Author Topic: Can Microsoft Juggle 3 OSs? (Read 9479 times)

kpac · « **on:** December 24, 2008, 04:21:30 PM »

Microsoft's tricky balancing act in 2009 will be to phase out Windows XP while boosting demand for Windows Vista and building anticipation for Windows 7.

http://starlite-media.blogspot.com/2008/12/can-microsoft-juggle-3-operating.html

patio · « **Reply #1 on:** December 24, 2008, 04:40:26 PM »

kpac · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2008, 04:52:30 PM »

You think so?

I think they can, it would want to go better than Vista though...

patio · « **Reply #3 on:** December 25, 2008, 10:42:06 AM »

My benchtest machine has every MS OS on it from Win98SE except any Server versions...
XP/Vista is on the new build.

Carbon Dudeoxide · « **Reply #4 on:** December 25, 2008, 11:52:08 AM »

From what I've tried, WIndows 7 is going to be pretty good. Definately something I'll get.

patio · « **Reply #5 on:** December 25, 2008, 12:01:35 PM »

I happen to like Vista so far which puts me in a very small minority...

Broni · « **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2008, 02:40:08 PM »

I'm with you

s-mac · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2009, 02:18:37 AM »

I like Vista as well

Computer Hope Admin · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2009, 02:59:28 PM »

Umm hasn't Microsoft already done this in the past? I recall a few years ago Microsoft phasing out Microsoft Windows 98 and NT while having Windows ME and 2000 with the development of XP. I couldn't imagine them having a problem with their current situation.

Shandy · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:03:54 PM »

I don't know anything about Windows 7 yet. But I haven't switched to Vista because it's a RAM eating son of a *****. Who's tried Windows 7 and is it memory intensive like Vista? Vista is the worst choice for gaming.

Shandy · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:04:56 PM »

I suppose it won't be long before game developers stop supporting the XP platform. :/

Broni · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2009, 05:39:16 PM »

Quote

I haven't switched to Vista because it's a RAM eating son of a *****

False. Vista uses RAM in different way, than previous Windows versions.

Shandy · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2009, 09:50:00 PM »

Quote from: Broni on January 16, 2009, 05:39:16 PM

Quote
I haven't switched to Vista because it's a RAM eating son of a *****
False. Vista uses RAM in different way, than previous Windows versions.

Your right, it does, it uses way more than previous version

If you look at the system requirements for new games they always say something like 1Gb RAM (And 1.5Gb Vista) why is this?

Do the games run in a different way in Vista that requires more RAM? The way Vista uses RAM is bad for wanting to run a lot of processes at once... right?

Broni · « **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2009, 10:32:53 PM »

No. Read here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html
Every single Windows version uses more RAM, than the previous one. Are you surprised?
Vista wants 2GB of RAM. Period. If you want use less, use some other OS.

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2009, 10:37:44 PM »

Quote from: Shandy on January 17, 2009, 09:50:00 PM

Quote from: Broni on January 16, 2009, 05:39:16 PM
Quote
I haven't switched to Vista because it's a RAM eating son of a *****
False. Vista uses RAM in different way, than previous Windows versions.
Your right, it does, it uses way more than previous version If you look at the system requirements for new games they always say something like 1Gb RAM (And 1.5Gb Vista) why is this?
Do the games run in a different way in Vista that requires more RAM? The way Vista uses RAM is bad for wanting to run a lot of processes at once... right?

wrong. you need to do some research on Vista's Ram handling.

basically- Free RAM is bad RAM. There would be no point buying extra RAM if the OS is just going to try it's best to page everything to disk to keep it free. Vista uses unused RAM for caching Often used data and executables. When another application requests RAM- it gives it up. It's called Superfetch, and it reduces paging.

I'm sure there are ways to disable it, but I'm also sure there would be a noticable decrease in performance (unless your running Vista without sufficient RAM in the first place, in which case SuperFetch wouldn't have any Free RAM to use)

As for the requirements- why do some say 128MB for Win9x and 256 for WinXP? does that mean Windows XP is worse then win 9x? the VMM in XP is a way better then the primitive (by comparision) Win9X memory manager.

Quote from: Broni on January 17, 2009, 10:32:53 PM

No. Read here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html
Every single Windows version uses more RAM, than the previous one. Are you surprised?
Vista wants 2GB of RAM. Period. If you want use less, use some other OS.

codinghorror

That's where I first read about superfetch too.

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #15 on:** January 17, 2009, 10:40:52 PM »

So... to discover where all these rumours came from about Superfetch... I googled "superfetch sucks".

lol

you'll never guess at the misinformation.

http://www.vistadiscuss.com/windows-vista-superfetch-technology-sucks/2006/09/

I don't think a single statement in there is factual.

Broni · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2009, 09:22:20 AM »

Quote

why do some say 128MB for Win9x and 256 for WinXP? does that mean Windows XP is worse then win 9x?

Very good point...with a little adjustment

XP will run on 256MB, but we all know, that 512MB would be REAL minimum, 1GB preferable.
XP was introduced in 2001. Around 2000 1GB of RAM was selling for almost $1,000. If at that time, someone was advising to get 1GB for XP...are you nuts?!

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2009, 09:41:05 AM »

okay... so the proper thing to have said would have been:

Quote

why do did people say 128MB for Win9x and 256 for WinXP? does that mean Windows XP is worse then win 9x?

But come on now- I ran WinXP with 96MB! I don't recall it being painfully slow... although I wasn't exactly conditioned to enjoy speed after working with a 386 prior to that, so I doubt it would have been enjoyable to anyone else.

Heck- I was just happy I could use the SetLayeredWindowAttributes() Function.

fireballs · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2009, 11:44:42 AM »

Quote from: Broni on January 17, 2009, 10:32:53 PM

Every single Windows version uses more RAM, than the previous one. Are you surprised?
Vista wants 2GB of RAM. Period. If you want use less, use some other OS.

Wrong...

Vista is said to require 2GB of RAM. Win 7 is advertised as requiring 1GB. It appears that either win7 doesn't use RAM in the same way as vista (implying superfetch isn't as good as they thought) or that there's been some serious streamlining of windows services?

FB

Broni · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2009, 12:19:26 PM »

Quote

Win 7 is advertised as requiring 1GB

Says who? M$?

fireballs · « **Reply #20 on:** January 18, 2009, 12:30:33 PM »

I'm not sure i get your point

FB

Broni · « **Reply #21 on:** January 18, 2009, 01:09:31 PM »

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx

Quote

# 1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor
# 1 GB of system memory
# Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128 MB memory (to enable the Aero theme)

...which is ridiculous

Remember, that M$ says very same thing about Vista: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx

Quote

# 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
# 1 GB of system memory
# 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
# Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
* 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

patio · « **Reply #22 on:** January 19, 2009, 08:12:34 AM »

Actually in MS's defense ( i can't believe i would ever type this in Public ) to test it i removed 1G from my new build to see how Windows 7 was...practically no noticeable difference between 1 and 2G ...so they may just have gotten it right this time...

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #23 on:** January 19, 2009, 08:15:26 AM »

say, did I mention I ran XP with 32MB of RAM?

ahh, and then the fun of running windows 3.1 on my 286 with monochrome graphics and 384K of extended memory... wow. I have not used the terms extended or conventional memory in a long time.

Broni · « **Reply #24 on:** January 19, 2009, 06:37:09 PM »

patio
I'd like to see what would you have to say after running 7 for several months, and have bunch of programs installed.
I believe, a pristine Vista installation will run on 1GB just fine, too.
Probably same goes for new XP installation on 256MB, or maybe even 128MB.

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #25 on:** January 19, 2009, 06:57:39 PM »

Quote from: Broni on January 19, 2009, 06:37:09 PM

256MB, or maybe even 128MB.

Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 19, 2009, 08:15:26 AM

say, did I mention I ran XP with 32MB of RAM?

Although- it wasn't pleasant.

patio · « **Reply #26 on:** January 20, 2009, 07:05:23 AM »

Although it's not a full build Broni i can see your point...however i have about 20 different apps installed on the W7 side and it's still pretty snappy on 1G.
Wait let me throw AutoCad and Photoshop at it.....

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #27 on:** January 20, 2009, 07:07:59 AM »

hmmm. I only have 1GB in this PC, and it's maxed out...

It's kind of weird that my laptop is way more powerful then my desktop. It just... feels wrong.

say did I mentio <SLAP>

Computer Hope Forum

News:

Author Topic: Can Microsoft Juggle 3 OSs? (Read 9479 times)

kpac

patio

kpac

patio

Carbon Dudeoxide

patio

Broni

s-mac

Computer Hope Admin

Shandy

Shandy

Broni

Shandy

Broni

BC_Programmer

BC_Programmer

Broni

BC_Programmer

fireballs

Broni

fireballs

Broni

patio

BC_Programmer

Broni

BC_Programmer

patio

BC_Programmer