Ubuntu 8.04 Alpha 5


Recommended Posts

Same reason Leopard runs on my single-proc, single-core 867MHz Power Mac G4. Alienating people who don't have top-end hardware is a bad, bad move for companies selling software. Have to make it scalable otherwise your target market is too small.

This goes double for MSFT and Windows, since people with 32-bit machines, if unsupported by Windows 7, could just switch to Linux and live the sweet life.

as true as this is the average microsoft customer doesn't look to upgrade the os on their pc, they instead look to buy a new pc w/ the new operating system, and considering that they already alienated so many people with the steep vista requirements they don't really mind segmenting the market.

not to mention microsoft does support it's desktop os' for a long time so people who can't upgrade aren't really left out in the cold if they don't update.What they really do need to step up their game though b/c they are already behind mac and linux as far as speed and efficiency on the os side of things are concerned and in the next year or so as people expect more performance from their machines microsoft is going to lose more customers due to the limitations of 32-bit systems as opposed to segmenting the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As true as this is the average Microsoft customer doesn't look to upgrade the OS on their PC: they instead look to buy a new PC with the new operating system, and considering that they (Microsoft) already alienated so many people with the steep Vista requirements they don't really mind segmenting the market.

Not to mention Microsoft does support its desktop OS's for a long time so people who can't upgrade aren't really left out in the cold. They really do need to step up their game, though, because they are already behind Mac and Linux as far as speed and efficiency on the OS side of things are concerned and in the next year or so, as people expect more performance from their machines, Microsoft is going to lose more customers due to the limitations of 32-bit systems as opposed to segmenting the market.

Fixed up your language mechanics a little bit there.

Your bit about the disposable PCs rings true - a lot of people do just toss away the whole thing. Horribly wasteful but I can at least hold onto hope that there's an aspiring geek living down the street who can make use of the old hardware.

As for the Vista requirements, I think the jury is still out on that. On the one hand, Vista's been out for a year. On the other, it's only been out for one measly year. It may wind up being a huge mistake for MSFT to require so much hardware oomph for Vista, or it may wind up being a great move for computing in general. I'm withholding judgment until the OS has been out for another year or two.

The bit about losing customers, though, I'm not so sure about. Consider the architecture of Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 - they have 64-bit compatibility (extensions in 10.4's case, and full 64-bit functionality top-to-bottom in 10.5) but still run on 32-bit hardware. They take full (10.5) or nearly full (10.4) advantage of 64-bit hardware but those with 32-bit hardware can still use all the features, just without the added performance that comes with 64-bit memory addressing, long-integer calculations, etc. Similar to the way a multithreaded application will run on a single-core, single-proc system, but will simply run better on an SMP system.

I think it'd be in MSFT's best interest to keep 32-bit compat for at least one more iteration of Windows after Vista. Maybe begin phasing it out in Windows 8, or offer a stripped-down version or something like that. Remember that there was no 64-bit Windows 2000, and WinXP for x86_64 came out a few years after the OS' main release. As popular as 64-bit hardware is in geekdom right now, it's not mainstream yet by any stretch. In stores, maybe, but consider all those users still running PCs they bought years ago. Hell, my laptop's 4 years old and it looks to give me 3 more years of decent use at the very least. Granted, it was an early AMD64 chip so I have that advantage, but even so, the hardware's nowhere near cutting-edge and if I, who is studying InfoSec at Illinois Tech, owns 4 PCs, is waiting on parts to build a 5th (should be arriving today), edits video, writes code, builds LFS, all that jazz, am willing to run 7-year-old hardware, non-nerds are certainly willing to do the same. Some of the real hardcore guys are the ones who build old Pentium Pros into dedicated NAS devices, web servers, routers, etc.

Anyway, let me kill that tangent and cut to the chase: 64-bit is good but it's not yet popular. Sales figures don't reflect usage levels, especially with computers, and it would be a little short-sighted and hasty for MSFT to axe 32-bit support 2 versions after they introduce 64-bit. Doesn't XP have compatibility for 16-bit applications? Thought I remembered seeing something like that in NLite or maybe the policy editor/TweakUI/something like that.

Slow and steady wins the race. Not that I especially want Microsoft to win the race if it means Linux suffers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed up your language mechanics a little bit there.

Your bit about the disposable PCs rings true - a lot of people do just toss away the whole thing. Horribly wasteful but I can at least hold onto hope that there's an aspiring geek living down the street who can make use of the old hardware.

As for the Vista requirements, I think the jury is still out on that. On the one hand, Vista's been out for a year. On the other, it's only been out for one measly year. It may wind up being a huge mistake for MSFT to require so much hardware oomph for Vista, or it may wind up being a great move for computing in general. I'm withholding judgment until the OS has been out for another year or two.

The bit about losing customers, though, I'm not so sure about. Consider the architecture of Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 - they have 64-bit compatibility (extensions in 10.4's case, and full 64-bit functionality top-to-bottom in 10.5) but still run on 32-bit hardware. They take full (10.5) or nearly full (10.4) advantage of 64-bit hardware but those with 32-bit hardware can still use all the features, just without the added performance that comes with 64-bit memory addressing, long-integer calculations, etc. Similar to the way a multithreaded application will run on a single-core, single-proc system, but will simply run better on an SMP system.

I think it'd be in MSFT's best interest to keep 32-bit compat for at least one more iteration of Windows after Vista. Maybe begin phasing it out in Windows 8, or offer a stripped-down version or something like that. Remember that there was no 64-bit Windows 2000, and WinXP for x86_64 came out a few years after the OS' main release. As popular as 64-bit hardware is in geekdom right now, it's not mainstream yet by any stretch. In stores, maybe, but consider all those users still running PCs they bought years ago. Hell, my laptop's 4 years old and it looks to give me 3 more years of decent use at the very least. Granted, it was an early AMD64 chip so I have that advantage, but even so, the hardware's nowhere near cutting-edge and if I, who is studying InfoSec at Illinois Tech, owns 4 PCs, is waiting on parts to build a 5th (should be arriving today), edits video, writes code, builds LFS, all that jazz, am willing to run 7-year-old hardware, non-nerds are certainly willing to do the same. Some of the real hardcore guys are the ones who build old Pentium Pros into dedicated NAS devices, web servers, routers, etc.

Anyway, let me kill that tangent and cut to the chase: 64-bit is good but it's not yet popular. Sales figures don't reflect usage levels, especially with computers, and it would be a little short-sighted and hasty for MSFT to axe 32-bit support 2 versions after they introduce 64-bit. Doesn't XP have compatibility for 16-bit applications? Thought I remembered seeing something like that in NLite or maybe the policy editor/TweakUI/something like that.

Slow and steady wins the race. Not that I especially want Microsoft to win the race if it means Linux suffers.

Thanks for the touch up, I was typing that while I was getting ready to run out to the bank, and you make some very good points all around.

I personally am in the same boat as you with the old laptop, mine is pushing four years but unfortunately has an old celeron and only 512 but I still use it more than my gaming desktop. I sometimes forget that not everybody else is an enthusiast like me who needs to have the fastest parts affordable and then overclock them to hell to get out every last bit of performance. I need to realize that not everybody needs to replace parts on an annual basis for the sake of better performance. That being said if MSFT keeps vista as long as it kept xp alive we're looking at 2012 for the release of windows 7 by which time I believe that we will be looking at a landscape where any PC that would be considering an upgrade would have a 64-bit processor not to mention we'll probably be looking at 128-bit chips by then on the enthusiast/workstation rigs out there.

Then again many think that vista is going to be the new ME and that 7 will be put out as soon as possible in which case I'd prefer a hybrid 64/32-bit os over a pure 32-bit os but I'm not going to nitpick over it especially if it comes out before the end of 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.