memsys wrote:

awergh wrote:

(lots of stuff) Its the price you pay for functionality I guess. I mean you can say for example that lxde is a lot lighter then […]
Show full quote

(lots of stuff)
Its the price you pay for functionality I guess. I mean you can say for example that lxde is a lot lighter then KDE for example but KDE is much more feature rich (not that im saying i like KDE more the lxde because I have never come to like KDE4).

Your example of ubuntu system requirements vs windows system requirements might not been the best example because I thought Ubuntu 7.0.4 (i think it was this version before it completely broke on me for 7.10) was sluggish on a celeron 700 compared to 5.0.4 which was much faster which was only a little sluggish from what I remember on 350mhz

I'm sure the os its self isn't heavy but its always the gui and stuff ontop not that I've ever compared eg server core vs server gui

What i am trying to say is that you can have an OS that is both light and fully functional

can you really though? Can you give me an example. I mean you mentioned DSL which I know runs great and fast on my cyrix MII (i think it is) just as well as NT4 or 95 but I find (very subjectively) fluxbox doesn't really meet my needs and I want something more functional.

Not that I'm saying that OSs shouldn't be as light as possible but I do think you will find difficulty have incredibly feature rich and having very small footprint like DSL

memsys wrote:

What i am trying to say is that you can have an OS that is both light and fully functional

yeah, it's called DOS

awergh wrote:

memsys wrote:

awergh wrote:

(lots of stuff) Its the price you pay for functionality I guess. I mean you can say for example that lxde is a lot lighter then […]
Show full quote

(lots of stuff)
Its the price you pay for functionality I guess. I mean you can say for example that lxde is a lot lighter then KDE for example but KDE is much more feature rich (not that im saying i like KDE more the lxde because I have never come to like KDE4).

Your example of ubuntu system requirements vs windows system requirements might not been the best example because I thought Ubuntu 7.0.4 (i think it was this version before it completely broke on me for 7.10) was sluggish on a celeron 700 compared to 5.0.4 which was much faster which was only a little sluggish from what I remember on 350mhz

I'm sure the os its self isn't heavy but its always the gui and stuff ontop not that I've ever compared eg server core vs server gui

What i am trying to say is that you can have an OS that is both light and fully functional

can you really though? Can you give me an example. I mean you mentioned DSL which I know runs great and fast on my cyrix MII (i think it is) just as well as NT4 or 95 but I find (very subjectively) fluxbox doesn't really meet my needs and I want something more functional.

Not that I'm saying that OSs shouldn't be as light as possible but I do think you will find difficulty have incredibly feature rich and having very small footprint like DSL

I mentioned DSL to show that you CAN have a modern OS that has a small footprint and sys req . I know that making something like DSL is hard to do and that it is not practical .
Let me ask you this how many programs are in windows 7 that are not essential (or should not be essential) that most users well never use , i bet a lot

it should be pretty self-evident that the average modern OS is full of bloat. Since the 486 era, has the nature and functionality of an operating system really changed all that much? there's been plenty of advances and modernizations, sure, but enough to account for a 20x increase in *minimum* system requirements? extremely doubtful.

Malik wrote:

It's a wait and see game when it comes to it's features and our level of acceptance of the new OS.

"Wait and see"? Right now I'm trying my best to stay with XP. For example, the reason I bought Lenovo B460 is because it has Win XP drivers for its nVidia discrete graphics.

Fuck Optimus, that thing forces people to migrate to 7. I hope Radeon doesn't have anything like that.

Ha! All this talk of W8 makes me want to finally jump on the W7 bandwagon and get a few years in while the going is still good. I plan to skip W8 like I skipped ME, 2k and Vista.. The thought of a tablet style OS bores me.

If XP supported Dx10+ what would be the real reason for a gamer to move on anyway? 64-bit?

tincup wrote:

If XP supported Dx10+ what would be the real reason for a gamer to move on anyway? 64-bit?

At the very least, vastly superior thread scheduler and memory management.

XP is pretty hopeless when it comes to multi-core and multi-threaded CPUs. It's ancient.

tincup wrote:

Ha! All this talk of W8 makes me want to finally jump on the W7 bandwagon and get a few years in while the going is still good. I plan to skip W8 like I skipped ME, 2k and Vista.. The thought of a tablet style OS bores me.

If XP supported Dx10+ what would be the real reason for a gamer to move on anyway? 64-bit?

Heck --- it makes me want to finally get a copy of *Xp* while I still can.

SquallStrife wrote:

XP is pretty hopeless when it comes to multi-core and multi-threaded CPUs. It's ancient.

XP is still pretty solid - for gaming. I'm running a 4-core without any trouble, albiet an older Phenom 555BE @ 4.05 with all 4 cores unlocked. With a pair of HD 5770's in CF I manage 50-60 FPS in Stalker maxed out. Is the jump to W7 as significant as W98 -> XP was?

It is solid and stable, for sure. I had XP x64 on my Q6600 for ages back in the day.

I guess the most noticeable improvement is that Win7 is a lot smoother with lots running than XP ever was, it's much clever-er about assigning one application's thread to CPU cores that share cache pools to improve cache hits, stuff like that.

I always liked that they went to asynchronous IO too, meaning your system doesn't freeze because one app is waiting for the CD drive to spin up.

W7 has some small improvements in the printing department, albeit many others. I dislike other design issues like not being able to turn off write combining for video (rather nasty for games imho).

SquallStrife wrote:

tincup wrote:

If XP supported Dx10+ what would be the real reason for a gamer to move on anyway? 64-bit?

At the very least, vastly superior thread scheduler and memory management.

XP is pretty hopeless when it comes to multi-core and multi-threaded CPUs. It's ancient.

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?

Just noticed that the Windows 8 Retail copy requires the key during installation. The Enterprise does not.
I'm testing out my MSDN copies and didn't want to waste a key just for eval purposes.

Also found this: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-8-OE … soft,16636.html

In the past, whenever a company has become too heavy-handed, it has blown up in their faces. Look at IBM with microchannel and Intel with Rambus RAM. I keep waiting for this to happen with microsoft but it shows no sign of letting up. I keep thinking the next big bloat OS is going to be the one were people finally draw the line andr efuse to upgrade, but they turn out in droves to buy it. I think it microsoft started charging monthly usage fees people would still be lining up to fork over their money.

so, flashing BIOS will makes pre-installed Windows 8 became UN-activated ?

I also remember reading something about a "secure boot" feature with Windows 8, where the computer would be unable to boot anything but Windows 8.

Most likely the BIOS flash would just ignore that section of the BIOS.

The secure boot feature can be enabled/disabled in the BIOS. Assuming the OEM hasn't disabled that functionality.
It's a good thing but like anything can be used for bad purposes.

Just now, I was shocked to see the Windows 7 Gadgets Online (The message at the official website says:

"Because we want to focus on the exciting possibilities of the newest version of Windows, the Windows website no longer hosts the gadget gallery.

Gadgets installed from untrusted sources can harm your computer and can access your computer's files, show you objectionable content, or change their behavior at any time. If you are concerned about the safety of gadgets you’ve downloaded in the past, you can learn more about gadgets and steps you can take to protect your PC. " - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/do … onalize/gadgets

So this is my reply towards their feedback at the bottom (feedback box will be opened if the option not helpful is clicked) :

"Dropping support for Windows 7 so soon is not good. Even if the support is for a minor section like the Windows 7 gadgets. You are leaving behind loyal customers. Not everyone is "excited" with your new Windows 8."

My feedback won't make a jack of anything, and I doubt they will even take a glance at it, but at least I vented out some frustrations.

IIRC there was a recent security issue with gadgets (frankly I'm suprised it hasn't happened sooner) and the MS recommendation was to disable the gadgets.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/11/microsoft- … -security-hole/

So nothing to do with Windows 8 unless you are Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory

sliderider wrote:

SquallStrife wrote:

tincup wrote:

If XP supported Dx10+ what would be the real reason for a gamer to move on anyway? 64-bit?

At the very least, vastly superior thread scheduler and memory management.

XP is pretty hopeless when it comes to multi-core and multi-threaded CPUs. It's ancient.

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?

it's the way XP manages the resources... just inefficient compared to 7, just like how 9x was inefficient at handling globs of ram and flaked out running on fast CPUs