If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BetaNews)   Windows 8.1 release update called, "A Frankenstein product stitched together with compromises." Considering the press Microsoft usually gets that's like a compliment. You might start seeing that phrase in their ads   (betanews.com) divider line 340
    More: Followup, Windows, Microsoft, Windows 8.1, Frankenstein, Frankenstein product, Windows Store, Start Button, compromises  
•       •       •

10162 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Feb 2014 at 10:45 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



340 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-10 03:47:36 PM  

Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?


32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.
 
2014-02-10 03:47:47 PM  

Burning_Monk: James10952001: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Win2k messes up that pattern, it was actually quite good, I ran it until switching to XP in 2005.

Win2k is actually a different animal. It uses the NT code base while 98 is built uses the 95 code base.


Win2k also didn't have the graphics API that XP did until much later. Win2k shipped with Dx7, i.e. no T&L. Gaming was quite limited for some time.
 
2014-02-10 03:47:52 PM  

Far Cough: demaL-demaL-yeH: Far Cough: Foundling: I use DOS Shell on MS-DOS 5.0 and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Pfft.  Newbie.  DesqView baby.

Kids these days.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x400]


Let's not get crazy.

[www.eecis.udel.edu image 850x370]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]

/used both


You forgot one:
leemartinauthor.com
Yep, used it in high school.
 
2014-02-10 03:50:24 PM  

syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.


WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?
 
2014-02-10 03:50:33 PM  

LineNoise: Carn: Win+r mstsc.  I think it still has the old run, need to verify on other machine.

Oh, yea, I know, like I said there are plenty of ways of doing it, but they defeat the point of the whole new UI when you want the default behavior of an app to work differently than it does out of the box (even when its an app that would make sense to default a different way).

I think they will get it right with some polish, but the point is in here. It isn't that the windows 8 UI is bad. Most of the examples people tout out are outright wrong, or, like me, they just need to spend 5 minutes to figure out how you do something the new way vs how it worked in 7, and people don't want to do that.

If you are someone who runs office, a browser, and a couple of games, the start menu is fine for you, and I get that. But if you suddenly have a brazillion apps on your desktop, which is what happens when you introduce the app store and the like, it starts getting to be a clunky way of organizing stuff. Tiles and a robust search make sense. They just need to figure out a middle ground of sorts


How is it clunky? I have dozens and dozens of programs installed. They're all neatly arranged in categories in my start menu with the 3 or 4 I use most often in the quicklaunch toolbar. The desktop is my workspace, stuff I've downloaded that needs to be sorted, things that need immediate attention, the recycle bin, network shares, etc.

That's how I've done things since Win95 and it works very well for me. That's how I intend to continue doing things. The beauty of a PC is that it's customizable and configurable. If I wanted to do it the way the vendor wants me to do it and only that way, I'd have bought a Mac years ago.
 
2014-02-10 03:51:11 PM  

James10952001: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Win2k messes up that pattern, it was actually quite good, I ran it until switching to XP in 2005.


===============

Yup, I held on to Win2K until I bought a new scanner and found that there were no drivers for that particular scanner that would allow it work with Win2K.
 
2014-02-10 03:51:40 PM  

Kahabut: MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.

Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement?  In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.


Yeah, that's the thing... most people don't really need anything more than a Chromebook at work.

As a developer,. though, I run 32GB, often with virtuals running both on my own system and a dedicated ESXi server in my basement.  I'm kind of grateful that users have "come along for the ride" to more powerful machines and operating systems.
 
2014-02-10 03:52:25 PM  

Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.


I'm not sure if you'd call architecture an entrenched industry, but most of our CAD and rendering products have been 64 bit for a while now, AutoCAD, Revit, 3ds Max (are far faster than their 32-bit versions). Office has been 64-bit for a while, browsers are 64-bit nowadays, most of the Adobe Suite, including Acrobat is 64-bit - which greatly speeds up our transfer and printing of building blueprints.

Come to think of it, I think almost all of the productivity programs we install in our office are 64-bit and many of them are GPU accelerated too.

If you are an accountant, I can understand having no need for 64-bit. But even a basic office secretary/office assistant will benefit from 64-bit Acrobat when assembling/printing documents and proposals.
 
2014-02-10 03:53:50 PM  

LesserEvil: MrSteve007: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?
I don't know why people keep saying this?

For YEARS Windows XP was complete and absolute crap and people weren't going to move away from Windows 2000 (which you left out). Until SP2, and even a bit in SP3, XP was one of the worst offenders for crashes and bluescreens on the planet. It seemed like if you did anything to the video card drivers, you'd bluescreen that operating system. I remember the pain of having to deal with Bluetooth drivers and having to use 3rd party controls to get devices to work properly. And god help you if you wanted to search & index the operating system and a large external media drive. In XP, it's like working with a snail.

 It seems like people love to look at that Fisher Price operating system with rose colored glasses.

Man, you really play up the Microsoft Party Line, don't you?

XP was great because it was a refined Windows 2000, just as Windows 7 is great because it was a refined Windows Vista. By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k (mostly because of holdovers to the Win9x ecosystem) got ironed out and became standard. Games were far more playable on XP (and that is your killer computer application, after all)

Likewise, Vista implemented a TON of security stuff and signed drivers, both were things nobody was really prepared for. Developers were mostly too lazy to actually code the security bits into their apps before Vista came out, because the APIs allowed them to get away with it. When those holes got tightened up, it broke a lot of apps. Likewise, signed drivers made XP a necessity for many people and businesses because the original vendors were no longer supporting hardware - which some companies planned on using for a decade or more - and thus, never released drivers for. It took a while for older (but still supported) hardware to get signed drivers, which made Vista unusable for many people.

With the Vista misstep, XP had plenty of time to become finely tuned and well understood by users and IT departments. Setting Group Policies is always tricky, but benefgitted from the extra time tweaking XP to balance security and utility. Supporting your existing capital investments (hardware and applications) also meant that the status quo, as long as performance and productivity were not an issue, was the Golden Rule. For 95% of corporate America, a 6~7 year old Windows XP machine with 2~3GB of RAM can do everything its users need to do,

Of course, Microsoft doesn't have a vested interest in selling an OS 12 years ago and continuing to support it, so it has to push newer versions and give compelling reasons for users and corporations to buy it. HArdware vendors have no vested interest in supporting hardware they sold 6 or 7 years ago, so they have to push new hardware and give compelling reasons for their purchase (some, like Epson, get downright dirty and timebomb their products)

It is unfortunate that Microsoft doubled down with Win8. They confused "compelling" with "imposing their will" in trying to leverage their desktop beast as a means of forcing their mobile UI intot he worldwide acceptance.

Please stop arguing that Windows 8 (and we are talking about the Metro UI here) is great, too... if it was, in any measure, than Ballmer would still be in charge, and the team responsible for Windows 8 would still be around. It was a mistake, plain and simple, and a decade or two from now, after the fallout has finally settled, it will be chronicled by those involved as a big mistake.


For every product out there, even the worst ones, there are a few fans who think it's great. Even Bob must have some fans, anyone remember that?
 
2014-02-10 03:57:48 PM  

Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?


I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.
 
2014-02-10 03:58:07 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.

As someone who sees a lot of this every day:

The Ribbon is actually much easier to use than the big menu trees of Office prior to 2007. I can find things a lot faster and easier. I think the ribbon debate just comes down to if someone is more visually oriented. Being a very visual person I find it a godsend because it is so much easier to find things now in Office.

Windows 8, on the other hand, is incredibly annoying. Mainly because I hate how UI elements jump up at you when you come close to a hot corner, which causes me to do things like accidentally switch to a metro app when I'm trying to pull up a file menu.


I've hated the ribbon from the start, and after years I having to use it at work, I still hate it.

The thing that really gets me is that they could have easily left the classic menu in place and given the choice of using the ribbon with or instead. That would be the best of both worlds, offer the ribbon for those it works well for, but retain the classic menus for the rest if us. Choice, it's a good thing.
 
2014-02-10 03:58:36 PM  
Mrs. Gates does.
 
2014-02-10 03:59:28 PM  

James10952001: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

That's the problem, it fills the while screen with something that can be done in a small window. I usually have a pile of stuff open at once, laid out on a large monitor. Often I'm watching a video or some other real time thing and a full page start screen comes up over that.

I get it, there are some people who want the latest and greatest no matter what and cannot fathom or even are offended that someone else may use their computer differently or have different preferences. That doesn't change the fact that I hate windows 8 and a good half of the market does too, I'm not an anomaly and yes I have used it.

Here's the thing, I'm the customer, the customer is always right. Offer the product that I want and I will buy it. Don't offer the product that you want and then get butthurt when I say that it sucks.


But if you are searching the start menu visually you really aren't watching the video, or anything else.  Just the start menu.
 
2014-02-10 04:00:10 PM  

LesserEvil: XP was great because it was a refined Windows 2000, just as Windows 7 is great because it was a refined Windows Vista. By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k (mostly because of holdovers to the Win9x ecosystem) got ironed out and became standard. Games were far more playable on XP (and that is your killer computer application, after all)


All bullshiat. Win2k was born out of NT, not DOSWIN. WinNT4 was not a consumer OS, so of course hardware support was limited. But Windows HAD to go in that direction, or else we would've been stuck with ME. XP was an incremental update (Win2K is NT5.0, WinXP is NT5.1) that eschewed actual system and kernel improvements for shiatty blobby graphics designed to capture the attention of grandparents. Drivers got better as a matter of course, but Win2k support was keeping pace at least until Vista came out.

I still avoid XP as much as possible. If I have a machine with more than 1GB of RAM, I run 7. If it's got less, I run 2k.
 
2014-02-10 04:00:20 PM  

mokinokaro: dj_spanmaster: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Just skipping versions 1, 2, 3.1, and 2000 for fun?

And ignoring the dire first releases of XP and 98 for convenience too.


It is funny watching the internet halo being placed over XP, especially for those of us who remember it as a new system (when we had onions tied to our belts, which was the style at the time) - the campaign to boycott XP over the activation system, the constant blue screens, the requirement for many to upgrade hardware, etc.


For those that didn't live through the early days (or were still in diapers until SP3 came out), try something like this:  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1304348,00.asp (stored in my favourites somewhere because of the amusing complaint about System Idle Process hogging all the resources and slowing things up when shutting it down).


My general rule of thumb for a windows release: whether it will be remembered as good or bad will largely depend on how long it was around, the longer it was the "current" windows release, the more patches it got, and the better people will remember it.


Essentially I see it like this, the CEOs/marketing department decide on some random high level things about the next version of windows that will make it worse for users to actually use, but will be the USP (or whatever the current marketing bullshiat term of art is at the time) that will be highlighted in adverts and so on as the reason to not just stick with your old version of windows. The release comes, and it is crappy and lots of people complain about how the new features are annoying and hard to use, etc. At that point of course the CEO/marketing idiots have moved on to new pastures and dumped the mess in the lap of the technical guys who will respond to the complaints and over time brush things up so the whole thing is usable and doesn't crash as much, etc.


If given long enough they will end up with a pretty decent OS, however if the execs want to churn forward the number and try to make more money from OS sales to fund gambling on some new venture like Surface or buying up another random tech company for no discernible reason then that version obsoleted relatively quickly will end up comparatively badly remembered.


*windows 7 doesn't fit the pattern so well unless you consider it a partially paid for and re-branded Vista patch rather than an actual new version of Windows
 
2014-02-10 04:00:43 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Phil Moskowitz: demaL-demaL-yeH: With the genius at Microsoft who crammed that ribbon in Office down people's throats admitting that the new Windows interface costs days to weeks of productivity, that might not be a safe bet.

When I saw ribbon come out I knew this period of horrible design was coming. Ribbon is "neat looking" but functionally garbage. That outlook took over the entire company. Microsoft is now kinda neat looking useless (and sometimes freshly crippled) garbage.

I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.

As someone who sees a lot of this every day:
[www.photoinduced.com image 139x700]
The Ribbon is actually much easier to use than the big menu trees of Office prior to 2007. I can find things a lot faster and easier. I think the ribbon debate just comes down to if someone is more visually oriented. Being a very visual person I find it a godsend because it is so much easier to find things now in Office.

Windows 8, on the other hand, is incredibly annoying. Mainly because I hate how UI elements jump up at you when you come close to a hot corner, which causes me to do things like accidentally switch to a metro app when I'm trying to pull up a file menu.


Once I got used to the ribbon, I wondered how I ever tolerated having the old menu system. There are so many more things available immediately on-screen, as opposed to having seven or eight things with several levels of sub-menus.

Like I said earlier about 8, I have a laptop/tablet hybrid that 8 seems perfect for, but my dad (for some reason) bought a non-touchscreen laptop with 8, and it's pretty maddening to use.
 
2014-02-10 04:00:55 PM  

Marine1: Far Cough: Marine1: Except I've been using it on all of my systems for the last few months and I haven't had any problems that couldn't be solved by a quick Google (or Bing) search.

Shill like typing detected?  Seriously, nobody really uses Bing, come on now.  I don't even use Google myself any more (directly) but it's exceedingly rare that I'll run out of enough options to have to use Bing.

(But it's okay I guess.  Just as many privacy issues, search is about 40% as good as Google, but I think they're still using those ridiculous full page backgrounds.)

/I know it powers other search engines too
/I spend time in Vista, 7, 8, OSX, and various Linuxen, and frankly XP works more smoothly than any of them.  Really.  Smaller is better.

I occasionally type the queries on things I don't get into the search charm. It's Bing. Other times, I use my phone, which is a Nokia Lumia. Also Bing. Most of the time, I use Google, though.

Carousel Beast: Marine1: What I don't get is the idea of constantly kowtowing down to the lowest common denominator in everything related to software design even when it means not advancing a product in a meaningful way to take advantage of the most recent innovations in the field.

I don't get a couple of things:

1) Why you're white knighting Microsoft when they themselves have admitted their farkup. They aren't going to sleep with you.
2) Why you don't seem to have any clue that a design is to promote usability, not complexity. What was it do you think was broken about the previous Windows UI that Metro "fixed"?

1) They're "admitting" their fark-up because no one will give it a damn rest. The tech press (and Fark headlines) are notorious for never giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on  anything. They screw up, but Metro wasn't one of their screwups.
2) Using it on a touchscreen, which is a desired feature of most devices today. All of those things "replacing" PCs have them. Sticking with the traditional user interface on such a product would have meant death for Windows, because Windows 7 was a PITA to use on a touchscreen or with any touch interface. Windows 8 is not as much of a PITA to use on a traditional KVM setup as Windows 7 was on a touchscreen. Once you get used to it, like anything else, it's actually better. No more guiding your cursor through a tiny channel in a dropdown menu to get to a program. No more hunting through a list of items in 12-point font in a scrollbox to get to your program folder. No more dead space on the desktop sitting there doing nothing when it could be displaying information.


I will just reiterate what I've said in previous stories about this.

In the consumer preview there was a registry hack to boot to desktop. And yes it was wonderful with a tablet.

In the release preview MS double-downed and removed the registry hack. They were mandating Metro. Everything would have been better if they had done the boot to desktop option from the beginning and maybe get rid of the charms interface on non-touchscreens.
 
2014-02-10 04:01:06 PM  

MrSteve007: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.

I'm not sure if you'd call architecture an entrenched industry, but most of our CAD and rendering products have been 64 bit for a while now, AutoCAD, Revit, 3ds Max (are far faster than their 32-bit versions). Office has been 64-bit for a while, browsers are 64-bit nowadays, most of the Adobe Suite, including Acrobat is 64-bit - which greatly speeds up our transfer and printing of building blueprints.

Come to think of it, I think almost all of the productivity programs we install in our office are 64-bit and many of them are GPU accelerated too.

If you are an accountant, I can understand having no need for 64-bit. But even a basic office secretary/office assistant will benefit from 64-bit Acrobat when assembling/printing documents and proposals.


I think you've hit on one of the more progressive industries.  Certainly I wouldn't even begin to argue that anything design related doesn't benefit from 64 bit.  From web to cad to 3D these are the programs that need 64 bit.

But a standard desktop, running office gains almost nothing from it, and chances are the 10+ year old software they use doesn't work on it.  Generating PDFs might be the only case where its better, and I think spending thousands on new software, change over and training is not worth a few minutes a year in PDF generation savings.

I can throw a stone and hit 10 businesses.  Not a single one can move to 64 bit because the software they consider critical isn't compatible, and they don't want to spend another 50k to buy the newer stuff, and then even more to train their employees.  I know this because I maintain the systems at all of these businesses.  I have offered them upgrades, not a single remotely interested party.   Granted, none of them are design related.

Still, I'm more than willing to admit that isn't anywhere near the entire industry, as long as you admit that it is pretty damn typical.
 
2014-02-10 04:01:13 PM  

Kahabut: MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.

Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement?  In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.


There is one compelling reason I've run into. 32 bit can only address 4GB of RAM. That sounds like a lot until you've got a couple of VMs running or are working with really big image files or doing nonlinear video editing.

The vast majority of home users will be fine with 32 bit, but there sure are compelling reasons for 64 bit workstations.
 
2014-02-10 04:02:33 PM  

redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.


Put up, or shut up.
 
2014-02-10 04:04:54 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: BumpInTheNight: ikanreed: cman: Now if we could destroy Unity next...

There are like one trillion tech products with that name.  I assume you mean the Linux one?  Not the game engine, or development tool, right?

I'm guessing so, Unity the game engine is pretty spiffy.  Unity the Metro of Linux UIs is certainly not, in fact among my circle of co-workers and friends its the single driving force that's making us migrate away from Ubuntu since they seem to have locked their jaws onto that and several other unwanted features.

I was a huge Ubuntu fan until the first iteration of Unity.

I moved to Linux Mint (The Debian Edition XFCE spin, since discontinued alas), and have not looked back.


I've been a huge Linux Mint fan since the first split from Ubuntu. Even though the original versions were nearly identical to each other, their philosophy on updates is what really sold it. I'd use Linux (or better yet, FreeBSD) as my main OS if it wasn't for the dependency hell that plagues Unix-Likes.
 
2014-02-10 04:06:02 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Burning_Monk: James10952001: Supadope: 95 bad
98 good
ME bad
XP good
Vista bad
7 good
8 bad
9 good?

Win2k messes up that pattern, it was actually quite good, I ran it until switching to XP in 2005.

Win2k is actually a different animal. It uses the NT code base while 98 is built uses the 95 code base.

Win2k also didn't have the graphics API that XP did until much later. Win2k shipped with Dx7, i.e. no T&L. Gaming was quite limited for some time.


I remember that well as I was working at MS at the time Win2k was released. I was already not much if a gamer by then but I recall it would run Quake and AOE II just fine and that was about all I was playing. It was a nice stable OS for getting stuff done while being loads more user friendly than NT4.

ME was meant to be the home OS with the Win2k look on the Win9x framework. Unfortunately it was the worst of both worlds.
 
2014-02-10 04:06:40 PM  

Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.


Development VMs, Using the Adobe suite, video editing, Visual Studio, audio editing...

Audio and video editing are more niche obviously, but you're going to find people needing VMs and using Visual Studio across pretty much every industry
 
2014-02-10 04:07:43 PM  

Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.


This is what you both sound like:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/westwing-techsupport-crew-be-a-bunc ha -wack-biatches,16370/
 
2014-02-10 04:08:39 PM  

LesserEvil: Yeah, that's the thing... most people don't really need anything more than a Chromebook at work.

As a developer,. though, I run 32GB, often with virtuals running both on my own system and a dedicated ESXi server in my basement.  I'm kind of grateful that users have "come along for the ride" to more powerful machines and operating systems.


I don't think 64 bit is a bad thing.  I try and push my clients towards fully 64 bit systems and networks daily.  But the reality is that a great many businesses are built on some really farking old software.  Once you get outside mainstream office productivity suites and standard (shiatty) accounting software (looking at you quickbooks), 32 bit is king, and will be until the day it actually breaks and has no choice but to be replaced.

For crying out loud, the city of portland runs an AS400 at some rather extravagant expense because the code base is only adapted for that machine, and supposedly it would cost more to upgrade.  That's just one of countless examples.  It just happens to be a rather amusing one.

DELL computers still uses a nearly 20 year old DB system that runs on a 32 bit system ONLY.  This is the customer support DB.  Which is complimented by a fully modern web interface for scripts and troubleshooting, but notes your tech leaves... yeah, in a shiatty DB running on god knows what.

It's excellent that most desktops are now fully 64 bit.  But the fact is, outside certain fairly specific software, the gains have been entirely fictional.  (from a business standpoint, from a consumer software standpoint it's a different argument entirely, and 64 bit is winning, thank god)
 
2014-02-10 04:10:28 PM  

Egoy3k: James10952001: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

That's the problem, it fills the while screen with something that can be done in a small window. I usually have a pile of stuff open at once, laid out on a large monitor. Often I'm watching a video or some other real time thing and a full page start screen comes up over that.

I get it, there are some people who want the latest and greatest no matter what and cannot fathom or even are offended that someone else may use their computer differently or have different preferences. That doesn't change the fact that I hate windows 8 and a good half of the market does too, I'm not an anomaly and yes I have used it.

Here's the thing, I'm the customer, the customer is always right. Offer the product that I want and I will buy it. Don't offer the product that you want and then get butthurt when I say that it sucks.

But if you are searching the start menu visually you really aren't watching the video, or anything else.  Just the start menu.



That's as wrong as wrong can be.  When you're shifting gears you're not really watching the road.  While putting popcorn in your mouth you're not really watching the movie.  When noticing a car approaching from the right you're not watching anything in front of you.  While chewing gum you're not really walking.

Right, having the plug pulled from your television every time the phone rings is EXACTLY the same as glancing over to see the callerID.
 
2014-02-10 04:12:14 PM  

LesserEvil: Kahabut: MrSteve007: LesserEvil: By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k got ironed out.

I take it you never played much with XP 64bit? That version never got upgraded past SP2 and driver support *is* still a nightmare on that version. Everyone who is raving about XP SP3 are running workstations that are still 32 bit. *shudder*

I think I recycled my last 32-bit hardware a decade ago, when the "Prescott" Pentium 4's rolled out.

Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement?  In what use case?

I take it you don't work in an entrenched industry, because if you did you'd understand that a great deal of software was not written for 64 bit, nor would it benefit from the costly upgrade to make it work in 64 bit, nor is there a cost effective alternative.

The VAST majority of the installed based of workstations have, as their maximum load, MS office, publisher, and an email client running.

Yeah, that's the thing... most people don't really need anything more than a Chromebook at work.

As a developer,. though, I run 32GB, often with virtuals running both on my own system and a dedicated ESXi server in my basement.  I'm kind of grateful that users have "come along for the ride" to more powerful machines and operating systems.


That's precisely why PC sales are slow. The PC is not dead, there are millions and millions of them in daily use. The PC is dead in terms if sales though because everyone already has one and even a low end PC I a few years ago is more than adequate for what most people do at home.

I'm old enough to remember when a high end desktop could easily cost $10k and was barely adequate by the time you got it out of the box. My friends dad bought a shiny new 486-66 tower and we were awestruck at how well it played Doom. A year later it was feeling pretty slow an a year after that it was hopelessly obsolete. Now days a 10 year old PC will still do email and Internet, casual games, it's not great but it's not so bad compared to a 10 year old PC ten years ago.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:15 PM  

I Like Bread: LesserEvil: XP was great because it was a refined Windows 2000, just as Windows 7 is great because it was a refined Windows Vista. By the time XP rolled out, all the driver issues that plagued Win2k (mostly because of holdovers to the Win9x ecosystem) got ironed out and became standard. Games were far more playable on XP (and that is your killer computer application, after all)

All bullshiat. Win2k was born out of NT, not DOSWIN. WinNT4 was not a consumer OS, so of course hardware support was limited. But Windows HAD to go in that direction, or else we would've been stuck with ME. XP was an incremental update (Win2K is NT5.0, WinXP is NT5.1) that eschewed actual system and kernel improvements for shiatty blobby graphics designed to capture the attention of grandparents. Drivers got better as a matter of course, but Win2k support was keeping pace at least until Vista came out.

I still avoid XP as much as possible. If I have a machine with more than 1GB of RAM, I run 7. If it's got less, I run 2k.


WinXP was released as hardware vendors started making drivers for "NT" - and yes, those drivers worked in Win2k, too. XP **WAS** a refined version of Win2k. It had a "hipper" windowing UI, which made it more familiar to Win9x users. Over all, it was more comfortable to jump into. A lot of the acronymity against XP was due to the "Genuine Windows" authentication nonsense.

Again, not saying I'd use XP today. Win7 is my "go to" OS install, unless I need a server, and for a lightweight Windows server, it's Server 2003. I would never run a physical machine with less than 2GB of RAM these days, but virtuals... I can run a domain controller in Server 2003 for 256MB of RAM on my virtuals server.
 
2014-02-10 04:20:13 PM  

Egoy3k: James10952001: Egoy3k: DanZero: Not too much hate on 8.

It's your operating system. It will find some way to annoy you eventually.


Why the Windows 8 haters want to have an outdated UI option that nobody should be using anymore anyway is a mystery to me.

The start menu  uses less than 30% of the screen for a task that is pretty much always a quick uni-tasking activity.  You click the menu find what you want in tightly fitted text and small icons open it and the start menudisappears.

Metro is a full screen start menu that displays live data and larger icons that are easily found and clicked on quickly.

Then again who bothers witheither? Just hit the windows key and type the first three letters of the name of what you want.

That's the problem, it fills the while screen with something that can be done in a small window. I usually have a pile of stuff open at once, laid out on a large monitor. Often I'm watching a video or some other real time thing and a full page start screen comes up over that.

I get it, there are some people who want the latest and greatest no matter what and cannot fathom or even are offended that someone else may use their computer differently or have different preferences. That doesn't change the fact that I hate windows 8 and a good half of the market does too, I'm not an anomaly and yes I have used it.

Here's the thing, I'm the customer, the customer is always right. Offer the product that I want and I will buy it. Don't offer the product that you want and then get butthurt when I say that it sucks.

But if you are searching the start menu visually you really aren't watching the video, or anything else.  Just the start menu.


Can you not casually watch something while looking at something else? I don't need to focus 100% on both things at once.

Fact is, a start menu works very well for my usage style. I can't force you to understand that, but do realize that not everyone works the same way an the fact that you find no advantage to something doesn't mean that someone else won't.

Would you like it if I came in and organized your room in a way that works well for me? It's better, trust me, your old way of organizing your house is obsolete, you shouldn't be using it anymore, just get used to doing it my way.
 
2014-02-10 04:25:02 PM  

Kahabut: I think you've hit on one of the more progressive industries. Certainly I wouldn't even begin to argue that anything design related doesn't benefit from 64 bit. From web to cad to 3D these are the programs that need 64 bit.


One interesting thing we're going through in our industry is the widespread adoption of subscription based models for our software. At least for Autodesk, they've made the model decently priced. Before, we used to upgrade our CAD software on a three year cycle. They released a new version almost every year, typically like this:

Year 1 - huge rendering improvements! But unstable and some nagging issues. SP1 issued 3 months in, SP2 6 months.
Year 2 - nagging issues removed, some stability improvements. Same service pack schedule.
Year 3 - everything running smoothly, minor performance updates.

Rinse, repeat. We'd try to hop in at mid year 2.

Now, it seems like they've gone to a more steady & incremental upgrade cycle, with annual minor improvements. Before, we'd pay ~$3,500 for the software every 3 years, with a huge jump in UI changes and features. Now we pay ~$1,000 a year per seat for constant, steady updates. At least when it comes to training the users, it's much easier today. They also seem much better dealing with changing environments and UI's.

As for our internal upgrade cycle, we now put into our design contracts that we upgrade software on an annual cycle, typically near the downtime of Thanksgiving. This is because when we start a new skyscraper, we work with a wide assortment of mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and contractors. If we make a software version change, they should also make a change (to reduce the chance of a model error, putting a beam somewhere it shouldn't be) and ensure they can open the files correctly.

Since we do hundreds of projects a year, in 42 states and several countries, and projects may take 2-4 years from start to finish, you can see why it's important for our contractors to have a steady and published upgrade cycle. This gives enough time from the software version launch in the spring, to iron out any major stability issues by the late fall.

But again, as you can see we aren't a standard type of business. We have to be moving constantly with software and the hardware to stay competitive and cut down on the time it takes to bring projects to construction and reduce chance of mistakes by building BIM models with our design partners. It'll spend about $5,000 on the workstation, and before subscription service came around, about $5,000-$7,500 on software, per station, every 3-years.

5 years ago, we could make a model render for a client by running a computer over the weekend. Now we can do a photorealistic render over lunch, or set up all the stations to run distributed rendering for a walk-thru video overnight. For us, going back to 32-bit would be productivity equivalent to cutting off the left hand of every one of our architects and designers.

When we're billing clients on the order of $125 an hour of labor, and we have 8 people working on a project for weeks at a time - cutting 15% off render times or increasing performance an equivalent amount is serious money in our pockets.
 
2014-02-10 04:27:27 PM  

Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.


People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.
 
2014-02-10 04:29:39 PM  

redmid17: Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.

Development VMs, Using the Adobe suite, video editing, Visual Studio, audio editing...

Audio and video editing are more niche obviously, but you're going to find people needing VMs and using Visual Studio across pretty much every industry


For what it's worth I have two VMs on my machine. I use them for ODBC/JDBC connectivity testing, middleware testing, web services, snmp walks, wmi testing, et al.  A lot of times I need to test against certain versions of browsers as well. I need a certain amount of RAM to do that as one of the middleware applications refuses to run with less than 512 MB RAM, which is about half of what I usually assign to my VMs. Those VMs on top of my normal outlook/chrome/excel/communicator programs would have my OS paging like it's going out of style.

I'd be more than happy to put these VMs on a server, but I work from home or a client's site. If I don't run them from the same computer, I'm going to have to have 2x as many VMs or spend an unnecessary amount of time setting up a tunnel between my home server and the client site (which would never be allowed for good reason).
 
2014-02-10 04:34:14 PM  

James10952001: I'm old enough to remember when a high end desktop could easily cost $10k and was barely adequate by the time you got it out of the box. My friends dad bought a shiny new 486-66 tower and we were awestruck at how well it played Doom. A year later it was feeling pretty slow an a year after that it was hopelessly obsolete.

CSB time.

It was well before my time here, but I know our firm's first computer was a Microstation CAD computer running on an IBM AT with 6MHz processor in the 1984. I believe the first station cost ~$15,000 and the CAD software & support cost $15,000 a seat. I know I still have the original receipt around here somewhere.

We discovered, doing computer rendering - compared to hand drafting, one CAD user could more precisely do the work of 10 drafters. It completely revolutionized our industry overnight.
 
2014-02-10 04:45:07 PM  

Far Cough: TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E

Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows?  It's really sounding desperate out there.

Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.


Odd, Win+x doesn't do a damn thing on my 7 (Ultimate) and I have x-keys enabled. Which version is it in?
 
2014-02-10 04:46:57 PM  

MrSteve007: James10952001: I'm old enough to remember when a high end desktop could easily cost $10k and was barely adequate by the time you got it out of the box. My friends dad bought a shiny new 486-66 tower and we were awestruck at how well it played Doom. A year later it was feeling pretty slow an a year after that it was hopelessly obsolete.
CSB time.

It was well before my time here, but I know our firm's first computer was a Microstation CAD computer running on an IBM AT with 6MHz processor in the 1984. I believe the first station cost ~$15,000 and the CAD software & support cost $15,000 a seat. I know I still have the original receipt around here somewhere.

We discovered, doing computer rendering - compared to hand drafting, one CAD user could more precisely do the work of 10 drafters. It completely revolutionized our industry overnight.


I still remember visiting my dad at work when I was a toddler and marveling at the electric pencil eraser his colleague had and watching them draw blueprints for industrial plant equipment on huge sheets of paper. He bought an early IBM PC with an 8088 CPU and later added a 20MB hard drive. At the time it was one of the first computers in the office. Amazing how fast things changed.
 
2014-02-10 04:47:55 PM  

James10952001: People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.


Your argument precludes the concept of static systems and twitchy software.

Also, find me a 64 bit driver for a W&W 400 microfilm scanner.  Since you say it can be run in 64 bit, show me.  I can run the software on a 64 bit system.  I can't run the scanner which is the point of the software in the first place.

Can this stuff be done?  YES.  It is economically viable to do so in the majority of cases ?  Not even slightly.  Therefore: 32 bit legacy systems will hang on for as long as they possibly can, I manage several that are older than I am.

You can point to all the modern options you want, it doesn't have shiat to do with the reality in the world.
 
2014-02-10 04:50:45 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Far Cough: TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E

Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows?  It's really sounding desperate out there.

Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.

Odd, Win+x doesn't do a damn thing on my 7 (Ultimate) and I have x-keys enabled. Which version is it in?


I don't have a Windows key on my keyboard. I dug out an old clicky AT keyboard in the mid 90s when hitting the Windows key would crash out of most games. Still love the feel of that keyboard so I've stuck with it. Never got in the habit of using that key since it caused so much frustration back in the day.
 
2014-02-10 04:51:59 PM  

Kahabut: James10952001: People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.

Your argument precludes the concept of static systems and twitchy software.

Also, find me a 64 bit driver for a W&W 400 microfilm scanner.  Since you say it can be run in 64 bit, show me.  I can run the software on a 64 bit system.  I can't run the scanner which is the point of the software in the first place.

Can this stuff be done?  YES.  It is economically viable to do so in the majority of cases ?  Not even slightly.  Therefore: 32 bit legacy systems will hang on for as long as they possibly can, I manage several that are older than I am.

You can point to all the modern options you want, it doesn't have shiat to do with the reality in the world.


I don't believe anyone said that 32-bit legacies wouldn't hang around. You asked : "Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case? "

People have given you several reasons.
 
2014-02-10 04:56:05 PM  

James10952001: ReverendJynxed: Far Cough: TheDirtyNacho: HindiDiscoMonster: IRQ12: Just look how popular 'pinning' is!  (ohh yea 90% of it's use is people accidentally using it)

I understand the business and branding sense having a single platform for all devices but they really screwed the pooch by forcing it instead of easing people into it by having the metro design be default but having the ability to go back to a mostly 7 layout.

The constant need to (seemingly) bury administrative tools is maddening.

you can pin those too. :-P


Actually admin tools are easier than ever to get to... just hit window+x key.  I use it multiple times daily.  Want explorer?  Window+E

Can we PLEASE call a moratorium on touting "Windows 8 features" that existed in OLD OLD versions of Windows?  It's really sounding desperate out there.

Win-E has been around since XP and Win-X since 7, I believe.

Odd, Win+x doesn't do a damn thing on my 7 (Ultimate) and I have x-keys enabled. Which version is it in?

I don't have a Windows key on my keyboard. I dug out an old clicky AT keyboard in the mid 90s when hitting the Windows key would crash out of most games. Still love the feel of that keyboard so I've stuck with it. Never got in the habit of using that key since it caused so much frustration back in the day.


I love my mechanical keyboards. Membrane keys are a bane.

But yeah, win keys were prone to screwing games along with alt-tab which is why a lot of games allow you to disable the key presses while in game.

Had win-x been available to me I probably would have put it to use rather than going menu hunting or typing out the .msc in the command line.
 
2014-02-10 04:57:46 PM  

James10952001: Kahabut: redmid17: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

I can list several, albeit not necessarily general use. If you really have to ask, you should think harder.

Put up, or shut up.

People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.


At my work, people routinely run with 20+ webpages open, streaming Spotify, have 20+ office docs open, multiple images open, maybe some video queued up. This can easily get into over 3gb+ of ram. After that it's a performance hit as it's starts write ram to disk. This is just general every day office stuff.

/I've got Firefox, Outlook, and an IM client running and I'm using 3.2GB
 
2014-02-10 04:58:00 PM  

Kahabut: James10952001: People have listed several. No, most people don't *need* 64 bit, but since a sizable number do, there is no reason not to head that direction. You can still run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system just as you can run 16 bit apps on a 32 bit system. It could be argued that the typical office user would be fine with a Pentium 200 running Win98 and they probably would, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to keep making new software for those.

Your argument precludes the concept of static systems and twitchy software.

Also, find me a 64 bit driver for a W&W 400 microfilm scanner.  Since you say it can be run in 64 bit, show me.  I can run the software on a 64 bit system.  I can't run the scanner which is the point of the software in the first place.

Can this stuff be done?  YES.  It is economically viable to do so in the majority of cases ?  Not even slightly.  Therefore: 32 bit legacy systems will hang on for as long as they possibly can, I manage several that are older than I am.

You can point to all the modern options you want, it doesn't have shiat to do with the reality in the world.


I'm not sure I we're having the same debate here. Yes, legacy systems will be around for a while, hell I still have an ancient win98 laptop I use with my EPROM programmer which connects to the parallel port. It's something I use too rarely to buy a modern one but too frequently to simply dump it.

The need for a 32 bit system is becoming esoteric these days though while 64 bit is now mainstream.

If it gets to where you can't get a 32 bit machine, you can still boot a 32 bit OS on 64 bit hardware. The backward compatibility is impressive, eventually it's not practical to support old stuff forever. You don't see any PCs made in the last 8 years or so with ISA slots, but sure there are loads of them still ticking.
 
2014-02-10 05:01:50 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.


It was the cursor lag you couldn't turn off without a registry hack that irritated the piss out of me.  And I don't have a slow machine - it just can't keep up with my typing.
 
2014-02-10 05:05:42 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Metro is great for Xbox and tablets, problem is only 7 people have a MS tablet.


as one of the seven people with a win8.1 tablet, let me say it is awesome and i am never buying another android tablet again.

not going windows phone though. i hope the ubuntu phone thing works out.
 
2014-02-10 05:08:56 PM  

Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?


Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.
 
2014-02-10 05:11:40 PM  

Lsherm: Phil Moskowitz: I was especially impressed when they farked up cleartype in the new Office.

It was the cursor lag you couldn't turn off without a registry hack that irritated the piss out of me.  And I don't have a slow machine - it just can't keep up with my typing.


Maybe they learned that from Google. I rarely use the gmail web UI but when I do at work, it can't keep up with my typing on a core i7 2600. It's ridiculous.
 
2014-02-10 05:20:50 PM  

syrynxx: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.


To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.
 
2014-02-10 05:25:17 PM  

Kahabut: Also, find me a 64 bit driver for a W&W 400 microfilm scanner. Since you say it can be run in 64 bit, show me. I can run the software on a 64 bit system. I can't run the scanner which is the point of the software in the first place.


Which version exactly? Checking the company website, if I have the right device, the W&W C-400 microfilm scanner supports both 32 and 64 bit version of Windows 7 . . .
http://www.wwl.co.uk/aperturescanner-cseries_machinespec.htm

And the controller PC can be Win 7 or Win 8 32 or 64 bit.
http://www.wwl.co.uk/aperturescanner-cseries_pcspec.htm
 
2014-02-10 05:26:18 PM  

redmid17: syrynxx: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.

To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.


Especially considering current versions of Exchange require 64bit only operating systems
 
2014-02-10 05:28:54 PM  

redmid17: To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.


Well, the first sentence was the reason, the rest was just further clarification in case he actually wanted to learn something about 64-bit OSes which he apparently does not.  Exchange was one of the first apps that grew too big to even run in a 32-bit address space so I used that as an example, but I don't think it'll even install on a workstation OS.  You used to be able to do a registry hack in Windows NT 4.0 that would make NT 4 Workstation think it was NT 4 Server (which was about $800 more expensive), but MSFT 'fixed' that in NT 4 SP 1.
 
2014-02-10 05:30:48 PM  

MightyPez: redmid17: syrynxx: Kahabut: syrynxx: Kahabut: Can you make anything remotely resembling an argument for why 64 bit workstations are an improvement? In what use case?

32-bit OSen can only address 4 GB of RAM.  By default, Windows assigns 2GB to application space and 2GB for the OS.  You could tweak it with things like /3GB on the startup line for apps like Exchange that needed more application memory, but then this bites into reserved pools for OS operations.

WTF are you doing running exchange on a WORKSTATION?

Fail, next attempt?

Do you have a special font on your computer? The part where I apparently claimed to be running Exchange on a workstation isn't showing up on mine.

To be fair, he did ask specifically about 64-bit workstations. To be even more fair, several people have given him several specific examples to which he has not responded. Running an Exchange server, especially now, on a 32-bit vs a 64-bit version of Windows would be a folly.

Especially considering current versions of Exchange require 64bit only operating systems


Yeah and I just know looked up how far back that requirement went. I'd not have guessed that it was 2007. I figured it would have been Exchange 2010.
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report