| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Why Microsoft will release a mini-Windows 7 | |
|
||
| Time: 05:21 EST/10:21 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Windows 7 will use the same kernel as Vista, and so will be at least as much of a resource hog. But there's a good chance that Microsoft will release slimmed-down version of Windows 7 by June, 2010.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 212 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:46:48 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2201 (78.32.103.51) at 6/1/2008 11:03:35 AM |
| Are these people who write these articles stupid? Do they really think that system specifications will be completely static for any kind of PCs for the next two years? Idiots. |
| #2 By 92283 (70.66.69.111) at 6/1/2008 11:46:10 AM |
|
Vista runs fine on the Eee PC.
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/12/vista-running-o.html "The big surprise is how fast it seems to run. In the video, Vista seems nice and snappy, despite the Eee PC's 900MHz Celeron processor. " |
| #3 By 17996 (66.235.18.153) at 6/1/2008 4:01:44 PM |
|
Shoots himself in the foot with his first sentence: "Windows 7 will use the same kernel as Vista, and so will be at least as much of a resource hog."
Um, what? First of all, "same kernel"? I suppose back when XP came out he said it had the "same kernel" as Windows 2000? The kernels won't be the "same," but there will be relatively few changes at the kernel level, unlike moving from XP to Vista. Secondly, the kernels are not responsible for an OS being a resource hog. That comes from all the user-level stuff that sits on top, like the shell, search indexing, UI effects, etc. And thirdly, there's nothing stopping Microsoft from reducing resource in 7 by optimizing the code, changing some defaults, etc. The premise that it will be at least as bloated as Vista has no bearing. |
| #4 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/1/2008 5:11:18 PM |
|
#3, One also has to address the issue of whether Vista is "bloated" at all.
I submit that it is anything but "bloated" and I would further challenge our press and pundits to add some definition here - what is bloated and or what makes Vista "bloated?" The idea that software is bloated is becoming tiresome. Bloated? Relative to what exactly? This idea is thrown around out on the net like it is just something that is "known" by all - that Vista is "bloated" yet we never hear of what such a conclusion is based upon.... The number of running services? How and where a lot of RAM is installed, Vista will make use of it? The idea that Vista is bloated and not in any way efficient isn't being challenged at all - much less well. It's makes no sense. Resource Hog.. that's another one... and seemingly based upon 2 GB of RAM being used where available, and as if a $30.00 (USD) cost is somehow too high? Again, in relative terms - what percentage of total systems price does that 2 GB of RAM cost these days? It's ridiculous when you think on it for even a second. Core 2 CPU's are being had for just over a hundred bucks! So we're up to $150.00 bucks?!? Daffy. It's just daffy. The idea and concept that it takes a great deal to run Vista extremely well is simply not supportable. XP runs like ass compared to it and especially so when you add in all that Vista does on its own. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/2/2008 8:40:35 AM |
|
#4: Daffy. It's just daffy. The idea and concept that it takes a great deal to run Vista extremely well is simply not supportable. XP runs like ass compared to it and especially so when you add in all that Vista does on its own.
Simply not supportable? You say Vista doesn't need a lot of resources, and then you go on to justify 2 GB of RAM because it's cheap. I didn't need 2 GB of RAM with XP. My XP box ran like a champ with 512 MB, whereas the Vista image was slow and sluggish. If I need 4x the RAM to get the same performance, then I'd say that Vista takes significantly more resources (regardless of how inexpensive those resources are.) |
| #6 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/2/2008 10:47:12 AM |
|
#5: "I didn't need 2 GB of RAM with XP. My XP box ran like a champ with 512 MB"
Just a you didn't need 512 MB of ram for your Windows 98 box - it ran like a "champ" with 64 meg. And let's remember that memory was much more expensive back then. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/2/2008 11:00:50 AM |
|
#5, Even daffier...
The entire architecture has moved forward and markedly so. Everything is more capable and more feature rich. ICH3/4 gave way to 7, 9 and now 10 and that is soon to be gone in favor of an integrated controller. Vista runs more services, and does more out of the box - it does this much more efficiently than XP ever did, or ever will. If you want performance under 1K (USD) get a low cost Quad (the 9300, or older 6600) and 4 GB of RAM (together under 300 USD!). Run Vista x64 and call it a day - and don't look back. 2 GB of RAM is NOT "a lot" at all - not in terms of what has been shipping as standard for over a year and a half. Vista manages that RAM (and all other resources) extremely well. Daffiest = spending more money on less RAM that is also slower (older) - as opposed to prudent by using very low cost more moderm RAM. Crossing the daffy barrier and into the world of just plain stupid, is the idea that after one adds all the third party software to XP in order to get some of the functionality native to Vista, that XP will still skip right along and not feel sluggish.... much has changed and so much has advanced... people do not want to return to 2001 in any context. Insisting that they do because your favorite technologies can't keep up with Vista is idiotic. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/2/2008 12:29:49 PM |
|
#6: I don't disagree. But the fact that XP took 4 times the RAM of 98 to perform the same meant it consumed a lot more resources than 98 did. It's just a fact. Ketchum was saying that Vista doesn't take a lot more resources because those resources are cheap. There is a major disconnect in that. Vista most certainly does consume a lot more resources, but at least those resources are cheap.
#7: You're going off on a tangent here. I'm not debating that Vista does more and needs more to do it. That's the evolution of desktop computing and I don't deny that. However, back in the day I could run complex things very well w/512K under XP. With 512K & Vista, the desktop itself is slow and the disk grinds a lot. Vista requires more CPU, RAM and disk than XP did. It's a fact. It's not necessarily a negative considering Moore's Law shows no signs of falling down just yet. However, to see you repeatedly say that Vista doesn't require more resources than XP is, to me, just plain incorrect. |
| #9 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 6/2/2008 1:49:47 PM |
|
#8: one, XP with 512 MB of RAM won't run like Vista with 2 GB, not with current apps, not the way we use our computers today. Maybe back in 2001 (RTM) it would, back with fewer system services and features (lots was added by the time of SP2), Office 2000, whatever version of Acrobat Reader was current at that time, etc. It certainly won't run as many apps, browser tabs, etc., without some serious hard drive thrashing. I'd be curious to know how many tabs we typically run these days vs. tabs/windows at that time. 32-bit XP seemed to suffer once you crossed 20k handles, as well--something that 32-bit Vista handles (groan) without issue.
Vista has a higher memory footprint, no doubt... but you can't blame the memory use creep exclusively on the OS. At any rate, XP/512 MB does not equal Vista/2 GB. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/2/2008 3:29:12 PM |
|
#8, Nope - I've run Vista on a wide variety of hardware - I've documented it here and it out-performs XP on everything I've run it on. Older P4's with 1 GB RAM... etc... I do maintain that following the recommended guides, Vista is better running, but that is not the point here.
I challenge people to show and defince the idea that Vista, or Windows for that matter, is "bloated" and or "sluggish" - that is nonsense. There is no valid reason to support such claims - That "Vista" or "Windows" is sluggish. Now, I will be the first to state that the garbage post DoJ -v MS OEM manufacturers ship is sluggish, but that has zero to do with Visat and everything to do with post DoJ ad-ware and third party sludge porked into computers. I should know... I've built a business around the idea of delivering nearly pefect systems free of that trash and the best service ever delivered around users who happen to need computers. I also most strongly recommend people build their own machines and do the same as we have - but then again, I also maintain that they load their own ammo, fix their own cars and grow a large percentage of their own food. I do not recommend people buy into the BS that Vista is bad and can't me made to run like a scalded dog. |
| #11 By 254367 (125.164.237.42) at 12/3/2009 1:50:54 AM |
|
http://gadgetmu.net
http://videoplane.blogspot.com http://ncellphone.com http://yznews.co.cc http://ramadhan-blog.blogspot.com http://animewallpaperss.blogspot.com http://usnewss.blogspot.com |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 212 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:46:48 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
