Microsoft Allows PC Makers to Downgrade to Windows XP - Page 4 - Overclock.net

Aaron_Henderson · 09-22-07

Hate to say it, but even MS knows that if XP got DX10 as well as Vista, Vista would bomb huge.

DigitalSonata · 09-22-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

I'll answer your question with a question... why does it bother you so much? How has it personally affected your life?

Perhaps I am a bit paranoid, but to me this is like breaking into my house to fix my oven, and leaving the door unlocked afterwards. This could be easily exploited by someone with malicious intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

Please substanitate this statement with fact. There is just as much security risk with XP, if not more.

Source: http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13...-users-consent
Discussion: http://www.overclock.net/software-ne...-xp-vista.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

Well, the first reason would be that most new PC's nowadays don't have parallel ports. You figure it out.

This is a difference between hardware and software. Software should provide drivers for older technology, so I can use an adapter to use my older hardware.

killerhz · 09-22-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by dualhYbrid

You're missing the point. If they sell laptops with only vista, how do you get XP when you're a dumb dumb person buying a laptop. You don't go "oh, I'll pop down to my local comp. store and get XP" no, you have no understanding of computers if you are in the VAST majority of people. Im sure it comes with very detailed instructions on installing the os, too

Well right down the street from me there are a Best Buy, Comp USA & Circut City and they all sell laptops with Vista or XP. As far as the dumb dumb persen buying the laptop then most if not all are looking to surf the net, play solitare or watch DVD's, which you could do on Vista without an issue. (I have had ista installed myself for 7 months with no issues) What I said in my last post was just my opinion and after I read the article it looks like it was geared towards pre-made PC's Laptops which made sense to me once I read it. So take it easy didn't mean to get you all worked up.

killerhz · 09-22-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron_Henderson

OS owned - Windows XP Pro 32
Windows Vista Ultimate 32

Preference - Windows XP Pro

That's it, except to say that MS needs to lay off the "Buy Vista or die" attitude.

I agree with that statement. I wan't forced to by Vista but can see where noobs would feel like it Vista or nothing else...

DigitalSonata · 09-22-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Higgins

Hmm, virus like? So your saying the 13GB program that you RUN your computer on and is used to do EVERYTHING with your computer shouldnt be able to modify anything? So do you want another UAC window to ask you if it was infact you who is trying to create a new folder? I dont see why its such a surprise that your OPERATING SYSTEM has the power to patch itself.

I tell Linux when and what to patch, I control it. See the article linked in my previous post and see what I am talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Higgins

Linux and Windows are not even on the same playing field, so dont bring Linux into a Windows thread until Linux becomes a consumer OS like Windows.

It isnt a security threat if you know what your doing. Install AV and FW and your fine.. Vista is a helluva lot harder to get into than XP ever will be.

I beg to differ, the ONLY field where Linux does not surpass Windows is games, and that is ONLY because almost no games are developed for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Higgins

Why should it work with a ten year old printer? Vista has like 7GB of drivers as it is.. you want it to have 20GB? Also, why do you think less and less motherboards have parallel ports?

Perhaps not on the CD, but there should be Vista compatible drivers on the net for them.

HrnyGoat · 09-22-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

Try running XP on a machine that was released bundled with win98 and let me know how "optimized" it is. For that matter, try running win98 on a machine that was bundled with win3.1 and let me know about that as well.

Operating systems dont have to become significantly more of a resource hog as hardware progresses. I never even said XP was optimized to begin with. But I can tell you that you could install Linux on any of those machines, and it would run fine, and on a capable machine, it can perform tasks just as good, if not better than Windows; simply due to the fact that Linux has a considerably smaller resource footprint.

Quote:

Software and Hardware progress in their complexity hand-in-hand. Anyone who cannot grasp this concept has been living under a rock for the last 20+ years. For those willing to spend money on up to date machines capable of running up to date software, this isn't an issue. Vista runs screaming fast on my system, much faster than XP especially with programs that are pre-loaded into the system memory.

XP runs much faster on my PC than Ive seen Vista run on other people's PCs. And one thing that is annoying is waiting for Vista to fill up 2GB of memory with stuff you may or may not even use.

Quote:

Aaaah, "wonderful" XP, where one program error brings the whole system down to its knees. I had XP randomly crash several times a month at least, and that is with a fresh reinstall every two months.

I've been running this particular Vista install for about four months, and it has crashed to the point of needing a hard restart ONCE. Yes, ONCE. Not so much like fifty times or so XP would have crashed by now.

Ive been running this install of XP for 18 months, and aside from having a stick of RAM go bad, I havent had to do any hard restarts.

Quote:

Vista is really great, and I wish people would stop endlessly bashing it.

Just because it looks pretty doesnt make it great. Id much rather have a utilitarian-looking OS than something with a bunch of eye candy that runs games slower than XP.

Quote:

Define "lack of compatibility". Are you using a flatbed scanner from 1996 or something?

No, I am not. Ive heard of much more recent hardware not working with Vista. And I wasnt even referring to hardware, Im talking about all the software out there that wont run or wont run correctly under Vista.

Quote:

Vista immediately recognized my Brother MFC665CW multifunction machine, installed printer fax and scanned drivers, and it was working within minutes. On XP it took me almost an hour to get the darn drivers loaded and in Vista I never even had to insert a disk.

I have that exact same printer and it took 15 minutes tops to get all the software set up. Something must be wrong with your computer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

At this point in time any Linux derivitave and mainstream consumer OS's do not belong in the same discussion. I will be willing to continue along this line of discussion as soon as Linux becomes a mainstream OS which is familiar to the average consumer, and suitable for mass distribution. There are so many flavors that the average consumer can't make heads or tails of it all. Blame this on their stupidity, or "evil M$" or whatever you want, but it still won't change anything.

By your definition, Windows is the only mainstream OS. Linux is a great alternative to Windows, and is becoming better all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Higgins

Why should it be compatible with EVERYTHING made since 95? They had to cut it off SOME point.. Vista has a ~13GB cleaninstall footprint mainly due to the mass amount of drivers it has. Now people complain about the lack of legacy drivers.. printers cost $50 now a days, if your printer wont work google around, go buy a new one, or go away.

I never said it had to. But the fact that much recent hardware and software remains unsupported cannot be ignored. And that 13GB install footprint is just absurd. Driver installation should be optional and unneeded drivers kept on the install disk. Need a driver? Pop in the install disk. Done. No need for a huge install. Or perhaps even have an online database of drivers. 13GB is just ridiculous.

Quote:

Linux and Windows are not even on the same playing field, so dont bring Linux into a Windows thread until Linux becomes a consumer OS like Windows.

Dont be an MS fanboy and bash Linux.

Kramy · 09-22-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

Try running XP on a machine that was released bundled with win98 and let me know how "optimized" it is. For that matter, try running win98 on a machine that was bundled with win3.1 and let me know about that as well.

Now this is an interesting one. The kernel actually improved with the jump from Win9x to Win2k.

The kernel is faster, but XP has way more junk loaded in. There are programs to remove that junk - if you use them, XP is very fast.

I tested a lite XP install on a 333mhz P2 laptop with 64MB of RAM, and a 4200RPM HDD. It was blazing fast - programs like Firefox opened in 10-15 seconds(cold start). Foxit Reader opened in 1-2 seconds. OpenOffice took 5-10 seconds. Programs like paint.net, VirtualDub, MediaPlayerClassic all started in a negligible amount of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

Software and Hardware progress in their complexity hand-in-hand. Anyone who cannot grasp this concept has been living under a rock for the last 20+ years.

True.

But Windows has many stupid things in it.

Code:

for(a = 0; a < 3000; a++) { thread.wait(1); }

Something to that effect got added to WinXP's MIDI handling, for no reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

For those willing to spend money on up to date machines capable of running up to date software, this isn't an issue. Vista runs screaming fast on my system, much faster than XP especially with programs that are pre-loaded into the system memory.

Program preloading is a really good feature.

But I disagree with your analysis of things. You pay for up-to-date hardware so software developers can spend less time optimizing code, and can pocket more money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

Aaaah, "wonderful" XP, where one program error brings the whole system down to its knees. I had XP randomly crash several times a month at least, and that is with a fresh reinstall every two months.

I have a Win2k install and WinXP install. Neither has ever BSOD'd, unless I was busy overclocking them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

I've been running this particular Vista install for about four months, and it has crashed to the point of needing a hard restart ONCE. Yes, ONCE. Not so much like fifty times or so XP would have crashed by now.

Not everyone got that unlucky with XP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

Vista is really great, and I wish people would stop endlessly bashing it.

I agree that it is quite good, but I think it could be better. Microsoft didn't flex all their programming muscle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

Define "lack of compatibility". Are you using a flatbed scanner from 1996 or something?

Program compatability is a huge issue, actually. There's tens of thousands of programs built for specific needs, that never make it onto a home user's computer. These are all programs present in corporations, government agencies, etc.

Updating them to work with Vista would be a PITA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh

I am running x64 and it has amazed me with its compatibility, oftentimes supporting several years old hardware. Heck, when I first installed it I plugged in, Vista immediately recognized my Brother MFC665CW multifunction machine, installed printer fax and scanned drivers, and it was working within minutes. On XP it took me almost an hour to get the darn drivers loaded and in Vista I never even had to insert a disk.

The ONLY thing I have had any problem with was my Linksys wireless card which was purchased in 2004, and it was Linksys' fault for refusing to supply updated drivers for it. A quick trip to the wireless chipset manufacturer's site and it was up and running in no time.

Brother packages their drivers with Windows. That was one of the things I turfed, when configuring a lite XP install.

KSIMP88 · 09-22-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris4ka

QFT

Oh, shut up.
Lose the "qft" crap, it's getting old.

Sorry, it just is.

Vista is hated because it is new. It's better than XP was in its beginning stages.

Kramy · 09-22-07

If you want an incredible kernel, check out the XBox kernel. Microsoft started with the 2k/XP kernel, and a task:
-Shrink/optimize it, so it uses less than 1MB of memory.

Well, they succeeded, and packed it into just 150KB of memory!

150KB is just a tad smaller than the 60-100MB XP/Vista's kernels sometimes use.

So yeah, I stand by my statements that Microsoft didn't flex all their programming muscle, and you pay for faster hardware to save developers time and money.

blupupher · 09-22-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firestorm252

...edit--------------
and i just realized that our ordering system runs off an old AS400 machine. My guess is, with the current track record, it won't like Vista either.

...

AS400 and Vista= no worky.
The City I worked for had just gotten about 20 new computers with Vista. Needless to say, after 1 day, they were all picked up and XP Pro was installed because of AS400 not working.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Software News
Microsoft Allows PC Makers to Downgrade to Windows XP