Windows 8.1

Checkerboard Strangler said:

And by the way, you shouldn't be surprised at folks who rattle out the stuff that beerftw does...:mrgreen:
I belong to a couple of post production forums, one of them is a little more prosumer oriented and I am still reading screeds from people
who see "no reason why they should be forced to upgrade from XP when they can still edit just fine with it" and in the next thread they're bitching about
slow performance when trying to edit H264 media.

Yeah well OF COURSE because it didn't really EXIST when XP existed!!! :2mad: and because XP is a 32 bit OS.
I posted that "32 bit is DEAD in the post world" and boy did I get a rash of hate and discontent hahahaha.

Click to expand...

umm xp was also available in 64 bit,although the drivers sucked because xp used its own driver model while vista after used newer driver models,hence very few drivers were made for xp 64 bit outside of commonly used enterprise computers.

beerftw said:

umm xp was also available in 64 bit,although the drivers sucked because xp used its own driver model while vista after used newer driver models,hence very few drivers were made for xp 64 bit outside of commonly used enterprise computers.

Click to expand...

If you're going to count XP64 then :lamo

What was the installed consumer base on that OS? I think I can count on my hand.
We might as well include Windows NT then, but like XP64 it barely saw ANY installs outside of limited enterprise environments.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

If you're going to count XP64 then :lamo

What was the installed consumer base on that OS? I think I can count on my hand.
We might as well include Windows NT then, but like XP64 it barely saw ANY installs outside of limited enterprise environments.

Click to expand...

Not true!.. I had it installed for a few months, but had too many comparability issues.. this was very early on with XP64.

I'm not saying it didn't have ANY consumer installed base Pete.
We installed it too, and uninstalled it very quickly!
I was saying that it BARELY had any installs out of limited enterprise environments.
I wasn't trying to nitpick about exactly how many, just saying that we would want to count NT in there too if we're counting XP64.
I knew a few home users who tried their hand with NT right before Win2000 came out.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

If you're going to count XP64 then :lamo

What was the installed consumer base on that OS? I think I can count on my hand.
We might as well include Windows NT then, but like XP64 it barely saw ANY installs outside of limited enterprise environments.

Click to expand...

its installer base was enterprise,as until 05 it only ran on ia-64, intel caved and adopted amd's x86-64 platform,which became the universally accepted platform.xp changed in 05 for 64 bit to handle x86-64 platform.in terms of consumer use,it was almost never used,because no one had personal hardware yet to handle it and developers had no plans to release consumer software until hardware was capable of true 64bit.however enterprise has been capable of 64 bit since the 90's,and xp 64 catered to those who needed commercial 64 bit use.

vista catered to the 64 bit consumer market,but was universally rejected as drivers were slow for vista 64 as well,meaning it had limited compatibility,by the time the driver issues were corrected,win 7 was getting ready for release.


fyi ive seen nt installed alot in business back in the day,businesses demanded a true 32 bit os with 16 bit emulation,in which nt was,so it could run dos and dos based windows software,and true nt software.it was good enough it became the base for windows 2000 win xp and all windows after.

beerftw said:

vista catered to the 64 bit consumer market,but was universally rejected as drivers were slow for vista 64 as well,meaning it had limited compatibility,by the time the driver issues were corrected,win 7 was getting ready for release.

Click to expand...

I still HAVE a Vista 64 editing workstation here and it runs wonderfully.
My only real bitch and gripe about it is the stupid WinSXS file which is (holy mother of God) GINORMOUS! (last count almost 24 GB!!)
But it runs trouble free and edits pretty well. I am, for the most part, still happy enough with it that I am unwilling to blow away the Vista install till it craps out on me.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I still HAVE a Vista 64 editing workstation here and it runs wonderfully.
My only real bitch and gripe about it is the stupid WinSXS file which is (holy mother of God) GINORMOUS! (last count almost 24 GB!!)
But it runs trouble free and edits pretty well. I am, for the most part, still happy enough with it that I am unwilling to blow away the Vista install till it craps out on me.

Click to expand...

vista was crap from the getgo,but became decent,alot of people steered away from it because its bad rep early on for bsod before patches fixed them and their terrible support for drivers early on for 64 bit.it was a good enough foundation that win 7 used the same platform,but had such a bad reputation a new os had to be released to recover consumer confidence.it could all have been prevented had ms pushed developers more prior to release to make more 64 bit drivers and maybe done a longer testing period.