Comments on: Does Microsoft get it yet? http://techlifepost.com/2009/06/12/does-microsoft-get-it-yet/ Living with technology. Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:22:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Evolving Squid http://techlifepost.com/2009/06/12/does-microsoft-get-it-yet/comment-page-1/#comment-1772 Evolving Squid Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:08:52 +0000 http://techlifepost.com/?p=3624#comment-1772 <i>Much of the gain that could be realized by buying a fast new computer is tossed away by the operating system.</i> Bollocks. Completely untrue. That's 100% myth, especially when you factor in stability. It is slower on identical hardware? yes, a few percent. But factor in the time spent not rebooting, not rebuilding your registry, not blue-screening... and it's a few percent that's worth it. The memory thing is a distortion of the truth. XP CANNOT run with more than 3 GB, so the fact that Vista can use whatever memory is available should not be held against it. Similarly, XP is ancient technology, not adequately using the 64-bit CPUs that have been around since before XP was even made. Those are not flaws of Vista, they are flaws of PREVIOUS work and demonstrate that Microsoft was, in fact, on the right track. The mistake in Vista was permitting a 32-bit version to be released. That was a huge corporate error. <i>Second, and even more maddening, is that there is no real benefit to most users.</i> I'll agree partially here. The benefit is being able to use modern hardware to its fullest potential. There is no short-term benefit to users, but there is a long-term benefit in that newer applications can make better use of the available CPU/memory/whatever. Give up your XP licence - you're going to have to sooner or later (probably sooner). It's half-baked, ancient technology that will be useless in the future. XP is the buggy-whip of the WinTel computer paradigm. It's already on borrowed time and will get a stake through the heart when Win7 comes out. Much of the gain that could be realized by buying a fast new computer is tossed away by the operating system.

Bollocks. Completely untrue. That’s 100% myth, especially when you factor in stability.

It is slower on identical hardware? yes, a few percent.

But factor in the time spent not rebooting, not rebuilding your registry, not blue-screening… and it’s a few percent that’s worth it.

The memory thing is a distortion of the truth. XP CANNOT run with more than 3 GB, so the fact that Vista can use whatever memory is available should not be held against it. Similarly, XP is ancient technology, not adequately using the 64-bit CPUs that have been around since before XP was even made. Those are not flaws of Vista, they are flaws of PREVIOUS work and demonstrate that Microsoft was, in fact, on the right track.

The mistake in Vista was permitting a 32-bit version to be released. That was a huge corporate error.

Second, and even more maddening, is that there is no real benefit to most users.

I’ll agree partially here. The benefit is being able to use modern hardware to its fullest potential. There is no short-term benefit to users, but there is a long-term benefit in that newer applications can make better use of the available CPU/memory/whatever.

Give up your XP licence – you’re going to have to sooner or later (probably sooner). It’s half-baked, ancient technology that will be useless in the future. XP is the buggy-whip of the WinTel computer paradigm. It’s already on borrowed time and will get a stake through the heart when Win7 comes out.

]]>