Wow, a lot had happened in the last 7 hours...
Comparing 7 to XP is idiotic - resources have to go up and technology has to move - what is the point of stagnation? Hardware is cheap too. XP should die permanently and stop being used as a point of reference.
Define "Cheap", I have to agree though, resources do have to go up, hardware is getting cheaper (but it's not dirt cheap), but come on... Why does it have to use resources in order of magnitude MORE than XP? XP will be forever be used as point of reference, just like NT4 that precedes it. Why? Because it's so successful... It has a legacy, everyone will compare anything new to the "tried and true" solution.
Comparing 7 to XP is idiotic - resources have to go up and technology has to move - what is the point of stagnation? Hardware is cheap too. XP should die permanently and stop being used as a point of reference.
Why is it idiotic? They are both OS'es based on the same platform with the same target audience.
Why do resources HAVE to go up for technology to move forward? When did efficiency get lost...
XP still has its place for now and Windows 7 fan boys need to accept that.
Efficiency matches the hardware - I can easily put in a maximum of 16GB DDR3 for my motherboard right now - technology improves everything especially features and XP is virtually dead. No support for DirectX 10 or 11, poor security, and an ugly UI.
BunBun, one word: AGREED !!!
Frostmourne: XP is NOT virtually dead, companies still uses XP, in fact XP still cover more than 60% of Windows Clients used right now. Netbooks, millions of them are on XP, old computers are on XP, majority of office computers are XP too. XP is NOT dead, Microsoft is trying to kill it...
Sure you can expand your memory. But RAM isnt free nor do you have infinite dimm slots availible.
More effort into efficiency would make our hardware go that much further.
Hardware is cheap relatively. It is far from free.
Directx 10, 11 and security drawbacks are only lacking due to Microsoft wanting to strong arm people into their new OS'es.
And ugly UI is only in your opinion as I disagree. Esspecially with XP in classic mode. What good is pretty if it impedes on work done or play?
I want my OS to use as few resources as possible and to be as efficient as it mose possibly can to give things I want to do more resources even with the best of the best hardware (more is still better... right?)
Resources are meant to be used and 16GB of RAM would last a while. Because of XP, I bet developers are still supporting DirectX 9.0c. Kill that and make gaming pointless on XP and there will be a shift.
I have to agree with BunBun here, I do have hardware, I want my hardware to be used efficiently (efficiency differs from person to person). In my case, I don't really care if 7 uses a lot more memory upon boot up, I know it's for precache. 7 has so many "safety" feature that will rob my processor's processing time to give Microsoft feedback to perfect 7, IMO this is good, it's OK to use my processing time to do all that... But not all thinks like me (or you, Frostmourne). There are people who wants to use every ounce, every nanosecond of processing power/time they have in their machines. You can't argue with them, they have different mindset, different objective, different perspective, different principle about their computer and computing in general.
A developer not supporting DirectX 9.0c... that would be horrendously idiotic, stupid beyond help, and he needs to commit suicide for exiling 60++% of the market for your product. It is idiocy beyond all the stupidity committed in history of mankind. That developer should commit suicide and die (in the eye of publisher at least). Games are Business, to make money, the higher requirement your game needs, the less market you'll have, just like Vista back then, which is stupid.
Just to clarify I am not stating that Windows 7 should have the same requirements as XP. Just not as high as it is and to be more dynamic. I wouldn't dare install windows 7 on a netbook for example and those are extremely popular right now.
Windows 7 works great on netbooks. seriously. Windows 7 has the ability to adapt to whatever situation you put it in, unlike Vista. If you put it in a low ram situation, it will adapt and precache less. If it has a slower processor speed, it will adapt its indexing to suit.
I have no idea why all the manufacturers are putting Starter Edition on all the netbooks, Home Premium runs perfectly!
I tested my Acer AspireOne 751h (Atom Z520 1.6GHz, 2GB of memory) netbook with 7, it doesn't feel any faster to me. I think Windows 7 in netbooks have "placebo" effect. Because Microsoft said "it's much more optimized from Vista", etc so the general assumption will be it's better than XP... This logic is flawed from the beginning (remember, optimized from
Vista)...
====================================
What is it with you guys? Windows 7 has it's shortcomings, it's not a perfect OS... Yes it is way better than XP or Vista in many aspects, but it's not perfect. One of Windows 7/Vista's feature is security, it much more secure than Windows XP (on default installation), yet I have something to write about this...
Security can be achieved in many different levels. The analogy is this: if you want to secure your computer from the evil grasps of the Internet, the easiest way is to just unplug it off the internet, it's secure unplugged. But you can't do your job unplugged, so you need to make some sacrifices. Keep it plugged but put a firewall on it (Windows Firewall, or any 3rd party firewalls). It has some leverages when you use an internal firewall, but at times when your computer somehow someway got infected, that software firewall can't do anything, because it's integrated into Windows. Then next step would be to have a "hardware" firewall. That will keep the nasty ones off, if you need MORE, use a security appliance... See my point?
Same as XP, for those who claims XP is not as secure as Vista/7, I suggest you take a Microsoft Windows Client (XP) class before you throw another useless comment. XP from ground up is VERY secure, it has ACLs, it has limited user, it has every measure, every feature you need to secure your computer. The stupid decision is that the "administrator" always runs as "Administrator", which will eventually get you many problems (IF you're not careful). If you are inclined to make XP secure, it can be as secure as Vista/7, disable services that you don't use, close down EVERY PORT you don't use, use limited user account for day-to-day use, un-own important files, run backup as a "Backup user", etc. That'll give you the security of Vista/7 and the speed of XP. Want to install something in that "mode"? Easy, use "Run as" command... The point of failure is 80++% is on the user, not the computer.
Security is relative, it can be implemented in various different levels. Security for general public, now that's a different matter all together, because the user (pre-vista) is assumed to be the Administrator, this is the most fatal single point of failure EVER.
As for performance, XP is based on NT 5 kernel, NT 5 is VERY scalable, it ran on multi socket Itanium systems, it ran on 4++ processor machines (not cores), it ran on multi gigabytes memory servers. The problem is, NT 5 kernel is not efficient enough to optimally use current hardware, to exploit today's hardware to the max. It's scheduler is based on a "Server" scheduler, it's not optimal enough for our usage model, it's not "brave" enough to schedule work for other cores/processors (remember it's based on a server product, so it will use the first resource to it's max point, then move to the next). But it's still "good enough" , that's why it survives all these years...
Whew, I said a lot... I'll add some more later... For those who say XP sucks and it should die, I hope you can get a little bit more information as of why it survived...
zzz2496
