wrote:so, flashing BIOS will makes pre-installed Windows 8 became UN-activated ?
no, the license key and certificate are saved in a portion of the BIOS that can't be easily deleted/changed... updating a nromally BIOS will not get rid of it
wrote:How? Only the consumer version has that issue but it still supports multi-core. XP Professional supports multiple core and multiple CPU. That's one of the features that differentiates between the two.If you want to run more than one CPU, then get Professional. Even today with the number of cores in a single CPU climbing ever higher, most consumers will never need more than one CPU so what's the problem?
As TheMan said, it's not a matter of whether or not it supports multi-core or Hyperthreaded CPUs, it's how well the OS can leverage the cores/threads.
Windows XP's multiprocessor code is quite old, from a time when the only SMP systems were servers and workstations with multiple physical CPUs. The Smithfield Pentium D's didn't arrive until 2005.
Thread scheduling and memory management are the bread and butter of any modern operating system. They're continuously being improved. XP is 10 years old, that's a long time in software development.
VogonsDrivers.com | Link | News Thread
the logic behind "old works fine" is somewhat flawed... think about cars for a moment... new cars have higher horsepower, clearer emissions, about the same or better gas mileage as 20 year old cars (because cars got heavier), SAFER, more comfortable, handles better, stops better, etc
yes, the old crap gets the job done, but not as well in some cases
every one of my computers, save for the retro box running NT4 (I know, I know) and retro laptop running 95, has been upgraded to 7... things run smoother and sometimes faster... other times, same speed as XP.... the upside? I can run newer apps, have a more secure and stable system
I really don't get XP fanboys.... 😒
wrote:As TheMan said, it's not a matter of whether or not it supports multi-core or Hyperthreaded CPUs, it's how well the OS can lever […]
wrote:How? Only the consumer version has that issue but it still supports multi-core. XP Professional supports multiple core and multiple CPU. That's one of the features that differentiates between the two.If you want to run more than one CPU, then get Professional. Even today with the number of cores in a single CPU climbing ever higher, most consumers will never need more than one CPU so what's the problem?
As TheMan said, it's not a matter of whether or not it supports multi-core or Hyperthreaded CPUs, it's how well the OS can leverage the cores/threads.
Windows XP's multiprocessor code is quite old, from a time when the only SMP systems were servers and workstations with multiple physical CPUs. The Smithfield Pentium D's didn't arrive until 2005.
Thread scheduling and memory management are the bread and butter of any modern operating system. They're continuously being improved. XP is 10 years old, that's a long time in software development.
This is what patches are issued for. Do you really think with the extended support cycle and the multitude of patches that have been released, that Microsoft hasn't improved multi-core, multi-processor support in all that time? XP as it stands today is a far cry from what it was in 2001.
wrote:This is what patches are issued for. Do you really think with the extended support cycle and the multitude of patches that have been released, that Microsoft hasn't improved multi-core, multi-processor support in all that time? XP as it stands today is a far cry from what it was in 2001.
They did make some improvements, particularly in Service Pack 2.
But you can only do so much without making major changes to the kernel.
VogonsDrivers.com | Link | News Thread
All this is fine but the fact remains that if one was inclined, sticking with XP was not a bad deal [XP Pro SP3 in my case]. W98 all the way to 2008? I made it as far as 2005 and felt a fool as soon as I jumped to XP. But W7? I run it at work for graphichs and ACAD, and while the look/feel/performance is better I suppose, it was hardly revolutionary.
Which is why W8 has me spooked now. I've skipped 2 releases in a row before [ME/2k] but they came out bang bang. Skipping Vista/W7/W8 seems like a stretch - the reason I think I may dig my heals in with a late-hour conversion to W7 at home for gaming/house stuff, and tough it out till W9...
I have, sort of, hack-installed Windows XP on my ASUS G73Jh notebook. It does not have official support for XP, and I had to download individual drivers from respective vendor's website plus a few tweaks here and there. But all that are worth it since I like XP. Windows 7 still runs beside it in another hard drive.
About Windows 8 and tablets, I remember reading about hardware vendor Acer being disappointed with it:
Acer to Microsoft on Surface tablet: ‘not something you’re good at, please think twice’
wrote:I have, sort of, hack-installed Windows XP on my ASUS G73Jh notebook. It does not have official support for XP, and I had to download individual drivers from respective vendor's website plus a few tweaks here and there. But all that are worth it since I like XP. Windows 7 still runs beside it in another hard drive.
About Windows 8 and tablets, I remember reading about hardware vendor Acer being disappointed with it:
Acer to Microsoft on Surface tablet: ‘not something you’re good at, please think twice’
Thats only acer though and they're only complaining about the surface tablet not windows 8 its self and most other OEMs seem perfectly fine with the additional competition
wrote:wrote:Windows Store's Term of Use.
Oh, so in other words if you use the Windows store and it finds a copy of Firefox or Chrome installed on your computer they can delete it and replace it with Internet Explorer WITHOUT getting your permission first?
I don't know about replacement as windows store's term of use doesn't talk about it.
However, its already confirmed that Redmondians WIll KNOW about anything you installed on windows 8 computer, wether you like it or not.
-fffuuu
The most recent version of Symantec Endpoint Protection (not Norton Antivirus) has a function that warns you if a file you downloaded with a certain MD5/SHA1 digest is known to be malicious, even if it doesn't contain a virus as-such. It does this by submitting the filename and the digest to Symantec by HTTPS. Sounds like the SmartScreen in Win8 is more or less the same thing.
VogonsDrivers.com | Link | News Thread
wrote:wrote:wrote:Windows Store's Term of Use.
Oh, so in other words if you use the Windows store and it finds a copy of Firefox or Chrome installed on your computer they can delete it and replace it with Internet Explorer WITHOUT getting your permission first?
I don't know about replacement as windows store's term of use doesn't talk about it.
However, its already confirmed that Redmondians WIll KNOW about anything you installed on windows 8 computer, wether you like it or not.
Then disable the feature and/or firewall it.
http://www.howtogeek.com/75356/how-to-turn-of … r-in-windows-8/
Don't strain yourself.
I doubt you disabled the error logs uploaded to Microsoft in previous Microsoft Operating systems and programs either.
wrote:Then disable the feature and/or firewall it.
http://www.howtogeek.com/75356/how-to-turn-of … r-in-windows-8/
Disabling yes, though i still must deals with windows-8 that constanly nags me to enable the smartscreen again.
but comeon, there other security solution that doesn't infringing my privacy.
use VM for testing downloaded apps for example?
wrote:Don't strain yourself.
I doubt you disabled the error logs uploaded to Microsoft in previous Microsoft Operating systems and programs either.
actualy i did disable error reporting,
but to be fair, i do sometimes enable error reporting for annoying but re-produce-able error on microsoft products.
and of course i can't trust windows built in firewall,
as smartscreen is integral part of windows afterall.
In this matter, i really glad that firewall vendors does't stop their products when Microsoft start integrating their own firewall on windows.
But seriously, why're heck i'm using windows 8?
sure theres improvement in performance,
but their U.I. sucks,
ignoring privacy without telling me about it in first place,
its blatant "you-must-use-your-computer-like-how-you-use-your-tablet" patronizing mindset also annoying.
Complete removal of these abomination were in order i guess.
-fffuuu
wrote:wrote:so, flashing BIOS will makes pre-installed Windows 8 became UN-activated ?
no, the license key and certificate are saved in a portion of the BIOS that can't be easily deleted/changed... updating a nromally BIOS will not get rid of it
It's not that hard to change. If you look online you'll find plenty of BIOSes that have had a SLIC added to them with ease. Unless the system has changed for Windows 8 that is.
wrote:save for the retro box running NT4 (I know, I know)
Theres a problem having a retro box running NT4?? but I like NT4 too much this can't possibly be the case.
wrote:Disabling yes, though i still must deals with windows-8 that constanly nags me to enable the smartscreen again.
but comeon, there other security solution that doesn't infringing my privacy.
use VM for testing downloaded apps for example?
You can just tell action centre not to report on smart screen just like you would when you turn the default firewall off and don't want to be nagged about that in windows 7
Most don't want to goto the effort of testing an app in a vm to see if its safe.
wrote:It's not that hard to change. If you look online you'll find plenty of BIOSes that have had a SLIC added to them with ease. Unless the system has changed for Windows 8 that is.
I believe they did make some changes in w8 that makes it harder, so far people have only been able to activate w8 with the kms servers that have come online for a short period of time.
wrote:wrote:wrote:so, flashing BIOS will makes pre-installed Windows 8 became UN-activated ?
no, the license key and certificate are saved in a portion of the BIOS that can't be easily deleted/changed... updating a nromally BIOS will not get rid of it
It's not that hard to change. If you look online you'll find plenty of BIOSes that have had a SLIC added to them with ease. Unless the system has changed for Windows 8 that is.
it's changed because Windows Vista/7/Server 2008 was so easily activated... that's why I said it's not easily deleted/changed
go read up on OA3.0
That makes sense. Windows 8 is gonna struggle anyway I think. It's bloody horrible to use.
wrote:That makes sense. Windows 8 is gonna struggle anyway I think. It's bloody horrible to use.
really? but using it is almost the same as using windows 7 assuming you used the search on the start menu in 7 instead of scrolling for what you were looking for.
It will be fun to see how long this activation scheme works for MS.
It's nothing like using Windows 7!
are you sure you've actually used 8?
I mean I wouldn't even say Windows 95 is nothing like using Windows 3.1 they are very different but its certainly not such a change that one is nothing like using the other.
As for w7 vs w8 its more or less the same as long as you're not trying to do everything in metro, If you want to sit on the desktop all day then you can.
It is only a slightly different experience of start menu vs start screen
