Windows 8 Upgrade for 7, Vista & XP

Ghey. Maybe I'll just save some money for a better computer instead.

 

This thread reminded me of this pic I saw somewhere a while back...

 

If this pattern stays accurate, I'll be going from a shit OS to a newer shit OS. For $40 though, it's worth a gamble to get rid of Vista.

 

This is where a little bit of understanding goes. If you have a 32 bit SYSTEM, then you will get nothing out of a 64 bit OS. The system needs to be able to make use of the 64 bit programming. If your main board has a 32 bit processor, you will see no change at all. If your board has a 64 bit processor, then you will possibly notice a change, depending on what you are doing. heavy gaming you will notice a change, and heavy number crunching (spreadsheets, autocad, etc) you will notice. But if all you do is browse the internet and play solitaire, then you won't really notice. The key here is if your system is a 64 bit system, then I would consider the upgrade. If not, wait until you build or buy your next system.

Funny thing, a lot of people don't know that Vista was actually never meant to exist. When Mac came out with OS10, Microsoft knew that it was going to be in trouble, because their new OS was not completed yet. Their only hope? Package what they could before they saw losses in profit. So they took Windows 7, which was not completed yet, and packaged it up and called it Vista. The insider joke was that they were on the "vista" of the next generation OS, just not over the mountain yet. So they packaged what they could, then continued to build W7. In the mean time they had a group of programmers who would take what was being worked on and helped get it revised into "service packs" to deal with the problems they had in Vista.

 

This confuses me.... A 32 bit processor will not support a 64 bit OS installation... I haven't tried it myself I guess... But I would assume it would bluescreen during install.

 

True... Unlikely to happen now though.. most personal computer CPUs have been 64 bit capable since 2003-2004 (for mainstream home users PCs). I suppose if someone dusted off their old P3 or P4 system and tried to install a 64 bit os, they wouldn't have much luck.

 

So if I finally install my 386 motherboard someone gave me, I'm out of luck for Windows 8?

On a serious note, I was thinking I wanted to upgrade, but because this is a "one size fits all" for all devices, I worry it's a step backwards for desktop/laptop applications.

 

This is why I wait a half year or more til I try new versions of windows, certain applications might not work off the start, you could run a virtual machine running win7 or vista if you do go win8 and something does'nt run right with it.

 

It's not like the iphone/ipad architecture. It's just the user interface that's common. It's supposed to give you a common look and feel. The apps will still have to be compiled to the particular architecture type. The processor in a phone is not the same as that of a full computer. So you won't be downloading a phone app and running it natively on your computer. Without an emulator, you'll still have to have an app built separately that will run on the computer.

 

True, but my thought is (potentially) they are either going to have an ideal platform, with an interface that is cross platform (like websites that are built and optimized for desktops, but work okay on other platforms), or it's going to be filled with bloat so it works for everything, unless there is an option to install specific to your application, and not install the other parts. I'd be afraid that the common parts are bloated. I'm still cautiously optimistic, though. MS isn't know for efficient development. I think it was XP that used more than double the amount of memory and disk space because everyone had it, so no need to make tight code. That being said, I love 7, and I feel that the PC vs Apple race is pretty much neck and neck regarding which is better.