blog: you can keep your 64 bits

[Tuxman]

He just shouldn't expect anyone to make something backwards compatible "just for him"

Hmm, Vim?  8)

Yes, but "out of the box" Win7 is lighter on services, whereas on Vista you had to do it yourself, which most "normal users" wouldn't do.

There are still people who use Windows "out of the box", without, at least, using one of these "tweaking tools"?

Win7 services need pruning as well, but at least they're less intrusive to begin with (default to 'Manual' rather than 'Auto', etc).

I can't see that much of a difference. The only thing that should be turned off in Vista is indexing IMO.

[RickyF]

I have client, an attorney, who still uses Windows 98. Each time he calls for help I cringe because I remember less and less about Window 98 and what it does that is different from Windows 7, OS X, Vista, Server 2008, Server 2003, XP.... If he weren't a really nice person I wouldn't help him.

I am feeling the same way about XP these days. I put up with supporting it but I don't like to. It is an insecure, outdated OS. I wish that Microsoft had the courage (foolhardiness?) to pull the plug on it. Windows 7 is a really nice OS and I wish more of my clients would replace their XP machines already.

[DAndres109]

I think the "death" or decline of use of XP and, to an even greater extent, Windows 98, is inevitable.  Many people will upgrade simply as a matter of buying new machines from vendors like Dell and Lenovo, so it won't be as much a matter of personal choice than it is a forced eventuality.  These markets will continue to decrease, and so it will be far less likely that software vendors will care about the one or two people who still use these older Operating Systems.  The fact remains that there are more people moving towards Windows 7 than there are moving away from it.  

We haven't even begun to discuss the PC game market.  New games are started to (slowly) target Vista/7 exclusively because of DirectX 10/11 requirements.  At some point, this exclusivity will become frequent enough that enthusiasts will upgrade simply to play the most recent games.

I have a lot of respect for XP, as it is a solid OS.  Bear in mind though that many people held their ground to 98/ME when XP was first released.  Vista was an unfortunate try-me as its initial bad publicity damned it to the trenches.  So, feel free to consider Windows 7 the proper upgrade path from 98/XP, so it's going to take a year or two before people begin to accept it as a matter of course.

[Tuxman]

It is an insecure, outdated OS.

Insecure compared to what? Vista? 7? Oh well...

[Kilmatead]

I am feeling the same way about XP these days. I put up with supporting it but I don't like to. It is an insecure, outdated OS. I wish that Microsoft had the courage (foolhardiness?) to pull the plug on it. Windows 7 is a really nice OS and I wish more of my clients would replace their XP machines already.

You have the air of a reformed smoker about you - there's no fanatic like a newly converted fanatic?

[Tuxman]

I have a lot of respect for XP, as it is a solid OS.

That's why my eMule machine will stick with XP until the hard disk dies. Never change a running machine. (XP works on recent hardware, too.)

[RickyF]

You have the air of a reformed smoker about you - there's no fanatic like a newly converted fanatic?

I have been using Windows since version 1.0, when it was an environment running on DOS and not an OS. That would be starting 24 years ago, give or take a few months. I have used pretty much every version of Windows in the intervening period. I have said it before and I will state it now, "It only took Microsoft a quarter of a century but they finally made a really nice OS. It is named Windows 7."

[Tuxman]

There's nothing 7 does better than Vista.

[Cosmo]

XP ... I don't like to. It is an insecure, outdated OS.

The first sentence is clear: It is your personal taste and nothing can be said against that.

But the second sentence has nothing to do with taste. You missed to give any arguments for that. And as you had written this very post with talking about W98: You seem to miss the point, that XP is quite a different architecture, mostly the name and some visual aspects are the same.

And your final conclusion:

"It only took Microsoft a quarter of a century but they finally made a really nice OS. It is named Windows 7."

leeds to the idea, that you believe that W7 is technically something absolutely new. Again, only a statement without any facts. Not even MS claims this; they call it technically NT 6.1.

At the end: Don't liking XP and seeing W7 as a finally nice OS is OK for personal opinion, but worthless for arguing.

[RickyF]

To all the Luddites   who think XP is da bomb: I recognize that I will not change your mind about how great that OS is but... A Ford Model T will get you from A to B. A modern car will do it too and the ride is safer. So too with operating systems.

Yes, Windows 7 is different than XP or even Vista, although less so. It makes better use of system resources. It provides a much improved UI/UX. It is leaner than Vista but built on the Vista foundation. It is definitely more secure than XP.

For example, a Windows 7 user can easily run as a standard user, elevating to administrative rights when needed. This is impractical in XP.  This part of the Windows 7 security model is almost identical to Linux or Mac OS X.

There are other hidden and subtle changes in the security model for Vista/Windows 7.

But you like XP and will continue to use it. Whether you recognize or it not,  you are at greater risk to having to your system compromised by security vulnerabilities than with a more modern OS.

[Cosmo]

A Ford Model T will get you from A to B. A modern car will do it too and the ride is safer. So too with operating systems.

Oh, what a technical and logical explanation. You should have used the very first cars of Carl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler for this scenario. But XP is not T Model or what ever out of this time in comparison. It still - and now even more - seems, that you did not understand the difference of the architecture between Windows 1, 2, 3, 9x and NT-family and mix them happily together. (Why do suddenly come the latest models of Toyota in my mind?)

Yes, Windows 7 is different than XP ... It makes better use of system resources.

Is this supposed to be an argument? In fact, it is the old assertion without any reference.

It is definitely more secure than XP.

You told so already, but repeating does not make it more valuable.

For example, a Windows 7 user can easily run as a standard user, elevating to administrative rights when needed. This is impractical in XP.  This part of the Windows 7 security model is almost identical to Linux or Mac OS X.

Wrong, or have you any reference for this identity? (Perhaps MS has miss-used the Linux-GPLed source-code?)
Further more: This whole construction around UAC (not new in W7 and it's default settings weaker i. e. less secure than in Vista) is a trick, making even more people believe, that it will be OK to log into their account with administrative privileges for daily tasks. A trick and in the result a loss on security. You should inform yourself about NTFS-security aspects. And RunAs is a command that is even much older than XP, nothing special and not new at all.

There are other hidden and subtle changes in the security model for Vista/Windows 7.

Aha, a whole sentence without any real content of proofs, which shall hide the fact of simple statements.

Whether you recognize or it not,  you are at greater risk to having to your system compromised by security vulnerabilities than with a more modern OS.

"Whether you recognize it or not", you simply repeat yourself, filling the emptiness of arguments. I had imagined such an answer already.

BTW: Your "more modern OS" comes because of compatibility issues with an optional XP-mode extension (for the higher versions of W7); so following your words, the full-featured higher W7 versions come with security risks by design?! I remember having read something about a "finally really nice OS".

[RickyF]

I give up. Cosmo, you win. You are more argumentative than I care to be.

[dunno]

and to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons..

There would be no need for 64bit yada yada if application writers actually wrote efficient software, software bloat will always outstrip hardware capability, it doesn't matter how much ram you have or what cpu architecture you're running the programmers will just get lazier, is all....

*ducks behind the wall again*

[Kilmatead]

As earlier in the thread there were some references to Photoshop x64 (and/or Adobe CS5 x64 in general), those interested may find these CS5 x64 Benchmarks of some pertinence.

The usual caveats apply as regard Benchmarks vs. "real-world", never mind that they're basing things on Mac testing, but their overpriced hearts are in the right place.

[Kilmatead]

Given that you could prove anything with statistics (what, Kennedy & Elvis aren't dead?), take this as you may, but an interesting tidbit popped up the other day regarding OS market shares and Win7.

According to these figures published by MS, almost half (46%) of Windows 7 installations are x64 bit.

(Even I, an eternal pessimist who loves cajoling the pejoratives, was surprised by this.)

In the larger scheme of things (OS shares [Dec 2009]), Win7 is now at roughly 10% (July 2010), mostly at the expense of Vista, from MS's ~90% overall share.

Does this mean anything?  No, but it does explain why an awful lot of smaller utilities are now offering x64 compatibility (if not full versions) upon initial release, which is a seriously welcome change.

And, at least from general perception, most developers seem a little less grumpy now about "having" to do this.  Not that they're happy with the extra work, but "less grumpy" is better than nothing.