7 different versions of Windows VISTA

[amdnVuser]

I still cannot see the reasoning behind the Starter Editions. I mean, if you're running a pirated copy of Windows and you're receiving critical updates, then who gives a sheet about all the OS component updates that only genuine licenses can receive. Why pay for less functionality? As an owner of a genuine license, I'm actually extremely pissed that users with pirated copies are able to receive critical patches. I say let those fockers' machines get cracked wide open.

If M$ really wants to curb and deter piracy, they need to cut off critical updates to pirate copies. It's not like critical updates are really stopping or slowing down the spread of malware (which is their justification for providing everyone with critical updates). Most end users can't even comprehend what critical updates are. Their IT dept. at work (hopefully) puts their workstation on a domain controller that updates Windows and their AV software, and everything is transparent to the end user. At home, they're on their own and don't really have the time or the will to learn about security, spyware, viruses, malware, etc.

Anyway, piracy is a longterm issue that's just going to steadily eat away their profits, and Office, the XBox 360, MSN Search, and keyboards and mice aren't going to compensate for Windows revenue.

 

[scottish144]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: scottish144
Comps without a dual core would still be at least 1.5x faster. As far as the CPU goes, that turns an A64 4000+ into a A64 6000+!!!!!

do you really believe that??

Mabe the rating # is wrong, but as far as being 1.5x faster, yes; as long as the software is optimized for 64-bit.

 

[acemcmac]

fvck that. I don't pay for limmited versions of ANYTHING. If I can't afford a full blown version of Vista, I'll either pirate it or not use it.

 

[spyordie007]

If I can't afford a full blown version of Vista, I'll either pirate it or not use it.

Sounds like you already have the answer. Quit complianing and either buy something you want to use or dont use it at all.

Your lack of financial resources and education is hardly a resonable justification for stealing.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: spyordie007Your lack of financial resources and education is hardly a resonable justification for stealing.

While I don't really understand what you're saying, and I can't afford to pay for further advice, I'll have to take your's!

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
There will be 7 main editions, then there will be 32 and 64 bit editions, so that's 14 versions. Then they'll also have to have their N, no media, versions of those. So we are looking at 28 flavors of Windows Vista, and that's just to start with.

What happens when new technologies come out, or MS decides they need so new market angle? We'll get even more versions. Like with Windows Media edition, and Windows 64. By the time they make their next new operating system Windows will have 101 flavors.

They don't actually have to make 'N' versions of each of the seven versions listed here do they? I thought the point was just that they had to offer at least one version that didn't come with wmp.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: scottish144

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: scottish144
Comps without a dual core would still be at least 1.5x faster. As far as the CPU goes, that turns an A64 4000+ into a A64 6000+!!!!!

do you really believe that??

Mabe the rating # is wrong, but as far as being 1.5x faster, yes; as long as the software is optimized for 64-bit.

With Linux native games going from legacy 32bit to 64bit on AMD64 archatectures show a modest performance gain of 5-10% or so. Probably due to the nature of the CPU itself, it's better at 'native' mode vs 'legacy'. So you get a bit of a performance gain in that.

With dual core you won't get the game much faster then on a single core since all current games are single threaded and multithreaded programming is significantly more expensive and difficult. It will exponentially increase the cost of game programming over single threaded.

However when playing a game you have a lot more going on then just the game. By the nature of operating system's (er..) sub-systems and hardware that offloads work onto the cpu the second cpu will come in handy. For instance IDE/SATA controllers have always cased disk I/O to consume CPU resources, some types of file transfers will still eat 100% time on a normal single cpu computer when at full speed. Also you have sound cards that use cpu time. Also network cards and TCP/IP consume cpu resources. So even with single-threaded games you will see a modest improvment with multiple cores... Maybe another 5-15% depending on hardware and drivers.

So at most you may see a 15-20% improvement in performance all things being equal. More then likely around 10%. I'd be very suprised to see a 50% improvement in performance.

However with multitasking, say if you want to rip a cd while playing a game or a virus scanner kicks in, that will be helped a lot with multiple cores.