Oh how we laughed in those golden days, before ...



  • @DaveK said:

    @Qwerty said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Yes. All OSes used before XP were not good enough. Even though they ran railroads, power stations, video games, did what people asked of them

    No, I am saying XP is "good enough" in an absolute, platonic sense.  Yes, previous operating systems could run power stations or games but you would get laughed out of the room if you tried to suggest one operating system could do both.  

      Sure; who even needs an OS when 1KB of RAM and a BASIC interpreter in ROM is enough to "do quite literally anything"?


    most powerful computer ever?

    Awesome, I'm dumping my core i7 950 for one of those, where can I get myself such a sweet deal?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Windows 7 will run on any computer that will run XP. It was slimmed-down to support the netbook market, without sacrificing any of the features Vista added for desktops. (Note: it does require more RAM.) It really is a very, very impressive product.

    Soooo, "it will run on any computer that will run XP (Note: actually, it won't)"? Yes, Seven is very impressive in many respects, but that is 100% pure S&M (Sales and Marketing). "Crawl" would be a more precise word - I kind of need other things to run on the damn netbook besides the OS proper, such as, y'know, applications (le gasp!). It may be interesting to note that this is possible with vanilla XP, on the exact same piece of hardware. So, either a) I'm looking at the computer in a wrong way, which magically makes Seven work worse, or b) your claim doesn't hold water.



  • @piskvorr said:

    I kind of need other things to run on the damn netbook
     

    Please posts the netbook's specs, year of build, and whether you have attempted both XP and 7 on it. Otherwise your claims remain as much conjecture as Blakey's.



  • @dhromed said:

    Please posts the netbook's specs, year of build, and whether you have attempted both XP and 7 on it. Otherwise your claims remain as much conjecture as Blakey's.
    Not a netbook, but the specs of my mother's computer are similar: Via Nano L2200 CPU, 2GB RAM, 320GB 2.5" drive. Windows 7 runs very noticably slower than XP, even with Aero disabled.



  • @dhromed said:

    @piskvorr said:

    I kind of need other things to run on the damn netbook
     

    Please posts the netbook's specs, year of build, and whether you have attempted both XP and 7 on it. Otherwise your claims remain as much conjecture as Blakey's.

    It was a (2009) Acer Aspire One 751h ( http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/acer-aspire-one-751h/4507-3121_7-33676887.html ) with 1GB RAM, 1.3 GHz Intel Atom, a SATA disk of 160GB (not sure of the exact speed, but slowish), Intel GMA 500, IIRC Broadcom radio chipset. (I'm not claiming it's a great or powerful machine; and nope, I didn't have a word in choosing that)

    I may not have been entirely clear: I have tried Seven on that thing, as "hey look, new shiny OS, and it works on anything that XP works on! Plus, it's in there already anyway!" Even with all the preinstalled crapware gone (first through uninstall - oops it actually doesn't, you WANT our crapware, neener neener; then through wipe-and-reinstall), and all the bells, whistles, and gongs disabled, the thing was just about capable of running the OS - anything beyond that, and swapping onto the slow harddisk we go!

    Then wiped and went to XP, and whaddayaknow? It's usable, even for a netbook with a gig of RAM.

    (I updated the BIOS to the latest revision, and got the updates and correct drivers in both OSes)

    So, in my (admittedly anecdotal) conclusion: Seven is much, much better than Vista (obXKCD alert!), and much better than XP when on adequate hardware, but claiming "it would work well on anything that XP would" is the same old sales scam that "ready for Vista" was.



  • Right.

    @piskvorr said:

    Then wiped and went to XP, and whaddayaknow? It's usable, even for a netbook with a gig of RAM.
     

    XP runs fine on 128MB RAM, but 256 is preferrable. It's not really noteworthy that it runs with a gig.



  • @dhromed said:

    Right.

    @piskvorr said:

    Then wiped and went to XP, and whaddayaknow? It's usable, even for a netbook with a gig of RAM.
     

    XP runs fine on 128MB RAM, but 256 is preferrable. It's not really noteworthy that it runs with a gig.


    My point exactly.



  • Amazingly, in the HTML5 drafts, the "acronym" tag is deprecated in favor of the less-contested "abbr" tag, instead of the other way around.

    Not that anybody in the real world bothers to attempt using correct semantic markup, though.



  • @piskvorr said:

    Soooo, "it will run on any computer that will run XP (Note: actually, it won't)"?

    The point I was trying to make is any computer you purchase today designed to run XP will also run Windows 7. I mentioned the RAM thing before I figured some pedantic dickweed would come along and go, "nyah nyah XP requires 128 MB and Windows 7 requires 512 MB nyah nyah!!" As we see again and again, I do not have the pedantic dickweed gene, so when I try to throw them off-course, I usually end up doing more harm than good.

    When XP first came out, it was running on computers with 400 mhz CPUs and 128 MB of RAM-- I think it would be unfair to hold Windows 7 to that same standard when even dirt cheap netbooks have 4 times as much resources.

    @piskvorr said:

    Yes, Seven is very impressive in many respects, but that is 100% pure S&M (Sales and Marketing).

    It ran fine on my MSI Wind and HP tx1000. OH SNAP!! I've actually tried Windows 7 on a Netbook AND a low-end tablet! Do you want a spork to eat your words with?

    @piskvorr said:

    "Crawl" would be a more precise word - I kind of need other things to run on the damn netbook besides the OS proper, such as, y'know, applications (le gasp!).

    Go buy a MSI Wind and try it. It works fucking fine. I was running Office 2007, no problems. (Well, startup times were kind of slow, but that's more to the glacial pace of the disk than anything Windows 7 was doing.) Even ran Aero.

    @piskvorr said:

    So, either a) I'm looking at the computer in a wrong way, which magically makes Seven work worse, or b) your claim doesn't hold water.

    Have you actually tried installing Windows 7 on a netbook or low-end tablet? Or are these words being shoveled directly out of your ass?



  • @piskvorr said:

    It was a (2009) Acer Aspire One 751h ( http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/acer-aspire-one-751h/4507-3121_7-33676887.html ) with 1GB RAM, 1.3 GHz Intel Atom, a SATA disk of 160GB (not sure of the exact speed, but slowish), Intel GMA 500, IIRC Broadcom radio chipset. (I'm not claiming it's a great or powerful machine; and nope, I didn't have a word in choosing that)

    Oh snap!

    Those specs are pretty much identical to my MSI Wind.

    @piskvorr said:

    Then wiped and went to XP, and whaddayaknow? It's usable, even for a netbook with a gig of RAM.

    When XP came out (which was, I remind everybody who worships it like a God, a DECADE AGO), nothing had a gig of RAM in it. So... duh?

    @piskvorr said:

    but claiming "it would work well on anything that XP would" is the same old sales scam that "ready for Vista" was.

    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    In any case, you still haven't talked about the tablet case-- Windows 7 netbook features are only marginally better than XPs, but its tablet features are way above and beyond anything XP was doing on tablets. So either way I'm still at least half-right.



  • @Rootbeer said:

    Amazingly, in the HTML5 drafts, the "acronym" tag is deprecated in favor of the less-contested "abbr" tag, instead of the other way around.

    Not that anybody in the real world bothers to attempt using correct semantic markup, though.

    Semantic markup is one of those things the W3C gets obsessed with, but doesn't bother to explain to anybody else why it would be useful, or even what it's for. It's kind of like XHTML in that respect.

    People in the real world don't use it because the W3C doesn't bother telling us why we should. So they'll spend years working on this shit that nobody wants and, shocker, nobody ends up using and, even worse, gets in the way of the real, important, fundamental work they have to do, like fixing the 50 or 60 oversights I find in DOM each week. Much like XHTML kept them so cloistered in their dark markup temples that actual HTML innovation was forced to do their work elsewhere.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    @piskvorr said:
    Soooo, "it will run on any computer that will run XP (Note: actually, it won't)"?

    The point I was trying to make is any computer you purchase today designed to run XP will also run Windows 7. I mentioned the RAM thing before I figured some pedantic dickweed would come along and go, "nyah nyah XP requires 128 MB and Windows 7 requires 512 MB nyah nyah!!" As we see again and again, I do not have the pedantic dickweed gene, so when I try to throw them off-course, I usually end up doing more harm than good.


    Maybe you don't have the dickweed gene. You just can't communicate very well. As you also said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @piskvorr said:
    but claiming "it would work well on anything that XP would" is the same old sales scam that "ready for Vista" was.

    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    Because what you originally said was:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Windows 7 will run on any computer that will run XP. It was slimmed-down to support the netbook market, without sacrificing any of the features Vista added for desktops. (Note: it does require more RAM.) It really is a very, very impressive product

    Now, if you had actually said what you think you said, you would have been correct, although it seems you're really saying: "Anything that you buy today should run 7 just fine." Which, excepting, really stripped down netbooks (though, the example given seems like it's overpowered for XP, so kinda disproves this, anyways, but anecdotes all suck, so who knows) would have been pretty reasonable.

    Alternate hypothesis: Though it was released in 2001, and was the latest OS until 2007, this is too far back for your memory to accurately work, or you're just too unaware to even try to comprehend why XP is still a mainstream OS in regular use.

    In conclusion, why do you get angry at other people for the shit that you get wrong?



  • @boomzilla said:

    In conclusion, why do you get angry at other people for the shit that you get wrong?

    Probably, like many people, he hates ever admitting he was wrong.  It's easily understandable - not all of us can be secure in our manhood or womanhood.

    For what it's worth, my latest laptop has 1G RAM, 1.2GHz processor, and could have shipped with XP (however, I didn't choose that option - nor did I choose Vista or 7.)  I'm actually running it in power-savings mode (800MHz), and it works just fine for most of my needs. Except I need to figure out what's wrong with the monitor settings, because the GUI's so ugly I'm using an older laptop to look at thedailywtf.  But I don't use the GUI for much besides web browsing, so that's not a real urgent issue.



  • @tgape said:

    Probably, like many people, he hates ever admitting he was wrong.

    I don't believe I was wrong, I believe I was nitpicked. There's a difference.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @tgape said:
    Probably, like many people, he hates ever admitting he was wrong.

    I don't believe I was wrong, I believe I was nitpicked. There's a difference.

    There is a difference - one is an understanding error, the other's a communication error.  At least, I find I tend to get nitpicked less frequently if I adopt that kind of attitude, both in my responses and in my thoughts.

    (Sometimes, when one sees oneself as nitpicked, it's merely a potential communication error.  Other times, it's an actual communication error.  It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between those.  Usually, when I complain about stuff you've said, and you respond that I'm nitpicking, it's an actual communication error, as I had not actually understood what you were saying.)



  • @tgape said:

    Usually, when I complain about stuff you've said, and you respond that I'm nitpicking, it's an actual communication error, as I had not actually understood what you were saying.)

    Then instead of complaining, ask clarifying questions.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @tgape said:
    Usually, when I complain about stuff you've said, and you respond that I'm nitpicking, it's an actual communication error, as I had not actually understood what you were saying.)

    Then instead of complaining, ask clarifying questions.

    Either that only works when one does not feel confident with ones understanding of the poster's intent, or that is not a practice that you have not always performed.  I have some (admittedly, vague) recollections of responses you've made to my posts, where you were quite critical of what I had said - but it later became clear that we were actually in agreement with the details; I'd just conveyed myself poorly.

    That having been said, it does tend to be a good practice to follow.


Log in to reply