Would 32bit drivers work with xp 64?

Ever since Vista I've just about entirely lost all trust in Microsoft. They know they can pretty much do whatever, and everyone will upgrade sooner or later, because every single OEM computer manufacturer is lobbied to include the latest version of Windows.

That's why people who can afford to often use Macs; I feel like the majority of idiot computer users, that are also PC owners, simply *don't* maintain their PCs, even if the OS isn't that crappy. They don't care at all, they just allow them to accumulate problems and malware until they're considered "obsolete," at which point they dish out their money for a new PC running a *new* and "improved" version of Windows.

I'm not an Apple lover, either, but Microsoft just really pisses me off. They absolutely suck at design. They absolutely suck at marketing. They assume everyone loves a "simpler" PC, when it's actually just a slightly more retarded one with more limited functionality.

and to append some stuff; Microsoft has always been a bitch of a company, but their products used to be good, back when they were strictly functional, i.e. Win9x or WinNT. They didn't try at all with the design (which was FINE, compared to when they absolutely fail at copying Apple, with their shiny translucent glass effects), it was all focused and to some extent minimalist. Microsoft doesn't, of course, believe in minimalism, but when they do it accidentally, it works. Win2k was a nice OS. WinXP was in many ways worse, less secure, less efficient, and less focused. It was basically NT4.5 sponsored by Teletubbies, with a more welcoming and less secure login screen...

No, 64bit NT needs 64bit drivers.



2000 and XP were fairly on-par security wise when they were the mainstream. I don't see how the welcome screen was at all less secure than the old box. Nor do I see how they copied Apple with Aero Glass; Apple's never really introduced any glassy elements to Aqua.

I would use linux if i didn't need windows to run the games i have here and some of the programs too i use.

Wow.

First of all, like stitch said, 2000 and XP were pretty much the same security wise. XP's flaws got more fame because more people used it.

Take 2000, toss in a couple of elements from ME with a fisher price UI and you've got XP. The core of the OS was the same and just as stable and reliable as 2000. XP was actually better in more than a few ways. Particularly with gaming, and with the later service packs, security.



The problem with your thinking here is that you're approaching this from a geek perspective. The truth is, the average joe (the majority of MS's user base) doesn't want to care about PC maintenance (hell, *I* don't want to care about it). They *do* want a simpler PC. They just want to surf the web, play games, etc. They don't want to know or think about how this mystical, magical computer works.

You've seen those Windows 7 commercials, right? That's not far from the truth, people's feedback for MS is "make it easier to use" well, how? What's particularly difficult? Not easy to figure out. So they approach the problem scientifically by studying eye movements, brain activity, etc. The problem with this is that UI design is not science. It's art. That's something that Apple understands which is why their UI gets praise from the masses while MS's doesn't.

And what all them realize is that the underlying complexity of the OS should be hidden from the end user. Power users know how to get what they want. So the default configurations are kept simplistic to appeal to a wider audience. Apple hides all of the complexity of UNIX from the end user, Microsoft hides the complexity of NT, Ubuntu tries to hide the complexity of Linux.

They all do it, no one is making a geek OS that's complex out of the box. Not anymore. Back in the days when only geeks used computers, it made sense to please them. These days, geeks are the minority, not the majority and the evolution of OS's reflect that. I suggest you make peace with that fact and stop resisting.

stitch: nah you're right the improvements in XP over 2K didn't lessen its security, I suppose XP was actually a legitimately improved OS.

BlueSun: you're right, it's all leaning towards making everything less exposed, which for the vast majority makes a great deal of sense... I guess it's just sort of annoying where devices are being made that have mostly recreational or home use, not for much actual work, i.e. UI's optimized for tablets, and while iOS, etc., can be used for some sort of work, I wouldn't want an actual workstation to be simplified to that extent.

But I'm sure a lot of people do. I'll get used to it eventually

When you say "workstation", what do you actually mean?

Most people in a business environment are only using word processors or web browsers and such.

Very few people are actually doing anything to the OS itself.

Define actual work?

For me, actual work means running an SSH client, an RDP client and a text editor. Find me an OS (tablet and desktop alike) that can't do those things?

I guess I was referring to traditional business-environment work, which to be honest probably could be done from a tablet infrastructure. It's just my bias against tablets that would prevent me from doing such work on them, which at some point I'll get over, when they get cheaper or something. Probably stuff like spreadsheets, formatted text documents, or whatever. That stuff assuredly can be done on a tablet.

I guess what I find limiting is the inability to produce stuff, like edit images, make/draw graphs and stuff, etc., with the same efficiency that I can on a real OS. As a device used to remotely administer other machines, tablets make a lot of sense.

Tablets would almost be cooler as just wireless monitors, that have their own batteries, that work remotely. But most of the time VNC type applications are really slow, even on wLAN, unless you turn the colors down to 4 and have really heavy jpg compression.

Image editing and stuff like that would probably be easier on a tablet. Especially with a stylus. Pros have those drawing tablets that they connect to regular PC's anyway.

And with stuff like OnLive, the technology exists to have a remote desktop experience that's almost as good as sitting in front of the machine itself. I don't know exactly what OnLive uses to accomplish what they do, but I want it.

Windows 8 is not meant as a replacement for 7. Reality check, it's for touch-screen oriented platforms. My opinion here is that 7 as a desktop OS will continue to sell parallel with 8.

Oh regular people will be using Windows 8 as it's going to be preinstalled on the shiny new machines they'll buy. But business are going to be using Windows 7 for probably the next 5 years or so. They'll very likely skip over 8 the way they skipped over Vista.

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if OEMs started offering a downgrade option like they did with Vista.

What do you guys think of the MS Surface they're introducing?

I'll wait until release to judge, but I'm thinking of picking up a real tablet later this year and I haven't yet crossed it off my short list. For what I do with a tablet I could almost certainly get away with the ARM model.

Love the new bsod. It's... different? Admittingly, I've never managed to make any newer version of Windows crash (Windows 7 and later), with the exception of attempting to read an OS/2 formatted hard drive in Windows 7 or using a VB app to kill the system process just to see what happens.

I've never BSOD'd on my current laptop and the last time I had a BSOD on my desktop was after a storm came through and caused some instability with the power in my apartment. I didn't have a UPS at the time and I think my surge protector was on its last legs. Hasn't happened since and that was more than a year ago.

Took a old ide drive with an OS/2 install and hooked it up using a ide to usb converter. Windows 7 recognized it as an ntfs drive ironically, however if you went one directory in, the machine would bsod with the message CACHE_MANAGER. That's been the only time I've seen any machine running vista or later crash on its own.

i actully like that aswell, but hope i will never see it

Out of everything Windows 8 introduced... there happens to be only one main gripe I have. See if you can see it in the screenshot below.

And yes, it's in other default apps.

the integration with the Microsoft media stores?
Yeah, that's pretty low, if you ask me. They already did it on the Xbox, which was predictable and it's their hardware and all, but on Windows... *sigh*

Microsoft stores on a Microsoft OS? Oh the horror! (sarcasm, obviously)

Why is it that people only complain when Microsoft does this stuff? Every other OS has a store of some kind now. Why shouldn't Microsoft?

Please don't say there's Ads everywhere.

That was the whole point of the screenshot. I have no problem with the market stores, but please please please, don't integrate ads, not even if they are for movies in theaters.

I'm not a fan of ads by any stretch, but that one doesn't seem too bad as far as ads go. It's a video / movie app and it's advertising a movie, seems fine to me.

There should be absolutely NO reason whatsoever for ads in *paid* for software