb is enough for basic office use.
I've been testing / using a latitude D510 with 1gb for a while, whilst waiting for Dell to repair my E6500 (yet again) and had no issues with it.
Performance benchmarks for typical desktop office machines are pointless. What is FAR more important is: driver stability/support and vendor support in the case of hardware malfunction. So long as your desktops have > 1gb ram they will be fine for 7, for normal office use.
We're currently a dell shop (sigh), my baseline cut-off for Dell laptops is Latitude D510 with 1GB ram for Win7 pro x86. Desktop machines - anything with similar spec to that is fine for x86.
Agreed. But no doubt at some point there was a board meeting, and the risk was deemed acceptable by those in control. Given the cap of 75m on damages by US law (obama trying to over-ride in this instance), it was a bit of a no-brainer $$$ wise. Upside = billions. Downside = 75m. No contest.
Corporation = obligated to provide profits to shareholders. If that was the only way to chase profits, then their hand was effectively "forced", indirectly, by the government regulation.
All I want is a multi-threaded UI. Chrome has it. I don't care if it has a million different plugins for downloading porn videos from redtube or whatever - if the UI sucks it is not going to be my daily browser.
Facebook privacy settings recently got changed, and people lost their settings which were set to "private". So, if you just ignore your facebook account, it may not actually stay private.
Actually, they can only work with the information you give your "friends" to post. Don't want to be pictured face down in a pool of vomit? Don't do it in public?:D
If its the same as vista (i haven't looked into it in detail for win7), your license for x86 will work, and is LEGIT, for x64 when you need to shift platform for hardware support reasons (more ram, GPT, etc).
Sometimes, its just TIME to give up that DIN keyboard, RS232 mouse, and parallel port scanner, dude. Keeping XP to support old unsupported hardware is shooting yourself in the foot. Personally I can't wait for smaller than 3tb drives to become unavailable, so the pile of shit that is Windows XP can go the way of the dinosaurs.
Fact is, 7 is as fast or faster (given adequate RAM), more secure, easier to manage/deploy and supports a whole heap of new shit that is going to make enterprise networking a lot nicer (winRM, branchecache, directaccess, etc).
Your Mac G4 still runs stuff. Your amiga 500 was obsolete a few years after release - certainly by 1991 or so the PC was caning what the amiga 500 could do - I know because i owned one prior to owning a PC. Commodore went broke and out of business less than 10 years after the A500 was released... so please stop spreading FUD yourself...
Conversely, having run Linux and FreeBSD since 1996, and now having disposable income available for hardware purchases, I am currently running both Windows 7 (various games like Falcon 4 and DCS: Blackshark will not run in WINE) and a Mac Mini. And my next box will be a proper Mac.
Yes, there are limitations within OS X. Yes, i'd like to be able to theme the desktop a bit more. But its not a deal breaker. The win I get from standard hardware and zero fucking around just to make things work is worth it for me - i have more disposable income than disposable time (>30, i now have a serious girlfriend and other things going on in my life).
If you have more disposable time available, then sure, Linux or BSD is great. Its getting better, too - maybe I'll go back to using it more seriously if steam gets more games available for it - but it is still running on PC hardware I either build myself (and thus, have to stay up to date on what works well with the other components and what doesn't) or pay to have some clown built out of shit hardware.
Plus, the mac hardware is aesthetically pleasing, quiet, and puts out no heat. It works perfectly with my iphone/ipod and has the command line for unix scripting and running open source unix-y apps if I want.
Could I run a hackintosh? Sure. I've built one out of curiosity. But I simply don't have the time to fuck around making sure it works properly with unsupported hardware. I also want to continue using it, which is not a 100% certainty if apple decide to actively block/break hackintoshes in a future OS update.
Who the hell wants to use a 3 TB drive for the operating system?
People with laptops and only a single drive. New computers shipping with a single drive. People who want to do RAID 1 in their box and only need 2 drives (rather than having 3 or more noisy, heat generating and power sappings devices in their box).
If your shiny new 3tb drive has massive cache and high throughput then why put your OS on some shitty old slow drive?
Eventually 3tb will be a small operating system partition.
I think he missed the words "by default". I know ext2 supported different block sizes, UFS supports different block sizes, but used 4k by default as it is a reasonable compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
Open as in OpenGL, OpenAL, OpenCL, and a free development toolchain.
Exactly. Unfortunately the average WIndows XP diehard will install win7, not wait for the background indexing to perform its initial index, note that it seems to thrash the disk, and give up.
Somehow, pelicans of this (in)competence level appear to be running IT departments.
A few reasons why you should go Win7
If you have hardware that was even half reasonably specc'd in the past 3 years, Windows 7 is fine. And it is not always slower than XP. Try doing a search through your email in XP vs Win7 (you know, something that actually MATTERS in reality) and compare.
Performance amongst available current hardware offerings DOES NOT MATTER, no.
I386 PCs have not been available for about 20 years, so bringing them into the picture is irrelevant.
The 486dx4/100 was quicker than a pentium 60 or 66 for 386 optimised integer code, yes.
However, throw anything pentium optimised floating point floating point at ti (e.g., Quake 1) and the 486 just got owned.
Your hardware must really suck, or you didn't wait for the first boot to finish its initial index. Once indexed, a Pentium M with 1GB is FINE running office 2007 on a Windows 7 x86 SOE.
I know, because I've used that combination last week (D510 latitude) whilst waiting for Dell to repair my E6500.
Have you done testing for this, or are you just basing your opinion on looking at the memory usage in task manager in Windows XP? New machines, sure 4gb is the sweet spot in terms of bang for buck. But normal user office usage on win7 - 1gb is baseline and performs well enough for most office users.
Actually, no it won't.
We're halfway through rolling out Win7 and for normal office drone use, Win7 + Office 2007 + Forefront Client security is FINE on 1gb of ram once the initial indexing process has finished.
Power users, or new machines - sure, you'd be retarded to get less than 4gb on a new box - but upgrading old machines, 1gb is enough for basic office use.
I've been testing / using a latitude D510 with 1gb for a while, whilst waiting for Dell to repair my E6500 (yet again) and had no issues with it.
Performance benchmarks for typical desktop office machines are pointless. What is FAR more important is: driver stability/support and vendor support in the case of hardware malfunction. So long as your desktops have > 1gb ram they will be fine for 7, for normal office use.
We're currently a dell shop (sigh), my baseline cut-off for Dell laptops is Latitude D510 with 1GB ram for Win7 pro x86. Desktop machines - anything with similar spec to that is fine for x86.
Agreed. But no doubt at some point there was a board meeting, and the risk was deemed acceptable by those in control. Given the cap of 75m on damages by US law (obama trying to over-ride in this instance), it was a bit of a no-brainer $$$ wise. Upside = billions. Downside = 75m. No contest.
clearly not mods who moderate me "troll". lol.
Never mind the fact that SI units actually work in a sane, base 10 oriented way...
Corporation = obligated to provide profits to shareholders. If that was the only way to chase profits, then their hand was effectively "forced", indirectly, by the government regulation.
All I want is a multi-threaded UI. Chrome has it. I don't care if it has a million different plugins for downloading porn videos from redtube or whatever - if the UI sucks it is not going to be my daily browser.
Facebook privacy settings recently got changed, and people lost their settings which were set to "private". So, if you just ignore your facebook account, it may not actually stay private.
Actually, they can only work with the information you give your "friends" to post. Don't want to be pictured face down in a pool of vomit? Don't do it in public? :D
corps who allow USERS to save 3tb of data on their desktop/laptop deserve to be fucked by this.
If its the same as vista (i haven't looked into it in detail for win7), your license for x86 will work, and is LEGIT, for x64 when you need to shift platform for hardware support reasons (more ram, GPT, etc).
Sometimes, its just TIME to give up that DIN keyboard, RS232 mouse, and parallel port scanner, dude. Keeping XP to support old unsupported hardware is shooting yourself in the foot. Personally I can't wait for smaller than 3tb drives to become unavailable, so the pile of shit that is Windows XP can go the way of the dinosaurs.
Fact is, 7 is as fast or faster (given adequate RAM), more secure, easier to manage/deploy and supports a whole heap of new shit that is going to make enterprise networking a lot nicer (winRM, branchecache, directaccess, etc).
XP needs to die and this LBA issue is good news.
Your Mac G4 still runs stuff. Your amiga 500 was obsolete a few years after release - certainly by 1991 or so the PC was caning what the amiga 500 could do - I know because i owned one prior to owning a PC. Commodore went broke and out of business less than 10 years after the A500 was released... so please stop spreading FUD yourself...
Conversely, having run Linux and FreeBSD since 1996, and now having disposable income available for hardware purchases, I am currently running both Windows 7 (various games like Falcon 4 and DCS: Blackshark will not run in WINE) and a Mac Mini. And my next box will be a proper Mac.
Yes, there are limitations within OS X. Yes, i'd like to be able to theme the desktop a bit more. But its not a deal breaker. The win I get from standard hardware and zero fucking around just to make things work is worth it for me - i have more disposable income than disposable time (>30, i now have a serious girlfriend and other things going on in my life).
If you have more disposable time available, then sure, Linux or BSD is great. Its getting better, too - maybe I'll go back to using it more seriously if steam gets more games available for it - but it is still running on PC hardware I either build myself (and thus, have to stay up to date on what works well with the other components and what doesn't) or pay to have some clown built out of shit hardware.
Plus, the mac hardware is aesthetically pleasing, quiet, and puts out no heat. It works perfectly with my iphone/ipod and has the command line for unix scripting and running open source unix-y apps if I want.
Could I run a hackintosh? Sure. I've built one out of curiosity. But I simply don't have the time to fuck around making sure it works properly with unsupported hardware. I also want to continue using it, which is not a 100% certainty if apple decide to actively block/break hackintoshes in a future OS update.
You clearly don't throw much at it. Office 2007 for example, doesn't even run on Windows 2000...
People with laptops and only a single drive. New computers shipping with a single drive. People who want to do RAID 1 in their box and only need 2 drives (rather than having 3 or more noisy, heat generating and power sappings devices in their box).
If your shiny new 3tb drive has massive cache and high throughput then why put your OS on some shitty old slow drive?
Eventually 3tb will be a small operating system partition.
Bitch about microsoft for stuff they've done badly, but NTFS is pretty decent.
I think he missed the words "by default". I know ext2 supported different block sizes, UFS supports different block sizes, but used 4k by default as it is a reasonable compromise.