Yeah, this is true. Windows 8 is extremely efficient; it runs well even on old hardware, like Pentium M's and Pentium 4's with a a gig of RAM, which is quite the accomplishment as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)
Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?
...as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)
Well yes and no and maybe. Windows 98 was 16 bit and many legacy apps at the time were written in DOS environment. Those apps no longer run. I would imagine there were also 32 bit apps written that may not work so well either going forward as it becomes increasingly difficult to support anything less than 64 bit. For example 32 bit apps running on Windows XP will definitely stop working on January 1, 2038 as it will no longer be able to tell time. That is because the timestamp will be too long and require 64 bits.
Yeah, this is true. Windows 8 is extremely efficient; it runs well even on old hardware, like Pentium M's and Pentium 4's with a a gig of RAM, which is quite the accomplishment as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)
In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall… my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...
I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...
In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall… my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...
I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...
I could easily point out a few, even recent, less than seamless OS transitions from Apple, however, when discussing comparisons between OS X and Windows, it is pointless to use words like "Every", "Always" and "Never" since they are "Often" used to deflate whatever argument you were trying to make.
Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?
A variety of reasons. The point is that many businesses continue have older hardware around. Cost, rotating upgrades, etc. An OS that can run on older hardware is a boon to business in many facets--an example would be virtualization, where older hardware can run a "thin-client" type install of Windows that then runs a networked virtual machine that performs other duties, etc.
In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall… my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...
I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...
Yep, I agree with you. OS X does (in general) seem to improve with each iteration. Some users complain about features and changes (like adding iOS-type launcher, etc.) but all that aside, it is improved.
The biggest caveat with OS X is that because Apple supports their hardware directly, they choose when to retire machines, and so at some point hardware is no longer supported. Microsoft casts a different net with Windows, trying to support the broadest hardware possible, because they know that's how the business world operates.
(For those of you with Intel Macs that are no longer supported by Apple, I'd seriously recommend trying Windows 8--if only via VM or Bootcamp. I think you may be suprised.)
You can be free (linux) but still people stay with XP
You can be a successor (vista/7) but people stay with XP
You can be presumably better (OS-X) but people stay with XP.
Is it that good ?
Vista/7/8 cost money. Except for 8, the upgrade cost is more than the market value of a lot of computers (possibly the majority now) running XP. XP is a sunk cost on an existing computer, so the price of with it is the same as switching to a free (beer or libre) OS, but there is a cost in time to switch a computer to something else, for most people, it's not worth the evening and risk of incompatible software and peripherals to upgrade. I think this is why most people just replace the computer instead of upgrading.
More power to those that use Linux, I've tried it off an on and not really been happy with it as a desktop OS, and the same goes with a lot of the apps. The OS makes an incredibly good router/network/server OS though.
Even today computers with Windows 7 are sold from Dell with XP Mode, whatever that means. I wonder if those machines log themselves as XP or Win 7 when surfing the net.
I think that's a compatibility mode, not actually using XP OS. If you're on the web, you're likely using a more modern browser, because it is simpler to just use it as it is. There's little point in deliberately setting backward compatibility for web use, at least for the consumer.
Well yes and no and maybe. Windows 98 was 16 bit and many legacy apps at the time were written in DOS environment. Those apps no longer run. I would imagine there were also 32 bit apps written that may not work so well either going forward as it becomes increasingly difficult to support anything less than 64 bit. For example 32 bit apps running on Windows XP will definitely stop working on January 1, 2038 as it will no longer be able to tell time. That is because the timestamp will be too long and require 64 bits.
There's always a limit to backward compatibility, but the timeline you give is pretty generous. W32 code goes back to 1995 and even earlier. Windows 8 still runs W32 code from back then. I'm sure it will be several more years before it's deprecated. By the time 2038 comes around, I don't think anyone would notice.
W16 and DOS code probably run pretty well on an emulator or virtual machine, I don't think MS needs to support them, they would just be baggage holding them back.
Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?
OK, that's verging on foolish now… because, a "decade old" vs 3 ~ 5 year old computer will mean a HUGE difference in performance AND reliability.
Look at our computers today, and then recall what we had in 2002. In 2002, we had JUST broken the 1Ghz barrier with the G4 chip, and moved to dual CPU I think… My iPad today has a CPU (and GPU) more powerful than that top of the line "1.25 Ghz Dual G4 Power Mac" tower had...
Do you think you could successfully run even the most efficient current version of FULL Windows on a 1 Ghz machine?
But you go back FIVE years (what I would normally consider pretty much the "End Of Life" of even my personal systems), and you've got an 8-core Mac Pro sporting a QUAD core Xeon CPU (3.0 GHz Q. Core Xeon X5365 x2) that COULD probably run today's OSX without showing its age too badly...
So, no, I wouldn't try running the latest Windows on a 10 year old system, or even a 5 year old PC (is there really such a thing? Anyone here regularly USE a 5 year old Dell, for example?), but I could see using a 5-year old Mac Pro for Mountain Lion...
But that's not all of it. Performance, yes, but also COMPONENTS, which remain reliable for only so long… after 5 years, drives, sensors and other things start to fail… so you end up with an increased cost of ownership. lower reliability...
For a company, this would be untenable, and that's especially why they don't use those decade-old computers…
Do you think you could successfully run even the most efficient current version of FULL Windows on a 1 Ghz machine?
That's what is being said here: Windows 8 runs well on Pentium 4 chips. If this is because businesses keep around older hardware, my question is then why do businesses always seem to buy new computers instead of just upgrading? And then why does Microsoft bother supporting the old hardware at all?
XP still used by many companies as corporate world updates in relatively long and slow cycles. Vista was never widely used in the corporate world so Windows 7 bypassing Vista isn't hard to believe
Anyone here regularly USE a 5 year old Dell, for example?), but I could see using a 5-year old Mac Pro for Mountain Lion...
Yes, we have several older than that running XP. And they do run quite well as they were top of the line machines at the time of purchase. Surprisingly none have required any service of any kind and have all of the service packs install. They mostly run applications of that time frame such as Office 2003 with compatibility pack so they are quite stable and productive. One even runs Adobe CS1 which is useful since it is the only machine in our department with a scanner attached. The scanner is really super high end 11 x17 with 16 bit color and has transparency capability so we keep it around. I'm pretty sure if we upgraded anything it would cause all kinds of incompatibilities which is a perfect example of why there are still so many XP machines still running. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
That's what is being said here: Windows 8 runs well on Pentium 4 chips. If this is because businesses keep around older hardware, my question is then why do businesses always seem to buy new computers instead of just upgrading? And then why does Microsoft bother supporting the old hardware at all?
Businesses do not often upgrade their OS more than one major revision. People who are installing Win 7 on machines that came with XP are not your typical corporate IT department. As others have said most Windows machines never get their OS upgraded. Even so those older machines remain quite serviceable for the tasks they are performing.
I do predict a massive Windows upgrade and hardware replacement cycle to begin very soon which will completely deprecate XP. The reason is HTML5. As more and more websites start to utilize HTML5, Windows users will not be able to access that web content without upgrading to IE 9. IE 9 will not be supported on XP as far as I have heard. Sure they could install Chrome plugin or Chrome itself, but many corporate IT departments are unwilling to do that as they have IE proprietary Windows applications on the network and they don't want service requests from users saying the application is broken.
How useless is it to compare the usage of Mac OS X to the shittiest OS that of course no one used because of how poorly built it was...
In a way I do understand the comparison, even for perspective's sake. Vista was a universally-licensed OS that was installed on a lot of systems. It's useful, I think, to see how an unlicensed OS that typically runs dedicatedly on machines costing over $1000 does against any universally-licensed OS - no matter how bad it is - that runs on everything. Out of the gate, even the worst version of Windows *will* get a running start thanks to sheer force of numbers. The market is flooded with bad, cheap PCs running Windows, and often some awful version of it. There's no getting around that, though times are changing (mostly the non-Windows world blowing past the old MS paradigm.)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Linking to your own posts to validate your arguement? Are you DED's Sith apprentice?
It's a call to be a little more attentive before posting.
Originally Posted by Shidell
Yeah, this is true. Windows 8 is extremely efficient; it runs well even on old hardware, like Pentium M's and Pentium 4's with a a gig of RAM, which is quite the accomplishment as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)
Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
XP came out feature-complete in 2001,
Which is the scary part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
...as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)
Well yes and no and maybe. Windows 98 was 16 bit and many legacy apps at the time were written in DOS environment. Those apps no longer run. I would imagine there were also 32 bit apps written that may not work so well either going forward as it becomes increasingly difficult to support anything less than 64 bit. For example 32 bit apps running on Windows XP will definitely stop working on January 1, 2038 as it will no longer be able to tell time. That is because the timestamp will be too long and require 64 bits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Yeah, this is true. Windows 8 is extremely efficient; it runs well even on old hardware, like Pentium M's and Pentium 4's with a a gig of RAM, which is quite the accomplishment as they continue to support legacy applications (as they always have, and always will, being the business world.)
In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall… my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...
I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall… my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...
I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...
I could easily point out a few, even recent, less than seamless OS transitions from Apple, however, when discussing comparisons between OS X and Windows, it is pointless to use words like "Every", "Always" and "Never" since they are "Often" used to deflate whatever argument you were trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?
A variety of reasons. The point is that many businesses continue have older hardware around. Cost, rotating upgrades, etc. An OS that can run on older hardware is a boon to business in many facets--an example would be virtualization, where older hardware can run a "thin-client" type install of Windows that then runs a networked virtual machine that performs other duties, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
In my experience so far, every iteration of OSX has run more efficiently than the last on my 'existing hardware'. It actually helps to increase the life cycle of the products I use. I typically expect 2 years tops for a computer (laptop or desktop) before I start considering an upgrade… my last two buying cycles extended out to 3 and 4 years, almost entirely because of the OS updates making the machines perform so much better overall… my desktop/laptop upgrades are staggered, so I also get to see the benefit of new processors & architecture in between. I have seen performance bumps just from the OS upgrade that almost rivaled a generational hardware bump...
I don't think OSX has given up much "eye candy" in the process to achieve those performance boosts… well, yes, less pure 'eye candy', but lots more UX+GUI additions. It's quite a nice looking AND intuitive OS, without going crazy on cpu overhead… just my opinion though...
Yep, I agree with you. OS X does (in general) seem to improve with each iteration. Some users complain about features and changes (like adding iOS-type launcher, etc.) but all that aside, it is improved.
The biggest caveat with OS X is that because Apple supports their hardware directly, they choose when to retire machines, and so at some point hardware is no longer supported. Microsoft casts a different net with Windows, trying to support the broadest hardware possible, because they know that's how the business world operates.
(For those of you with Intel Macs that are no longer supported by Apple, I'd seriously recommend trying Windows 8--if only via VM or Bootcamp. I think you may be suprised.)
Vista/7/8 cost money. Except for 8, the upgrade cost is more than the market value of a lot of computers (possibly the majority now) running XP. XP is a sunk cost on an existing computer, so the price of with it is the same as switching to a free (beer or libre) OS, but there is a cost in time to switch a computer to something else, for most people, it's not worth the evening and risk of incompatible software and peripherals to upgrade. I think this is why most people just replace the computer instead of upgrading.
More power to those that use Linux, I've tried it off an on and not really been happy with it as a desktop OS, and the same goes with a lot of the apps. The OS makes an incredibly good router/network/server OS though.
There's no way to account for those computers. I don't think there are a significant number of them like that.
I think that's a compatibility mode, not actually using XP OS. If you're on the web, you're likely using a more modern browser, because it is simpler to just use it as it is. There's little point in deliberately setting backward compatibility for web use, at least for the consumer.
There's always a limit to backward compatibility, but the timeline you give is pretty generous. W32 code goes back to 1995 and even earlier. Windows 8 still runs W32 code from back then. I'm sure it will be several more years before it's deprecated. By the time 2038 comes around, I don't think anyone would notice.
W16 and DOS code probably run pretty well on an emulator or virtual machine, I don't think MS needs to support them, they would just be baggage holding them back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Then why do businesses just buy new computers instead of upgrading their decade old ones?
OK, that's verging on foolish now… because, a "decade old" vs 3 ~ 5 year old computer will mean a HUGE difference in performance AND reliability.
Look at our computers today, and then recall what we had in 2002. In 2002, we had JUST broken the 1Ghz barrier with the G4 chip, and moved to dual CPU I think… My iPad today has a CPU (and GPU) more powerful than that top of the line "1.25 Ghz Dual G4 Power Mac" tower had...
Do you think you could successfully run even the most efficient current version of FULL Windows on a 1 Ghz machine?
But you go back FIVE years (what I would normally consider pretty much the "End Of Life" of even my personal systems), and you've got an 8-core Mac Pro sporting a QUAD core Xeon CPU (3.0 GHz Q. Core Xeon X5365 x2) that COULD probably run today's OSX without showing its age too badly...
So, no, I wouldn't try running the latest Windows on a 10 year old system, or even a 5 year old PC (is there really such a thing? Anyone here regularly USE a 5 year old Dell, for example?), but I could see using a 5-year old Mac Pro for Mountain Lion...
But that's not all of it. Performance, yes, but also COMPONENTS, which remain reliable for only so long… after 5 years, drives, sensors and other things start to fail… so you end up with an increased cost of ownership. lower reliability...
For a company, this would be untenable, and that's especially why they don't use those decade-old computers…
oops, duplicate...
Originally Posted by tribalogical
Do you think you could successfully run even the most efficient current version of FULL Windows on a 1 Ghz machine?
That's what is being said here: Windows 8 runs well on Pentium 4 chips. If this is because businesses keep around older hardware, my question is then why do businesses always seem to buy new computers instead of just upgrading? And then why does Microsoft bother supporting the old hardware at all?
XP still used by many companies as corporate world updates in relatively long and slow cycles. Vista was never widely used in the corporate world so Windows 7 bypassing Vista isn't hard to believe
Windows XP is not that bad of an OS. Far better than Vista. Most business are still running XP as of today. (But I prefer Mac OS X above all :P)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
Anyone here regularly USE a 5 year old Dell, for example?), but I could see using a 5-year old Mac Pro for Mountain Lion...
Yes, we have several older than that running XP. And they do run quite well as they were top of the line machines at the time of purchase. Surprisingly none have required any service of any kind and have all of the service packs install. They mostly run applications of that time frame such as Office 2003 with compatibility pack so they are quite stable and productive. One even runs Adobe CS1 which is useful since it is the only machine in our department with a scanner attached. The scanner is really super high end 11 x17 with 16 bit color and has transparency capability so we keep it around. I'm pretty sure if we upgraded anything it would cause all kinds of incompatibilities which is a perfect example of why there are still so many XP machines still running. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Originally Posted by MsQueen
…the shittiest OS that of course no one used…
"Ma'am, Windows ME would like a word, and Windows 8 has an appointment for next month."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's what is being said here: Windows 8 runs well on Pentium 4 chips. If this is because businesses keep around older hardware, my question is then why do businesses always seem to buy new computers instead of just upgrading? And then why does Microsoft bother supporting the old hardware at all?
Businesses do not often upgrade their OS more than one major revision. People who are installing Win 7 on machines that came with XP are not your typical corporate IT department. As others have said most Windows machines never get their OS upgraded. Even so those older machines remain quite serviceable for the tasks they are performing.
I do predict a massive Windows upgrade and hardware replacement cycle to begin very soon which will completely deprecate XP. The reason is HTML5. As more and more websites start to utilize HTML5, Windows users will not be able to access that web content without upgrading to IE 9. IE 9 will not be supported on XP as far as I have heard. Sure they could install Chrome plugin or Chrome itself, but many corporate IT departments are unwilling to do that as they have IE proprietary Windows applications on the network and they don't want service requests from users saying the application is broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsQueen
How useless is it to compare the usage of Mac OS X to the shittiest OS that of course no one used because of how poorly built it was...
In a way I do understand the comparison, even for perspective's sake. Vista was a universally-licensed OS that was installed on a lot of systems. It's useful, I think, to see how an unlicensed OS that typically runs dedicatedly on machines costing over $1000 does against any universally-licensed OS - no matter how bad it is - that runs on everything. Out of the gate, even the worst version of Windows *will* get a running start thanks to sheer force of numbers. The market is flooded with bad, cheap PCs running Windows, and often some awful version of it. There's no getting around that, though times are changing (mostly the non-Windows world blowing past the old MS paradigm.)
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes Windows 8 to become as popular as Vista.
If ever. It might never happen.