By the looks of things YOU are the only one here who doesn't know what occupy wall street is about.
Also, shot in the dark here...but...umm...where-tf did that even come from? If you just left FOX news and wanted somewhere to complain about occupy wall street this is the wrong place.
Several protesters were interviewed last week, and they could not even state why they were there and what the mission was. One brainiac just said, and I quote: "I'm just angry. I don't have a reason. Can't I just be angry without a reason?"
We aren't going to be turned into a fascist/neo-Marxist government run state of nation, so deal with it, protesters. (Fascism = government control over private industry and Marxism = no individual property rights).
Too bad some of the protesters where caught off guard, or even mis-quoted. But the issue is very real, and the real criminals should be punished. But don't get me wrong, I really believe in capitalism and the pursuit of money. It drives the well being of us all with mass production and cheaper food, new technology and new products, new movies etc.
But it should be well regulated so we don't get crises like we have today, that was triggered by the rotten house loans in USA and the reckless economic engineering and borrowing by the Greece government.
Here is a good comment from nytimes.com:
Obama was the chance for the US to avoid this sense of alienation and despair, and he took the low road--kowtowing to Wall Street and giving the banksters everything they wanted. The chance was misused and abused. What is the alternative to our system? It is well-regulated government for the people, not winner take all capitalism. Capitalism does work, just like crime pays, but it has to be overseen by responsible people and the rewards and punishments for participating in capitalism have to be appropriate. There is a common good! The government's job is to enforce it. That means that the abusers in the banks-- those who bet on defaults, for example-- cannot be allowed to do so. It is simple, but not easy. Obama had a mandate, and flouted it. Let the chaos begin, since it is unavoidable. Jane Smiley California Sep 28, 2011 4:15 PM
Well, faster than previous versions (which the article didn't mention) and be less resource intensive than previous versions (which the article did mention), yes.
We've already seen demos, and enough people have the alpha release to verify. . . so, yes.
Productivity is up to the individual, and for me that means a slough of monitors (2 over 2) and I'm wondering how Win8 will work on that. . . because that will directly impact my productivity.
I don't get something. They say here that it will use les memory because it will close what you are not using, or is duplicated. However, months before they said that no program will really close, it will just minimize to a tile (how is that less resourse hungry).
That is for the metro apps, the things that close automatically are services. The other feature is to reduce memory by finding already loaded copies of things and reusing memory until it needs to write to the memory.
There are many tricks that can be used to save on processor and memory usage. iOS for example has background applications effectively "suspended", with only a few function calls that continue to operate in the background. For services, Windows NT through Windows 7 have services that many don't really use that are always running, just in case an application MAY need them. Switching to a system where services are not running unless they are actually needed would help quite a bit.
I wonder what patches and updates will do to Windows 8 though...is it secure and bug free? If its great and stays great until SP1 I will certainly be getting it. I've held off on Vista, and only bought one copy of Win 7 (my older PCs run Home Server and XP still) so I will be upgrading all to Win 8 if it all holds true! :D
I'm confused. Is your skepticism regarding Microsoft, or regarding OSs in general?
Apple, certainly, have a pretty good track record of increasing performance (including VM performance) and reducing disk footprint (not mentioned in the article above, but another aspect of the issue) from one OS to the next. The one notable regression in recent times has been with Safari 5.1, though that is sure to be fixed soon --- it is certainly a bug, not an architectural issue.
The same has been largely true of the recent free unixes.
There are times when the memory usage of an OS jumps substantially --- but for good reason. For example, switching from a single-core to a multi-core OS, or switching the imaging model so that every window gets backing store, or (for disk footprint) shipping a world-ready OS that has every asset in multiple languages --- a primary reason OSX and its apps are so much larger than people who whine about the good old days of OS9.
But it's not like the people in charge of these OSs are fools. Those jumps happen for a reason, and chances are, if you have an opinion about the requirements of modern OSs, this reflects NOT their stupidity, but rather that you (interested in your personal experience) want a different set of tradeoffs from what the manufacturers and packagers (who actually KNOW their customers) want.
Jesus Christ. If you're going to have a separate backing store for each window, where do you THINK that store is going to reside? If you're going to store separate resources for every language, how is that NOT going to impact the size of an app? Look at something like iTunes. I don't know the Windows situation, but on a Mac more than 50% of the size is in language-specific resources.
There is NOTHING stopping you running Windows 3 on your PC if you are so convinced everything was better back in 1985. Sure you won't have much of an internet connection or much of a browser, but I suspect the rest of us would consider that a feature more than a bug.
Look, you can contribute to the debate like a mature human being, or you can make statements that are childish and clearly stupid. Choose wisely.
To be fair I'm not the one making the argument personal here.
Things were better in the mid-80s, from an OS perspective anyway.
It's easy to overlook what software evolution brings to the end user experience, most of the time it's not nearly as much as one would think.
If we chose to focus on Windows in particular I'd argue that nothing has happened since W95. Sure there's a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo, which - being a software engineer - I have moderate appreciation for myself.
Has it really improved the user experience though? And has it done so in line with the resource requirements?
The answer is an emphatic no, not anywhere near that.
To illustrate my point I'll fall be to my favorite example, AmigaOS 3.x.
My now 20 year old Amiga still offers a snappier, more responsive experience - to say nothing about a more intuitive interface - than my current i7 2600K-based desktop.
And it achieves this with, quite literally, less than a thousandth of the resources.
Point being?
That there's a lot to be done with Windows before something like this is impressive. Cutting memory requirements down to half should be relatively trivial, down to a tenth - desirable.
Are you serious? The way multi-tasking is handled under NT/2000/XP/Vista/7 is far better than what Windows ME and earlier had provided. The real problem that we have is that as the capability of computers has increased, the more we have running at any one time, and THAT is what has caused the lack of true increases in overall system performance. Your Amiga probably doesn't have anti-virus continually monitoring things in the background(why bother with anti-virus for an old platform that virtually no one uses anymore?).
This is really the thing that it SOUNDS like Windows 8 is addressing, how to reduce the impact of all the background stuff and how much is really being done in the background.
The one thing that was done better back in the 1980s and early 1990s was that due to limited resources(RAM and HD space), programmers had to focus on more efficient code. Instead of 8 versions of the same subroutine/function for slightly different needs, back then, we would code a single subroutine/function that might have one extra parameter to make it work for all of those 8 different situations.
Intel did not help with all of those SSE instructions that were primarily intended to keep AMD from keeping up(AMD tried to fight back with 3DNow! but gave up when it didn't take off), and Microsoft has bloated DirectX with a lot of stuff that was not really needed. But, what's done is done.
The only way to REALLY fix the problem is to start over with a design that is LESS complicated and "open" to modifications. If the base OS is fairly small and you let the user select what to run/install, it will provide better performance than a monolithic design that does every possible thing that anyone might want. Windows 8 is a step in the right direction by cutting down on what services are running.
The very foundation of Windows 7 is slow and borked. UI uses much more CPU and general file i/o is much slower than XP. These are the same operations yet they are slowed down by a huge amount in 7.
But .net and managed code is something you should stay away from. It is easier to code but slower to run and uses gargantuan amounts of memory, and is harder to optimize for. Direct2D and c++ is the future, I hope. It would be sweet to have the dynamics of Metro with the Windows 7 start menu and task bar. Games zooming in while the desktop fades out in the background.. but it won't happen soon I guess, *sigh* not big enough expectations from customers.
I think perhaps you have been watching too much TV. Such as your south park reference suggests.
Assuming Microsoft just rewrote the memory management methods, and service run policies for Windows 7. Windows 7 it's self would most likely be more responsive as well. Assuming the system architecture could withstand such a rewrite. Which I am betting is more than likely possible.
As for making any person twice as productive . . . Most likely Microsoft could not truly make that boast. As it is hard to make the average lazy bum any more productive than they want to be. For instance. Microsoft would have to enthrall the masses well enough to get off their fat behinds. So as to stop watching shows like south park (all day long ).
In other words. Very unlikely.
*Or* "we" could all just denounce Microsoft entirely. Right ? Because all alternative operating systems are perfect. Yeah, that was sarcasm . . .
Nah they will NOT go bankrupt, stop this bullshit! People will just start building their 32GB or even 64GB RAM disks when RAM prices drop to $100 for 64GB or so. I will for one. Need 32GB RAM disk right now to make stuff like games load instantly. Waiting for RAM prices to drop before jumping in.
I don't see why it wouldn't. Since Vista, Windows has used idle RAM for commonly used programs to speed launch time. That memory can be freed at anytime if an application needs it. All MS appears to be doing here is reducing the footprint of "system reserved" memory, which means more RAM for applications. This is great, since XP only utilizes RAM that is currently in use, so any RAM that was in excess of that demand served no purpose unless an Application just happened to need it. OS X did this memory trick first, and I don't know if any Linux distros do.
On 32 bit? Where have you been. Most of Win 7 sold is 64 bit. Vista was a good 40% or so last I read I think...I could be wrong. I've been using XP Pro x64 for years.
Microsoft's reluctance to push for 64-bit fully have marginalized the idea to the point that the only 64-bit parts of most systems is the memory subsystem and drivers.
Since 32-bit application software runs on 64-bit systems there's no real reason to develop 64-bit software.
Enter Windows on ARM and you're looking at a situation where 32-bit is going to be the standard for a long time to come.
You should look at the different modes that PROCESSORS support, since that is a big factor. A 64 bit OS has to handle 32 bit applications somewhat differently from "native" applications, and going back to 16 bit becomes a bit of a problem. When compatibility is a REQUIREMENT, then it would be a bad idea to push for a move to 64 bit before the software has been updated.
How many people just could not go to Windows Vista or Windows 7 due to older applications not working? The move to 64 bit from 32 bit increases the difficulties in making those older applications working, and only a VM is the solution for SOME older applications. For those who have played computer games over the years, they still want to be able to play their old games on new computers, and keeping things compatible is NOT easy between 16 bit, 32 bit, and 64 bit.
64-bit allows more memory addressing, so it is essentially faster. Also, it is supposedly more secure. Not to mention 64-bit development tools are more up to date/more friendly GUI/easier to use.
Because there is more overhead associated with all those additional available registers, there are many cases where 64-bit code is SLOWER than 32-bit.
I'm not aware of any cases where security is enhanced or superior development tools available for 64-bit systems that aren't equivalent in the 32-bit world (perhaps you have some examples? Perhaps not)
"Anyway, the problem isn't just cost but also space and power use... Microsoft is trying to push MIDs and tablets down the pipe too."
That rabbit hole goes much, much deeper than tablets my friend.
ARM is the go to platform for many embedded devices, and since Microsoft has a whole line up of embedded versions of operating systems . . . Just expect to see an embedded version of Windows 8 at, or around release time.
As for memory companies going out of business . . . I disagree. As it stands ARM would compete head to head with mobile device platforms. Low power laptop platforms at best. As such, many ARM platforms in this arena will be competing with Atom platforms. Where ARM will shine best. Later, perhaps ARM will perform as good as ( more or less ) a low end desktop platform. Personally, I do not see that happening any time soon, but no one says that I have to be right either.
All the while, you *should* know that Intel is not going to sit still.
By "competing with". I mean on a performance level. That does not mean, such a platform could not be used as some form of a low demand server. It certainly could be used as such.
In a double-barrelled assault, Microsoft has explained why the Start menu in Windows 8 has met its demise, and why the Start screen is better. The first round of the attack sees Chaitanya Sareen putting forward a compelling case about just how useless the Start menu in Windows 7 is, and Alice Steinglass follows up with some sound reasons for why the Start screen is slicker, more efficient, and generally more awesome.
Seriously... Most people where I work hardly EVER click the start button. The moment I added the shortcuts for Office onto the taskbar they need hardly anything else.
...A few of them don't even know that they can get to other programs (But that's a training issue). I only use the initial list that appears when you click start as I add everything I want right there
That doesn't mean that some of us don't use it extensively. I find myself clicking on the start menu all the time to access things which I don't want on my taskbar. I immediately turned off Windows 7's icon view in the taskbar and restored classic mode since I cannot work with it, thus pinning a hundred things there doesn't work well.
That would be because most of the people you work with, don't truly use their computers. Nor do they admin systems from the terminal, tweak various settings. Or occasionally use Microsoft included applications All of which can be accessed various way locally, but mostly, if not only through the start menu. By default.
Lets not even get into the command line stuff . . . Start -> Search -> cmd . . .
However, if all you do is double click an icon to run one or a very small amount of apps . . . then yeah. Try using hide task bar . . .
"That would be because most of the people you work with, don't truly use their computers."
And there lies the mass market. Sadly.
Joe/Jane Techno-Ignorant is blissfully unaware until "Angry Birds DX" runs like crap on their iAppliance...
Of which then they just buy a new "generic iConnectivity" and be done with it.
There are no layers to the onion, people are as shallow as to what motorized vehicles are now. Privacy concerns be damned, if it gets them their iServices it lives - if it complains their being stupid/can't do it it's thrown to the wayside.
Then again the old XP-style Start Menu was leagues better than the current implementation.
With that in mind it would seem that bringing back a better start menu is av even better option.
Microsoft seems to be mixing and matching their different userbases quite a lot in these kind of arguments. I dare say that people who actually work with computers, as opposed to having their computer requirements satisfied by blogging and surfing the web on an ARM-based tablet, have vastly different user requirements.
Trying to satisfy both groups with one solution is likely to end badly.
Windows 8 will run faster than Windows 7 because it will actually be doing less. Apps will suspend when they aren't in the foreground. That means less background processes running that suck up battery. For example, do IM apps really need to be running in the background or isn't it better to just get a push notification from the server? While it doesn't matter that much for desktops, any way to get more battery life on laptops is welcome.
Are you actually proposing we go back to the days before multi-tasking?
I realize there are reasons for wanting to suspend tasks on certain devices, such as smartphones, but I can't imagine a single situation where I'd want to suspend any application on my desktop - or notebook.
The first time that happens, and ends up inconveniencing me in the process, I'm likely to throw a rage-fit.
This is old news. It was mentioned at Microsoft's Build a while back, and you can see it for yourself by using the Win 8 developer preview. They also mentioned that it's likely RAM usage will drop even further by the time they get to the finished version.
And i can confirm that even the early dev preview runs faster than Win 7 on all hardware i've tried it on. From a 6 year old laptop to a beefy 6 core rig with 24GB RAM and RAID SSD's.
When i tested it i also had clean installs of Win7, so it was fair. It's definitely faster :)
For a laugh i recently tried it on a ancient 8 year old laptop with a single core P4 CPU and only 512MB RAM... amazingly it actually runs about as snappy as XP did on the same hardware. Thats VERY impressive for a new OS, as XP is 10 years old now. Win 7 on the same hardware ran worse, not much worse, but it made the difference between the laptop actually being usable or not.
"One improvement to the memory manager allows it to search for duplicated items in memory, and to unload all but a single copy to save space (the Windows installer and image deployment tools for enterprises do something similar to reduce the size of the install media, keeping one copy of a given file and a record of everywhere that file needs to go on the hard drive rather than, say, five copies of the same file). "
That's ... not ... at all the same thing. One is checking files (I'm guessing just checksums), the other is checking arrays of bytes in RAM. One is probably storing a list of actual paths to extract a file to while the other is likely consolidating pointers to all point to the same memory location, which would be the reverse of what the Enterprise installer does. The too are wildly different as is the programming involved to accomplish each task.
How do you figure? They are both conceptually identical. Obviously the means of accomplishing both will work differently, but both methods take a chunk of data and create only a single copy of that data. The concept does not change just because one uses pointers and one uses files.
Erm, no. :) I don't pirate my software, so this anti-pirate cloud computing idea is just for them to secure more money and hurt pirates. I am no pirate matey. Arrr!
I for one look forward to goals like this, whether they attain it or not I like to see that it is a value. I'm tired of MS Office programs having their core functionalities hamstrung in preformance by the haphazard implementation of additional capabilities. I'm very happy with the new office designs and all of these additions, but I can't help but feel that a huge performance sacrifice is being paid even in the underlying work because of shoddy integration of code. Why is VBA so slow in excel? Why does the suite tax so much of my memory and CPU usage, even when the bulk of their operation is identical to what they did ten years ago? Obviously their demands can reasonably increase, but that they have stayed on par with the huge increase in memory and processing power tells me that they are just doing what they can get away with.
We already have the functionality we need, it is not the time for getting new fancy things out quickly, rather it is the time - both in OS and Productivity Software development - to take time and put out both evolutionary and revolutionary advances *with good practices in mind.*
A great case-in-point example (one of many), I'm a research scientist and have often used LyX, a word processing software that has great integration with equation editing tools to allow rapid typing and formatting of equations, to put together teaching documents. MS Word 2010 however brought a *huge* advance in typing equation quickly and intuitively into documents, absolutely revolutionary. They took heavily from LyX and LaTeX and improved on it, I was won over rapidly no matter how hard I resisted. But then I got a document past its fourth page of equations, and *wow*, it slowed down to a crawl, even when closing everything and opening the document later. Testing this out a few times, I found that it matters how many equations are within 1 page of your current cursor, so if you type a lot of equations you're done. I begrudgingly switched back to LyX. (not to badmouth lyx at all, I'm deeply appreciative for the software, and for those that prefer its very different approach to document formatting - 'write what you mean' versus 'write what you see' - it is a great alternative to Word, I just personally prefer the latter case.
I love the word equation editor in 2007/2010 but yea, it's buggy as hell. I've lost multiple documents to unrecoverable crashes. These documents were only a few pages long. When I got Office 2010 I was really hoping they'd address at least that issue, but they did not.
La nouvelle année. Une nouvelle day.Are tu portes toujours ce morceau de vieux vêtements? Vous n'êtes pas acheter de nouveaux vêtements pour s'inquiéter? Vous n'êtes pas assez de qualité pour l'hésitation? êtes-vous pour l'argent de poche à s'inquiéter? Maintenant, je peux vous dire. Vous pouvez mettre de c?té l'idée de everything.Here, je vous présente, nouveau distributeur exclusif. Le design exclusif. Factory Outlet. Aucun profit. New Year's sell-off.For la nouvelle année. Tous nos produits disponibles à la vente.
I never even looked at that bar on the left when I saw the image before.
My eyes always, always go to the amount committed. Aggressively paging stuff to get your physical memory used down isn't exactly a solution.
Then again, reading the building windows 8 blog, it looks like they are doing some actual work to cut down RAM use. But this title image is EXTREMELY misleading.
Early tests with the developer preview edition Windows 8 show that it uses a lot less memory than Windows 7. Microsoft's <a href="http://windows7vswindows8.com/2011/windows-7-vs-wi... 8 </a> is aiming to minimize a PC's memory usage through efficient design, allowing it to run on hardware originally designed for Windows 7..
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
Back to Article
dayanth - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
And I suppose Windows 8 will run faster than previous versions and make people twice as productive than they were in Windows 7?South Park sums it up nicely - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoKeQeMfN0s
inighthawki - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Did you try reading the article? Or are you just unjustly biased?michal1980 - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
he's one of the wall street protesters so forgive him for now knowing what his protestingblue_falcon - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
+1 to michal1980tayb - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
If you can't figure out what occupy wall street is about or don't care I feel very sorry for you.Money Loo - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
By the looks of things YOU are the only one here who doesn't know what occupy wall street is about.Also, shot in the dark here...but...umm...where-tf did that even come from? If you just left FOX news and wanted somewhere to complain about occupy wall street this is the wrong place.
Nfarce - Monday, October 10, 2011 - link
Several protesters were interviewed last week, and they could not even state why they were there and what the mission was. One brainiac just said, and I quote: "I'm just angry. I don't have a reason. Can't I just be angry without a reason?"We aren't going to be turned into a fascist/neo-Marxist government run state of nation, so deal with it, protesters. (Fascism = government control over private industry and Marxism = no individual property rights).
Sandblaster44 - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
Nfarce must be the blond FOX barbie who has never had a problem in her life. She broke up with Ken to come defend Michael.DarkUltra - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
Too bad some of the protesters where caught off guard, or even mis-quoted. But the issue is very real, and the real criminals should be punished. But don't get me wrong, I really believe in capitalism and the pursuit of money. It drives the well being of us all with mass production and cheaper food, new technology and new products, new movies etc.But it should be well regulated so we don't get crises like we have today, that was triggered by the rotten house loans in USA and the reckless economic engineering and borrowing by the Greece government.
Here is a good comment from nytimes.com:
Obama was the chance for the US to avoid this sense of alienation and
despair, and he took the low road--kowtowing to Wall Street and giving
the banksters everything they wanted. The chance was misused and
abused. What is the alternative to our system? It is well-regulated
government for the people, not winner take all capitalism. Capitalism
does work, just like crime pays, but it has to be overseen by
responsible people and the rewards and punishments for participating
in capitalism have to be appropriate. There is a common good! The
government's job is to enforce it. That means that the abusers in the
banks-- those who bet on defaults, for example-- cannot be allowed to
do so. It is simple, but not easy. Obama had a mandate, and flouted
it. Let the chaos begin, since it is unavoidable. Jane Smiley
California Sep 28, 2011 4:15 PM
SoCalBoomer - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Well, faster than previous versions (which the article didn't mention) and be less resource intensive than previous versions (which the article did mention), yes.We've already seen demos, and enough people have the alpha release to verify. . . so, yes.
Productivity is up to the individual, and for me that means a slough of monitors (2 over 2) and I'm wondering how Win8 will work on that. . . because that will directly impact my productivity.
But, you know, nice troll.
SleepyFE - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
I don't get something. They say here that it will use les memory because it will close what you are not using, or is duplicated. However, months before they said that no program will really close, it will just minimize to a tile (how is that less resourse hungry).inighthawki - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
That is for the metro apps, the things that close automatically are services. The other feature is to reduce memory by finding already loaded copies of things and reusing memory until it needs to write to the memory.Targon - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
There are many tricks that can be used to save on processor and memory usage. iOS for example has background applications effectively "suspended", with only a few function calls that continue to operate in the background. For services, Windows NT through Windows 7 have services that many don't really use that are always running, just in case an application MAY need them. Switching to a system where services are not running unless they are actually needed would help quite a bit.JonnyDough - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
I wonder what patches and updates will do to Windows 8 though...is it secure and bug free? If its great and stays great until SP1 I will certainly be getting it. I've held off on Vista, and only bought one copy of Win 7 (my older PCs run Home Server and XP still) so I will be upgrading all to Win 8 if it all holds true! :Dname99 - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
I'm confused. Is your skepticism regarding Microsoft, or regarding OSs in general?Apple, certainly, have a pretty good track record of increasing performance (including VM performance) and reducing disk footprint (not mentioned in the article above, but another aspect of the issue) from one OS to the next. The one notable regression in recent times has been with Safari 5.1, though that is sure to be fixed soon --- it is certainly a bug, not an architectural issue.
The same has been largely true of the recent free unixes.
There are times when the memory usage of an OS jumps substantially --- but for good reason. For example, switching from a single-core to a multi-core OS, or switching the imaging model so that every window gets backing store, or (for disk footprint) shipping a world-ready OS that has every asset in multiple languages --- a primary reason OSX and its apps are so much larger than people who whine about the good old days of OS9.
But it's not like the people in charge of these OSs are fools. Those jumps happen for a reason, and chances are, if you have an opinion about the requirements of modern OSs, this reflects NOT their stupidity, but rather that you (interested in your personal experience) want a different set of tradeoffs from what the manufacturers and packagers (who actually KNOW their customers) want.
Exodite - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
None of these things is a reason for any notable increase in memory usage, or even storage space. Let alone a good one.The fast and short of it is that the desktop OSs of today include too much crap that have nothing to do with OS tasks.
name99 - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Jesus Christ.If you're going to have a separate backing store for each window, where do you THINK that store is going to reside?
If you're going to store separate resources for every language, how is that NOT going to impact the size of an app? Look at something like iTunes. I don't know the Windows situation, but on a Mac more than 50% of the size is in language-specific resources.
There is NOTHING stopping you running Windows 3 on your PC if you are so convinced everything was better back in 1985. Sure you won't have much of an internet connection or much of a browser, but I suspect the rest of us would consider that a feature more than a bug.
Look, you can contribute to the debate like a mature human being, or you can make statements that are childish and clearly stupid. Choose wisely.
OCedHrt - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
That point is what isn't used shouldn't be installed. It's fine if the installer has support for it. And, you're not being any more mature either.Exodite - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
To be fair I'm not the one making the argument personal here.Things were better in the mid-80s, from an OS perspective anyway.
It's easy to overlook what software evolution brings to the end user experience, most of the time it's not nearly as much as one would think.
If we chose to focus on Windows in particular I'd argue that nothing has happened since W95. Sure there's a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo, which - being a software engineer - I have moderate appreciation for myself.
Has it really improved the user experience though? And has it done so in line with the resource requirements?
The answer is an emphatic no, not anywhere near that.
To illustrate my point I'll fall be to my favorite example, AmigaOS 3.x.
My now 20 year old Amiga still offers a snappier, more responsive experience - to say nothing about a more intuitive interface - than my current i7 2600K-based desktop.
And it achieves this with, quite literally, less than a thousandth of the resources.
Point being?
That there's a lot to be done with Windows before something like this is impressive. Cutting memory requirements down to half should be relatively trivial, down to a tenth - desirable.
Targon - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
Are you serious? The way multi-tasking is handled under NT/2000/XP/Vista/7 is far better than what Windows ME and earlier had provided. The real problem that we have is that as the capability of computers has increased, the more we have running at any one time, and THAT is what has caused the lack of true increases in overall system performance. Your Amiga probably doesn't have anti-virus continually monitoring things in the background(why bother with anti-virus for an old platform that virtually no one uses anymore?).This is really the thing that it SOUNDS like Windows 8 is addressing, how to reduce the impact of all the background stuff and how much is really being done in the background.
The one thing that was done better back in the 1980s and early 1990s was that due to limited resources(RAM and HD space), programmers had to focus on more efficient code. Instead of 8 versions of the same subroutine/function for slightly different needs, back then, we would code a single subroutine/function that might have one extra parameter to make it work for all of those 8 different situations.
Intel did not help with all of those SSE instructions that were primarily intended to keep AMD from keeping up(AMD tried to fight back with 3DNow! but gave up when it didn't take off), and Microsoft has bloated DirectX with a lot of stuff that was not really needed. But, what's done is done.
The only way to REALLY fix the problem is to start over with a design that is LESS complicated and "open" to modifications. If the base OS is fairly small and you let the user select what to run/install, it will provide better performance than a monolithic design that does every possible thing that anyone might want. Windows 8 is a step in the right direction by cutting down on what services are running.
cfaalm - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
+1DarkUltra - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
The very foundation of Windows 7 is slow and borked. UI uses much more CPU and general file i/o is much slower than XP. These are the same operations yet they are slowed down by a huge amount in 7.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToFgYylqP_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysnkfv6KMjQ
But .net and managed code is something you should stay away from. It is easier to code but slower to run and uses gargantuan amounts of memory, and is harder to optimize for. Direct2D and c++ is the future, I hope. It would be sweet to have the dynamics of Metro with the Windows 7 start menu and task bar. Games zooming in while the desktop fades out in the background.. but it won't happen soon I guess, *sigh* not big enough expectations from customers.
Iketh - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
Please explain some of this "crap."Exodite - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
Basically, everything that isn't related to executing and managing applications is extraneous to the OS.DarkUltra - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
No way. What about file system management and indexing feature of W7? That is integrated into the OS and is not extraneous.JonnyDough - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
Troll. Unregister yourself.yyrkoon - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
@dayamth.I think perhaps you have been watching too much TV. Such as your south park reference suggests.
Assuming Microsoft just rewrote the memory management methods, and service run policies for Windows 7. Windows 7 it's self would most likely be more responsive as well. Assuming the system architecture could withstand such a rewrite. Which I am betting is more than likely possible.
As for making any person twice as productive . . . Most likely Microsoft could not truly make that boast. As it is hard to make the average lazy bum any more productive than they want to be. For instance. Microsoft would have to enthrall the masses well enough to get off their fat behinds. So as to stop watching shows like south park (all day long ).
In other words. Very unlikely.
*Or* "we" could all just denounce Microsoft entirely. Right ? Because all alternative operating systems are perfect. Yeah, that was sarcasm . . .
kensiko - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
They will go bankrupt ! Look we can have 16GB of ram for 100$. I will get 16GB on my next build, I wish Windows 8 will be able to use it efficiently.Pirks - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Nah they will NOT go bankrupt, stop this bullshit! People will just start building their 32GB or even 64GB RAM disks when RAM prices drop to $100 for 64GB or so. I will for one. Need 32GB RAM disk right now to make stuff like games load instantly. Waiting for RAM prices to drop before jumping in.MonkeyPaw - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
I don't see why it wouldn't. Since Vista, Windows has used idle RAM for commonly used programs to speed launch time. That memory can be freed at anytime if an application needs it. All MS appears to be doing here is reducing the footprint of "system reserved" memory, which means more RAM for applications. This is great, since XP only utilizes RAM that is currently in use, so any RAM that was in excess of that demand served no purpose unless an Application just happened to need it. OS X did this memory trick first, and I don't know if any Linux distros do.Shining Arcanine - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Linux had it before Mac OS X.Exodite - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Since we're on 32-bit for the foreseeable future we can't expect memory addressing extensions significantly past the 4GB boundary.Anyway, the problem isn't just cost but also space and power use... Microsoft is trying to push MIDs and tablets down the pipe too.
JonnyDough - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
On 32 bit? Where have you been. Most of Win 7 sold is 64 bit. Vista was a good 40% or so last I read I think...I could be wrong. I've been using XP Pro x64 for years.Exodite - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
Microsoft's reluctance to push for 64-bit fully have marginalized the idea to the point that the only 64-bit parts of most systems is the memory subsystem and drivers.Since 32-bit application software runs on 64-bit systems there's no real reason to develop 64-bit software.
Enter Windows on ARM and you're looking at a situation where 32-bit is going to be the standard for a long time to come.
Targon - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
You should look at the different modes that PROCESSORS support, since that is a big factor. A 64 bit OS has to handle 32 bit applications somewhat differently from "native" applications, and going back to 16 bit becomes a bit of a problem. When compatibility is a REQUIREMENT, then it would be a bad idea to push for a move to 64 bit before the software has been updated.How many people just could not go to Windows Vista or Windows 7 due to older applications not working? The move to 64 bit from 32 bit increases the difficulties in making those older applications working, and only a VM is the solution for SOME older applications. For those who have played computer games over the years, they still want to be able to play their old games on new computers, and keeping things compatible is NOT easy between 16 bit, 32 bit, and 64 bit.
JonnyDough - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
64-bit allows more memory addressing, so it is essentially faster. Also, it is supposedly more secure. Not to mention 64-bit development tools are more up to date/more friendly GUI/easier to use.Taft12 - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
Because there is more overhead associated with all those additional available registers, there are many cases where 64-bit code is SLOWER than 32-bit.I'm not aware of any cases where security is enhanced or superior development tools available for 64-bit systems that aren't equivalent in the 32-bit world (perhaps you have some examples? Perhaps not)
yyrkoon - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
"Anyway, the problem isn't just cost but also space and power use... Microsoft is trying to push MIDs and tablets down the pipe too."That rabbit hole goes much, much deeper than tablets my friend.
ARM is the go to platform for many embedded devices, and since Microsoft has a whole line up of embedded versions of operating systems . . . Just expect to see an embedded version of Windows 8 at, or around release time.
As for memory companies going out of business . . . I disagree. As it stands ARM would compete head to head with mobile device platforms. Low power laptop platforms at best. As such, many ARM platforms in this arena will be competing with Atom platforms. Where ARM will shine best. Later, perhaps ARM will perform as good as ( more or less ) a low end desktop platform. Personally, I do not see that happening any time soon, but no one says that I have to be right either.
All the while, you *should* know that Intel is not going to sit still.
yyrkoon - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
By "competing with". I mean on a performance level. That does not mean, such a platform could not be used as some form of a low demand server. It certainly could be used as such.australiabatterycom - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
In a double-barrelled assault, Microsoft has explained why the Start menu in Windows 8 has met its demise, and why the Start screen is better. The first round of the attack sees Chaitanya Sareen putting forward a compelling case about just how useless the Start menu in Windows 7 is, and Alice Steinglass follows up with some sound reasons for why the Start screen is slicker, more efficient, and generally more awesome.http://www.australia-battery.com
damianrobertjones - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
Seriously... Most people where I work hardly EVER click the start button. The moment I added the shortcuts for Office onto the taskbar they need hardly anything else....A few of them don't even know that they can get to other programs (But that's a training issue). I only use the initial list that appears when you click start as I add everything I want right there
inighthawki - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
That doesn't mean that some of us don't use it extensively. I find myself clicking on the start menu all the time to access things which I don't want on my taskbar. I immediately turned off Windows 7's icon view in the taskbar and restored classic mode since I cannot work with it, thus pinning a hundred things there doesn't work well.yyrkoon - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
That would be because most of the people you work with, don't truly use their computers. Nor do they admin systems from the terminal, tweak various settings. Or occasionally use Microsoft included applications All of which can be accessed various way locally, but mostly, if not only through the start menu. By default.Lets not even get into the command line stuff . . . Start -> Search -> cmd . . .
However, if all you do is double click an icon to run one or a very small amount of apps . . . then yeah. Try using hide task bar . . .
xrror - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
"That would be because most of the people you work with, don't truly use their computers."And there lies the mass market. Sadly.
Joe/Jane Techno-Ignorant is blissfully unaware until "Angry Birds DX" runs like crap on their iAppliance...
Of which then they just buy a new "generic iConnectivity" and be done with it.
There are no layers to the onion, people are as shallow as to what motorized vehicles are now. Privacy concerns be damned, if it gets them their iServices it lives - if it complains their being stupid/can't do it it's thrown to the wayside.
Exodite - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
Then again the old XP-style Start Menu was leagues better than the current implementation.With that in mind it would seem that bringing back a better start menu is av even better option.
Microsoft seems to be mixing and matching their different userbases quite a lot in these kind of arguments. I dare say that people who actually work with computers, as opposed to having their computer requirements satisfied by blogging and surfing the web on an ARM-based tablet, have vastly different user requirements.
Trying to satisfy both groups with one solution is likely to end badly.
damianrobertjones - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
? WIndows 8 will use your 16Gb with zero issue?Goty - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Use my memory, that's what it's there for; just be able to give it back to me when I need it.dagamer34 - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Windows 8 will run faster than Windows 7 because it will actually be doing less. Apps will suspend when they aren't in the foreground. That means less background processes running that suck up battery. For example, do IM apps really need to be running in the background or isn't it better to just get a push notification from the server? While it doesn't matter that much for desktops, any way to get more battery life on laptops is welcome.JonnyDough - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
Your comment made me think that M$ is really serious about this stupid cloud computing idea...Exodite - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
Are you actually proposing we go back to the days before multi-tasking?I realize there are reasons for wanting to suspend tasks on certain devices, such as smartphones, but I can't imagine a single situation where I'd want to suspend any application on my desktop - or notebook.
The first time that happens, and ends up inconveniencing me in the process, I'm likely to throw a rage-fit.
B3an - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
This is old news. It was mentioned at Microsoft's Build a while back, and you can see it for yourself by using the Win 8 developer preview. They also mentioned that it's likely RAM usage will drop even further by the time they get to the finished version.And i can confirm that even the early dev preview runs faster than Win 7 on all hardware i've tried it on. From a 6 year old laptop to a beefy 6 core rig with 24GB RAM and RAID SSD's.
damianrobertjones - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
:) That might be because there's no trialware/bloatware installed. We all know what machines are like straight out of the box.... But yes it's damn fast
B3an - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
When i tested it i also had clean installs of Win7, so it was fair. It's definitely faster :)For a laugh i recently tried it on a ancient 8 year old laptop with a single core P4 CPU and only 512MB RAM... amazingly it actually runs about as snappy as XP did on the same hardware. Thats VERY impressive for a new OS, as XP is 10 years old now.
Win 7 on the same hardware ran worse, not much worse, but it made the difference between the laptop actually being usable or not.
danrien - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
"One improvement to the memory manager allows it to search for duplicated items in memory, and to unload all but a single copy to save space (the Windows installer and image deployment tools for enterprises do something similar to reduce the size of the install media, keeping one copy of a given file and a record of everywhere that file needs to go on the hard drive rather than, say, five copies of the same file). "That's ... not ... at all the same thing. One is checking files (I'm guessing just checksums), the other is checking arrays of bytes in RAM. One is probably storing a list of actual paths to extract a file to while the other is likely consolidating pointers to all point to the same memory location, which would be the reverse of what the Enterprise installer does. The too are wildly different as is the programming involved to accomplish each task.
inighthawki - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
How do you figure? They are both conceptually identical. Obviously the means of accomplishing both will work differently, but both methods take a chunk of data and create only a single copy of that data. The concept does not change just because one uses pointers and one uses files.JonnyDough - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
This is MS bringing us a step closer to the cloud. I for one don't welcome our new overlord. :(damianrobertjones - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
You DO have a choice and that choice is to keep your docs on your machine. NO ONE AT ALL is forcing you or I to store our files online.P.s. It's not just MS... Google and Apple are all heading in the same direction.
Nihility - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
You're not looking forward to paying a monthly subscription fee to use Windows?JonnyDough - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
Erm, no. :) I don't pirate my software, so this anti-pirate cloud computing idea is just for them to secure more money and hurt pirates. I am no pirate matey. Arrr!JonnyDough - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
They are only hurting their paying customers. Of course, MS is more concerned with the business sector.rs2 - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
My next build is going to have 24 GB of RAM. Windows can use as much as it wants.darunium - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
I for one look forward to goals like this, whether they attain it or not I like to see that it is a value. I'm tired of MS Office programs having their core functionalities hamstrung in preformance by the haphazard implementation of additional capabilities. I'm very happy with the new office designs and all of these additions, but I can't help but feel that a huge performance sacrifice is being paid even in the underlying work because of shoddy integration of code. Why is VBA so slow in excel? Why does the suite tax so much of my memory and CPU usage, even when the bulk of their operation is identical to what they did ten years ago? Obviously their demands can reasonably increase, but that they have stayed on par with the huge increase in memory and processing power tells me that they are just doing what they can get away with.We already have the functionality we need, it is not the time for getting new fancy things out quickly, rather it is the time - both in OS and Productivity Software development - to take time and put out both evolutionary and revolutionary advances *with good practices in mind.*
A great case-in-point example (one of many), I'm a research scientist and have often used LyX, a word processing software that has great integration with equation editing tools to allow rapid typing and formatting of equations, to put together teaching documents. MS Word 2010 however brought a *huge* advance in typing equation quickly and intuitively into documents, absolutely revolutionary. They took heavily from LyX and LaTeX and improved on it, I was won over rapidly no matter how hard I resisted. But then I got a document past its fourth page of equations, and *wow*, it slowed down to a crawl, even when closing everything and opening the document later. Testing this out a few times, I found that it matters how many equations are within 1 page of your current cursor, so if you type a lot of equations you're done. I begrudgingly switched back to LyX. (not to badmouth lyx at all, I'm deeply appreciative for the software, and for those that prefer its very different approach to document formatting - 'write what you mean' versus 'write what you see' - it is a great alternative to Word, I just personally prefer the latter case.
Nihility - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
I love the word equation editor in 2007/2010 but yea, it's buggy as hell. I've lost multiple documents to unrecoverable crashes. These documents were only a few pages long.When I got Office 2010 I was really hoping they'd address at least that issue, but they did not.
I share your pain.
sdffs - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
http://www.okeytn.com15 paragraph feminine fashionable autumn outfit
Bottes de neige de mise à niveau des
MaoXianMao + pantalons courts jambe mince couche + le plus aimé
5 grande tendance
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
S'il vous pla?t communiquer site:
http://www.okeytn.com
La nouvelle année. Une nouvelle day.Are tu portes toujours ce morceau de vieux vêtements? Vous n'êtes pas acheter de nouveaux vêtements pour s'inquiéter? Vous n'êtes pas assez de qualité pour l'hésitation? êtes-vous pour l'argent de poche à s'inquiéter? Maintenant, je peux vous dire. Vous pouvez mettre de c?té l'idée de everything.Here, je vous présente, nouveau distributeur exclusif. Le design exclusif. Factory Outlet. Aucun profit. New Year's sell-off.For la nouvelle année. Tous nos produits disponibles à la vente.
S'il vous pla?t communiquer site:
http://www.okeytn.com
^%
firefueled - Monday, October 10, 2011 - link
Everyone is moving to 8GB now. I, with 4GB, could't care less about how much Windows is using right now.piroroadkill - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
I never even looked at that bar on the left when I saw the image before.My eyes always, always go to the amount committed. Aggressively paging stuff to get your physical memory used down isn't exactly a solution.
Then again, reading the building windows 8 blog, it looks like they are doing some actual work to cut down RAM use. But this title image is EXTREMELY misleading.
windows - Monday, November 21, 2011 - link
Early tests with the developer preview edition Windows 8 show that it uses a lot less memory than Windows 7. Microsoft's <a href="http://windows7vswindows8.com/2011/windows-7-vs-wi... 8 </a> is aiming to minimize a PC's memory usage through efficient design, allowing it to run on hardware originally designed for Windows 7..