Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows 8 bogged down by legacy baggage
- Thread starter *LTD*
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Surely you are hope for such a scenario, for Microsoft to commit business suicide by alienating their OEMs. Believe me, this Kupa tablet will remain 99.999% unknown and do nothing to tarnish Microsoft's image except by people that already hate them and follow things on the internet. There will be high-end, stylish Samsung/HP Windows 8 tablets by summer.
Yep. Because OS X contains no legacy code what so ever.I for one am glad M$ support apps older than 5 years old on their OSs.
they should have supported Rosetta for a bit longer in my opinion. however i do think that a lot of Window's problems stem from their legacy support.
Lion is as bloated, if not more bloated, than Windows 7. So many unnecessary processes running compared to Snow Leopard.
While this "Windows runs with so much unnecessary garbage, security risks, and unnecessary legacy code was true for a long, long time", Windows 7 really took care a lot of it.
I certainly think that there is a lot of room for improvement with Windows, as I think the same for Mac OS X.
I really don't know how Windows 8 is going to turn out. I have no idea. In theory, it should be awesome. A full fledged OS running on either tablets or desktops, able to be installed on ARM processors, etc.
The reason why Microsoft failed with the tablet for so many years was because they were trying to build it to be like a computer. Steve Jobs himself said this at Everything Digital 2010. This led Microsoft to allow manufacturers to slap Windows on a half-baked, heavy, tablet with the x86 architecture (which is extremely energy inefficient) with minimal UI changes.
Instead, what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8 is making an OS that is full-fledged windows, but allowing a switch between a dramatically changed UI for tablets (which has proved very successful for Windows Phone), and full-fledged Windows that everyone knows how to use.
I am not sure how it is actually going to be, though. The biggest thing is supporting two architectures, x86-64 and ARM. This isn't a transition from PPC to x86. This is a coexistence of two architectures at the same time.
My point is: Don't criticize an OS that is in very early betas. Lets see how it plays out.
While this "Windows runs with so much unnecessary garbage, security risks, and unnecessary legacy code was true for a long, long time", Windows 7 really took care a lot of it.
I certainly think that there is a lot of room for improvement with Windows, as I think the same for Mac OS X.
I really don't know how Windows 8 is going to turn out. I have no idea. In theory, it should be awesome. A full fledged OS running on either tablets or desktops, able to be installed on ARM processors, etc.
The reason why Microsoft failed with the tablet for so many years was because they were trying to build it to be like a computer. Steve Jobs himself said this at Everything Digital 2010. This led Microsoft to allow manufacturers to slap Windows on a half-baked, heavy, tablet with the x86 architecture (which is extremely energy inefficient) with minimal UI changes.
Instead, what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8 is making an OS that is full-fledged windows, but allowing a switch between a dramatically changed UI for tablets (which has proved very successful for Windows Phone), and full-fledged Windows that everyone knows how to use.
I am not sure how it is actually going to be, though. The biggest thing is supporting two architectures, x86-64 and ARM. This isn't a transition from PPC to x86. This is a coexistence of two architectures at the same time.
My point is: Don't criticize an OS that is in very early betas. Lets see how it plays out.
Why should they? There is already Apple who trusts in vertical integration. Some people like that, some don't. VI means less hardware and it's always a possibility that a good innovation would be missed, or the company can't offer you a device for your need because their lineup is too simple. A good example is the lack of mid-range tower from Apple. I had to switch back to Windows because I needed/wanted one.
And the Kupa is most likely a prototype anyway. I would be surprised to see it in the shelves of Walmart once W8 goes public.
I think you make a good point. Everyone begs Microsoft to battle Apple by playing in the same fields, but Microsoft has their on path. Why wish for Microsoft to be another Apple?
1. Get copy of latest Linux Kernel source code
2. Strip out all legacy code
3. ????
4. PROFIT
2. Strip out all legacy code
3. ????
4. PROFIT
Last edited:
Wow, now that is the most ignorant comment I've read in my whole life. Bloat is a number of running processes now ?
Let's take a look at my Lion installation :
Code:
$ sudo ps -ef | wc -l
Password:
96Not bad... Let's take a peak at my Linux server :
Code:
# ps -ef | wc -l
192Geez wizz wow! Look at that bloat. God almighty, it must be sooooo slow... thank god this machine is a top of the line computer :
Code:
# cat /proc/cpuinfo /proc/meminfo | egrep "^model name|vendor_id|cpu MHz|MemTotal|MemFree"
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
model name : Pentium II (Deschutes)
cpu MHz : 334.103
MemTotal: 446640 kB
MemFree: 368308 kBYeah, double the number of processes runninng on a 333 Mhz Pentium II with not even 100 MB of RAM in use. Number of processes and bloat sure have something to do with one another...
Then you need to get out more.
And why compare to Linux? Where in this equation were we comparing anything to Linux? The fact is, Lion is way more bloated than Snow Leopard. Memory usage is ridiculous compared to Snow Leopard.
Why not compare to Linux ? Your comment was how Lion was bloated because it had "more processes". More processes don't mean bloat necessarily, that was my point.
And frankly, I have not really seen the difference in memory usage on my MBA going from SL to Lion. Your whole premise of "more processes, so bloated!" was flawed, I simply pointed it out (and it in fact was an ignorant comment).
Not to mention you call those processes unnecessary. Frankly, it's more that you don't know what their use is. Try killing a few and see what it does to your computer.
Last edited:
I wonder what caused the concern over how many processes you were running. For the longest time OS X always had more processes running compared to old Windows XP at stock. Everyone went on how OS X was so bloat free. Did anyone even bother to check the number of processors in both operating systems? Not that it is a real measure of "bloat".
Free RAM has been a persistent one as well. I only have 1426 MB from 12 GB here. BLOAT.
WOW! An OEM is showing off their tablet that's running Windows 8. Because Microsoft is obviously not going to let ANY one else but that OEM even speak the name of Windows 8.
I have a question. Did you read the article at all or did you just google "windows 8 ces" and copy the first post?
If you actually read, you would understand that the company is simply saying that they have Windows 8 on their tablet they're going to show. Microsoft did not say "We're going to represent Windows 8 on this tablet!".
If any old OEM tablet runs Windows 8, it represents Windows 8.
There's a reason OS X is unlicensed. There's a reason Apple disallows just anyone to even touch their product.
I should hope that industry players who take their product seriously move on from the universal-licensing model at some point. It'll cut down on all the garbage.
Which is exactly why Apple went after them. And which is exactly why they're no longer in business.
Hacking OS X to run on unauthorized hardware doesn't count.
Let's apply another situation then (since that "doesn't count", when it does)
Using that same logic, Apple is the poster child of Windows.
And that's also the reason behind Apple's market share, be it bad (like in laptops/desktops) or good (tablets/phones).
Garbage is needed to make better products look good. Otherwise all we have is products. There is no good or bad without competition. If all we had was iPhone 4S and Galaxy Nexus, neither of them would look great (ignoring personal preference toward iOS/Android). It's all the crappy phones that make them better.
Microsoft does well with Windows. Google does well with Android. Why break a successful business model? Just because Apple is very successful with a different model doesn't mean that it would work for them. A new universal-licensing brand would rise and conquer the market sooner than later. These dozens of hardware OEMs wouldn't just sit around and die. They would develop something of their own or use a new universal-licensed brand, e.g. Linux. At least I think it's better to have ~3 major OSs instead of a dozen. Now there is at least some degree of compatibility.
Very well stated. This is a pretty sensible perspective, actually. I can't disagree.
I'm vehemently against horizontal business models, but not necessarily their very existence. Certainly, they do serve a purpose.
Because TonyMacx86 and co blame Apple when Chimera or Driver Injector stops working.
Your Linux server is a mountain!? Where can I get one of these!
There goes Microsoft copying Apple again!
(just kidding – love the b8 blog...)Apple said:
MS said:
There goes Microsoft copying Apple again!
I know you were kidding but it looks a lot closer to ZFS (ZPools) to be honest. I'd like to dig into it more.
Well the more you know.There goes Microsoft copying Apple again!
I know you were kidding but it looks a lot closer to ZFS (ZPools) to be honest. I'd like to dig into it more.
Didn't one of the ZFS engineers end up at Apple?
Because he had standards. Companies that respect their operating system don't license it universally.
Doing so robs you of control at a critical point. Apple is so successful today - and is the most valuable tech company on the planet - because they control the experience from cradle to grave, and do it well. Everything comes down to their business model.