See, I am not the only one that thinks Microsoft's views of what people want is wrong. The article in the link indicates that despite the confusion of most users on what version of Vista they have, and even more going back to Windows XP due to no significant advantage in spending another $200 or so on a newer yet only slightly upgraded version of Windows.
That article and many like it point out something I find quite amazing... OSX has but a single version for 1/2 to 1/4 the price of Windows, often each update, usually about once a year, has more features/fixes than Windows updated versions put in every 3 or so years, and more often they are significant features, not features that should have been in, or missed a version and we waited 6 years for. There's another OS that I believe to be even better than both.. in most ways.. Linux. Specifically I refer to Ubuntu because that is what I have finally moved to. But other flavors of Linux offer similar features. What I particularly like about Linux in general is the almost daily updates that are available be it bug fixes, new features, etc. The linux community is continuously improving on the OS and the various software that comes with it.
So why can't Microsoft try something like this? Microsoft is still by far the dominant OS in the market.. sadly.. I am amazed at how many viruses, bugs, useless features and so on Windows has and yet the mass majority still use it and buy it.. and all because of one word.. familiarity. That one little word is what holds the majority of people from moving to Linux, or even OSX, both vastly superior to Windows in many ways. At the very least.. offer a core OS and allow users to download and install the extra features they want. If OSX can do it and apple is able to figure out how to support it, I am sure MS can do it.
Ah well, I will continue to keep a copy of Windows XP around.. which I run in a VM on my Ubuntu. Oddly enough, it runs darn fast inside a VM! I think that is partly because linux has more performant.. less bloat, than Windows that VMWare, VirtualBox and even Xen can run guest OSes faster than the Windows incarnations of the VM software. Therefore, at least to me, it seems Windows XP runs nearly as fast inside my VM window as it used to on my slightly older computer natively.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Microsoft needs to abandon 32-bit
So last night I was ready to make the plunge.. leave Windows behind and move completely to Ubuntu. I have an old dual-core system running Ubuntu 64-bit, it works great, does everything I need for what I use that computer for. My main machine is a nice quad-core system I built with 4GB ram.. but have thus far stayed on Wndows Vista 32-bit because of some high end audio and video apps I like to use. I've been reading for a few years about more and more high-end audio work being done in linux, I was familiar with GIMP which for the most part can replace Photoshop, and there are a few video editing programs as well. It's really been about the high-end low-latency audio/midi software that ties me to Windows. Well, it finally looked "good enough" to switch to Ubuntu Studio, which bundles Ubuntu 8.10 desktop with some drivers and software for audio multi-tracking, video editing and so forth. To my dismay, after a few hours of trying to install the STudio as well as the regular Desktop version, they just wouldn't boot. I haven't a clue why.. I've installed Ubuntu on a variety of systems with no problems, including an old Windows laptop and even replaced OSX with Ubuntu 8.04 on my Macbook Pro for a while. Only went back to OSX because I wanted to do some iPhone development and I don't want to buy an overpriced intel based Mac for the home.
So, as a "just in case" I had downloaded the Windows 7 64-bit beta. I was not happy that I would have to end up installing this, but I have to admit, to my surprise it went smoothly! It was up and running in < 1 hour. For the most part, it looks a lot like Vista should have been 2 years ago. The tray/bar at the bottom is a total rip-off of Mac OSX... they now include little icons that are flat when not running, and 3D-ish buttoned/raised when running. Like OSX you can drag some programs that stay there when you close them, or when you run programs not there, they show up there, then disappear when you close them. I was really impressed with the ability to try to resolve legacy installation problems. I don't recall seeing this in Vista for Windows XP based apps. Basically, I installed my Roland/Edirol UA-25EX external USB/soundcard using this.. trying first without.. it said it didn't support the OS. When I ran it with a "troubleshoot" mode, it let me indicate that it ran before on Vista.. and went into some Vista compatibility mode. Bam.. it worked! Very nice indeed. Some other software had the same issue.. and now that I think about it, it might have been some 32-bit software that wouldn't install properly. When I open Task Manager, under processes, I now see a number of apps with a (32-bit) by them.. which is also kinda nice to see which apps are still 32-bit and need to be updated.
And that brings me around to this posts subject. When the hell is Microsoft going to grow a pair and say "Hey.. time to move to 64-bit". They need to do two things like yesterday. They need to get on the collective asses of all the software/hardware vendors and tell them to ramp up 64-bit support. Now! As a developer, while I can't say for sure how hard this is, for the most part, having talked to a few friends that build 64-bit software from older 32-bit versions.. it mostly means two things. First is..getting the 64-bit compiler. Second is.. going through the code and making sure 32-bit pointers are switched to 64-bit pointers, and the likes of integers and longs and such using 64-bit values. I am not saying it's easy..but come on.. a search/replace could probably do most of it in minutes.. with the harder ones requiring some work. Ok.. 6 months? It's been 3 years now since 64-bit cpus have been mainstream, and there was an XP-64 bit before that.. and Vista 64 has been out for a couple years. It still suffers the mass majority of hardware devices as well as software not running on it.
I read this somewhere else and it's so true.. users won't switch until more software/hardware works.. and vendors are not interested in converting because the user base is so small and the time involved.. plus supporting 32/64 bit at the same time.
Frankly, I blame this on Microsoft. They could easily control this situation by simply saying, "By this date, we're no longer supporting 32-bit, and as of Vista.. that's it on 32-bit OS. Windows 7 is all 64-bit, period. Start getting your drivers in place, starting fixing your code.. rebrand it, whatever..but recompile it on 64-bit and get it working..because that's it.". BAM! just like that I guarantee a lot of vendors would hop on board. I believe the video cards have gotten on board.. I think there are 32/64 bit drivers for most nvidia/ati video cards. I was actually shocked that Creative Labs has 64-bit drivers not only for Windows, but for Linux for most of its soundcards!!! Fell off the chair on that one.
One of the major problems is memory. 32-bit XP/Vista has an upper limit of 3GB of accessible Ram, even if you put 4GB in. With ongoing support of Windows 7 32-bit..it's going to be a few more years before any push at all is in place to move into 64-bit land for the majority of software/hardware. Yet, honestly, we're already at the 4GB "need" for most people. Unless you're a casual user, there is more and more software that people are using, and pushing the Windows to its end. As an example.. my mom... she isn't a big fan of the computer.. yet she runs a couple of browsers, a music app, has a download going, OpenOffice write open, and maybe a card game up.. and sadly, this is taxing her 2GB on Windows Vista Home. I blame most of this on the OS. Still.. Vista really wants at least 2GB of RAM to be running a few apps, and having that 3GB "limit" makes it smoother for most people. Given that Windows 7 is really an "update" to Windows Vista, I don't suspect that it will require much more.. but also keep in mind that you can buy 2 x 2GB memory chips for about $60! 4GB for $60 is amazingly cheap now! Even with the new DDR3 memory for the new core 7 cpus.. I consider $150 for 6GB of good memory cheap!
Which brings about one more point. The new core 7 has to use 3 chips of memory to really be useful. I hope the marketing people STRONGLY urge you to buy 3 x 1GB chips if you're going to run Windows Vista-32 or Windows 7 32-bit, because you can't use any more. The only other option is to buy 3 x 2GB.. or have 6GB.. of which 3GB is wasted. So.. why not get 64-bit.. which can not only use that full 6GB.. but utilize it to allow a smoother OS. With a quad-core core 7 system with 6GB ram, video/hd, dvd burner, etc costing about $900.. in my book an "entry level" price just a few years ago.. why are we not on a major push/campaign to use 64-bit OS! It wont be long, a year tops before entry level $500 computers are quad cores.. hell, you can buy a dual core 2Ghz system with 2GB ram, dvd burner, 320GB hd, 17" LCD display and a printer for under $550 now! That's freaking amazing.
So.. come on everyone..lets start pushing for pure 64-bit computing. We've had it for years.. we're being held back by Microsoft not pushing the issue on to its vendors.. who are really holding us users back by not supporting it more because us users aren't using it. Aren't catch-22's so much fun!
So, as a "just in case" I had downloaded the Windows 7 64-bit beta. I was not happy that I would have to end up installing this, but I have to admit, to my surprise it went smoothly! It was up and running in < 1 hour. For the most part, it looks a lot like Vista should have been 2 years ago. The tray/bar at the bottom is a total rip-off of Mac OSX... they now include little icons that are flat when not running, and 3D-ish buttoned/raised when running. Like OSX you can drag some programs that stay there when you close them, or when you run programs not there, they show up there, then disappear when you close them. I was really impressed with the ability to try to resolve legacy installation problems. I don't recall seeing this in Vista for Windows XP based apps. Basically, I installed my Roland/Edirol UA-25EX external USB/soundcard using this.. trying first without.. it said it didn't support the OS. When I ran it with a "troubleshoot" mode, it let me indicate that it ran before on Vista.. and went into some Vista compatibility mode. Bam.. it worked! Very nice indeed. Some other software had the same issue.. and now that I think about it, it might have been some 32-bit software that wouldn't install properly. When I open Task Manager, under processes, I now see a number of apps with a (32-bit) by them.. which is also kinda nice to see which apps are still 32-bit and need to be updated.
And that brings me around to this posts subject. When the hell is Microsoft going to grow a pair and say "Hey.. time to move to 64-bit". They need to do two things like yesterday. They need to get on the collective asses of all the software/hardware vendors and tell them to ramp up 64-bit support. Now! As a developer, while I can't say for sure how hard this is, for the most part, having talked to a few friends that build 64-bit software from older 32-bit versions.. it mostly means two things. First is..getting the 64-bit compiler. Second is.. going through the code and making sure 32-bit pointers are switched to 64-bit pointers, and the likes of integers and longs and such using 64-bit values. I am not saying it's easy..but come on.. a search/replace could probably do most of it in minutes.. with the harder ones requiring some work. Ok.. 6 months? It's been 3 years now since 64-bit cpus have been mainstream, and there was an XP-64 bit before that.. and Vista 64 has been out for a couple years. It still suffers the mass majority of hardware devices as well as software not running on it.
I read this somewhere else and it's so true.. users won't switch until more software/hardware works.. and vendors are not interested in converting because the user base is so small and the time involved.. plus supporting 32/64 bit at the same time.
Frankly, I blame this on Microsoft. They could easily control this situation by simply saying, "By this date, we're no longer supporting 32-bit, and as of Vista.. that's it on 32-bit OS. Windows 7 is all 64-bit, period. Start getting your drivers in place, starting fixing your code.. rebrand it, whatever..but recompile it on 64-bit and get it working..because that's it.". BAM! just like that I guarantee a lot of vendors would hop on board. I believe the video cards have gotten on board.. I think there are 32/64 bit drivers for most nvidia/ati video cards. I was actually shocked that Creative Labs has 64-bit drivers not only for Windows, but for Linux for most of its soundcards!!! Fell off the chair on that one.
One of the major problems is memory. 32-bit XP/Vista has an upper limit of 3GB of accessible Ram, even if you put 4GB in. With ongoing support of Windows 7 32-bit..it's going to be a few more years before any push at all is in place to move into 64-bit land for the majority of software/hardware. Yet, honestly, we're already at the 4GB "need" for most people. Unless you're a casual user, there is more and more software that people are using, and pushing the Windows to its end. As an example.. my mom... she isn't a big fan of the computer.. yet she runs a couple of browsers, a music app, has a download going, OpenOffice write open, and maybe a card game up.. and sadly, this is taxing her 2GB on Windows Vista Home. I blame most of this on the OS. Still.. Vista really wants at least 2GB of RAM to be running a few apps, and having that 3GB "limit" makes it smoother for most people. Given that Windows 7 is really an "update" to Windows Vista, I don't suspect that it will require much more.. but also keep in mind that you can buy 2 x 2GB memory chips for about $60! 4GB for $60 is amazingly cheap now! Even with the new DDR3 memory for the new core 7 cpus.. I consider $150 for 6GB of good memory cheap!
Which brings about one more point. The new core 7 has to use 3 chips of memory to really be useful. I hope the marketing people STRONGLY urge you to buy 3 x 1GB chips if you're going to run Windows Vista-32 or Windows 7 32-bit, because you can't use any more. The only other option is to buy 3 x 2GB.. or have 6GB.. of which 3GB is wasted. So.. why not get 64-bit.. which can not only use that full 6GB.. but utilize it to allow a smoother OS. With a quad-core core 7 system with 6GB ram, video/hd, dvd burner, etc costing about $900.. in my book an "entry level" price just a few years ago.. why are we not on a major push/campaign to use 64-bit OS! It wont be long, a year tops before entry level $500 computers are quad cores.. hell, you can buy a dual core 2Ghz system with 2GB ram, dvd burner, 320GB hd, 17" LCD display and a printer for under $550 now! That's freaking amazing.
So.. come on everyone..lets start pushing for pure 64-bit computing. We've had it for years.. we're being held back by Microsoft not pushing the issue on to its vendors.. who are really holding us users back by not supporting it more because us users aren't using it. Aren't catch-22's so much fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
