Ballmer: Stay On Windows Xp And You Will Face A Backlash

[Saint_Michael 3]

I found this article ot be a bit interesting and I had written about, but I thought I would give an extended view on it after the word of the Virtual XP not working so well with most computers.

Granted, that adding virtual XP on Windows 7 is a smart move and I bet that perk a lot of interest when RC 1 game out, but after the people tried it out, it would seem that most hardware isn't suitable to run it. However, it is noted that XP was not set up for gamers but rather businesses running custom applications that will only work for XP. So what does this say about Windows 7? Simple, for it to be effective operating system you need to buy yourself a brand new computer with Windows 7 installed, but that computer will either have to be installed with Windows 7 Business or Ultimate as I don't think it will come with Basic or Premium when it goes live.

On that point, it would seem that Windows 7 could pushers users to stick with XP still, unless of course they fix up XP Mode and maybe find away to allow games to run in XP Mode. Of course, we all know Microsoft won't listen on that point.

[serverph 0]

well, microsoft will be widely offering the release candidate of windows 7 for one full year... FREE (from what i've read elsewhere). poor us guinea pigs. surely many will take up this offer, and find a way to make the OS work beyond the free period. it's a release candidate, and whatever virtual XP they have now, and after a year, can we expect a better feature from microsoft on that point? their track record on fixes is not that impressive. a working fix is most likely to come from the net community itself. netizens will definitely work hard on that virtual XP mod for windows 7, and ballmer will scratch his head if sales don't pick up after the official release. as for snagging a new pc just to get a windows 7 to work, not in my immediate plans. i didn't even move to vista yet as XP still is the more stable OS for me. i see early adapters to windows 7 will be those who made their jump and embraced vista fully. they're the ones who have abandoned XP for the flashy vista GUI.

[onscreen 0]

Its entirely up to the processor makers. Intel confirmed that its not hard to have VT included into consumer based processors while AMD have the current range processor ready for VT, the AM2, AM2+ and AM3 based processors.The options now is stick with XP or upgrade your hardware for Windows 7 with Virtual XP.

[Alex Cicala 0]

Recently got new comp, and installed Windows 7. All games that I have installed have worked, except for Stalker: Clear Sky "bummer" so yeah. Even steam works. Also Games that are highly compressed. Argh, when my comp gets slow, Ill just put XP. "Tweaking Heaven" I actually can get XP to run on 26 processes, that's is when Firefox and Photoshop are running, just Excellent. Oh XP I see as lasting another 2 years, that's my prediction

[varalu 0]

I found this article ot be a bit interesting and I had written about, but I thought I would give an extended view on it after the word of the Virtual XP not working so well with most computers.
Granted, that adding virtual XP on Windows 7 is a smart move and I bet that perk a lot of interest when RC 1 game out, but after the people tried it out, it would seem that most hardware isn't suitable to run it. However, it is noted that XP was not set up for gamers but rather businesses running custom applications that will only work for XP. So what does this say about Windows 7? Simple, for it to be effective operating system you need to buy yourself a brand new computer with Windows 7 installed, but that computer will either have to be installed with Windows 7 Business or Ultimate as I don't think it will come with Basic or Premium when it goes live.

On that point, it would seem that Windows 7 could pushers users to stick with XP still, unless of course they fix up XP Mode and maybe find away to allow games to run in XP Mode. Of course, we all know Microsoft won't listen on that point.

The information you have given here is going to be applicable to the final candidate that they will be releasing after a year or just for the one they are releasing for free for an year to anyone who can download and install... because, I guess lot of things can change over the period (which is one year here...) and I am sure only the best is going to be retained, so high chances that Microsoft will yield to users feedback and give them what they want...

So, I am not sure if it is ok to comment on these developments at this point in time... there is a lot of time for us to come to conclusions. Also, I have a hunch that Windows 7 will be a hit, after what Microsoft went through with Windows Vista. I am sure they will be filling in all the gaps left by Vista and add more robust and fast features, which is what users want.

But I do not understand about the Windows XP feature. Why do they have to do it? All they can do is provide virtual PC as a default software in windows 7 and leave it to the users to install whatever software they want. Ya... they are also admirers windows XP.

[georgebaileyster 0]

The whole point here is rather quite simple and complex in terms of the market. Current Windows still requires DOS behind the scenes to function. As well as this, both Windows, Linux and now MAC OS rely on either Intel or AMD processors which have to comply with x86 compatibility standards.The x86 is derived from the original 8086 Intel processor which was released 31 years ago and the OS's have to allow for backwards compatibility on the core of the processors.Now, the issue is, if you simply switch to something completely different, you must simply say 'everyone go and buy new computers and replace all your software you've ever bought'.Its a bit like the conundrum of switching off the analogue TV networks - watch your license fee revenues disappear over night....Torvalds did produce a processor some years back which would run pretty much anything with its built in emulation schemes; it was much quicker than most and used less energy, it was just too far ahead of its time and never really took off.On the subject of Vista, it was always just nothing more than ME, a short term taste of things to come.Time will tell which way they all jump....

Edited May 7, 2009 by georgebaileyster (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

The information you have given here is going to be applicable to the final candidate that they will be releasing after a year or just for the one they are releasing for free for an year to anyone who can download and install... because, I guess lot of things can change over the period (which is one year here...) and I am sure only the best is going to be retained, so high chances that Microsoft will yield to users feedback and give them what they want...

If they're trying to impress us by these releases, i feel they'll have to try harder than what they're doing now. I have installed Windows 7 in VirtualBox: installation alone took up 15.4 gigabytes. I see this as a major regression on Windows' side. Windows XP's system requirements says only 1.5 gigabytes is needed. And going through things in RC 1 (which i doubt much if anything will change, at least visually, by the time of its "stable" release) shows me that there's nothing special about the system. The only thing i find slightly interesting is how you can drag the window to the edge of the screen and, depending on which edge you touch, the window will either maximize the window (top edge), maximize with half the desktop width to the left (left edge), or the same as the left edge but to the right (right edge). I'm a little (though almost fully) convinced that the only reason anyone would purchase this beast is because of Mircosoft's monopoly.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Odds are the chip makers were on a gamble on Windows 7 especially with the virtual XP and so odds are they had to see what would happen when XP mode ran. Now that they know that a lot of their computers won't work, they will have to produce new chips, but the problem will be for laptop users who would have to get a new computer. As for desktops it, it will be a pain in the butt, because they don't know how much they have to replace in terms of hard in order to get the processor to work properly. So far, it would seem that at most you would have to replace the processor, motherboard and upgrade to larger amount of Ram to XP mode to work.As for the actual specs, I was right on one aspect, you need to have Win 7 Professional, Win 7 Business or Win 7 Ultimate to run XP Mode. Now I know that the US is only getting those three versions and so some people should relieve that they don't have to get Ultimate to get all the features unless they want Ultimate.