How exactly are they biased? This should be accepted windows fact by now. Each succeeding OS has higher resource usage and is less efficient ON THE SAME HARDWARE than the previous. The same was true of 98/95, Me/98, XP/2K and Vista/XP so there's absolutely no need to defend 7 or any other OS on this basis alone. This only signals progress (in most cases) and should not make a Vista or 7 fanboy out of anyone.
I for one have not bothered installing Vista and I wont be installing 7 for quite some time; I love my resources just the way they are. As far as the Start menu and other 'advantages' go:
Lower battery life doesn't mean something is more efficient. Windows has far more features and processes going on then XP to help get things done quicker, and they do work.
Why is XP even being used anymore? I know its because many programs don't work with Vista/7, but at this much later point in Vista's release, it comes down to developers of those programs not ensuring their program are compatible.
You can't blame an OS if its developer base doesn't feel like updating their software to be supported.
Ok then, does it mean something is LESS efficient?? Especially given the fact that I qualified the statement and stressed THE SAME HARDWARE?? ;) In any case, the experts seem to disagree w/ you.
[American Heritage Dictionary]
ef·fi·cient (¹-f¹sh“…nt) adj. 1. Acting directly to produce an effect... 2.a. Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. b. Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input.
Err... see the part about minimum of waste, expense and effort?? Have you ever looked at your resources under Vista and 7 and compared them to XP on the same machine?
So what do you think that translates into? IOW (I sincerely hope you're better at cars), wouldn't a straight 4 or V6 pulling a 3000 pound frame have a harder time pulling a frame that weighs 6000 lbs (other things remaining equal)?
No. It has more to do w/ the fact that ppl are opting to use common sense and not running after shiny trinkets. Again, the Start menu, search and navigation are much better. If much of your time is spent flipping through windows and locating files, then upgrading may make more productive workdays. Most ppl, however, browse the web and interact w/ apps other than explorer. The widgets?? There are better ones available.
Maybe not; but you sure CAN blame the OS' dev for breaking compatibility w/ said programs, because 1) they have the power to break or not to break, and 2) its in their best interest to ensure maximum compatibility. As a small dev, its sometimes not worth the added resources to update (Adobe and other big fishes can afford to).
In closing, the following may cause you (and others) some real hurt but I have to:
Sh!t, the quotes are not showing. Could someone delete my post immediately above this one (is this even being actively monitored?)? Thx! and sorry for the double.
@ p0p0:
"Lower battery life doesn't mean something is more efficient."
Ok then, does it mean something is LESS efficient?? Especially given the fact that I qualified the statement and stressed THE SAME HARDWARE?? ;) In any case, the experts seem to disagree w/ you.
[American Heritage Dictionary]
ef·fi·cient (¹-f¹sh“…nt) adj. 1. Acting directly to produce an effect... 2.a. Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. b. Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input.
Err... see the part about minimum of waste, expense and effort?? Have you ever looked at your resources under Vista and 7 and compared them to XP on the same machine?
"Windows has far more features and processes going on then XP..."
So what do you think that translates into? IOW (I sincerely hope you're better at cars), wouldn't a straight 4 or V6 pulling a 3000 pound frame have a harder time pulling a frame that weighs 6000 lbs (other things remaining equal)?
"Why is XP even being used anymore? I know its because many programs don't work with Vista/7..."
No. It has more to do w/ the fact that ppl are opting to use common sense and not running after shiny trinkets. Again, the Start menu, search and navigation are much better. If much of your time is spent flipping through windows and locating files, then upgrading may make more productive workdays. Most ppl, however, browse the web and interact w/ apps other than explorer. The widgets?? There are better ones available.
"...but at this much later point in Vista's release, it comes down to developers of those programs not ensuring their program are compatible. You can't blame an OS if its developer base doesn't feel like updating their software to be supported."
Maybe not; but you sure CAN blame the OS' dev for breaking compatibility w/ said programs, because 1) they have the power to break or not to break, and 2) its in their best interest to ensure maximum compatibility. As a small dev, its sometimes not worth the added resources to update (Adobe and other big fishes can afford to).
In closing, the following may cause you (and others) some real hurt but I have to:
I can't believe how many apologists there are here today. Turning off the eye candy is of course a necessity if you want to absolutely maximize battery life.
However, even with the eye candy on, a 2009 operating system designed for today's hardware should KILL a 2001 operating system in terms of battery life.
And a bunch of generic platitudes about how Win7 helps you get stuff done faster so you don't need as much battery? WTF?? Look, the many improvements in Windows 7 are all good reasons to upgrade, but they're not reasons to plug your ears and yell LA LA LA LA when people start talking about worse battery life.
Hopefully MS improves power consumption in a future service pack.
get gizzed! I did apologize, for an honest mistake, didn't I? I did request that the post be deleted, did I not? Go complain to the admins; I have no control over it at this point. And since when is this your space? Guess I'm breathing your air too.
The new FiOS HD DVR, arguably the biggest update since Verizon released a DVR, thanks to its external storage support, enhanced multi-room functionality and slick new 16x9 HD user interface.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Just had to mention the biased crapple test? How much does Steve Jobs pay Engadget?
i think you mean engadgets 3 sources... nubtron...
How exactly are they biased?
This should be accepted windows fact by now. Each succeeding OS has higher resource usage and is less efficient ON THE SAME HARDWARE than the previous. The same was true of 98/95, Me/98, XP/2K and Vista/XP so there's absolutely no need to defend 7 or any other OS on this basis alone. This only signals progress (in most cases) and should not make a Vista or 7 fanboy out of anyone.
I for one have not bothered installing Vista and I wont be installing 7 for quite some time; I love my resources just the way they are. As far as the Start menu and other 'advantages' go:
http://www.windowsxlive.net/seven-transformation-pack
http://www.windowsxlive.net/assets/galleries/227/7tp_desktop.jpg
http://www.windowsxlive.net/assets/galleries/227/7tp_flip.jpg
Lower battery life doesn't mean something is more efficient. Windows has far more features and processes going on then XP to help get things done quicker, and they do work.
Why is XP even being used anymore? I know its because many programs don't work with Vista/7, but at this much later point in Vista's release, it comes down to developers of those programs not ensuring their program are compatible.
You can't blame an OS if its developer base doesn't feel like updating their software to be supported.
@ p0p0:
Ok then, does it mean something is LESS efficient?? Especially given the fact that I qualified the statement and stressed THE SAME HARDWARE?? ;)
In any case, the experts seem to disagree w/ you.
[American Heritage Dictionary]
ef·fi·cient (¹-f¹sh“…nt) adj. 1. Acting directly to produce an effect... 2.a. Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. b. Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input.
Err... see the part about minimum of waste, expense and effort?? Have you ever looked at your resources under Vista and 7 and compared them to XP on the same machine?
So what do you think that translates into?
IOW (I sincerely hope you're better at cars), wouldn't a straight 4 or V6 pulling a 3000 pound frame have a harder time pulling a frame that weighs 6000 lbs (other things remaining equal)?
No. It has more to do w/ the fact that ppl are opting to use common sense and not running after shiny trinkets. Again, the Start menu, search and navigation are much better. If much of your time is spent flipping through windows and locating files, then upgrading may make more productive workdays. Most ppl, however, browse the web and interact w/ apps other than explorer. The widgets?? There are better ones available.
Maybe not; but you sure CAN blame the OS' dev for breaking compatibility w/ said programs, because 1) they have the power to break or not to break, and 2) its in their best interest to ensure maximum compatibility. As a small dev, its sometimes not worth the added resources to update (Adobe and other big fishes can afford to).
In closing, the following may cause you (and others) some real hurt but I have to:
Windows on multicore: Why XP reigns supreme
http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/operating-systems/windows/how-to/index.cfm?articleid=2026
Sh!t, the quotes are not showing. Could someone delete my post immediately above this one (is this even being actively monitored?)?
Thx! and sorry for the double.
@ p0p0:
"Lower battery life doesn't mean something is more efficient."
Ok then, does it mean something is LESS efficient?? Especially given the fact that I qualified the statement and stressed THE SAME HARDWARE?? ;)
In any case, the experts seem to disagree w/ you.
[American Heritage Dictionary]
ef·fi·cient (¹-f¹sh“…nt) adj. 1. Acting directly to produce an effect... 2.a. Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. b. Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input.
Err... see the part about minimum of waste, expense and effort?? Have you ever looked at your resources under Vista and 7 and compared them to XP on the same machine?
"Windows has far more features and processes going on then XP..."
So what do you think that translates into?
IOW (I sincerely hope you're better at cars), wouldn't a straight 4 or V6 pulling a 3000 pound frame have a harder time pulling a frame that weighs 6000 lbs (other things remaining equal)?
"Why is XP even being used anymore? I know its because many programs don't work with Vista/7..."
No. It has more to do w/ the fact that ppl are opting to use common sense and not running after shiny trinkets. Again, the Start menu, search and navigation are much better. If much of your time is spent flipping through windows and locating files, then upgrading may make more productive workdays. Most ppl, however, browse the web and interact w/ apps other than explorer. The widgets?? There are better ones available.
"...but at this much later point in Vista's release, it comes down to developers of those programs not ensuring their program are compatible.
You can't blame an OS if its developer base doesn't feel like updating their software to be supported."
Maybe not; but you sure CAN blame the OS' dev for breaking compatibility w/ said programs, because 1) they have the power to break or not to break, and 2) its in their best interest to ensure maximum compatibility. As a small dev, its sometimes not worth the added resources to update (Adobe and other big fishes can afford to).
In closing, the following may cause you (and others) some real hurt but I have to:
Windows on multicore: Why XP reigns supreme
http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/operating-systems/windows/how-to/index.cfm?articleid=2026
@F.C.
double page-long post - you sir, are a tool. Go write your own blog or take it to PM. You're wasting my screen-space and time.
I can't believe how many apologists there are here today. Turning off the eye candy is of course a necessity if you want to absolutely maximize battery life.
However, even with the eye candy on, a 2009 operating system designed for today's hardware should KILL a 2001 operating system in terms of battery life.
And a bunch of generic platitudes about how Win7 helps you get stuff done faster so you don't need as much battery? WTF?? Look, the many improvements in Windows 7 are all good reasons to upgrade, but they're not reasons to plug your ears and yell LA LA LA LA when people start talking about worse battery life.
Hopefully MS improves power consumption in a future service pack.
@phenoum:
get gizzed! I did apologize, for an honest mistake, didn't I? I did request that the post be deleted, did I not? Go complain to the admins; I have no control over it at this point. And since when is this your space? Guess I'm breathing your air too.