Hello Jernej, Monday, December 25, 2006, 9:15:28 PM, you wrote:
JS> On Friday, December 22, 2006, 16:12:28, Tony wrote: >> On Win 2000 I could run almost all 16-bit apps. >> When I switched to Win XP many of the apps didn't work anymore. JS> All 16bit programs I tried worked just fine on Windows 2003 (slightly newer JS> kernel than XP), I never had any problems (I was playing with old shareware JS> CD I found somewhere). I did have to set a few programs to run in "Windows JS> 95" compatibility mode, but that's all. I never used Win 2003. My problems where mainly with commercial software. Maybe the software itself worked but things crashed due to anti-piracy measures. (hardware keys/dongles etc) Luckily I could upgrade most stuff. Some things never worked again because the software house was gone :( >> OTOH a software company should be very aware of the MS/Intel/AMD marketing. >> Very soon the masses will consider everything without a Vista label unsafe. JS> I seriously doubt that - according to market research, not more than 5% are JS> planning to downgrade to Vista next year - Vista's hardware requirements are JS> too high (not to mention it's DRM - see eg. Most people buy complete systems (like Dell). Try to find something without XP installed. Shortly that will be Vista. (just like half already has a Core CPU) Vista hardware requirements are high but *not* on the box. There you find the usual conservative MS specs. But there is big diffrence between home edition and Premium with that glass windows. MS either doesn't mention DRM or they give some 'good against virus/spam' marketing blabla like they did with their Paledium idea. About the 5%... Vista isn't really launched for the main public right now. Like always MS will start heavy advertising and they start to sell. It worked that way with all Windows versions. JS> <http://p2pnet.net/story/10823> ). >> And everything that isn't 64-bit half the speed of 32-bit apps. JS> Uhh, what? Benchmarks show 5-15% speed increase when going from 32->64bit on JS> the same hardware. Please don't quote out of context. Read the line below. >> Not because it's true, but because of the marketing of especially Intel and >> MS. JS> Intel? Intel was hiding that it's CPUs supported long mode for a long long JS> time. The 64-bit CPUs where way to expensive for home use. Until now.... ATM Intels 64-bit CPUs are about the same price as their 32-bit ones. So I see no reason to buy 32-bit. My guess is that the 32-bit CPUs get fased out soon. I see a very bright future for this "ultra secure" OS. Shame already one exploit is found :-) I'll wait until Vista it's out of beta. Meaning SP2. For now I stick with Win XP Pro with classical view because I hate that gamecomputer interface. -- Best regards, Tony Can fat people go skinny-dipping? ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
