Downfall Of Windows 7

[Kougar]

Hah, no. I have absolutely no relation to the other meaning for Cougar... I seem to get that quite often, perhaps I need to find a new nick...Grrr.

Thank you for the apology. I tried a quick google before making my previous post but I couldn't find the article I vaguely remember reading about how Windows 7 changed the I/O system. But I do remember (because of all the noise generated about hardware-accelerated sound no longer being possible in Vista on Soundblaster cards) that MS began serious changes to how the OS sits atop of the hardware with Vista.

I am sure there is a way to access the hardware directly, but as with most things done in XP the OS has changed significantly in the almost 10 years since XP was released, so it's definitely bound to break things that worked in XP. That website tends to be full of users with experience a few levels above mine, so if anyone can help you they likely can.

 

[catilley1092]

When the thread started, being that he was used to XP / Win 2K, I was wondering if the computer(s) in question were even capable of running Windows 7. I wouldn't want to disable my security in able to run the OS, the system would be full of holes.

 

[linuxdudex12]

I think Microsoft is on the right track security wise. The UAC is still kind of annoying. I don't like the fact that I need to have an a whole bunch of security programs running in the background like anti-virus, but at least I have a duel core CPU and 4GB of memory which kind of masks the problem. On a second note I am really glad I could obtain Yod'm 3D so I can get my Windows 7 to act like Beryl is installed, genius stuff guys, keep the original ideas flowing! I love the fact that when I got Windows 7 the first day it came out, I felt right at home because the taskbar was and still is 90% identical to the one in KDE. Ya I think Windows 7 is sparking some massive breakthroughs in Windows Technology. I for one am happy !!!

 

[Core]

Bitching about UAC is so 2006. I think four years is enough time to either learn to live with it, or to figure out how to disable it. I don't care if people disable it, God knows I do, but I also don't complain about how vulnerable Windows is when I go out of my way to turn off what security features have been implemented into it.

I don't think this thread had any merit to begin with, and it has long since inception lost sight of any point the OP was trying to make.

Adding more security isn't going to be Windows' downfall. Users have been insisting on better security for years. The UAC probably wasn't what they had in mind, but 7 is more secure out of the box than XP ever was on its best day. It's regrettable that your application doesn't survive the almost a decade old, soon-to-be-archaic operating system that is Windows XP. You were aware of the problem with Vista and the driver you needed for your app, and you chose not to worry about it; okay, then you get to worry about it now. I guess you thought that backwards compatibility just skips a generation sometimes. If you have mission critical applications to code, then you may want to get your hands on the beta of the next version of the platform you are compiling it for and iron out the kinks before release.

Seems you hold a grudge because Windows moved on and you haven't. Increasing security for the OS isn't its downfall, it's a necessity. Why you're even comparing it to Windows ME is beyond me, since ME's problems had to do with sloppy coding and instability, and not aggressive security enhancements.

 

[linuxdudex12]

Core, I think the downfall of Windows 7 would be that the reason Microsoft keeps increasing security measures such adding UAC, is because Microsoft is trying to mask the real problems that have not changed. See Microsoft is too lazy to rewrite its kernel from scratch, instead Microsoft simply creates what they call a Hybrid Kernel. This of course means venerability in previous versions of Windows are still present in Windows 7, this is why a virus created for Windows XP will generally work on Windows 7. No I don't think I will be disabling UAC because god forbid I open the wrong program and... Blue screen. But at least Windows is good for playing games! It's not like something called a playstation 3 exist... God I would hate to be infected again just because I stray from the constant routine of checking for viruses before I open anything. Ya Windows 7 is great I recommend it to all my friends and family. Really though, the only thing I see changing in Windows is the GUI, so guess what guys I just bought myself a $119 theme that lacks backwards compatibility! So cool !!! BTW Nice computer specs Core, I should cram 8 gigs into mine too.

 

[Core]

I should cram 8 gigs into mine too.

While you can do that of course, 8 gigs for Linux is overkill. Particularly with Slackware.

 

[linuxdudex12]

Isn't that the truth Core ya I will stick with 4. Okay my company is thinking to add some Windows 7 workstations to my network. I have bought books on administrating Windows 7 systems. However what I would like is for you guys to refer me to information regarding some type of Windows time line that tells me when exactly Microsoft implemented new security features such as UAC into their operating system. I would like a complete time line that allows me to see when and what was changed about security since XP. I will be grateful for this one guys. Thanks in advance.

 

[Nibiru2012]

While you can do that of course, 8 gigs for Linux is overkill. Particularly with Slackware.

8GB of RAM is overkill for most systems, including Windows, unless you're doing a lot of video editing/processing, AutoCAD, PhotoShop or multiple open applications.

Tom's Hardware did a decent article about that back in April of '09.

Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM?
The notion that bigger is better has taken a beating lately in all aspects of society.
Once the pride of the so-called upper middle class in the United States, McMansions and SUVs have now become symbols of excess and waste--at least the reminders of an era past. Green movement proponents should certainly be happy that so many “earth abusers” are beginning to see the light, but what about performance-computing fanatics? With memory prices near record lows, is there any good reason not to fill every slot with low-cost 2 GB DIMMs?

Environmentalists could point out that IC and PCB production turns a large quantity of natural resources into post-production waste, while most of the end-product is not recyclable and the additional components add to the system’s energy consumption. Power users could easily counter energy concerns by pointing out that a better-performing computer allows them to get their work done in less time. But neither argument is sufficient to answer the question we’ve asked so many times before: How much RAM do you really need?

Our 2004 article pointed out weaknesses in the once-popular single-gigabyte configurations. But 512 MB and smaller modules are now a distant memory. It wasnt long after that 2 GB became the performance standard, and by 2007, 4 GB kits could be found in all but the lowest-cost systems. Is it time to take the next step, to 8 GB or more? More importantly, were 4 GB modules ever really needed for games and everyday applications? And with the 32-bit addressing limit of 4 GB making only 3 GB available to many users, should everyone switch to a 64-bit operating system simply to support higher capacities?

Conclusion:
Not much has changed since 4 GB of RAM became the “sweet spot” for performance and price in the enthusiast market. While 32-bit operating systems previously limited those 4 GB configurations to around 3 GB of useful memory space, today's test shows that 3 GB is still usually enough.

We remember days when having multiple Internet Explorer windows open could cause a system to become sluggish. But even that scenario has become unrealistic, as all the configurations we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously.

If 3 GB worked so well, why do we continue to recommend 4 GB to 6 GB triple-channel kits for performance systems? Perhaps we’re just a little too forward-looking, but we can certainly imagine scenarios a typical “power user” could encounter where 3 GB might not be enough, even if today’s tests didn’t reveal any of them. For those folks, stepping up to a 64-bit operating system at the same time is undoubtedly the best course of action.

We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically.

SOURCE

 

[linuxdudex12]

ok... don't know why we are still talking about RAM

 

[davehc]

ok... don't know why we are still talking about RAM

LOL. Yes , the thread has drifted from the poll a mite!

 

[catilley1092]

ok... don't know why we are still talking about RAM

I guess because you threw RAM into the thread by joking about "cramming" 8GB into your computer.

 

[Core]

LOL. Yes , the thread has drifted from the poll a mite!

What a shame; it was such an interesting topic.

I agree that 8 GB is overkill for most systems. I do a lot of video editing and encoding, and it's made a world of difference for me, but for a typical home user...nah.

 

[linuxdudex12]

I'm not your typical home user lol , but yes let me assure you I was joking about the 8 Gigs. Although my own personal opinion is indeed the bigger the better baby. Anyway the rule of thumb I always thought, was to buy as much RAM as you can afford ( more doesn't hurt ).

 

[Veedaz]

I use Corsair 6Gb PC3-12800 XMS3 DDR3 XMS Series Matched Triple Kit in my main rig (see my spec) and i find its more than enough for anything i may do or use in my computing.

 

[linuxdudex12]

Sweet specs man wish I could afford a set up like that.