Jump to content



Photo

Before everyone loved XP, they hated it.

winxp

  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#151 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 20 April 2014 - 22:38

Lack of money.

 

Also 2000 was a business OS

That was the thinking of a LOT of folks - 2000 = NT 5 = business/corporate OS.  However, what got me curious was that - even in NT 5 clothing (remember, the OS through the first two betas was called NT 5 Workstation and NT 5 Server) it included DirectX - a decidedly non-NT thing to do. Why would Microsoft include a gaming-targeted (for the most part) subsystem in their business OS unless it had plans on leveraging that business OS for gaming?  Turns out that Microsoft was dead-on - as long as you didn't use a 16-bit installer, your Windows-based games could indeed run on the still-beta Windows 2000 Professional.  (At this point, while I had heard about Neptune, I hadn't seen it yet.)  I already knew that Microsoft did NOT have plans for another hybrid 9x-style OS, as they had stated - publicly - that 98SE was going to be their last such OS - in a joint press conference by Jim Alchin (then head of Business Operating Systems AKA the NT Group) and Alexander St. John (then Microsoft chief evangelist for DirectX).  I had been a beta-tester of 98SE - the joint presser by Alchin and Alex St. John set off the alarums.  The fact that it had better performance AND stability than 98SE - let alone ME - on the same hardware (and running the same software) sealed the deal - 98SE would be fired, and replaced by 2000 Professional.




#152 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 20 April 2014 - 22:42

Today it is the opposite with some technical folks still prefering XP. Mostly older ones opposed to change.

 

Consumers prefer Xp because they remember the bad days and XP works well and the garbage of Vista and having Windows 7 looking like it scared them. The technical ones were excited finally for an update, while a few saw the bloat and thought it was not worth it and didn't like the GUI in 7. The explorer was better in XP and they are set in their ways and saw no reason to change. That angers some like Dot Matrix :-)

 

But I am glad to see XP go but man it is a pain in the a*** to upgrade at work and do these changes and waste so much money.

 

It seems overtime it becomes harder and harder to upgrade. Not easier. Whole freaking active directory had to be split into 2 OUs/domains due to the incompatible GPO's being applied to workstations across the enterprise. What a horrible mess. 

 

This was supposed to simplify things. Not make it harder just like IE 6 was supposed to simplify upgrading desktop apps right? Oops standards changed and now the internet itself is tied to a specific version of Windows UGH. There needs to be an easier way to upgrade both consumers and corporations if you expect them to upgrade more. 

 

With tens of millions and many preferring to pay for XP support you know you have a problem. 

Remember "If it isn't broke, don't fix it!" - THE mantra of Corporate Planet.  Once again, it is coming back to bite us all - and hard.



#153 sinetheo

sinetheo

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 09-January 14

Posted 20 April 2014 - 22:49

Corps though upgraded to Win2000 and XP HELL of ALOT MORE than to Windows 7.

 

The attitude has changed and cost accountants have become very aggressive in nailing IT as an expense which adds no value. Aging IT managers and directors who do not like change and are set in their ways are a secondary problem too. 

 

Last, technology improvements in hardware and software are slowing. In 2020 you will see no difference or slight differences from an i7 today and whatever CPU will be out by then. We hit the limit. Windows 10 will offer little to no improvements other than renting software which people already own and some shiny mobile applet garbage. The resistance to change will be HUGE.

 

Things are slowing down now.

Remember "If it isn't broke, don't fix it!" - THE mantra of Corporate Planet.  Once again, it is coming back to bite us all - and hard.



#154 OP Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 7
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 20 April 2014 - 22:53

Last, technology improvements in hardware and software are slowing. In 2020 you will see no difference or slight differences from an i7 today and whatever CPU will be out by then. We hit the limit. Windows 10 will offer little to no improvements other than renting software which people already own and some shiny mobile applet garbage. The resistance to change will be HUGE.

That's a terribly bad statement to make.



#155 sinetheo

sinetheo

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 09-January 14

Posted 20 April 2014 - 23:09

Moores law has hit its limit several years back.

 

Let's compared 1998 - 2004 to 2008 to 2014?

 

1998 - 2004

CPU's increased in performance 100% every 1.5 years (550% faster!). Ram doubled every 2 years (32 megs of ram to 512). OS improvements were incredible and radical changes that benefits corps and consumers. New types of software were discovered every 5 years. The web browser was the newest fad changing the world etc.

 

2008  - 2014

CPU's are about the same. (1st gen i7 vs 3rd gen is maybe 35 -40% faster), Ram doubled every 6 years (2-4 gigs to 4-8 gigs), OS improvements are minor optimizations (Vista is just a buggier Win 7 with more resources)and maybe a few security updates, Nothing new app wise. Maybe more dynamic websites

 

Therefore there is no reason to change.

 

That's a terribly bad statement to make.

 

If this trend continues in 2020 will be less. Even if a new breakthrough in Moores law came around and computers are 500% faster and we all cheer guess what! People will not care as what they have already works. No new apps will use this new power so who cares.

 

I am 10 years older than you are. I remember in the 1990s if you bought a hot expensive monster that thing would be a piece of junk in 3 years. Every other year you needed a new system Sooo annoying. But man what a change you can get by getting a cdrom ohh ahh. Then it was extra ram for an NT os ohh ahh. Then a 3d card look at this WOW... etc. 

 

Today? Unless Windows Mobile takes off with must have apps there is no reason. Like cars they have matured and you only replace them when they break. A car from 1888 to a 1928 was a VAST difference. Today a 1964 mustang can go as fast as a 2014 mustang if not more! Only difference is safety and belts and a cdplayer vs a radio. 



#156 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 20 April 2014 - 23:32

 

But I am glad to see XP go but man it is a pain in the a*** to upgrade at work and do these changes and waste so much money.

 

It seems overtime it becomes harder and harder to upgrade. Not easier. Whole freaking active directory had to be split into 2 OUs/domains due to the incompatible GPO's being applied to workstations across the enterprise. What a horrible mess. 

 

Amen to that. IE caused it's share of GPO issues as did the switch to ADMX. But it's getting better now. Be that as it may, we're hoping three letters make things easier for us moving forward: VDI



#157 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 21 April 2014 - 00:09

That's a terribly bad statement to make.

 

Write it down. 100% agree with Dot. Particularly with regards to CPU. CPUs we can't afford on the desktop may be affordable by then. Say, 10 cores, 25MB Cache. Cortana for Desktop and all mobile devices. More meaningful touch apps. Universal remote over wifi for hardware and app control... If DX12 delivers, think of what visualization will be by then. Lots will be done.



#158 sinetheo

sinetheo

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 09-January 14

Posted 21 April 2014 - 01:40

Write it down. 100% agree with Dot. Particularly with regards to CPU. CPUs we can't afford on the desktop may be affordable by then. Say, 10 cores, 25MB Cache. Cortana for Desktop and all mobile devices. More meaningful touch apps. Universal remote over wifi for hardware and app control... If DX12 delivers, think of what visualization will be by then. Lots will be done.

 

We are at or hit the limits of transistor and circuit size. Quantum mechanics get in the way if you go below 14 nm where electricity will flow both ways at the same time as the regular laws of physics do not apply. So 10 cores probably wont happen.

 

DirectX12 ... you may have a point as mantle is doing the same thing as draw latency commands are not optimized in the current directX. Visualization is a gpu thing that non gamers and cad users do not care about. 

 

It is no where like the big jumps in the previous decades. Maybe I am being pessimistic? I just see stagnation currently. 



#159 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 21 April 2014 - 10:37

We are at or hit the limits of transistor and circuit size. Quantum mechanics get in the way if you go below 14 nm where electricity will flow both ways at the same time as the regular laws of physics do not apply. So 10 cores probably wont happen.

 

DirectX12 ... you may have a point as mantle is doing the same thing as draw latency commands are not optimized in the current directX. Visualization is a gpu thing that non gamers and cad users do not care about. 

 

It is no where like the big jumps in the previous decades. Maybe I am being pessimistic? I just see stagnation currently. 

 

You may be right about 14nm, I'm in no position, knowledgewise to argue :). But in 6  years there should be advances in manufacturing processes/efficiency/materials that will put today's top end processing power on the desktop and in mobile devices which will enable continued innovation. It may not be "new" but it will be innovative and enable new capabilities at a consumer level.

 

When we hit the ceiling with current technology, I'm sure someone will start using light or something.

 

Theoretically I do see DX12 having  potential to make a big jump. Introducing parallelism where none existed has great potential. And keep in mind, we're still under utilizing multiple cores in general. The next leaps forward may very well be in software.



#160 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 22 April 2014 - 18:01

You may be right about 14nm, I'm in no position, knowledgewise to argue :). But in 6  years there should be advances in manufacturing processes/efficiency/materials that will put today's top end processing power on the desktop and in mobile devices which will enable continued innovation. It may not be "new" but it will be innovative and enable new capabilities at a consumer level.

 

When we hit the ceiling with current technology, I'm sure someone will start using light or something.

 

Theoretically I do see DX12 having  potential to make a big jump. Introducing parallelism where none existed has great potential. And keep in mind, we're still under utilizing multiple cores in general. The next leaps forward may very well be in software.

However, those advancements merely that exist (since XP's launch) are largely being ignored by desktop-focussed developers.  Mobile-focussed developers are targeting them - however, desktop-focussed developers largely are not.

And do NOT give me that kerfuffle that all the hardware developments are entirely on the mobile side of hardware - look at multiplatform developments by Intel (CPUs and GPUs), AMD (CPUs and GPUs), nVidia (GPUs), Qualcomm (wireless and CPUs), ARM (CPUs), etc.  Notice that I referred (in all cases) to hardware - not software; therefore, the OS (except for taking advantage of the developments) is largely irrelevant.

Multicore support (in the OS) was in NT from the beginning - and is a derivation of multiway; therefore, evolution, not revolution.  And it is JUST really getting its sea-legs under it in terms of software!  (How many of us ran at least SMP (or had the capability thereof) in servers (if not workstations) as far back as NT4/Windows 2000 - either Workstation or Server?  That is - at minimum - a ten year lag, and in just ONE already-extant desktop-hardware feature.)

 

There is STILL a great deal of "stovepiping" going on - however, it's mostly on the developer side today.



#161 Obi-Wan Kenobi

Obi-Wan Kenobi

    "You were the chosen one!"

  • Joined: 11-November 02
  • Location: West-Central Texas

Posted 22 April 2014 - 18:14

lol...kerfuffle



#162 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 22 April 2014 - 21:47

That's a terribly bad statement to make.

 

He's about right in my opinion. I have an i7-2700K from 2011 and the performance difference between this CPU and the newer Haswell ones is really small. And given that Sandy Bridge processors handle overclocking better you can overclock the performance difference away altogether. Over the past couple of years CPU performance (from almost all X86-64 CPU manufacturers) seems to have hit a plateau for quad core parts, and in Intel's case the 6 and 8 core parts, while fast, are significantly more expensive for the performance boost they offer.



#163 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 24 April 2014 - 16:08

lol...kerfuffle

I wanted to use a stiffer word - however, I remembered the Neowin Rulebook, and therefore didn't.

 

The lowest-end hardware is still defining what application requirements are (and, to an extent, what GAME requirements are) - how much heat did Titanfall take over the shockingly-LOW system requirements - despite it being x64-only?  (In point of fact, Titanfall has - despite the x64-only requirement - lower system requirements than CoD Modern Warfare or any version of Crysis since the original - and didn't Crytek get whacked for the same thing?  Never mind that Crysis 2, 3, MW3, BF3 and 4, and even (if not especially) Titanfall are selling - on PC - in not-insignificant numbers, despite the whackage.  Apparently catering to the lowest-hardware-denominator STILL sells.