For All Of You Who Refuse to Embrace Greatness: Windows 7 to Include Windows XP Mode

Look at one of Nighthawkx's posts, the one with the huge quotations.

His comments and counterarguments are in bold/italics.

Originally Posted by Rain Drop

Well Vista does seem to freeze a lot. But haven't all the Windows done that when you leave the computer on for a long time? I just do not understand the fuss. Maybe it works better for some people and worse for others.

But when Mac OS 9 used to crash... it would crash. I always had to restart the computer. Mac os ten has not really crashed yet... but my friend says Apple has years and years put into it... Vista is still kind of new. I think a lot of people just need to give it a chance ^^

I never really had issues with XP, winserver 03, vista, winserver 08, or win7 crashing ever unless it was due to sloppy overclocking. 98... that's another story.

early mac OSX was far less table than XP or vista. heck I personally find this beta version of win7 I'm on to be pretty stable.

I want people to bear in mind, I'm not anti OSX, I'm anti apple. I disagree with their pricing policies, and how they completely limit the consumer's options

Originally Posted by TheBattler

LOL Wow.

You really have no idea what you're talking about/how to argue.

No, he's right. I could, right now, buy all the hardware that's in an iMac for less than half the price, assemble it, and have a working computer.

I could then, if I so wanted, buy the latest version of OSX and, with some tinkering (lots of tinkering, it's a bloody finicky OS) get it to run on that hardware.

Boom, I've saved more than half the cost of the machine.

I like how you use piracy to help devalue Macs. Because piracy is totally PC exclusive. ROFL.

What? That's not, in fact, what he's arguing.

Originally Posted by John

No, he's right. I could, right now, buy all the hardware that's in an iMac for less than half the price, assemble it, and have a working computer.

Cool story bro.

I could then, if I so wanted, buy the latest version of OSX and, with some tinkering (lots of tinkering, it's a bloody finicky OS) get it to run on that hardware.

Boom, I've saved more than half the cost of the machine.

And? What's your point? Technically speaking, I can pirate OS X easily and save myself, some money, too.

So, it should really come down to the specs. However, nighthawkx included the ability to pirate Mac OS X to his PC and then laugh at the hypothetical Mac consumer.

What? That's not, in fact, what he's arguing.

He specifically said that he could pirate Mac OS X, put it on his PC, and thus save even more money, and laugh at a Mac consumer. That doesn't make any sense. Yeah, he could stick to the whole "my PC looks faster than your Mac" deal, that would at least put him in the majority of viewpoints, but including piracy as a way to save money? Wow.

I don't feel like arguing this here, but why do people think that specs on paper is all that matters? People are so obsessed with seeing that their PC has 4 GB of RAM to an iMac's 2 GB, and they think the PC is better. But that's besides the point, and that's off-topic. I just wanted to come in here and troll and be a stuck up Mac user.

I'm gonna go blog, edit some videos, and play Super Mario World (the only game you need) now.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

and play Super Mario World (the only game you need) now.

Amen, brother.



By the way,

, Microsoft Windows Vista and Mac OS X Leopard have surprisingly similar built-in multimedia, Internet and productivity applications.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

And? What's your point? Technically speaking, I can pirate OS X easily and save myself, some money, too.

So, it should really come down to the specs. However, nighthawkx included the ability to pirate Mac OS X to his PC and then laugh at the hypothetical Mac consumer.

Er, no he didn't. You've misread his post, I suspect.

Anyways, Apple computers are always far, far behind on the tech curve.

I don't feel like arguing this here, but why do people think that specs on paper is all that matters? People are so obsessed with seeing that their PC has 4 GB of RAM to an iMac's 2 GB, and they think the PC is better. But that's besides the point, and that's off-topic. I just wanted to come in here and troll and be a stuck up Mac user.

Because unless those "on paper" specs are very similar then the computer with the better numbers (for a lower cost, no less) is the better buy.

Ah, I've been waiting for this, now I just need to upgrade my hardware <.<

um, maybe this will help people compare.

We all know the stereotypes. Apple’s popular commercials have painted the picture in stark terms: There are two types of people, Mac people and PC people. And if the marketing is to be believed, the former is a hip, sport-coat-and-sneakers-*wearing type of guy who uses his computer for video chatting, music mash-ups and other cool, creative pursuits that starchy, business-suited PC users could never really appreciate unless they tried them on the slick Apple interface. Then again, Windows PC enthusiasts probably think that Mac guy is a smug slacker with an overpriced toy that can’t do any serious computing anyway. Funny thing is, both stereotypes are wrong. With a 7.5 percent market share, Macs are no longer just the computer choice of artists and unemployed writers. (Apple is, in fact, the fourth largest computer manufacturer in the world.) And now, more than ever, the guts of both platforms are remarkably similar. Both types of machines use Intel proc*essors (although some PCs can be configured with processors from AMD). Both buy memory, hard drives and graphics cards from the same small pool of suppliers. The underlying operating systems have distinctly different flavors, but in terms of functionality, Microsoft Windows Vista and Mac OS X Leopard have surprisingly similar built-in multimedia, Internet and productivity applications.

Yet what makes the platforms feel so dissimilar is their approaches to these applications. Internet Explorer versus *Safari, Windows Media Center versus Front Row, Photo Gallery versus iPhoto, Backup and Restore Center versus Time Machine—these system components from Microsoft and Apple are designed to accomplish essentially the same goals. To users, however, the position and movement of the virtual knobs and levers make all the difference.

These things are largely matters of preference and style, but you can still make a reasonable attempt to quantify them, and we did. We tested two all-in-one desktops and two laptops—one Mac and one PC per category—and assembled a panel of testers with a range of experience and preference that ran the gamut from expert users to my wife’s stepfather, who, by his own account, had never actually turned on a computer. Our testers were asked to set up the computers right out of the box and explore the machines through everyday tasks such as Web surfing, document creation, uploading photos, downloading Adobe Acrobat files and playing music and movies through Media Center and Front Row (the entertainment software suites integrated into Vista and Leopard, respectively). Our testers were instructed to divorce themselves as much as possible from their previous technological preferences and rate their experiences with each computer’s software and hardware.

Usability surveys are like taste tests—a useful look at the subjective appeal of a device. (Is it fun? Is it easy? Would I be happy to live with this thing?) But beneath their packaging, computers are data-crunching machines that can be run like racehorses. So the second component of our test regimen was about pure performance.

Our computers were closely matched, but in the interest of full disclosure, we’ll spit out the caveats: The Gateway One PC had a processor that runs 400 MHz slower than its iMac competitor (not a heck of a difference in this age of dual-core chips), but it also had two extra gigabytes of DDR2 memory. In the laptop category, our Asus M51 had a 2.2 GHz processor, compared to 2.4 GHz for our MacBook. But the Asus had a larger screen, a more sophisticated graphics card and an extra gig of RAM.

All that extra RAM may seem to give an advantage to the PCs. Vista, however, is a noted memory hog, so throwing more RAM into PC computers is probably less of a perform*ance booster for manufacturers than it is a new baseline hardware specification.

Before we pulled out our stopwatches, we turned to two industry-standard, cross-platform benchmarking tools—Geekbench from Primate Labs and Cinebench from Maxon—to get third-party results. We ran both benchmarking programs on our Mac and PC desktop and laptop computers before our testers got their dirty little hands on the equipment to ensure that no confounding software could poison the results.

These benchmarks are reliable indicators of performance, but the numbers feel somewhat meaningless to ordinary users. Which is why we created our own suite of tests to meas*ure the speed of everyday tasks. We logged boot-up and shutdown times, and launch times for the Internet browser and media player built into each operating system, as well as for common applications such as Microsoft Word and Adobe Photoshop. We tested how long it took for each computer to rip a CD and install a few big software suites. The laptops were forced to play the longest movie we could find (Saving Private Ryan—2 hours, 49 minutes) until they wheezed, sputtered and shut down. Finally, we put all four computers through a stress test. We ran three video sources (a YouTube clip, a DVD and an .avi file), DivX encoding, instant messaging, Word, Adobe Acrobat and a spyware scan simultaneously—then retimed our launch of Photoshop.

The results gave us a clear winner in the performance categories, but the big surprise was how little difference we found in user preferences. Turns out, both platforms are capable and easy to use, but only one was the victor.

I think the article ends there.

Dear God,

One day, can we have Windows threads that don't become tired Apple vs. Microsoft re-treads?

Signed,
Your Buddy, F3

Originally Posted by F3

Dear God,

One day, can we have Windows threads that don't become tired Apple vs. Microsoft re-treads?

Signed,
Your Buddy, F3

Dear F3,

Nope.

Signed,
The Omnipotent JGodd

I tried out the beta in the tech store today, and I squealed right in the store as my friend was showing me everything and I was trying it all out for myself. When I get my new computer in the fall, I'm seriously going to put Windows 7 on it AND upgrade my OS to 7 on my laptop.

While I haven't read a single post in this thread besides the thread starter, I'll butt in now, as at five pages I suspect this thread has fallen to the ever present OS X v. Windows war between two badly designed operating system lines. (Ok, so maybe I did peak at some of the more recent posts.)

However, that's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about Windows 7's XP mode.

So then I ask, is this running emulated on top of Windows 7? Won't I be taking a severe performance hit?

Is this an excuse to drop compatibility for XP software in Windows 7? (If this is answered positively in combination with my previous question then this seems to be a fairly bad revelation in my opinion.)

Does this mean I'm going to have to have space for a Windows 7 install AND a Windows XP install? Will they have to be on separate partitions?

Most importantly, what motivation do I have for choosing Win7 WinXP mode over VMWare emulation or WINE non-emulation?

Even if you do take a severe performance hit it shouldn't matter. XP software is written with XP-era hardware in mind. Windows 7-era hardware will be, at the absolute least, twice as powerful.

That, in theory, means that even if you get a 50% performance hit, you won't notice it.

Why am I supposed to be excited again? I do like that Windows 7 is getting rid of old tech, ans is going to be more streamlined. But as for XPM, I already have Virtual PC with XP installed on it, and XPM doesn't seem to be much of an improvement.

As for the Mac vs. PC debate. Mac is much more expensive for a product that really isn't any better. All it boils down to is user preference.

Originally Posted by John

Even if you do take a severe performance hit it shouldn't matter. XP software is written with XP-era hardware in mind. Windows 7-era hardware will be, at the absolute least, twice as powerful.

That, in theory, means that even if you get a 50% performance hit, you won't notice it.

This also requires there to be a period in between XP development and Windows 7 development.* Most likely, XP development will continue for some time after 7 is released, and there will most probably be new XP software released the day Windows 7 is released.

So then I have Windows 7 which can run old XP software adequately, new XP software badly, has bad support for Vista software, and has a small library of Windows 7 software.

By the time new Windows XP software becomes usable on an average Windows 7 machine, the XP software in question has become quite old.

This is all assuming we're talking about software that doesn't scale easily to match hardware performance, like say, certain aspects of compilers/assemblers/interpreters.

*Vista obviously doesn't count as a transitional period... it doesn't seem to have transitioned many.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

I don't feel like arguing this here, but why do people think that specs on paper is all that matters? People are so obsessed with seeing that their PC has 4 GB of RAM to an iMac's 2 GB

actually it's more like, your PCs 8GB in 2007 vs. the mac's 1GB. We're comparing products at the same price point, right?

regardless I NEED RAM. it's a fact.my OS might use a gig if I have it set to preload happy settings, but that doesn't stop my apps from using 2.5GB all to themselves... and I do multitask like a madman... 2GB doesn't cut it for me anymore. Not in XP, not in vista, not in linux not in much of anything.

that said 4GB RAM is $30ish on sale, so it really doesn't matter since you can add RAM to an Apple computer.

Originally Posted by 8bit

This also requires there to be a period in between XP development and Windows 7 development.* Most likely, XP development will continue for some time after 7 is released, and there will most probably be new XP software released the day Windows 7 is released.

Not at all. Your scenario requires software developed late for XP to incompatible with 7, which is unlikely.

Originally Posted by John

Not at all. Your scenario requires software developed late for XP to incompatible with 7, which is unlikely.

This is basically what I'm asking about. From what I've heard, Windows 7 has had quite a few core changes since Vista, including a large chunk of new kernel code. While obviously a Windows XP/7 release will be easier than an OS X/XP release is right now, as Direct X and the MSDOS-based architecture of the kernel acts as a unifying API between Windows releases, however, will we see the same issues with OS X/Linux releases? Despite having access to identical development APIs the differences in the kernel are so vast that porting well is relatively difficult with complex projects, even though both kernels are based on the same (well... sort of) core UNIX kernel architecture.

Anyway, if Microsoft is planing on including full emulation for Windows XP in Windows 7 this could mean hard-times for developers, as Microsoft (presumably) drops support for XP software in 7.

Originally Posted by 8bit

So then I ask, is this running emulated on top of Windows 7? Won't I be taking a severe performance hit?

Yes, how big of a performance hit depends on you setup.

Is this an excuse to drop compatibility for XP software in Windows 7? (If this is answered positively in combination with my previous question then this seems to be a fairly bad revelation in my opinion.)

Kind of looks like it, at leas that's the impression I got from the article.

Does this mean I'm going to have to have space for a Windows 7 install AND a Windows XP install? Will they have to be on separate partitions?

No, the article mentions host based virtualization. So you will have something like Virtual PC or VirtualBox, you mentioned VMWare, so I won't go into explaining what Virtual PC is.

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

Yes, how big of a performance hit depends on you setup.


Kind of looks like it, at leas that's the impression I got from the article.

And thus, I don't really see why this is a good thing at all, forget a reason to begin using Windows as my primary OS, especially when WINE keeps getting better and better and often gets better performance out of software than Windows software run natively.

No, the article mentions host based virtualization. So you will have something like Virtual PC or VirtualBox, you mentioned VMWare, so I won't go into explaining what Virtual PC is.

I figured as much.