borgie83 wrote:

[...]Picture perfect voice recognition [...]

I really do hope that won't become a standard. Really. It might work for simple things like writing emails or web browsing, but imagine having to use programs like AutoCAD with voice recognition. And think about the privacy aspect: Anyone who can hear you will instantly know who you're emailing or what sites you visit.

Or imagine the following: You're at your PC and someone calls you for help to fix their windows install. You say "just do this and that and then FORMAT C: and..." OOPS! 🤣

The only time I've seen voice recognition work so far was when my sister was trying it out on her new PC. Some Quicktime dialog popped up, and I said "delete Quicktime!"... And it did, no questions asked! 🤣

Or thought recognition where office paper clip would pop out occasionally saying - You're thinking nasty thoughts aren't you? *wink wink* .

The mistake was trying to push a phone/tablet OS onto the desktop. Even Apple doesn't do that. iOS is for phones/tablets and OS X is for desktops. Microsoft should have taken their cue from Apple and left their mobile device OS separate from their desktop OS instead of trying to merge them into a one size fits all OS.

Common guys!! Obviously the voice recognition would be optional (I hope) but thought recognition?! I can imagine that one getting me in trouble 😒

sliderider wrote:

The mistake was trying to push a phone/tablet OS onto the desktop.

Exactly.

Stojke wrote:

http://puu.sh/7BoU3.jpg […]
Show full quote

Way to go , keep insulting the intelligence of your user base, it's working wonders 🤣 .

TELVM, I especially like the image about hotlinking 😜

We happy now? 🤣

7 is the new XP. 😀

The righteous indignation around Windows 8 his getting pretty stale. We get it, you don't like it, so don't buy it. Simple. The next version of the OS will be out before you can wipe your tears away.

Stojke wrote:

http://puu.sh/7BoU3.jpg […]
Show full quote

Above applies to operating systems, too.

and BTW, Get off my lawn!!

Meh, i still think its over reacting 😀
Its easy to dual boot for other stuff, but due to application support i do agree that what ever problems should be fixed in the future.

The corporate world is using 7; not 8. That is why it is the new XP.

PeterLI wrote:

The corporate world is using 7; not 8. That is why it is the new XP.

And also why Windows 7 will have to go into extended support just like XP did. Don't be in a rush to upgrade to Windows 9 when it is released. Windows 7 will have another 10 years of support or more.

Windows 7 supports more then 4GB of RAM and X64, that was a major reason people had to dump XP on new hardware. I don't see a major reason for the masses to upgrade from Win 7 in the next decade.

From what i know from various talks with people - Windows XP 32bit could technically go up to 64GB with memory manager due to addressable memory maximum being 36bit. But every application could address only 4GB maximum.
XP was full of holes that were patched and patched. What i didn't like is the boot time and system responsiveness over time that dropped and dropped.
Frop 20 seconds on fresh install to 2 minutes a year latter. Windows 8.1 still boots in 10 second maximum on a Hard Disk even a year and a half latter.

Stojke, sometimes you protect windows 8 so furiously that I'm starting to think you're working for Microsoft.

I tried it on my father-in-law's computer and I did not like it. Point. Later I had immense trouble removing windows 8 to install a pirated release of windows 7.

Guess what? Even that small number of Windows 8 liscences sold by Microsoft is less than the actual number of liscences in use. You can't get a good notebook without windows 8. There are 2-3 models in the shops around my area which feature ubuntu or no OS at all, however, they are bottom-line low-end machines. So what people do is buy the notebook, pay for the damned windows 8, come home and install pirated seven.

"Don't buy it if you don't like it" sounds quite hypocritic. As if you had a choice.

Stojke wrote:

From what i know from various talks with people - Windows XP 32bit could technically go up to 64GB with memory manager due to addressable memory maximum being 36bit. But every application could address only 4GB maximum.
XP was full of holes that were patched and patched. What i didn't like is the boot time and system responsiveness over time that dropped and dropped.
Frop 20 seconds on fresh install to 2 minutes a year latter. Windows 8.1 still boots in 10 second maximum on a Hard Disk even a year and a half latter.

Yes and no. Intel extended the memory table to 36-bits with the Pentium Pro. This was called Physical Address Extension (PAE). Beginning with Windows 2000 Advanced Server, the OS could run with PAE enabled (two "new" versions of NTOSKRNL are included: NTKRNLPA for single-core/proc systems and NTKRPAMP for SMP). You had to opt into this by setting the flag /PAE in the boot.ini file.

With PAE enabled, Windows can access more than 4 gigabytes of RAM, but no individual process can have more than 2 gigabytes. (Technically, a process can have up to 3GB if /3GB is specified in boot.ini and the process is compiled as /LARGEADDRESSAWARE)

Now - with XP (up to & including SP1a) - PAE is off by default but can be enabled with /PAE like in 2K Server. But when Service Pack 2 came out, Microsoft began enforcing hardware Data Execution Prevention (DEP). Since the hardware nX bit is bit 63 in the page table, supporting nX implies using PAE. But! With SP2, Microsoft also changed the kernel to artificially limit addressing to 4 GB, regardless of whether PAE is enabled or the system has >4GB of RAM.

Microsoft claimed that some drivers crapped out when being presented with large addresses. In theory, they shouldn't, but some "assume" a 32-bit table. The other reason (imo) is to promote the higher-priced SKU -
Windows Server 2003 and 2008 x86 (depending upon SKU - Standard & Web excluded) retain the ability to run with large memory using 36-bit PAE in x86 mode.

RacoonRider wrote:

Stojke, sometimes you protect windows 8 so furiously that I'm starting to think you're working for Microsoft.

Or maybe he just likes it? Some people like eating anchovies, that doesn't mean they work for the anchovy fishers.

EverythingOldIsNewAgain wrote:

Yes and no. Intel extended the memory table to 36-bits with the Pentium Pro. This was called Physical Address Extension (PAE). B […]
Show full quote

Stojke wrote:

From what i know from various talks with people - Windows XP 32bit could technically go up to 64GB with memory manager due to addressable memory maximum being 36bit. But every application could address only 4GB maximum.
XP was full of holes that were patched and patched. What i didn't like is the boot time and system responsiveness over time that dropped and dropped.
Frop 20 seconds on fresh install to 2 minutes a year latter. Windows 8.1 still boots in 10 second maximum on a Hard Disk even a year and a half latter.

Yes and no. Intel extended the memory table to 36-bits with the Pentium Pro. This was called Physical Address Extension (PAE). Beginning with Windows 2000 Advanced Server, the OS could run with PAE enabled (two "new" versions of NTOSKRNL are included: NTKRNLPA for single-core/proc systems and NTKRPAMP for SMP). You had to opt into this by setting the flag /PAE in the boot.ini file.

With PAE enabled, Windows can access more than 4 gigabytes of RAM, but no individual process can have more than 2 gigabytes. (Technically, a process can have up to 3GB if /3GB is specified in boot.ini and the process is compiled as /LARGEADDRESSAWARE)

Now - with XP (up to & including SP1a) - PAE is off by default but can be enabled with /PAE like in 2K Server. But when Service Pack 2 came out, Microsoft began enforcing hardware Data Execution Prevention (DEP). Since the hardware nX bit is bit 63 in the page table, supporting nX implies using PAE. But! With SP2, Microsoft also changed the kernel to artificially limit addressing to 4 GB, regardless of whether PAE is enabled or the system has >4GB of RAM.

Microsoft claimed that some drivers crapped out when being presented with large addresses. In theory, they shouldn't, but some "assume" a 32-bit table. The other reason (imo) is to promote the higher-priced SKU -
Windows Server 2003 and 2008 x86 (depending upon SKU - Standard & Web excluded) retain the ability to run with large memory using 36-bit PAE in x86 mode.

Thanks for detailed explanation 😀
I kinda guessed it was M$ who blocked it intentionally.

SquallStrife wrote:

RacoonRider wrote:

Stojke, sometimes you protect windows 8 so furiously that I'm starting to think you're working for Microsoft.

Or maybe he just likes it? Some people like eating anchovies, that doesn't mean they work for the anchovy fishers.

It does everything i need. From photoshop, to Hammer editor, to games, to audio editing. All applications i use work.
PS Anchovies are awesome 😁