PC sales Suffer Biggest Slump in years

Originally Posted by Katsunami

My primairy command line shell on Windows is Cygwin. So, shoot me

Yes; I actually prefer a Unix-type shell over Powershell, as I know much more about Unix-type shells than I do about Powershell. I just prefer the Unix command line over the ones in Windows since I encountered Cygwin in 1999.

It sounds like we're in agreement for similar reasons. Powershell appears to be an amazing tool, but Microsoft let its predecessor stagnate for far to long while Unix was steadily improving and Apple was working on analagous tools for their GUI (i.e. AppleScript). I suspect that led Microsoft to go a wee bit overboard on their new shell, and create something that relatively few people have the background to use effectively.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

It sounds like we're in agreement for similar reasons. Powershell appears to be an amazing tool, but Microsoft let its predecessor stagnate for far to long while Unix was steadily improving and Apple was working on analagous tools for their GUI (i.e. AppleScript). I suspect that led Microsoft to go a wee bit overboard on their new shell, and create something that relatively few people have the background to use effectively.

Powershell's name is no joke. I've studied it superficially, and it really *is* powerful. Actually, it seems to be a complete programming environment. As far as I was able to see, it probably at least matches, maybe even exceeds the common shells you care to use on Unix.

From 1996 to the beginning of 1999, I had to work with the DOS BAT-scripts (thank god for 4NT... which made it a bit better), while I came from OS/2. It included a very powerful CMD-shell and the scripting language REXX. I was shocked to find out that Windows NT's "CMD.exe" was no better than DOS's, and that it had nothing to do with the highly powerful "CMD.exe" in OS/2. Cygwin did and does all I need and I was in heaven after discovering it in 1999.

At the time Powershell came along, I didn't need it anymore. Maybe, one day, I may need it if I want to script Windows-specific stuff.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Powershell's name is no joke. I've studied it superficially, and it really *is* powerful. Actually, it seems to be a complete programming environment. As far as I was able to see, it probably at least matches, maybe even exceeds the common shells you care to use on Unix.

From 1996 to the beginning of 1999, I had to work with the DOS BAT-scripts (thank god for 4NT... which made it a bit better), while I came from OS/2. It included a very powerful CMD-shell and the scripting language REXX. I was shocked to find out that Windows NT's "CMD.exe" was no better than DOS's, and that it had nothing to do with the highly powerful "CMD.exe" in OS/2. Cygwin did and does all I need and I was in heaven after discovering it in 1999.

At the time Powershell came along, I didn't need it anymore. Maybe, one day, I may need it if I want to script Windows-specific stuff.

REXX was a mainframe port - from VM/CMS / MVS/Z-OZ world...

I have the mainframe manuals around here somewhere...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Y

That's no problem. I run Windows software back to 1998 without any problems. Baldur's Gate from 1998 is the oldest piece of Windows software I run, and except for some compatibility settings, it doesn't make a fuss. That game was written for DirectX 6 on Windows 98, and it now runs on DirectX 9 (installed alongside 11) on Windows 7 x64.

I run many programs and games created between 1998 and 2012 on this same computer, directly in Windows 7 x64. The OS provides at least 15 years of compatibility.

If I need or want anything that's even older than 1998, such as a DOS-program or game, then I run it in DOSBox, or if I really need to in case of 16-bit Win3x program or some stuff that *REALLY* doesn't want to run, then I pull out a Virtual Machine running FreeDOS / MS-DOS and Windows 3.11 or Windows 98. That hasn't happened lately as I don't use any Windows 3.x software anymore, and everything else I have runs either directly in Windows 7 x64, or in DOSBox.

Try running Word 97 under Windows 7 x 64. Or PowerDVD 5 (it'll run, and corrupt your boot record because of direct reads/writes based upon the XP boot record. 20 movies and you have to reflash your x 64 system.) Or other obscure 16 bit software written for Windows 3.1 or 95. Microsoft <could> have ported it's 16 bit emulator, but it chose to force people to abandon old software (for their profit).

Now I can run those pieces of software on Oracle's Virtualbox with no problem (PowerDVD has a problem with speed, but I run it on a first gen Atom chip, I suspect a i5 or i7 would have no problem). But why should I <PAY> Microsoft, over and over again, to run my paid for software (a new OS every few years at a few hundred dollars a pop, that you have to phone in to activate...and relearn the interface just because somebody thinks it's slick)

Give me a Linux base machine and Virtualbox for my XP machine. No phone home, no perpetually relearning an interface...(unless I <want> to.)

Best of both worlds.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Give me a Linux base machine and Virtualbox for my XP machine. No phone home, no perpetually relearning an interface...(unless I <want> to.)

Best of both worlds.

Except if you need to run software that can't run in a VM, or needs things that XP does not support... you could of course upgrade your Windows once every 10 years or so. I fully intend to run this very Windows 7 x64 up to 2020 and beyond, on this very computer. It's perfectly possible to run a Windows version that long because it's supported for that timespan. And it'll also run VirtualBox for XP, and any Linux distribution you want.

On a new computer, buying Windows as OEM software, it is much cheaper than retail. I can spare a €120 every 5-10 years or so to keep up to date...

The point I do agree with, is changing the GUI because someone thinks it should change, with the sole reason of it being 3 years old. That's stupid.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Try running ...

In the case of software that should run but doesn't, you should blame the developer rather than Microsoft. Microsoft is usually clear about what won't be supported in future releases of Windows. Unfortunately, some developers do it anyway. As for dropping 16-bit software support in 64-bit versions of Windows, I suspect that the number of people running 20 year old software is rather small. There comes a time when we must recognize that the return on investment too small for Microsoft to continue offering support. In those cases we are usually stuck finding third-party solutions and even paying for it on our own.

I do agree with the relearning the interface bit though, yet even then I have to acknowledge that Microsoft has very little choice here. It is very difficult for them to sell a product based upon it's technical features to an audience that doesn't understand those features.

[Katsunami]

The funny thing I always hear is: "But Windows XP was done. I don't need anything else."

Until they start working with Windows 7 (or worked with Vista, on a computer that actually was capable of running it, instead of trying it on a P4 from 2002). Then it becomes very hard to return to Windows XP.

Windows 2000, and later XP (since Service Pack 2) have served me well, but nowadays, I just *refuse* to help people install Win2K or XP on a new computer, if they don't have a *very* good reason to want that. And "No, I hate every piece of software released after 2001" is not a good reason.

Try *installing* XP. On some systems with simple mainboards and quite some notebooks, it's not even possible, because there are no XP SATA-drivers anymore, and the BIOS doesn't have a setting to disable SATA/AHCI-mode. A notebook designed for Windows 7 may not have XP drivers available for many hardware components.

If the only reason is that one needs to run an old piece of business software or something, my recommendation is to use Windows 7 Professional, and then install its WinXP mode. It provides a Windows XP virtual machine, integrated into Windows 7, capable of running basically everything except 3D games.

===

After Windows XP runs out of support, after 13 years, we'll see an increase in PC sales, as companies will finally *have* to replace many old systems. They'll actually need to replace new systems. Some companies buy *new* systems (in 2012-2013....) that have trouble keeping up with my more than 5 year old computer (which, by the way, was upgraded in place, from Vista x64 to Win7 x64, and it still runs. First, and only installation).

Oh, the quad i5 CPU's are okayish, but if there's only 2GB RAM, and a 5400 RPM HDD, even when running XP, it just feels slow. My old computer boasting 8GB of RAM and an SSD, combined with Win7's much better and less conservative caching algorithms will still pound it into dust.

Maybe my old system is not as fast for brute calculation, but the memory, SSD, and Windows 7 x64 make it much faster to work with all around, compared to many low-end systems being sold today. (No SSD, 4GB or less memory, god forbid... 32-bit Win7.)

Basically, I don't actually need or replace this old bugger until I start running out of calculation capacity regularly.

I'm perfectly fine with someone keeping an old PC and continuing to run XP, but have to chuckle at the people who think that it's faster than a new OS on new hardware because it uses fewer resources. The thing is, your hardware isn't truly fully supported even if the vendor provides the latest drivers. XP was designed for Pentium era hardware. For example: it does not take advantage of improvements in CPU architecture. Heck, it doesn't even take advantage of the copious amounts of RAM we have these days since it had to use more conservative algorithms for older hardware. Even things like the GPU isn't fully used by the Windows itself, even though applications have access to it.

Old OS, old hardware: fine. Old OS, new hardware: it's your choice, but don't expect it to be any better.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I'm perfectly fine with someone keeping an old PC and continuing to run XP...

I'll definitely be keeping this Windows 7 PC to run all games up until 2012. My next PC, which will probably be bought in 2014-2015, will actually also run Windows 7 (I still have an available license), and largely the same software. In addition, it'll run games released after 2012.

In 2020, after Windows 7 goes out of support, that PC will also retire, and then I'll see what is best to do. Linux, with a virutal Windows? Windows 9.2? Don't know. But I'll probably skip Windows 8.x on my desktop.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I'm perfectly fine with someone keeping an old PC and continuing to run XP, but have to chuckle at the people who think that it's faster than a new OS on new hardware because it uses fewer resources.

"Faster at doing what" is the question that should be asked.

A low-power, "instant on" tablet, is indeed a "faster" device for note-taking than the latest all-singing, all-dancing notebook that takes 2 minutes to boot up, if note-taking is what you use the device for.

[Katsunami]

What BWinmill means, is that there are a lot of people who think that Windows XP runs faster because it uses less resources of the computer.

Many people find it a good thing, if the operating system doesn't use any resources. They want the memory to be empty. They don't want it to use the graphics card to draw onto the screen. They don't want it to use the CPU. They think "using less resources" is the same as "running faster because the computer has more time for other things".

That's stupid. Resource usage is not the only thing that determines software speed.

It's the same as saying that BubbleSort is faster than a multithreaded version of QuickSort because BubbleSort is a shorter and simpler algorithm, and uses less CPU power and less memory. It just doesn't work that way.

QuickSort is magnitudes faster than BubbleSort because it's more efficient (despite it being a more complicated algorithm), and a multithreaded version is even faster than that.

But there is an if; a big one.

This is only true *IF* you have the hardware to support that high-powered multithreaded QuickSort software that can use 2GB of RAM.

If you run a multithreaded version of QuickSort that uses loads and loads of RAM on an underpowered single core computer that only has 16MB of RAM, causing it to swap to the drive like an idiot (and a very slow hard drive at that), then yes; the inefficient BubbleSort using 1MB of RAM that doesn't need to swap may actually be faster on that computer.

Then run both algorithms on a current-day quad core computer, offer the algorithms 2GB of RAM, and see how the much more resource-intensive QuickSort blows BubbleSort out of the water. The simple BubbleSort still only uses one CPU core, it still only uses 1MB or RAM, so it's sped up only by the increase in speed of that CPU core, and that's it.

Even better... add graphics card acceleration support to QuickSort (some graphics cards already have over 1000 stream processor cores), thereby making it even more complicated and using even more resources of a modern computer, and then see how it obliterates everything under the sun.

It's the same between Windows XP and Windows Vista (and even more so, 7). If you run XP and Vista or 7 on a PC from 2002, XP will actually be faster. It's what many people did, with Vista, in 2006-2007, causing it to receive the badge of "being slow". (The fact that the driver model changed between XP and Vista, and many manufacturers ignored that up until the very latest bèta version, not being ready with their drivers at launch, is an entirely different matter.)

In the beginning of 2007, many people ran Windows Vista on old hardware for which the OS was not designed. The hardware needed to support Vista was still too high-end to be in most people's home. When 7 came along in the end of 2009, which basically is just an optimized Vista, the required hardware had become standard fare.

As soon as you bring in a multicore computer with enough memory and a good graphics card, then Windows 7 starts to overtake XP because of the fact that it can use stuff that XP can't: better management of large quantities of memory, more memory for caching, more memory per application (if comparing Win7 64-bit to XP 32-bit; almost nobody uses XP 64-bit), graphics hardware acceleration, better support for multicore, better support for hyperthreading, better support for USB3, SATA II / III, and SSD's.

The more powerful your PC becomes, and the heavier and more demanding the software is that you run, the more Windows 7 will overtake Windows XP despite it being a bigger an more resource-intensive OS.

I *want* my OS to use all the sources of the PC as much as possible. Stuff the RAM, use teh graphics card to draw, and so on. The OS is smart enough nowadays to give everything such as memory to an application that wants or needs it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

What BWinmill means, is that there are a lot of people who think that Windows XP runs faster because it uses less resources of the computer.

Many people find it a good thing, if the operating system doesn't use any resources. They want the memory to be empty. They don't want it to use the graphics card to draw onto the screen. They don't want it to use the CPU. They think "using less resources" is the same as "running faster because the computer has more time for other things".

That's stupid. Resource usage is not the only thing that determines software speed.

It's the same as saying that BubbleSort is faster than a multithreaded version of QuickSort because BubbleSort is a shorter and simpler algorithm, and uses less CPU power and less memory. It just doesn't work that way.

QuickSort is magnitudes faster than BubbleSort because it's more efficient (despite it being a more complicated algorithm), and a multithreaded version is even faster than that.

But there is an if; a big one.

This is only true *IF* you have the hardware to support that high-powered multithreaded QuickSort software that can use 2GB of RAM.

If you run a multithreaded version of QuickSort that uses loads and loads of RAM on an underpowered single core computer that only has 16MB of RAM, causing it to swap to the drive like an idiot (and a very slow hard drive at that), then yes; the inefficient BubbleSort using 1MB of RAM that doesn't need to swap may actually be faster on that computer.

Then run both algorithms on a current-day quad core computer, offer the algorithms 2GB of RAM, and see how the much more resource-intensive QuickSort blows BubbleSort out of the water. The simple BubbleSort still only uses one CPU core, it still only uses 1MB or RAM, so it's sped up only by the increase in speed of that CPU core, and that's it.

Even better... add graphics card acceleration support to QuickSort (some graphics cards already have over 1000 stream processor cores), thereby making it even more complicated and using even more resources of a modern computer, and then see how it obliterates everything under the sun.

It's the same between Windows XP and Windows Vista (and even more so, 7). If you run XP and Vista or 7 on a PC from 2002, XP will actually be faster. It's what many people did, with Vista, in 2006-2007, causing it to receive the badge of "being slow". (The fact that the driver model changed between XP and Vista, and many manufacturers ignored that up until the very latest bèta version, not being ready with their drivers at launch, is an entirely different matter.)

In the beginning of 2007, many people ran Windows Vista on old hardware for which the OS was not designed. The hardware needed to support Vista was still too high-end to be in most people's home. When 7 came along in the end of 2009, which basically is just an optimized Vista, the required hardware had become standard fare.

As soon as you bring in a multicore computer with enough memory and a good graphics card, then Windows 7 starts to overtake XP because of the fact that it can use stuff that XP can't: better management of large quantities of memory, more memory for caching, more memory per application (if comparing Win7 64-bit to XP 32-bit; almost nobody uses XP 64-bit), graphics hardware acceleration, better support for multicore, better support for hyperthreading, better support for USB3, SATA II / III, and SSD's.

The more powerful your PC becomes, and the heavier and more demanding the software is that you run, the more Windows 7 will overtake Windows XP despite it being a bigger an more resource-intensive OS.

I *want* my OS to use all the sources of the PC as much as possible. Stuff the RAM, use teh graphics card to draw, and so on. The OS is smart enough nowadays to give everything such as memory to an application that wants or needs it.

This where we part ways. I am not interested in machine efficiency, per se. I am interested in economic efficiency. Once I have a piece of software that does exactly what I want, I see no reason to pay for an upgrade. As long as when I need to buy a new machine, usually due to the complete failure of an old machine, but sometimes because I want to buy a new piece of software to handle a new need; I see no reason to scrap the old, working software I currently use.

Using Word 97 (16 bit) as an example. It does everything I have ever needed in a word processor. So why upgrade to (and pay for!) - Words 2000, 2002, 2007, 2010, and now pay for a cloud based subscription (billed for every month!!!), just to stay current with the latest hardware? That's around $400 USD for upgrades, plus subscription.

But MicroSoft chose to force me to upgrade, by dropping 16 bit emulation. A clear choice to milk me of money. Nothing else. I don't need multi-threading for a program that would run happily on a 200 MHz 486.

Now, a few programs have to "keep up with the times" - Web Browsers, programs that interface with external hardware, ect. But that's is very little of my usage. And since that is very little of my usage, why should I pay money for that, when I can get it for free (Linux)?

Now if I wanted to run the latest photo-realistic games, Photoshop, do video editing, or other CPU/GPU intensive computing, I'd need new OS/software, and would pay without a quibble. But I don't. Shucks, I run Atari 800 software under an emulator. I guarantee you it wouldn't know a multi thread from a frog. Or DOSBox. Silent Service II is not copy-protected and paid for.

Now I do have a need for a hardware upgrade. I currently run twin Acer Revo 1600s, which run on an Atom 230. (Yep, single core, 1.6 GHz, no GPU, super pokeys). I upgraded the RAM and HD when I bought them, so they cost around $350 USD each, and everything runs happily under XP. But I like a video playback program called PowerDVD 5.0. I doesn't have enough horsepower to upscale to 1080P with an Atom 230 chip. I can live with that. It won't run under Windows 7 (it corrupts the new Win 7 boot sector) so I won't go with Windows 7.

What happens when XP won't active someday? Well....XP under a virtual machine never has to activated, once you activate the virtual machine the first time. You can copy it to any virtual machine you want. Good. I can run my old software on my virtual machine until the cows come home. However...PowerDVD has a problem. It'll run, but it doesn't get enough cycles to show smooth video - at least on an Atom 230 - under a virtual machine.

So...I can buy an Intel NUC with an i5-3437U for $400 USD (bare bones, which I prefer). It has a single core passmark of 10x+ over my little Atom. Now whether it'll actually do the job (of running PowerDVD 5.0 under a virtual machine), I don't know. But it might be worth a try. (Yes, I know about VLC, XBMC, ect. I haven't found one with a user interface I like.)

So this is the other side of the coin. Software is immortal, as long as there is a machine that can execute the instruction set. Why buy something that can last for a lifetime+ and throw it away every 3 years? So say I.

(Or maybe I won't bother. Since the only sticking point is PowerDVD, maybe I just buy one of these tiny little stand-alone video players, at $40 USD, and no even bother with the computer...Hmmm....)

[frahse]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Faster at doing what" is the question that should be asked.

A low-power, "instant on" tablet, is indeed a "faster" device for note-taking than the latest all-singing, all-dancing notebook that takes 2 minutes to boot up, if note-taking is what you use the device for.

My wife has a big desktop at work, and a powerful laptop at home. Those could do all the above, plus ride horses, muck the stables, and move the cannon at Waterloo as well as Napoleon.

She had tried tablets but felt stymied with the input unless adding wireless keyboard and mouse.

We just got her a Acer C7 chromebook, 11.6 inch, 4GB RAM, 320GB HDD which is very small, handy, has a good keyboard and I got her a cute small travel mouse from verbatim that came in a red color. She is delighted. Doesn't lug the big laptop up to church or over to a friends house if they are working on those tasks that ladies seem to love and gravitate toward.

Frankly I am tempted. I did set up myself an account on the device.

For $219 for the chromebook and about $10 for the travel mouse that won't make a dent in the PC sales even if it counts as a PC, but these things are the wave of the future.

I will say this now that I have tried out the device.
Chromebooks will be a big success. They will basically take over the netbook market (have done it mostly already) and cut into the both the regular laptop market and the tablet markets.

[Rob Lister]

I bought and returned a chrome book. It was just too restrictive for me. I like chrome but the chromebook felt like a too-cheap toy. The video was jittery, jerky and intolerably flawed; that's a primary reason I bought it. I liked the formfactor too. But for a 100 more I could have a full blown laptop. So I did. I don't blame google too much for that. The potential is there but samsung underplayed it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Faster at doing what" is the question that should be asked.

A low-power, "instant on" tablet, is indeed a "faster" device for note-taking than the latest all-singing, all-dancing notebook that takes 2 minutes to boot up, if note-taking is what you use the device for.

Actually the latest PCs are "instant on", as fast as a phone or tablet.