PDA

View Full Version : So then, upgrading to windows 8 or not?



BillButNotBen
07-10-2012, 04:42 AM
(hopefully avoiding knee-jerk reactions and moaning about how awful metro is).

So, I have a laptop that came with windows Vista Ultimate. I bought it a few weeks before they announced Windows 7 and they had a really evil upgrade system in place from Vista Ultimate to Windows 7. Ultimate was excluded from the special pre-order pricing and I wasn't impressed with the idea of having to pay 300 bucks to upgrade on OS i just bought. So I basically just stayed on vista and forgot about it.

I've actually had no real complaints with Vista, but recently my laptop is feeling a little sluggish, and all the hype for win 8 has started to kick in - talking about how 7 and 8 are less resource intensive, so i was thinking it might be a way to slightly rejuvenate and freshen up my laptop.

But a win 7 ultimate upgrade still seems to be insanely expensive. A win 7 Pro upgrade is a little cheaper, but requires a full re-install. I wasn't that interested in win 8, but the pricing seems to be really low ($30 vs $120). I guess they're hoping to make their profits on the app store / dlc.

I have a few issues with the app store's monopoly, but I'm not as fervently anti the ideas of win 8 as some people.

What do people think? What are the pros/cons of upgrading to win7 or win8 these days?

Also, I'm currently on vista 32 bit. When i got it there were a fair number of compatibility issues with 64 bit. Is that all sorted out now? How about running older software? Win7 had a XP virtual machine right? Does win 8 have that, or will half my older games/software stop working?

Also, have MS snuck in any sneaky DRM/Anti-consumer tech this time?

There was a win8 demo right? Is that still available? Does it dual boot with your existing OS and how long does it take to set up? Is there a live cd?

(I'd like to get some balanced opinions rather than the usual rants about vista or about win8 being dumbed down for tablets.).

FriendlyFire
07-10-2012, 05:42 AM
I'm not sure whether I'm reading your post right, but if you did buy a Windows Vista laptop shortly after the arrival of Windows 7 you may be eligible (or at least, might've been) for a free upgrade. Google "Windows 7 Upgrade Program" and try finding info about your laptop's brand. It's worth a shot I guess.

Otherwise, I'll be honest: Windows 8 has a fair few features that make it a legitimately interesting upgrade, but buries it under a clunky interface. It's a faster OS with better features, provided you can live with the interface formerly known as Metro. In my few weeks running the Server 8 preview, I did get somewhat accustomed to it, but some of the interface decisions still felt downright bizarre, such as hiding shutdown/restart in a panel many clicks away (I ended up resorting to Alt-F4 on the desktop a lot more than I ever did) or having those giant buttons that don't really help with a mouse driven interface.

If you've seen the interface formerly known as Metro already and feel like you can get used to it (or ignore it as much as possible and abstract out the rest), then I'd say it's a worthwhile upgrade. Otherwise, Windows 7 is still a very solid OS and likely will become the new Windows XP.

BillButNotBen
07-10-2012, 05:54 AM
Nah. The win 7 upgrade program came into effect a few weeks too late for me. It was very frustrating at the time.

I don't know if i'd get used to Metro having not tried it yet, but I tend to get used to things like that really quickly, or be able to ignore small changes/annoyances. There do seem to be a few interesting points to win 8 such as the security features. Frankly though, the main appeal of win8 is the incredibly low price. If win 7 and win 8 were comparable in price i'd probably go with 7. But paying 5x more to get an older OS seems wrong somehow.

Heliocentric
07-10-2012, 07:15 AM
Windows 7 is fine and plays the games I want, is still supported against security holes and all mainstream software runs on it. Also, steams "big picture" has out paced everything I've seen about metro even if i did start playing on my TV with a wireless controller.

soldant
07-10-2012, 07:24 AM
I've been running Windows 8 as my primary OS on my desktop for a while now (TechNet RTM), and before that I used the previews extensively. Metro is not particularly good or useful on desktops - I never use the tiles. But in terms of losing the Start menu, you get over it very quickly. It works the exact same way as I use the Start menu in Win7: open it up, type what I want, press Enter. That part has never changed. I spend almost all my time in classic desktop mode without any issues. In general I find Win8 to be a bit faster, and it was a LOT faster at booting on a HDD than Win7 (particularly on my old laptop's slow HDD). With an SSD, the difference is less noticeable, but BIOS takes longer than Win8 booting on my SSD.

x64 issues died out with Vista - WinXP x64 was terrible, but that's far in the past. The only important point to remember is that 16-bit support is entirely dropped in every x64 version of Windows. Unless you rely on legacy software, I find no reason not to use x64.

Regarding DRM - Metro is supposedly locked down by Microsoft so that you can only install Metro apps from the Windows store, done as part of the cross-platform design methodology. Yet installing Google Chrome will also install a Metro app, which is absent from the Windows store. I'm guessing it still must be signed by MS or something, not sure. In terms of regular x86/desktop apps, there's absolutely no change whatsoever. Anyone who tells you different is making stuff up. You can install whatever you like. It's only Metro that's locked, but I highly doubt you'll care.

BillButNotBen
07-10-2012, 11:07 AM
RE: locked metro apps: I think i read on the product matrix that the more expensive/professional versions can install apps from other sources, but the basic versions can only install from the MS store.

I almost never use the start menu, I just type into the box like you. So I'm thinking that metro isn't going to be a big issue for me... it might even be a nice little extra replacing something like rainmeter.

Anyone know any other issues to be aware of. I'm worried about getting older games to work, and about using older legacy software. (i dont' do it often, but i don't want to lose a useful peice of software. ) Does it still have a built in XP emulator?

I must admit, I'm a little worried by the low price, it feels like a trap. I worry there's a catch later!

Thanks for info so far!

PS/ Have they done anything annoying like forcing you to use Bing or integrating some MS service so deeply into the OS that it can't be avoided?

Sakkura
07-10-2012, 01:08 PM
I used Windows Vista 64-bit and apart from the very beginning never noticed any problems with compatibility. Win 7 - also 64-bit - on my new computer has been smooth sailing so far. I see no reason to think Win 8 would be different in that regard.

As for the low price, Microsoft is expecting you to fork over extra cash via the new app store.

soldant
07-10-2012, 01:18 PM
I'm worried about getting older games to work, and about using older legacy software. (i dont' do it often, but i don't want to lose a useful peice of software. ) Does it still have a built in XP emulator?
If it worked on Vista/Win7, it should work on Win8. It's not such a massive fundamental difference like the jump from 98->XP or XP->Vista. So far I haven't had any problems with software failing to work under Windows 8... but some software apparently can't cope with there being a web browser under Metro and a web browser under the classic desktop. Steam for example won't open up a browser window when you click on say the forums link from within Steam (Steam's internal browser works fine). Other software seems to have a similar issue. It's weird.


PS/ Have they done anything annoying like forcing you to use Bing or integrating some MS service so deeply into the OS that it can't be avoided?
Not really. Bing has a live tile by default, as does Skydrive, but you can ignore/hide them if you like. You have the option to log into Windows with a Live account, or you can just use a local account as you have since forever. Logging in under a Live account should (theoretically) sync Metro UI changes across devices, but in my testing it apparently does absolutely nothing of use, so either it's broken or it doesn't do what it suggests that it does. Service integration is fairly superficial. Also you can change Metro program defaults, so you don't have to use Internet Explorer or whatever to open file type X under Metro.

Classic desktop has no integration with any of those services. Amusingly, despite Metro UI featuring a Skydrive client, there's no such client bundled with the OS for Windows Explorer/classic desktop. The only thing that annoys me is that Win8 uses a lot of the bundled Metro apps to handle various files by default - for example, audio files are opened up by the Metro Music app by default, which is a pain because it's a pretty crappy app and ill suited for the desktop. You can of course change this easily enough, but it's slightly annoying nonetheless.

Adam
07-10-2012, 01:26 PM
I'm fine on Vista Ultimate 64-bit. Since SP2 I have never had any problems. If I did upgrade then I would install Windows 7. Microsoft products are too expensive and I can't afford to upgrade every so often.

If I didn't play games regularly then I wouldn't even bother with Windows. I wish I could use a good Linux distribution instead, such as Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Sigh!

BillButNotBen
08-10-2012, 09:38 AM
I'm fine on Vista Ultimate 64-bit. Since SP2 I have never had any problems. If I did upgrade then I would install Windows 7. Microsoft products are too expensive and I can't afford to upgrade every so often.

If I didn't play games regularly then I wouldn't even bother with Windows. I wish I could use a good Linux distribution instead, such as Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Sigh!

I'm in a similar situation. I'm fine with vista.. but on the other hand i'd like to freshen things up a little... I've gotten a little bored with it. (and getting an android phone has highlighted how user-unfriendly windows is in a few places).

Ordinarily I'd agree about the price, (especially for Ultimate!), but the current price for win8 seems to be less than that of a single game... (under 25 quid for standard upgrade!) so it's tempting, but a little suspicious. (I wonder if they're planning to go to a more rapid release schedule like android / iOS? Given that it's aimed at tablets too that has to be a major possibility.).

I'm with you on the linux thing to some extent, but I just keep running into cases where the software isn't available on linux. Which is a shame.

I'm definitely tempted... i need to see about installing a preview or virtual edition so i can check it out without destroying my existing setup....

soldant
08-10-2012, 11:23 AM
Ordinarily I'd agree about the price, (especially for Ultimate!), but the current price for win8 seems to be less than that of a single game... (under 25 quid for standard upgrade!) so it's tempting, but a little suspicious. (I wonder if they're planning to go to a more rapid release schedule like android / iOS? Given that it's aimed at tablets too that has to be a major possibility.).
All indications show that we'll likely be going back to the old Windows release schedule, which we've sort of half-returned to as it is - a new release every one to two years. The gap between XP and Vista was abnormal and unintended - I'm sure you'll remember that back in the 90s up to 2001 we had Win 3, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, and XP, not to mention the NT line. The 6 years between XP and Vista was never supposed to have happened. Windows 9 will hit in a year or two, you can put money on that.

But in returning to the more rapid update cycle, Microsoft seem to be dropping the price. But it's important to note that they only seem interested in selling upgrade copies to the general public as things stand. I don't know if OEM versions are going to be available for retailers outside of the system builders. In other words, I don't know if the days of buying an OEM copy of Windows with your new motherboard will still happen.

Feldspar
08-10-2012, 11:46 AM
In all likelyhood I'll maintain my usual Windows upgrade policy, that is to say I'll upgrade it when I replace my system. I can't be arsed with faffing around on a system that works perfectly as it is, there are no new features on Win8 that I desperately need.

Kadayi
08-10-2012, 12:21 PM
I'm not seeing a compelling reason to upgrade the desktop at this point in time, however I am considering getting a Surface Pro tablet (assuming they live upto promise) and maybe a windows 8 phone and if it makes sense to upgrade the desktop so all are intergrated fully I might consider it. However we're talking a way off yet.

Alex Bakke
08-10-2012, 12:36 PM
Windows 7 is pretty cool, I don't think I'll be upgrading until at least the first service pack for Windows 8 comes out.

rider
08-10-2012, 03:02 PM
Do we have any idea if W8 will be more resourceful system requirements wise? As in, comparing 7 and 8, what are the basic ongoing requirements on the hardware to keep them going.

Sakkura
08-10-2012, 03:12 PM
Windows 8 has the same system requirements as Windows 7, which has the same system requirements as Windows Vista. Each generation is also generally optimised a little more in areas like memory management and boot time. Hardware drivers may be a little more mature for Windows 7/Vista, but 8 should catch up very quickly if it hasn't already by the time it launches. So performance-wise, Windows 8 gets a thumbs up.

soldant
08-10-2012, 03:26 PM
Do we have any idea if W8 will be more resourceful system requirements wise? As in, comparing 7 and 8, what are the basic ongoing requirements on the hardware to keep them going.
Benchmarks show that Win8 is faster than Win7, though that margin of speed might not be a whole lot to write home about. On a conventional HDD though it does boot an awful lot quicker.

The only part where it lags slightly is in 3D performance, due to immature GPU drivers, but you're unlikely to notice it.

Sakkura
08-10-2012, 03:45 PM
Also, there's been talk about improved thread scheduling possibly affecting the module-based AMD CPUs (where AMD counts each module as two cores, but it's really somewhere between 1 and 2 depending on the workload and the way the OS feeds it to the CPU). It's not enough to make Bulldozer the equal of Sandy/Ivy Bridge, but could be the little extra something Piledriver needs to compete.


... until Haswell comes along and inevitably crushes AMDs dreams.

rider
09-10-2012, 09:31 AM
Interesting. I saw a review somewhere (NZ PC World, maybe) which said that by their testing some games had a minimal increase in fps while say Crysis (I know I spelled that wrong, but I can't think of what wrong :P ) was with a lower fps, so I guess it will depend quite a bit on how the games have been written.

simoroth
11-10-2012, 02:06 PM
If you enjoy indie games or older titles, do not get Windows 8. I've tested it out (for development purposes) and its a bit of a shambles many games glitched out or didn't work. No idea how they managed to break it, since it's mostly W7 under the hood anyway.

Modern AAA stuff runs OK, didn't see any performance upgrades.

trjp
13-10-2012, 02:03 PM
I got around to upgrading from the CP to the RP versions of Windows 8 today and hit what I think is a pretty ugly problem.

They've decided to make NX extensions mandatory to install W8 - which completely rubbishes their System Requirements (1Ghz or better CPU) and cuts-off a LOT of older PCs into the bargain.

It also makes a laughing stock of the line that "the same hardware which ran W7 will run W8" - that couldn't be less true if they tried.

OK, we're talking older laptops and pre Core2 desktops but there's still a LOT of those out there - more than MS's extimated 0.1% of machines (taking part in the pre-release - not likely to want to use the retail version!)

It's unusual for MS to swipe through something this big - I have a desktop here with an HT (fake dual-core) 3.4Ghz CPU which has run W7 happily for years but which cannot run W8 (it's the last P4 without NX) - that's slightly sucky...

Won't affect most people but I thought it was an odd thing for them to do and a quick Google suggests I'm far from the only person thinking that!

p.s. another issue for older computers is that they've chopped-off support for a lot of older 'legacy' devices - which in real terms are things like laptop sound and network devices, dongles, plug-in soundcards and network adaptors etc. You can get around this with some hackery but it's not ideal (Windows Update will overwrite your working drivers with non-working ones, for example)

It's a long way from good, really.

BillButNotBen
14-10-2012, 08:22 AM
Ok. I got around to dual booting the Consumer Perview (though the post above and my old laptop makes me wonder if i should have tested the RTM one). But I haven't had much chance to play around or install any software.
It sure boots fast, but the interface is definitely going to take some getting use to (took google to find out how to turn it off! God, this must be what my parents feel like every time they use a computer!).

So far my hope for a refreshed polished version of vista hasn't really worked out.. it's remarkably unpolished. But I guess I'll get used to it soon enough.

Quick question - I guess I need to start installing AV and firewalls to secure it all up and slow it all down? I'm guessing the security upgrades etc... haven't removed that requirement.

soldant
14-10-2012, 10:04 AM
It also makes a laughing stock of the line that "the same hardware which ran W7 will run W8" - that couldn't be less true if they tried.
To be fair, the majority of fairly recent computers will run Windows 8. A lot of the older hardware would still be struggling with Win7 or Vista before it. Your cited CPU isn't one of them, but come on, it's a P4. There comes a point where it's useless to keep supporting legacy devices that few people use. A lot of the old desktops and laptops are well overdue for an upgrade, which is what a lot of people will probably be looking at with "that new Windows thingy" coming out. MS have been remarkably good at legacy support all things considered, sometimes to their detriment. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to keep supporting old devices well into the future...


So far my hope for a refreshed polished version of vista hasn't really worked out.. it's remarkably unpolished. But I guess I'll get used to it soon enough.
The Consumer Preview had a number of significant issues that didn't get patched. There's an Enterprise Trial version of Windows 8 if you want an actual RTM build to play with (legally).


Quick question - I guess I need to start installing AV and firewalls to secure it all up and slow it all down? I'm guessing the security upgrades etc... haven't removed that requirement.
Up to you. Personally I don't run a firewall - Windows Firewall has offered inbound and outbound protection since Vista (and possibly XP SP3, can't remember) and my router also deters most random attacks by default. Windows Defender does a pretty good job for most forms of malware and is enabled by default. Failing that you can just grab MSE and use that I guess, but how many people are running full blown firewalls and AV packages these days? The primary threat is from adware/spyware which makes securing your browser the far more important factor, as well as watching what you download.

Sakkura
14-10-2012, 10:46 AM
To be fair, the majority of fairly recent computers will run Windows 8. A lot of the older hardware would still be struggling with Win7 or Vista before it. Your cited CPU isn't one of them, but come on, it's a P4. There comes a point where it's useless to keep supporting legacy devices that few people use. A lot of the old desktops and laptops are well overdue for an upgrade, which is what a lot of people will probably be looking at with "that new Windows thingy" coming out. MS have been remarkably good at legacy support all things considered, sometimes to their detriment. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to keep supporting old devices well into the future...
Dropping support for P4 vintage CPUs is understandable, but dropping it between versions this way isn't nice.

trjp
14-10-2012, 04:02 PM
The thing is, those P4s are actually still decent CPUs - they were still being sold "new" in systems less than 4 years ago and are STILL sold in preowned/refurb systems.

I seem to see one about once every 2-3 weeks in some shape or form (some will be latter models which do have NX - but most are not)

The much bigger issue is legacy hardware - it took me EONS to get a Realtek AC97 soundchip to work - do you know how many of those there are out there!?!?

It's very unusual for Windows to slam-the-door on legacy hardware in this way - esp when they're selling this as the first Windows upgrade which doesn't need better hardware!?

Also - don't waste your time with the Consumer Preview now - they've changed almost everything about it in the Release Preview - it's almost a completely different product (and has bigger demands on hardware). I forgot to put a 1Gb memory chip back into my test laptop and so installed and ran it with just 512Mb memory and it ran for a while and then crashed 'spectacularly'!! With 1.5Gb it's still not great tho...

Sakkura
14-10-2012, 04:43 PM
It's outdated, and 99% of people use newer stuff. Refurbished computers are a tiny niche. AC97 is ancient news too.

Also, why do you even need Windows 8 on old computers?

trjp
14-10-2012, 06:06 PM
It's outdated, and 99% of people use newer stuff. Refurbished computers are a tiny niche. AC97 is ancient news too.

Also, why do you even need Windows 8 on old computers?

You have absolutely no idea how this stuff works do you? You're like the people on the Windows forums, wagging their finger at anyone with hardware more than 2 years old - telling them they're "wrong" for wanting to upgrade DESPITE MS telling them that they can (there's one prick who answers every question by questioning their reason for wanting to do it - like it's his business!)

I fix PCs for a HUGE range of people and I see older kit all the time - and their owners are getting the hard sell on newer versions of Windows and want to run those (and MS are telling them - in effect - that they can). When I tell them they can't, they want to know why. It's worth remembering that PC tech has stagnated in the last 3-or-so years thanks to reduced demand/increased costs and people being broke. The 'new' laptops people bought in 2011 aren't much different to the ones from 2010 or 2009 - the rate of increase has slowed dramatically and thus we have more, older hardware around than ever.

MS says 0.1% will fail the NX test - I'd say it's 10s of times that (they're going on people trying the trial which is far from a representative sample). They probably like the idea it's pushing people into getting new hardware, but this is a new approach for Windows and allied with their approach to their 'store' (which you know will be run with all the finesse of XBL or GFWL) is worrying.

Windows has historically supported a VAST range of hardware going back decades or more - because the maintenance issues involved when you slam-the-door on computers which people are still using is astonishing (and the bad press isn't great either). Commercially speaking, many businesses can make their hardware last longer and longer these days - and they never bought state-of-the-art in the first place - and commercial sales were always the aim with MS - but they're now pushing that aspect quite hard.

This is the first time MS have imposed anything like this scale of scaled-up hardware 'requirement' with a new OS - they do it with incremental versions and they did it with 64-bit and it's requirement for signed drivers of but the bottom-line is that many people are using older kit and expect to run W8 (and will therefore buy it) because MS are telling them it will work (and it won't).

Which means more work for me (good) except that all I can say is "it won't work" (bad) and that's not helpful...

Not that I really wanted to upgrade anyway - but I'm not the people who's computers I fix and they don't always listen to me when MS are bombarding them with "newer, faster, shinier"...

p.s. I doubt anyone working on PCs hasn't run into Vista or W7 needing a bit of a kicking to get some devices to work (unsigned drivers or disabling Windows Update for some drivers) - well W8 will stop that from working at all - is the bottom line of it.

Sakkura
15-10-2012, 12:32 AM
You have absolutely no idea how this stuff works do you? You're like the people on the Windows forums, wagging their finger at anyone with hardware more than 2 years old - telling them they're "wrong" for wanting to upgrade DESPITE MS telling them that they can (there's one prick who answers every question by questioning their reason for wanting to do it - like it's his business!)
2 years? Yes clearly P4 processors are only 3 years old tech.
And way to go calling me a prick AND dodging the question. I think that speaks for itself.

trjp
15-10-2012, 01:23 AM
2 years? Yes clearly P4 processors are only 3 years old tech.
And way to go calling me a prick AND dodging the question. I think that speaks for itself.

I know 2 people who've bought a P4 system 'brand new' inside the last 4 years - and I know 20+ who are still using a P4 system (50/50 between XP and W7) and are happy with it.

I also know 30-40+ who have laptops with Realtek net/sound chips which W8 will grumble about - it's weird, one laptop just decided it does support it's Realtek soundcard (no updates applied, it just started working after a restart) but the other remains solidly 'silent'.

Secondly, I didn't call you a prick - I called someone who asked the same question you did on MS's support forum a prick - the difference here is we're discussing something (so your question is just odd) wheras he was basically trolling people.

You are both replying to the perfectly reasonable question "Why does W8 claim to run in W7 hardware when it won't" with the question "Why do you want to do it?" tho. Think about that for a moment. it's like me ringing my mobile provider and saying "I can't seem to make any calls on your network" and them replying "Why do you want to call someone right now?" :)

People WILL do this - they'll see the "runs on the same hardware" thing and it will go south. There's 100s of people already raising the NX issue online and that's just people trying the preview!!

You have to understand that the world is not about what people 'should' do (in your opinion) - it's about what people WILL do - and people with laptops running ancient Realtek junk WILL be trying to put W8 on there - people with older Intel desktops WILL get that lovely 5D 'please fuck off' message on bootup.

The core issue is that MS are making a claim which is WILDLY untrue - which when you take that, the business with the restrictions in the store and other issues, makes me wonder if this isn't going to be a miserable few years for computing (and quite possibly the last few years for it as people move onto other platforms entirely if MS get this wrong).

Sakkura
15-10-2012, 01:48 AM
You are both replying to the perfectly reasonable question "Why does W8 claim to run in W7 hardware when it won't" with the question "Why do you want to do it?" tho. Think about that for a moment. it's like me ringing my mobile provider and saying "I can't seem to make any calls on your network" and them replying "Why do you want to call someone right now?" :)

People WILL do this - they'll see the "runs on the same hardware" thing and it will go south. There's 100s of people already raising the NX issue online and that's just people trying the preview!!

You have to understand that the world is not about what people 'should' do (in your opinion) - it's about what people WILL do - and people with laptops running ancient Realtek junk WILL be trying to put W8 on there - people with older Intel desktops WILL get that lovely 5D 'please fuck off' message on bootup.

The core issue is that MS are making a claim which is WILDLY untrue - which when you take that, the business with the restrictions in the store and other issues, makes me wonder if this isn't going to be a miserable few years for computing (and quite possibly the last few years for it as people move onto other platforms entirely if MS get this wrong).
Hey, I started out by saying MS were going about this the wrong way. They led people along, so removing support at this point is NOT okay. I'm simply talking about the hypothetical situation where they were clear about this from the start; in that case, it's not unreasonable to remove support for very old hardware.

I thought the P4 was retired over 4 years ago (replaced by Core 2 in 2006, shipped for a while after but with dwindling market share surely). Anyway, new Windows versions are more often installed on brand-new computers, and nobody's buying P4s today.

soldant
15-10-2012, 03:03 AM
You are both replying to the perfectly reasonable question "Why does W8 claim to run in W7 hardware when it won't" with the question "Why do you want to do it?" tho. Think about that for a moment. it's like me ringing my mobile provider and saying "I can't seem to make any calls on your network" and them replying "Why do you want to call someone right now?" :)
I don't disagree that their original statement was a smart move. But I also think that you're making a bigger issue out of this than it needs to be. Yes, you see lots of old hardware still in use. I get that. But there's no requirement for future operating systems to have such extensive backwards compatibility. Most (all?) of the Windows 7 Certified systems will run Windows 8, which if MS wanted to weasel out of it might make the statement somewhat be true. The more pressing point is that the minimum system requirements listed don't make reference to the type of CPU, just speed.


You have to understand that the world is not about what people 'should' do (in your opinion) - it's about what people WILL do
No, the world absolutely is about what people should do. If we always worked on what people will do, we'd never get anywhere. To use a silly example (since you pulled out a ridiculous telephone example), some idiots will fail to wear a seatbelt and splatter themselves all over the road, but that doesn't change the fact that we should include seat belts and tell people to wear them.

People will avoid change because they're comfortable with what they have. If people had their way, Vista would never have happened, and the transition to the new kernel (which would have been Windows 7) would have been infinitely more painful. Or we'd just be stuck on that towering mess that was Windows XP.

Failing to support old hardware is not cause for a crusade. So what if people want to use their old hardware on a modern OS? The fact that they will try is no justification for going out of your way to support it. Unfortunately some people have to be dragged forward. For a lot of people if they're told that their hardware is out of date, they'll just buy a new system (probably a laptop these days) and the issue is resolved. Those who don't upgrade don't get the new OS. So what?

Just tell your clients what I tell my obese patients - your current lifestyle/system is unsustainable and is incompatible with continued enjoyment of your life/digital pornography.

BillButNotBen
15-10-2012, 10:13 AM
Also - don't waste your time with the Consumer Preview now - they've changed almost everything about it in the Release Preview - it's almost a completely different product (and has bigger demands on hardware). I forgot to put a 1Gb memory chip back into my test laptop and so installed and ran it with just 512Mb memory and it ran for a while and then crashed 'spectacularly'!! With 1.5Gb it's still not great tho...

Grrr. Wish i knew that before downloading 3.5gb and faffing around with installing it.

Though actually, installing was pretty easy... but then i remembered what a hassle it is to install all the software. I need to work out what it's done in terms of drivers as well, and what it's done with my network. And why it seems to have set my bios clock to another time..