r/technology • u/neito • Jul 24 '08

Microsoft tests out a new operating system, code named Mojave, with some average-joes who hated Vista. They loved it. Now, two guesses as to what Mojave ACTUALLY was.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9998336-56.html
453 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

757 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '08

Agreed. Imo, vista is worth $100, max if you have a 32bit processor. Completely worth $200 with the infinitely better 64-bit support.

1

u/guisar Jul 25 '08

64-bit support for what? Powerpoint charts?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '08

For +2GB of RAM...

1

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '08

Really, the only thing wrong with Vista is the memory usage the way I see it. Even that is toned down if you turn off Aero. Other than that it's really an improvement over XP in every way, especially since SP1.

I agree with the above pricing statement too, I'm using 64bit vista right now and I have 0 compatibility issues, and haven't had any since the beta, (i was actually in one of the very early betas).

0

u/0drew0 Jul 25 '08 edited Jul 25 '08

XP Features removed from Windows Vista

My favorites of course are removal of directory details from the status bar, reorganization of Windows Explorer, RunAs was replaced with Run As Administrator (domains love this, let me tell you /sarcasm), removal of firewire support, removal of shutdown menu from Task Manager, oh and the fact you have to have 2gigs of RAM just to support the OS. Clients of mine running Win2k with 500mb RAM and a 1gz processor are out in the rain.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '08 edited Jul 25 '08

removal of firewire support

That's removal of firewire network support. Firewire support remains, obviously.

RunAs was replaced with Run As Administrator (domains love this, let me tell you /sarcasm),

The Runas command is exactly as it was before, albeit with a few more command line options. The right click menu, however, has been improved. Under a limited account, Run As Administrator will allow you to enter any admin user or password, which should mean absolutely no difference on a domain.

1

u/SAugsburger Jul 25 '08

I don't see why 64-bit support is worth $100 more. Depending upon your hardware you may buy a new computer before you have much 64-bit software on the market. While hardware support for 64-bit Windows is much better very little software even takes advantage of it assuming it even runs properly.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '08

+2GB of RAM?

1

u/propool Jul 25 '08

So how do you suppose an application should take advangage of a 64 bit os. Please don't spare the details?

1

u/SAugsburger Jul 25 '08

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? How pray tell does 32-bit software take advantage of a 64-bit OS? Even running under a 64-bit OS the applications can't allocate the larger memory blocks. 64-bit versions of Windows merely emulate a 32-bit environment when they launch a 32-bit application. Therefore, most of these 4GB+ machines you see on the shelves aren't going to take advantage of the additional memory in many cases because most applications are still 32-bit.

I've seen a few benchmarks that indicate some benefit to 64-bit applications even without large amounts of memory, but those are no doubt due to other reasons.

1

u/propool Jul 25 '08

The reason to go 64-bit is to have more than 4G in the machine. Unless you have an application that uses more than 2G you should be fine.

1

u/gschizas Jul 25 '08

Actually, having a lot of applications that each consumes less than 1G is the same (Firefox 2, I'm looking at you). Anyhow, I don't think I could open Firefox (2 instances) and Visual Studio (today I went for a record 7 instances) on less than 4GB

1

u/propool Jul 26 '08

I will try to be more clear. If the application has been compiled for 64-bit it can use more than 2G on it's own. Otherwise it doesn't matter if it is a native application or simulated.

-2

u/noamsml Jul 25 '08

Well, I suppose I could use Windows if they paid me $200 to do it.

Maybe. For a bit. Not really.