re: Windows 10 unveiled - new Spartan browser, universal apps, Cortana, and more

quote:

---

Can someone tell me what happened to windows 9?

---

??? Microsoft has been using a base-9 number system all along.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, Linux won't drop support for hardware that has been obsolete for over 2 decades because there exists at least one user:

---

I actually agree that Apple shouldn't ever block a user from being able to load software. But I don't think they should have to support much older users in anyway either.

If you want to load it and it runs like crap (or worse) so be it.

What does Microsoft do?

quote:

---

If you want to load it and it runs like crap (or worse) so be it.

---

Well, the thing about Linux is the kernel and most of the tools are not graphical, so they will run on just about anything. And all of that is decoupled from everything else, so you can choose from a multitude of graphical desktops (if necessary), several of which are written specifically to run on severely underpowered hardware. OSX and Windows are all or nothing, so naturally it's harder to continue supporting much older stuff.

quote:

---

What does Microsoft do?

---

Well, since they don't control the hardware, all they can do is publish system requirements. And I'm really not sure how they go about removing support for particular buses or other tech that doesn't necessarily show up on the specs sheet.

It does have a lot to do with the nature of the hardware and the way people buy Windows machines. Those who buy budget machines aren't expecting a lifespan extending beyond 5 years. If they are, they aren't expecting to be running the latest OS beyond then (and there's nothing suggesting they wouldn't be able to with a simple, cheap RAM upgrade). Someone who spent $1000+ on a machine back in '07 would more than likely be able to run Windows 8.1 today, and therefore Windows 10. To a certain extent, universal legacy hardware support limits further optimization and innovation, but it's not like Windows has requirements that are through the roof in the first place. And hardware compatibility is certainly not universally governed by year and model.

Can you give me a technical explanation on where the optimization disparity is between Mavericks and Yosemite? Or Lion and Yosemite? Ignoring the obvious clock speed, RAM, and storage requirements, what do older Mac chipsets lack that are required for Yosemite? What about CPU instruction sets?...like PAE and NX, the latter of which is a security function and the primary barrier for 10-year-old PCs to run Windows 8.1. Or is it easier for you to just say Microsoft is screwing them over?

Here's a fun fact: Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 will support the hardware in those Macs that only support up to Lion or Snow Leopard.

Well, while not required, you can't have features like AirDrop and Continuity in older hardware because of some features built into Sandy Bridge and beyond.

quote:

---

Every computer sold with Windows 7 installed can run Windows 10. Further, the difference between Windows 7 and Vista requirements were 1GB of hard drive space. Yes, hardware has come a long way since then. And newer machines run better, but it's a user-controlled experience. The company, Microsoft, didn't say "alright, screw all Core 2 Duo e8400 users)" and refuse to let them install the OS because of their own reasons.

If you read the published specs from Apple, aside from some ambiguous wording about the GPU, there's no reason that many capable machines were left out from the Mountain Lion upgrade. Almost definitely it's that some part of the user experience subjectively suffered, and Apple decided not to have a "slow" system on these "old" computers. Said another way, Apple told those users "if you want to experience our new OS, you have to buy a new computer." This is where the "abandoning" you speak of comes from. It was very likely a smart move to perceive Apple's experience as elite, as underpowered yet capable machines aren't allowed to run their operating system (would have had complaints like people who bought laptops with Celerons and 1GB of RAM when the resource-hungry Vista came to be), but it definitely could have been in no small part to boost sales. The point is, either way, whether Apple plans obsolescence or it just happens as their way of "keeping the user experience pure," users are at the will of the provider with no option to continue their user experience in an up to date manner without switching to another operating system. It's not even necessarily a bad thing. It's just a thing that many people don't like, and its justifiable from both sides.

---

Just what I was getting at. Excellent points.

quote:

---

What's a 5 year old windows machine going for in comparison?

---

Very cheap, to near worthless because of the saturated market. But we're talking about hardware support for operating systems. Would you like to change the subject to something you know a little more about?

quote:

---

Someone willing to spend $1,000 on a windows machine 7 years ago most likely wouldn't. He's probably into the latest and the greatest. He'd much more likely to be on a far more current machine than buying for 10 year longevity.

---

This is a big assumption, and I disagree with it. I do my absolute best to overbuy today so that I'll have a usable product in the future. That's one of the reasons my first HTPC ran and functioned rather well for about 6 years before upgrading it. The original cost of the machine was around $700. Multiple pieces of hardware failed and were replaced for cheap. When the motherboard failed, a new one ($50) with a new CPU ($70) and new RAM ($60) brought it back with the original system drive, case, PSU, and several peripherals to a very functional computer that's still sitting above what the majority of people need to do anything they would want to do (mine runs a couple of media servers, two different Remote Desktop services, a little Unified Remote server, records HD cable broadcasts (up to 2 at a time. Will soon be upped to 5), converts them to smaller files, rips blu Rays, still tweaking settings for ripping DVDs, and then lets me watch those files in or out of my house. This isn't meant to boast about a good system by any means, but rather show that it performs above the level of average use without any real problems. The case, psu, case fan, and original HDD (now my non-key apps and server drive, OS and key apps are separate) are now 9 years old. When it dies (it will be repurposed for the next 3-5 years easy), it'll be another marginal sum to bring it back up to date. If I don't update any hardware, it laughs at the Win 10 requirements and would likely be supported for another 2-3 generations at minimum, barring some sort of chipset instruction incompatibility or a major change in the paradigm of how OS are written. Point is, the 10 year old hardware at the top of the line can be repurposed or cheaply upgraded.

quote:

---

Or he's just dumb. Cause he could buy 2-3 Windows budget computers that would have long ago outpaced his.

---

At 10 years, the cost of upgrading components on a system that's badass is cheaper and much better performing than budget computers. Upgrades aside, the machine would still run the new OS and could easily handle specific tasks. It wouldn't be a great daily computer for anything that anyone would drop $1K on. But it would still work well at certain things.

quote:

---

Besides, an Apple user could sell a 5 year old machine and get a substantial return for that would go to a new high end machine.

What's a 5 year old windows machine going for in comparison?

---

Define "substantial" return. Few people buy high-end used Windows machines. Tons of people buy used high-end components. Two very different markets and groups of people. Neither is wrong or smarter. The average user won't be able to sell an average windows machine in 5 years. One that cost as much as an Apple computer would likely sell for a few hundred dollars, which is what new ones of the same quality would go for. The market for old machines at a low price isn't there because of the constant low-end availability direct from manufacturer. Again, two different markets and groups of people with different goals. The Windows guy could buy more machines for the same amount of money, shorten his upgrade cycle, repurpose old machines, and have more home automation or task-specific computerized activities than the Apple user. It doesn't negate the higher resale value of the Apple, but it must be taken into account if you want to attempt to look at a computer's life from a "return on investment" point of view.

Short answer: no.

Long answer: I have a 2011 MBA and a 2011 Mac Mini. I upgraded the RAM in the mini to 8 GB of RAM from crucial.com, the MBA has the stock 4GB. The MBA runs much much much better than the Mini because of the SSD. Apps open near instantly on the MBA. I get about 20-30 seconds of a bouncing iTunes icon if I'm lucky on the Mini.

In fact, last night the Mini started acting really screwy. I started getting warnings that some non authorized programs (?) were trying to access my Keychain (I denied them). Next thing I know the computer tells me that it's out of memory and is suspending several apps (I believe I only had 8 open at the time: none that are resource intensive outside of maybe iTunes. )

I really just wanted to bash on Apple for skimping where I don't think they should be as to somewhat future proof their devices. And seriously, both of my 2011 computers came with 4 GB as the base, and here we are 3.5 years later and they still have the same base?

The blazing speed of single write head 5400RPM