| Author |
Message |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 748
Location: ct
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jacky wrote: |
Windows is in use everywhere worldwide. They can't just roll out everything at once, there's the risk that all Windows PC worldwide starts malfunctioning if they screw up and people have to start coming up with 3rd-party patches and stuff.
They did it with Vista, they made several new changes at once, see what happened in the end. |
Windows main problem is the attempt to carry support for all old software. Making several new changes at once is not a problem. If I am about to pay a couple hundred dollars for an operating system, it better have more then one thing different then the previous version |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Myst
Lifeless Person
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 1008
Location: Somewhere else
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: | | Jacky wrote: |
Windows is in use everywhere worldwide. They can't just roll out everything at once, there's the risk that all Windows PC worldwide starts malfunctioning if they screw up and people have to start coming up with 3rd-party patches and stuff.
They did it with Vista, they made several new changes at once, see what happened in the end. |
Windows main problem is the attempt to carry support for all old software. Making several new changes at once is not a problem. If I am about to pay a couple hundred dollars for an operating system, it better have more then one thing different then the previous version |
It's true. And Microsoft are a little stuck by this. Can you imagine the problems if $50 000 CAD and FEA packages stop working on the latest version of Windows? How about old software that's been running in business for 10s of years? Add onto that the bad publicity, and you have an OS that has a worse reputation than Vista, even if it's the most magnificent piece of coding since Unix.
It's similar to Intel chips. Their CISC architecture used is now widely known as being less efficient than RISC chips, yet they cannot change it, for the simple reason that absolutely no current home PC software will run on it. A computer without software is pretty much useless.
But yeah, Windows has it's problems, just like anything else. But most of the time, it works well enough to be useful for most of the population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Myst, CAD software designed for XP won't run on vista and if it runs it won't run all that great either. For complex high end applications the backwards support of vista is plain terrible.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 748
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Myst, CAD software designed for XP won't run on vista and if it runs it won't run all that great either. For complex high end applications the backwards support of vista is plain terrible. |
I've heard this but yet to actually see proof of it. It probably is why Microsoft kept pushing back the windows xp business deal. I just set up a dell shipped with xp for a church because 1 piece of software was still needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Myst
Lifeless Person
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 1008
Location: Somewhere else
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Myst, CAD software designed for XP won't run on vista and if it runs it won't run all that great either. For complex high end applications the backwards support of vista is plain terrible. |
I see your point, but the difference between "Doesn't run at all" and "runs poorly" is massive. It's infinitely better (if you try to divide by zero and all).
Despite this, 'running poorly' can be generally be fixed by upgrading hardware. Upgrading hardware within a business (presumably) is probably not that big a deal, especially those that can afford the $50k licenses (after all, what's another $2k on $50k?). On top of that, most CAD software packages have yearly or half-yearly updates anyway. I'd say that all have probably developed a fix for any XP -> Vista problems by now (and if they haven't they're stupid).
And finally, I haven't heard of any of these problems either, so my arguments may well be redundant  |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Running poorly has nothing to do with the hardware Myst. Vista its memory management is totally inefficient, a lot of these applications their speed is totally dependent on an efficient memory management model. Simply making every application think it has access to the entire memory doesn't increase efficiency. Only makes it harder to exploit. Additionally vista wants to prefetch things, this gets rather nasty with big CAD software as it won't be able to fit even 1/5th of the files the program needs inside the memory. Now you might not have this issue with light weights like AutoCAD. But good luck trying that with lets say CATIA for example. If you ever wanted to see vista and CAD software act weird, there's your go at it.
And guess what, your arguments are actually quite flawed. Why upgrade all your computers if you can continue to use windows xp and server 2003? Cause that's the logic a lot of companies are using right now. The new CAD software still runs fine on their XP and Server 2003 platforms. Additionally the hardware requirements are less (cheaper in other words). And in a lot of cases they already have a Windows XP mass license.
Updates for CAD packages don't come free either. Upgrading costs quite a bit of money as well. Especially for the smaller companies. What you're basically saying is that a company should simply buy new computers every year.
I can assure you for example that older versions of AutoCAD for example (and they're still in common use, and that's lightweight software in fact) won't run on vista. But then again, companies don't see any point in upgrading if it's not necessary. Especially with the messed up economy right now. They'd rather stick to their "old" hardware for a while.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Myst
Lifeless Person
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 1008
Location: Somewhere else
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Running poorly has nothing to do with the hardware Myst. Vista its memory management is totally inefficient, a lot of these applications their speed is totally dependent on an efficient memory management model. Simply making every application think it has access to the entire memory doesn't increase efficiency. Only makes it harder to exploit. Additionally vista wants to prefetch things, this gets rather nasty with big CAD software as it won't be able to fit even 1/5th of the files the program needs inside the memory. Now you might not have this issue with light weights like AutoCAD. But good luck trying that with lets say CATIA for example. If you ever wanted to see vista and CAD software act weird, there's your go at it. |
I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure how these things work, so I'm not going to argue with you. However, I will grab CATIA/ProE/Solid Edge from uni and see how I go with it.
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | And guess what, your arguments are actually quite flawed. Why upgrade all your computers if you can continue to use windows xp and server 2003? Cause that's the logic a lot of companies are using right now. The new CAD software still runs fine on their XP and Server 2003 platforms. Additionally the hardware requirements are less (cheaper in other words). And in a lot of cases they already have a Windows XP mass license.
Updates for CAD packages don't come free either. Upgrading costs quite a bit of money as well. Especially for the smaller companies. What you're basically saying is that a company should simply buy new computers every year. |
Actually, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying two things:
Firstly, and my primary point when I first entered this thread: Microsoft cannot afford to change their OS too dramatically, as old programs will start breaking. More so than your example of what's happened with CAD/Modelling programs. This is bad, because people are going to be pissed (as I'm sure some people are already). As such, your example appears to justify my comments.
Secondly, I'm saying that if people want to upgrade their CAE packages, they'll be spending lots and lots of money. Relatively, the cost of new hardware/software is minimal. A company is not going to have the latest version of the software. When it does upgrade the software, I'd say this would be the driving factor in getting new hardware. At this point, the cost of hardware is almost negligible, even if they can (and do) get high end machines. The choice of, say, Vista or XP is therefore not really limited by hardware requirements.
But yes, if they don't want to, or can't afford to upgrade their computers, then there's no point in going out and buying a new OS. I didn't say they should. But once they do purchase the computers, and put the new OS on there, there shouldn't be any problems with compatibility after that, due to new CAE packages coming out that support Vista a little better.
The only option that I haven't really covered, is when companies wish to upgrade their hardware without upgrading their CAE packages. At which point, it probably is a better idea to stick to XP or Server 2003. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Myst wrote: | | I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure how these things work, so I'm not going to argue with you. However, I will grab CATIA/ProE/Solid Edge from uni and see how I go with it. |
The new versions will work just fine on vista cause they were updated for it. Try and run a version of 4 years ago (more common than you think for certain CAD software).
| Quote: | Actually, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying two things:
Firstly, and my primary point when I first entered this thread: Microsoft cannot afford to change their OS too dramatically, as old programs will start breaking. More so than your example of what's happened with CAD/Modelling programs. This is bad, because people are going to be pissed (as I'm sure some people are already). As such, your example appears to justify my comments. |
Actually they piss off more people now by claiming it's backwards compatible while they actually have only partial backwards compatibility. If they'd just say "there is none" people would be willing to accept it. On the other hand what they did now is just plain stupid though, partial backwards compatibility. This enrages people as one of their applications will work and 2 others won't.
| Quote: | | Secondly, I'm saying that if people want to upgrade their CAE packages, they'll be spending lots and lots of money. Relatively, the cost of new hardware/software is minimal. A company is not going to have the latest version of the software. When it does upgrade the software, I'd say this would be the driving factor in getting new hardware. At this point, the cost of hardware is almost negligible, even if they can (and do) get high end machines. The choice of, say, Vista or XP is therefore not really limited by hardware requirements. |
Actually, you are assuming that out of the blue. For big companies replacing all their computers will cost quite a bit more than upgrading their CAD software. They often have a mass license that has cheaper updating fees. So in the end replacing all the computers might cost more than upgrading the CAD software... Additionally you're forgetting the cost price of the IT department that will have to configure everything and get it to work.
| Quote: | | But yes, if they don't want to, or can't afford to upgrade their computers, then there's no point in going out and buying a new OS. I didn't say they should. But once they do purchase the computers, and put the new OS on there, there shouldn't be any problems with compatibility after that, due to new CAE packages coming out that support Vista a little better. |
And why would they do that if their old computers are just fine and they can update the software for a lot less? Additionally if they replace their computers with vista they will often have to replace their server farm as well or at least upgrade it. The cost price of that is fairly high.
| Quote: | | The only option that I haven't really covered, is when companies wish to upgrade their hardware without upgrading their CAE packages. At which point, it probably is a better idea to stick to XP or Server 2003. |
Guess what, they don't just upgrade for the sake of upgrading.
And really there is no such thing as upgrading to vista in terms of business efficiency. Vista with all its little gimmicks will distract workers. They'll go for the latest windows server version and use terminals most likely. The upgrade costs of such a system are really high.
Upgrading CAD software and leaving the OS there in the end comes down cheaper than replacing everything simply to get a new OS. They'll do that in a few years when the CAD software becomes too heavy to run on their current configurations. Money doesn't grow on trees.
If a company asks for an inquiry about new computers they usually have three questions:
-Will our current software work on it?
-How much does it cost?
-How much time will it take to configure?
Answer no to the first one and the chances of the deal being made is low. Answer a too high number to the second and third one and you can also forget about getting the order.
So upgrading to vista for the sake of upgrading to vista will usually end in a no in other words.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Myst
Lifeless Person
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 1008
Location: Somewhere else
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Myst wrote: | | I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure how these things work, so I'm not going to argue with you. However, I will grab CATIA/ProE/Solid Edge from uni and see how I go with it. |
The new versions will work just fine on vista cause they were updated for it. Try and run a version of 4 years ago (more common than you think for certain CAD software). |
Ok, I'm not gonna try to dig up old software to prove a point. But my original point was that the newer versions are updated to work with Vista...
| Quote: | | Actually they piss off more people now by claiming it's backwards compatible while they actually have only partial backwards compatibility. If they'd just say "there is none" people would be willing to accept it. On the other hand what they did now is just plain stupid though, partial backwards compatibility. This enrages people as one of their applications will work and 2 others won't. |
If they say "there is none" then people won't buy it: fear of the unknown. Microsoft obviously haven't gone out of their way to ruin compatibility with their product. The sheer volume of software created for Windows makes it impossible to do so. Apparently the changes that they made caused problems with some software. They screwed up. Sure. What do you want them to do?
| Quote: | | Actually, you are assuming that out of the blue. For big companies replacing all their computers will cost quite a bit more than upgrading their CAD software. They often have a mass license that has cheaper updating fees. So in the end replacing all the computers might cost more than upgrading the CAD software... Additionally you're forgetting the cost price of the IT department that will have to configure everything and get it to work. |
There are a lot more small companies than big companies Thus, I'm pretty sure the CAE package will still dominate the cost at hardware in most cases. But yes, I haven't mentioned the cost of the IT department as there will still be setup cost either way.
I'm not quite sure why we're having this argument either. We're talking about the suitability of using Vista for CAE packages, not whether a company should upgrade their computers or not.
| Quote: | | And why would they do that if their old computers are just fine and they can update the software for a lot less? Additionally if they replace their computers with vista they will often have to replace their server farm as well or at least upgrade it. The cost price of that is fairly high. |
I've already stated that they would only want to upgrade their computers if they are finding it too slow. If they want to upgrade their CAE packages without upgrading their computers then there's no problem. The new CAE packages will still work (presumably) on Windows XP.
| Quote: | | The only option that I haven't really covered, is when companies wish to upgrade their hardware without upgrading their CAE packages. At which point, it probably is a better idea to stick to XP or Server 2003. |
Guess what, they don't just upgrade for the sake of upgrading.[/quote]
Whereabouts did I say that? :s
| Quote: | | And really there is no such thing as upgrading to vista in terms of business efficiency. Vista with all its little gimmicks will distract workers. |
Haha...
| Quote: | | Upgrading CAD software and leaving the OS there in the end comes down cheaper than replacing everything simply to get a new OS. They'll do that in a few years when the CAD software becomes too heavy to run on their current configurations. Money doesn't grow on trees. |
Which is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Nowhere have I said that everyone should run out and get new hardware because Vista is out and is the most brilliant piece of software ever written. I've been saying that Vista is viable, due to the fact that most CAE packages are updated very often, and all currently supported CAE software will run on Vista. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Myst wrote: | | Ok, I'm not gonna try to dig up old software to prove a point. But my original point was that the newer versions are updated to work with Vista... |
You either give full backwards compatibility or you don't give any at all.
Vista is between those two...
| Quote: | | If they say "there is none" then people won't buy it: fear of the unknown. Microsoft obviously haven't gone out of their way to ruin compatibility with their product. The sheer volume of software created for Windows makes it impossible to do so. Apparently the changes that they made caused problems with some software. They screwed up. Sure. What do you want them to do? |
Well, lets just claim it's full backwards compatible while it isn't. That'll sure help.
| Quote: | | There are a lot more small companies than big companies Thus, I'm pretty sure the CAE package will still dominate the cost at hardware in most cases. But yes, I haven't mentioned the cost of the IT department as there will still be setup cost either way. |
Well actually they still won't update. A lot of new versions of CAD software recently have one major feature "vista support". The rest is minor and can be ignored. They won't be upgrading it to run vista and the specifications haven't gone up that much that it warrants buying new hardware.
| Quote: | | I'm not quite sure why we're having this argument either. We're talking about the suitability of using Vista for CAE packages, not whether a company should upgrade their computers or not. |
It is a very related argument, to use vista they'll have to pay for an expensive upgrade.
| Quote: | | I've already stated that they would only want to upgrade their computers if they are finding it too slow. If they want to upgrade their CAE packages without upgrading their computers then there's no problem. The new CAE packages will still work (presumably) on Windows XP. |
All of them will work just fine on windows xp. Since they'll have to be able to run on server 2003.
| Quote: | | Whereabouts did I say that? :s |
You kind a said that in more words.
| Quote: | | Which is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Nowhere have I said that everyone should run out and get new hardware because Vista is out and is the most brilliant piece of software ever written. I've been saying that Vista is viable, due to the fact that most CAE packages are updated very often, and all currently supported CAE software will run on Vista. |
Often... Once a year in most cases. And it took them almost a year to get them vista compatible so other features weren't really added. No point in upgrading in other words.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Myst
Lifeless Person
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 1008
Location: Somewhere else
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Myst wrote: | | Ok, I'm not gonna try to dig up old software to prove a point. But my original point was that the newer versions are updated to work with Vista... |
You either give full backwards compatibility or you don't give any at all.
Vista is between those two...
| Quote: | | If they say "there is none" then people won't buy it: fear of the unknown. Microsoft obviously haven't gone out of their way to ruin compatibility with their product. The sheer volume of software created for Windows makes it impossible to do so. Apparently the changes that they made caused problems with some software. They screwed up. Sure. What do you want them to do? |
Well, lets just claim it's full backwards compatible while it isn't. That'll sure help. |
You're not responding to what I'm saying at all...
| Quote: | | Quote: | | There are a lot more small companies than big companies Thus, I'm pretty sure the CAE package will still dominate the cost at hardware in most cases. But yes, I haven't mentioned the cost of the IT department as there will still be setup cost either way. |
Well actually they still won't update. A lot of new versions of CAD software recently have one major feature "vista support". The rest is minor and can be ignored. They won't be upgrading it to run vista and the specifications haven't gone up that much that it warrants buying new hardware. |
What ever happens between upgrades? A new interface? I'd like some proof that the upgrades between, say, the 2004 and 2005 version were more substantial than the upgrades between the 2007 and 2008 versions please.
| Quote: | | It is a very related argument, to use vista they'll have to pay for an expensive upgrade. |
So you're arguing that the difference between buying new systems (including hardware + software) with XP will be significantly cheaper than buying new systems with Vista?
| Quote: | | All of them will work just fine on windows xp. Since they'll have to be able to run on server 2003. |
 Did we just agree on something? Or am I misunderstanding what you said?
| Quote: | | You kind a said that in more words. |
....find it and quote me
| Quote: | | Often... Once a year in most cases. And it took them almost a year to get them vista compatible so other features weren't really added. No point in upgrading in other words. |
Evidence please....
Man, you're usually pretty good with discussions, but you're almost turning into a Scar with your arguments at the moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Myst wrote: | | You're not responding to what I'm saying at all... |
Actually I am responding to what you said. Companies won't buy an upgrade just to get it to work on a new OS. So backwards compatibility is a valid argument.
And the second one is totally on point. I'm not sure what you mean by "not responding to what I'm saying at all". Cause actually it's once again a totally logical and valid response. They claim it's backwards compatible while it isn't completely backwards compatible...
| Quote: | | What ever happens between upgrades? A new interface? I'd like some proof that the upgrades between, say, the 2004 and 2005 version were more substantial than the upgrades between the 2007 and 2008 versions please. |
http://images.autodesk.com/ads.....matrix.pdf
Very few features were added, and before you want to complain about the source, it's the autodesk website so they happen to know what they're talking about if it comes down to AutoCAD... Keep in mind improved feature means that there are basically no changes...
| Quote: | | So you're arguing that the difference between buying new systems (including hardware + software) with XP will be significantly cheaper than buying new systems with Vista? |
If they continue to use XP they won't have to upgrade hardware. Keep in mind most computers that are used to run this type of software are dual xeons and other things in the same category. They can easily outperform the current dual core and quad core processors...
| Quote: | | ....find it and quote me |
Reread everything you said.
| Quote: | | Evidence please.... |
See earlier link to pdf file on autodesk website.
And well, there isn't that much to say about it really. Nobody ever really bothers to keep statistics of this type of thing. They're too busy making benchmark tools to see if vista prefetch is a waste of ram or not.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
spock
Lifeless Person
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 3133
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme $niper wrote: |
But still, within all of this, I think it has to be more than just stubbornness on Microsoft's part. There must be a way for them to take a different approach to security without re-writing Windows from scratch (like they should be doing anyway). If it really is just Microsoft refusing to revamp their methods, then that's pretty lame. |
They aren't exactly refusing. Like others said, it's about backwards compatibilty. People expect everything will work just as it did on the old version. So actually they can't innovate their products because they have to keep everything backwards compatible.
Next to that, they've been working/building on windows. Developing something new from scratch will render a lot of the work and research useless.
It's not exactly refusing to innovate, it's more about making the choice not to innovate as to not upset their userbase.
_________________
My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Jacky
3.14159265358979323846264
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 4175
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
We were originally discussing about how Microsoft cannot make a big change as backward compatibility may be ruined.
I see that "staying on a older OS" is the best way to get your old programs to continue working without major problems.
That's the best solution, but do note that most mainstream PC manufacturers will always bundle the most recent Windows release (i.e. Windows Vista). Windows XP is still provided only a minority of mainstream manufacturers are doing it, and even so will require that the PC comes bundled with the Vista Business/Ultimate license. And still it's only provided for business users.
Even if Microsoft continues shipping Windows XP to PC manufacturers they probably will still bundle Windows Vista. After all they won't want to have to deal with two different versions of Windows when it comes to warranty and updates. Their best solution is to bundle the latest one so as to make them look "updated" instead of "outdated".
Bundle only Windows XP then? That may make them seem like they are behind times (although some of us know jolly well Windows XP still work, but the public may think otherwise).
_________________
| ClickFanatic wrote: | Your nonsense make my forum visits rather brief, Jacky. It's like:
"Hey look, a reply notification!"
*click* *click*
*reading garbage*
"Oh it was Jacky again..."
*close* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme $niper
Lifeless Person
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 1870
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I'd just like to say that when a new version of an OS comes out, I'd say if the developer of the program you are using is still active, they will make the application compatible with the new OS if they care about their products or their client base. If the developer is inactive, then you should just stay with your version of Windows.
When Leopard came out, a lot of new apps started being Leopard only. I know this is kind of the opposite scenario, but it's similar. Why should those running older operating system versions be left out of new releases? Because fundamental changes needed to be made to the new OS to make advancements, and the trade-off was losing the ability to allow certain applications to run on older versions of OS X.
Similarly, I'd say that I would be willing to lose some backward compatibility with certain software if big enough changes were made to Windows to justify it. Fact is, almost all the programs that I use on Windows are maintained by active developers that would not just sit around with a non-working version of their product. And anyone running an unsupported program nowadays probably has more issues to deal with like security vulnerabilities due to running an application that is no longer being patched.
All I'm saying is that at a certain point, people should be prepared to suck it up and allow Microsoft to make some core changes to the Windows architecture. Not allowing them to do that will just mean the eventual death of the operating system because people will just moan and groan about how Windows sucks this or that, and they'll all just move over to a new system out of frustration, regardless of if that new system would solve their problems or not.
_________________
Come visit Shattered Abstracts! (Photoblog!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledgebase 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
