If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I think you have put your finger on it, windows 95 through to now. Microsoft are trying to be backward compatible with a lot of old stuff as well as new. There is one hell of a lot of software and hardware that's new let alone going back 10years or more. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but Mac don't attempt to support old software and hardware to the same extent.
Anyway I have just upgraded Vista to Windows 7 on my PC, and it runs faster than Vista, as claimed.
I never had any issues with Vista after I did a clean install on my laptop, my PC was always a clean install it was bought with Vista loaded.
I have a net-book (XP OS) but with a 160gig H/D however I don't think at this stage I shall be installing 7 I will though be upgrading from Vista to 7 on the laptop.
I do however lust after a Mac but my pockets are not deep enough.
Patrick
It seems to me that with every advance/upgrade to operating systems there are software issues whether it be Windows or Mac. If your software is several versions old I think you must live with that. However if you have a current version of some software, then I feel its up to the software developers to keep up and give free updates. In my experience this seems to be the case.
As for buying a Mac, true they are more expensive, however a new series of iMacs have just been released and the older versions are going for half the price on Ebay.
It seems to me that with every advance/upgrade to operating systems there are software issues whether it be Windows or Mac. If your software is several versions old I think you must live with that. However if you have a current version of some software, then I feel its up to the software developers to keep up and give free updates. In my experience this seems to be the case.
As for buying a Mac, true they are more expensive, however a new series of iMacs have just been released and the older versions are going for half the price on Ebay.
Hi Stephen
Just been looking at ebay, there are some possible bargains but many, the models I would be interested in, are still quite pricey.
There then still remains the question of software, changing Photoshop & Lightroom alone will cost more than the machine. I know I can run Photoshop within the Mac as a virtual H/D running a version of Windows but I cant see the point of that, might just as well remain with a PC.
I think you have put your finger on it, windows 95 through to now. Microsoft are trying to be backward compatible with a lot of old stuff as well as new. There is one hell of a lot of software and hardware that's new let alone going back 10years or more. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but Mac don't attempt to support old software and hardware to the same extent.
Just been looking at ebay, there are some possible bargains but many, the models I would be interested in, are still quite pricey.
There then still remains the question of software, changing Photoshop & Lightroom alone will cost more than the machine. I know I can run Photoshop within the Mac as a virtual H/D running a version of Windows but I cant see the point of that, might just as well remain with a PC.
Patrick
Fair enough, however Lightroom is dual platform, that is both versions come on the CD and is why I didn't download my version but got the disc sent instead. As for Photoshop, I got CS3 (the current version at the time) swapped by Adobe to a Mac version. As I understand it they will only swap the current version. I now have a full Mac version of CS3 sat doing nothing
It seems to me that with every advance/upgrade to operating systems there are software issues whether it be Windows or Mac. If your software is several versions old I think you must live with that. However if you have a current version of some software, then I feel its up to the software developers to keep up and give free updates. In my experience this seems to be the case.
The trouble is that the upgrade cycle offers nothing to the consumer. It's just a great big fat greedy cash cow for the manufacturers.
If you had a perfectly working system on Windows 98, then you're pretty much left hanging high and dry. No more security updates means you risk being infected because of flaws in a previous version of Windows. But as soon as you upgrade to a "better protected" version of Windows, you then have to go through the cycle of upgrading software and hardware.
All these things cost money. Much of the software I use is several versions old - and they're several versions old because I can't afford to replace perfectly usable software just because it stops being usable when Microsoft abandons that version of Windows and insists on an upgrade.
I guess the real problem is lack of competition. The netbook "craze" is a clear example of that. The first netbooks came out with versions of Linux on them. Vista was unsuitable because of the huge resource drain on the system and the disk space requirement of the huge bloat. Microsoft saw that the netbook market was being stolen out from under their nose by Linux and so extended the life of XP and gave favourable discounts to netbook manufacturers. As soon as Microsoft got their claws into the netbook, suddenly the netbook changed. Instead of being a small device with SSD for no moving parts, they start coming out with bigger screens and large hard drives precisely to suit Windows.
Windows 7 was said to be "netbook friendly", but what they really meant is that Microsoft had got their claws into the netbook market and encouraged the takeup of larger hard drives so that the netbook would be more "Windows 7 friendly".
There needs to be some other competitive OS out there so that Microsoft realise that we don't all want massive bloatware slowing our computers down. We wouldn't need such hugely powerful machines if the OS didn't demand it. If we could get by with less powerful machines, we'd soon seen an environmentally-friendly advantage.
Re: Anyone installed the full release Windows 7 yet?
I have to roundly disagree that ugrades offer nothing. An operating system or a piece of applications software is always 'work in progress' - their creators can always add features, improve its functionality, improve its security, embrace new hardware advances.
Yes, it's frustrating that every two or three years we are faced with the choice of paying for a new version, because none of us like to pay out. But it's the same all around us - new cars, new phones, new haircuts, etc. And most software companies do offer free updates for a reasonable period. But there comes a time when their businesses need income and that means we need to pay for the next big update.
I have plenty of old bits of hardware that do work with the lates OS, so I feel it's down to peripheral manufacturers to be future proof, or to keep supporting their customers, who they will eventually hope will keep faithful to their brand.
On the other hand, the pace of change does mean some old hard hardware does have to be left behind, and rightly so.
The trouble is that the upgrade cycle offers nothing to the consumer. It's just a great big fat greedy cash cow for the manufacturers.
If you had a perfectly working system on Windows 98, then you're pretty much left hanging high and dry. No more security updates means you risk being infected because of flaws in a previous version of Windows. But as soon as you upgrade to a "better protected" version of Windows, you then have to go through the cycle of upgrading software and hardware.
All these things cost money. Much of the software I use is several versions old - and they're several versions old because I can't afford to replace perfectly usable software just because it stops being usable when Microsoft abandons that version of Windows and insists on an upgrade.
I guess the real problem is lack of competition. The netbook "craze" is a clear example of that. The first netbooks came out with versions of Linux on them. Vista was unsuitable because of the huge resource drain on the system and the disk space requirement of the huge bloat. Microsoft saw that the netbook market was being stolen out from under their nose by Linux and so extended the life of XP and gave favourable discounts to netbook manufacturers. As soon as Microsoft got their claws into the netbook, suddenly the netbook changed. Instead of being a small device with SSD for no moving parts, they start coming out with bigger screens and large hard drives precisely to suit Windows.
Windows 7 was said to be "netbook friendly", but what they really meant is that Microsoft had got their claws into the netbook market and encouraged the takeup of larger hard drives so that the netbook would be more "Windows 7 friendly".
There needs to be some other competitive OS out there so that Microsoft realise that we don't all want massive bloatware slowing our computers down. We wouldn't need such hugely powerful machines if the OS didn't demand it. If we could get by with less powerful machines, we'd soon seen an environmentally-friendly advantage.
I understand what you are saying, in fairness to 7 other than H/D space it requires less RAM to function, being happy with 1 gig. Competition would help I am sure to get more for less out of Microsoft, Google are trying with their Chrome OS. Its also noticeable that software written by other companies is getting bloated as you put it. Just look at Photoshop.
When I bought my net-book I rejected the small solid state H/D they seemed to me to be totally inadequate size wise. I bought an Asus with a 10" wide screen, no CD/DVD player and the battery lasts 7 hours, I believe there are some 10 hour ones about now. Its possibly capable of running Widows 7.
I have to roundly disagree that ugrades offer nothing. An operating system or a piece of applications software is always 'work in progress' - their creators can always add features, improve its functionality, improve its security, embrace new hardware advances.
Yes, it's frustrating that every two or three years we are faced with the choice of paying for a new version, because none of us like to pay out. But it's the same all around us - new cars, new phones, new haircuts, etc. And most software companies do offer free updates for a reasonable period. But there comes a time when their businesses need income and that means we need to pay for the next big update.
I have plenty of old bits of hardware that do work with the lates OS, so I feel it's down to peripheral manufacturers to be future proof, or to keep supporting their customers, who they will eventually hope will keep faithful to their brand.
New phones, cars, or haircuts isn't the same as this "throw out the baby with the bathwater" approach of a new OS. You don't have to change your house just because you change your car, or replace all your hats just because you change your hairstyle.
I don't drive so I can't answer on the subject of cars, but I bought a new mobile recently - but only because my old one stopped working. It stopped working three years ago.
An operating system, which is what Windows is, should be just that - something that enables your system to operate. All of the added bloat of the bells and whistles should be optional extras. Then you wouldn't need to throw out a perfectly good computer just because it can't support the 16GB worth of bloat as specified in the system requirements.
If I knew what I know today when I first started using Windows, I'd have given up Windows as a bad job and sought an alternative. It's very difficult to move to the alternatives today, when Windows is so ingrained into my way of life. And that's precisely why the big manufacturers continue to exploit us in order to rake in more cash for no other purpose than allowing us to do something we already do well but that they will no longer support.
On the other hand, the pace of change does mean some old hard hardware does have to be left behind, and rightly so.
I'm not sure that it's environmentally sound to throwaway perfectly good hardware just so that some manufacturer can sell their latest model with "go-faster stripes".
I understand what you are saying, in fairness to 7 other than H/D space it requires less RAM to function, being happy with 1 gig. Competition would help I am sure to get more for less out of Microsoft, Google are trying with their Chrome OS. Its also noticeable that software written by other companies is getting bloated as you put it. Just look at Photoshop.
Being okay with 1GB RAM is not exactly a big claim to fame, given that it still wants more than XP was okay with. It's not a step forward. One of my old laptops here has 16MB RAM and it's perfectly happy to run Windows 98. Why should an OS that comes out just 10 years later need 1GB?
One of the alternatives I've been looking at (very tentatively) is a version of Linux called "Puppy Linux". It's designed to be no bigger than 100MB and it runs in RAM (if you have more than 100MB RAM in your system). It consists of three files and one separate compressed file for your apps. It boots from any media you're happy with and doesn't require *any* internal hard drive space whatsoever. When you want to upgrade, you just replace the three files. It's so easy.
I'm not a Linux fanboy, nor do I wish this to become a Windows vs Linux bashing argument (I'm just a guy getting fed up with Windows who's looking at the alternatives), I just mention it because what Puppy does seem to me to be what an OS should be. It should be lightweight, portable (so you're not tied to one computer), easy to upgrade, blisteringly fast, and little-to-no bloat.
I just wish Microsoft would embrace some of these philosophies with its future versions of Windows.
When I bought my net-book I rejected the small solid state H/D they seemed to me to be totally inadequate size wise. I bought an Asus with a 10" wide screen, no CD/DVD player and the battery lasts 7 hours, I believe there are some 10 hour ones about now. Its possibly capable of running Widows 7.
Patrick
Mine's an Asus too. I went for the 901 (9" screen, 8 hr battery life, etc). There are people who have jumped through hoops to squeeze the likes of Vista and/or Windows 7 beta on it, but you shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to get a system to operate.
I've had mine for about 14 months now and I decided to give it a wipe & reinstall the other week. Due to most of my apps running of an SD card these days, the wipe and reinstall was the easiest and quickest I've ever done. When I used to do that on my desktop, I'd have to set the weekend aside to get everything reinstalled how it was before. Not any more.
Being okay with 1GB RAM is not exactly a big claim to fame, given that it still wants more than XP was okay with. It's not a step forward. One of my old laptops here has 16MB RAM and it's perfectly happy to run Windows 98. Why should an OS that comes out just 10 years later need 1GB?
One of the alternatives I've been looking at (very tentatively) is a version of Linux called "Puppy Linux". It's designed to be no bigger than 100MB and it runs in RAM (if you have more than 100MB RAM in your system). It consists of three files and one separate compressed file for your apps. It boots from any media you're happy with and doesn't require *any* internal hard drive space whatsoever. When you want to upgrade, you just replace the three files. It's so easy.
I'm not a Linux fanboy, nor do I wish this to become a Windows vs Linux bashing argument (I'm just a guy getting fed up with Windows who's looking at the alternatives), I just mention it because what Puppy does seem to me to be what an OS should be. It should be lightweight, portable (so you're not tied to one computer), easy to upgrade, blisteringly fast, and little-to-no bloat.
I just wish Microsoft would embrace some of these philosophies with its future versions of Windows.
Mine's an Asus too. I went for the 901 (9" screen, 8 hr battery life, etc). There are people who have jumped through hoops to squeeze the likes of Vista and/or Windows 7 beta on it, but you shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to get a system to operate.
I've had mine for about 14 months now and I decided to give it a wipe & reinstall the other week. Due to most of my apps running of an SD card these days, the wipe and reinstall was the easiest and quickest I've ever done. When I used to do that on my desktop, I'd have to set the weekend aside to get everything reinstalled how it was before. Not any more.
You used Vista once you say I have been using it most successfully since I bought my Dell pc with it pre-loaded.
I cant imagine why we should want to use a 10 year old computers with 95 or 98 loaded when picture files from a 10mil pix camera will fill the H/D after about two or three shoots. If you want to keep your old hardware running 95 & 98 then that your choice, some of us want the higher performing more versatile newer machines.
Net-book are not designed to run big applications although mine is capable of running CS4 & Lightroom at a tolerable speed. Office 2003 runs almost as well as on my Laptop. Would it not be better to use a portable external H/D with your net-book or do you only want to use solid state storage. That can go wrong as well as conventional H/D's
There is incidentally some third party software (I cant remember its name) that allows XP and Vista users to use many old scanners that were designed for 95 & 98, but since the prices of such devices have fallen so dramatically with improved performance for that price, it could be deemed cheaper to buy a new one.
You used Vista once you say I have been using it most successfully since I bought my Dell pc with it pre-loaded.
I cant imagine why we should want to use a 10 year old computers with 95 or 98 loaded when picture files from a 10mil pix camera will fill the H/D after about two or three shoots. If you want to keep your old hardware running 95 & 98 then that your choice, some of us want the higher performing more versatile newer machines.
I explained why I have to run Windows 98 - because I have an old Lotus Approach database that I need to use daily and it doesn't fully work on Windows XP. Until I can convert it to some other database, I have no alternative but to run Windows 98 in some form. Regardless of that, the reason I mentioned Windows 9x was to highlight that Windows used to only need 100MB of disk space but today it needs 16GB - yet what do we get for that 15.9GB extra bloat?
It doesn't matter how many pictures will fill up a small internal hard drive. I use external hard drives for storage as I've mentioned. What I'm discussing is that Windows 7 requires more internal disk space than my current computer has and so, in order to upgrade, I need to throwaway the whole computer. That's a ludicrous situation to be in when the computer is barely a year old. An operating system (such as Windows 7) shouldn't need 16GB of space for all of its bloat, particularly when Microsoft claimed it would be "netbook friendly" - and that's the point I'm trying to make.
Net-book are not designed to run big applications although mine is capable of running CS4 & Lightroom at a tolerable speed. Office 2003 runs almost as well as on my Laptop.
I had originally intended for my netbook to be simply a secondary PC for mobile use but when my desktop went belly-up I had to use my netbook for everything. I fixed my desktop a year ago but haven't turned it on since because the netbook does everything I need it to do. My desktop used to use 80-130W per hour for 14 hours per day. My netbook uses 15-20W and runs off batteries for half the day. I have no desire to go back to using an over-powered machine. For one thing, my electricity bill just wouldn't stand it...
Would it not be better to use a portable external H/D with your net-book or do you only want to use solid state storage. That can go wrong as well as conventional H/D's
The reason I went for internal SSD was because I knew I'd give the netbook some rugged treatment with it being so mobile. I've occasionally dropped it, and often use it while walking about. Having no moving parts gives me peace of mind that a platter drive wouldn't.
I do have portable external hard drives for storage and files, but the thing we're discussing is that Windows needs 16GB of internal storage for installation (correct me if I'm wrong). It doesn't matter if I have 1TB of external storage, I still can't install Windows 7 to my computers that have less than 16GB of internal drive space. Even my friend's full-size Packard Bell laptop that we tried Vista on only had a 20GB hard drive - with some of that used for installation files, leaving only 12GB for use. No chance of Windows 7 on that either.
I currently use my netbook with as little as possible installed to the internal SSDs. Many of my apps run from an SD card with storage provided by an external 320GB Freecom XXS drive. My backup routine is to direct copy from my SD card to a second SD card each night, with a backup from the SD card to the mobile drive on a weekly basis. Each month (or more frequently if necessary), the mobile drive is backed up to a second 320GB Freecom XXS drive.
If my computer fails me, all I need to do is to plug my SD card into any other computer and carry on regardless. I couldn't do that if I had everything installed to some huge internal hard drive. If my Windows gets corrupt, it's a simple matter to reinstall from the supplied media - without any lengthy process of reinstalling apps, email app, settings, etc, because they're all running from the SD card. In an ideal world, I would be able to run the OS off the same SD card and not install anything to the internal drives. Fat chance of that with Windows.
I see no point in having a large internal drive - yet Microsoft apparently demands that I must have one because of their over-bloated supposedly "netbook friendly" Windows 7. Who knows what Windows 8 will need? A terabyte of disk space? Wouldn't surprise me.
There is incidentally some third party software (I cant remember its name) that allows XP and Vista users to use many old scanners that were designed for 95 & 98, but since the prices of such devices have fallen so dramatically with improved performance for that price, it could be deemed cheaper to buy a new one.
A couple of years back I bought a basic A3 scanner for a very reasonable (i.e. cheap) price. I'm not expecting it to run on Windows 7 because it was old when I bought it. If I'd paid ten times the price then maybe the manufacturer would support the next OS, but I'm not made of money. I just wanted a cheap A3 scanner for a particular purpose. I couldn't buy one that cheap today.
The hardware issue is just one part of the discussion. Yes, okay, we can (usually) buy new hardware for cheaper than the old stuff that'll run with today's Windows, but chucking perfectly decent stuff in a landfill and then having to buy again just because Microsoft stop supporting a perfectly adequate version of Windows in order to fulfill their greed quotient of the year just doesn't sit well with me.
I'm trying to do my bit for the environment by using what I need (a netbook) not what the manufacturers tell me I should have (a high-power desktop); and I'm trying to do my bit for the planet by not throwing away hardware when it still works. Why am I the only one with a conscience? It seems manufacturer greed still takes precedence over common sense.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting. I don't intend to. I'm just annoyed with this ever-increasing bloat that's required to do something as simple as letting your applications run on the hardware. That's all an OS is meant to be. Sorry if my posts make me sound like a moaning ninny!
I explained why I have to run Windows 98 - because I have an old Lotus Approach database that I need to use daily and it doesn't fully work on Windows XP. Until I can convert it to some other database, I have no alternative but to run Windows 98 in some form. Regardless of that, the reason I mentioned Windows 9x was to highlight that Windows used to only need 100MB of disk space but today it needs 16GB - yet what do we get for that 15.9GB extra bloat?
It doesn't matter how many pictures will fill up a small internal hard drive. I use external hard drives for storage as I've mentioned. What I'm discussing is that Windows 7 requires more internal disk space than my current computer has and so, in order to upgrade, I need to throwaway the whole computer. That's a ludicrous situation to be in when the computer is barely a year old. An operating system (such as Windows 7) shouldn't need 16GB of space for all of its bloat, particularly when Microsoft claimed it would be "netbook friendly" - and that's the point I'm trying to make.
I had originally intended for my netbook to be simply a secondary PC for mobile use but when my desktop went belly-up I had to use my netbook for everything. I fixed my desktop a year ago but haven't turned it on since because the netbook does everything I need it to do. My desktop used to use 80-130W per hour for 14 hours per day. My netbook uses 15-20W and runs off batteries for half the day. I have no desire to go back to using an over-powered machine. For one thing, my electricity bill just wouldn't stand it...
The reason I went for internal SSD was because I knew I'd give the netbook some rugged treatment with it being so mobile. I've occasionally dropped it, and often use it while walking about. Having no moving parts gives me peace of mind that a platter drive wouldn't.
I do have portable external hard drives for storage and files, but the thing we're discussing is that Windows needs 16GB of internal storage for installation (correct me if I'm wrong). It doesn't matter if I have 1TB of external storage, I still can't install Windows 7 to my computers that have less than 16GB of internal drive space. Even my friend's full-size Packard Bell laptop that we tried Vista on only had a 20GB hard drive - with some of that used for installation files, leaving only 12GB for use. No chance of Windows 7 on that either.
I currently use my netbook with as little as possible installed to the internal SSDs. Many of my apps run from an SD card with storage provided by an external 320GB Freecom XXS drive. My backup routine is to direct copy from my SD card to a second SD card each night, with a backup from the SD card to the mobile drive on a weekly basis. Each month (or more frequently if necessary), the mobile drive is backed up to a second 320GB Freecom XXS drive.
If my computer fails me, all I need to do is to plug my SD card into any other computer and carry on regardless. I couldn't do that if I had everything installed to some huge internal hard drive. If my Windows gets corrupt, it's a simple matter to reinstall from the supplied media - without any lengthy process of reinstalling apps, email app, settings, etc, because they're all running from the SD card. In an ideal world, I would be able to run the OS off the same SD card and not install anything to the internal drives. Fat chance of that with Windows.
I see no point in having a large internal drive - yet Microsoft apparently demands that I must have one because of their over-bloated supposedly "netbook friendly" Windows 7. Who knows what Windows 8 will need? A terabyte of disk space? Wouldn't surprise me.
A couple of years back I bought a basic A3 scanner for a very reasonable (i.e. cheap) price. I'm not expecting it to run on Windows 7 because it was old when I bought it. If I'd paid ten times the price then maybe the manufacturer would support the next OS, but I'm not made of money. I just wanted a cheap A3 scanner for a particular purpose. I couldn't buy one that cheap today.
The hardware issue is just one part of the discussion. Yes, okay, we can (usually) buy new hardware for cheaper than the old stuff that'll run with today's Windows, but chucking perfectly decent stuff in a landfill and then having to buy again just because Microsoft stop supporting a perfectly adequate version of Windows in order to fulfill their greed quotient of the year just doesn't sit well with me.
I'm trying to do my bit for the environment by using what I need (a netbook) not what the manufacturers tell me I should have (a high-power desktop); and I'm trying to do my bit for the planet by not throwing away hardware when it still works. Why am I the only one with a conscience? It seems manufacturer greed still takes precedence over common sense.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting. I don't intend to. I'm just annoyed with this ever-increasing bloat that's required to do something as simple as letting your applications run on the hardware. That's all an OS is meant to be. Sorry if my posts make me sound like a moaning ninny!
OK so you see manufacturers as greedy, and so they are, and to some extent should be in a fair and even handed way, they have to make money otherwise they go out of business and so make their employees redundant. A fact of life.
You also appear to target Microsoft in particular, that may have some justification with their history, but they could not have done what they have done without the cooperation of hardware & software manufacturers. Both the greedy and innovative.
New product is the life blood of the word economy, if we all stuck with our ten or more year old cars, computers, household goods you name it, many of the manufacturers would be out of business and prices very much higher. Development of new more environmental friendly products would falter through lack of cash.
As to the bloated Windows, these days it is required to function on a much wider level than 95 or 98 ever thought possible, the digital revolution we enjoy today was in its infancy, digital photography had not really made its break through, it was too expensive and poor in quality. People want to watch TV on their computers, watch movies, listen to music, not to mention downloading monster files, and a host of other things. 95 & 98 simply could not do it. XP is its true is capable of these things but its made much easier and automatic with Vista and now 7 which probably accounts for some of the bloat. When it comes to old hardware not working under the new OS that's down to the manufacturer not being prepared to write drivers for the new systems. Software is different its written for the OS available and in general use at the time, and upgrades required for new OS systems.
All I can say is Windows 7 appears to be excellent (only two day of use so fare) early days yet.
As to a disk failure, I can be up and running within a couple of hours of fitting a new disk, I do regular full system backups for all three of my computers on an external H/D, also on a TeraStation along with all my images. This has a Raid setup, so if any one of the 4 drives fail nothing is lost.
OK so you see manufacturers as greedy, and so they are, and to some extent should be in a fair and even handed way, they have to make money otherwise they go out of business and so make their employees redundant. A fact of life.
You also appear to target Microsoft in particular, that may have some justification with their history, but they could not have done what they have done without the cooperation of hardware & software manufacturers. Both the greedy and innovative.
It's not meant to be a Microsoft rant, it's just that the thread is about Windows 7 and Windows is a Microsoft product. The "cooperation" of hardware and software manufacturers is a topic for another time because it would take up a whole thread on its own. The way Microsoft stifled the development of Netbooks just to allow manufacturers to install XP is one such train of thought.
New product is the life blood of the word economy, if we all stuck with our ten or more year old cars, computers, household goods you name it, many of the manufacturers would be out of business and prices very much higher. Development of new more environmental friendly products would falter through lack of cash.
Well, yes, but you can still run a 20 year old car without being told that you risk security implications, your identity being stolen, and viruses running rampant just because the manufacturer won't fix their own security issues because they want you to buy the current model.
If Microsoft patched all problems in their current OS before pushing out the next one then that would be something. But they don't because by abandoning the previously flawed product, they use the fear factor to force people to buy the next flawed product. The road never ends.
They made a huge mistake in making Windows XP their best OS to date - because it killed the sales of Vista. Yet, by not improving Vista they can sell Windows 7 on how much better than Vista it is. Yes, but XP is already better than Vista. The competition for Windows 7 isn't Vista, it's XP. And for that very reason, Microsoft will stop supporting it to force us to buy Windows 7.
As to the bloated Windows, these days it is required to function on a much wider level than 95 or 98 ever thought possible, the digital revolution we enjoy today was in its infancy, digital photography had not really made its break through, it was too expensive and poor in quality. People want to watch TV on their computers, watch movies, listen to music, not to mention downloading monster files, and a host of other things. 95 & 98 simply could not do it. XP is its true is capable of these things but its made much easier and automatic with Vista and now 7 which probably accounts for some of the bloat. When it comes to old hardware not working under the new OS that's down to the manufacturer not being prepared to write drivers for the new systems. Software is different its written for the OS available and in general use at the time, and upgrades required for new OS systems.
In my mind an operating system should just be an operating system. It shouldn't be 16GB of bloat. If you want to use your computer to watch TV, you install TV watching drivers and software. If you want to do digital photography power-apps, you install digital photography power-apps. You shouldn't have 16GB of bloat taking up all your disk space before you even install those apps.
You could watch TV on Windows 95 computers - I had a parallel port device that did just that. When I moved to Windows XP, I asked the manufacturer for a driver but they weren't interested as they had since moved out of that market. That was one of the first of many items in the landfill. Listening to music, downloading monster files - none of this requires the bloat of 16GB of Windows 7. If you can do these things on a 100MB install of Puppy Linux, Windows shouldn't require 16GB to do the same thing.
Just as bad is Windows 7's "XP Mode" - which requires an extra 1GB RAM and an extra 15GB of disk space. So you'd need 31GB of disk space and 2GB RAM as a bare minimum just to stay compatible with XP which does all that in less than 2GB of disk space and 128MB RAM. That's crazy!
Some of the so-called "innovations" we get from bloated Windows turns out to be just another money-making exercise. Like the "Microsoft Voice" that can be used in Windows XP to have the computer read things out to you. Except that it comes with two unintelligible voices and the only way to get some sense out of it is to buy more voices. We could buy "talking" apps before Windows included it, so why is this useless crippled version installed as standard?
One of Windows 7's much vaunted concepts is the use of touch-screen. You can install a touchscreen with suitable drivers and apps to Windows XP. Why does Windows 7 need to have it included as standard to further bloat-out the system?
An operating system should be the foundation of the computer, the basics. I can't see how going from 100MB to 16GB in ten years is still "the basics". Compared to XP, Windows 7 needs ten times the disk space (16GB instead of 1.5GB), ten times the RAM (1GB instead of 64MB RAM), and five times the processing power (1GHz instead of 233MHz). Why?
All I can say is Windows 7 appears to be excellent (only two day of use so fare) early days yet.
I'm pleased that it is. In the meantime, I'm filling up landfills with more and more computers and hardware until I find something Windows 7 will run on. That can't be right. If I wanted to chuck out my hardware and software because of a change in OS, I'd buy a Mac.
As to a disk failure, I can be up and running within a couple of hours of fitting a new disk, I do regular full system backups for all three of my computers on an external H/D, also on a TeraStation along with all my images. This has a Raid setup, so if any one of the 4 drives fail nothing is lost.
So you don't need a large internal drive either? Some of the things I've been experiencing with portable software and portable OS is that we should be aiming for a future in which we're not tied to a single specific piece of hardware. Windows seems to be an anathema to that idea.
When I went on holiday in July, I found it a great comfort that I could take all of my apps, emails, settings, personal files, work files, and even an OS, with me on one SD card - so I didn't need to worry about leaving the computer back at the house. I didn't need to worry about carrying around a netbook/laptop and thus paint a "mug me" target on my head. In times gone past, when I only had a desktop, leaving all of my personal stuff behind in an empty house or lugging a great laptop around with me filled me with dread. The freedom to not be tied to the hardware is quite liberating - that's the future for me, not a bloated OS that ties me to a single computer.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalise advertising, and to analyse site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Wouldn't surprise me.
Comment