Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the just-a-little-slower dept.

Microsoft 385

Stoobalou writes "Microsoft exec Tami Reller told attendees at the company's Worldwide Partner Conference 2011 taking place in Los Angeles yesterday that any PC capable of running Windows 7 today would be capable of running Windows 8 when it is released, towards the end of the year."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so Windows 8 is going to be released this year? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735720)

hrm?

No... (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736348)

The article is just regurgitating old information and then referring to Ballmer's quote(which was subsequently withdrawn) which said it would released in 2012. There's no indication where they got the 'this year' from.

That said, the current rumors place the release in April 2012. The earlier date was Holiday Season 2012.

Why hello there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735728)

It's Windows ME 2

Re:Why hello there! (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735800)

I think more likely it's Vista SP5. Between Microsoft and Firefox, version numbers have been rendered meaningless.

Re:Why hello there! (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736020)

All you need to know is that it's worth buying a new license for!

Re:Why hello there! (0)

liquidweaver (1988660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736082)

I wish I had points to mod parent up. Vista was the Beta we all purchased for Windows 7. It's ok when you know you are buying an unfinished product and it's $8 vis a vis Minecraft, not so cool when it hundreds of dollars, it's from the biggest software company in the world and sold as a finished product, and all your relatives are calling your because their printers don't work and they can't find their way around. Of course, YMMV :)

Re:Why hello there! (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736246)

You do realize that the reason for the printers failing to work is the manufacturer's fault and had nothing whatsoever to do with the OS being unfinished right?

Re:Why hello there! (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736314)

Vista was the Beta we all purchased for Windows 7.

Yet you keep doing it?!? Why?

Re:Why hello there! (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736280)

There's a completely new radical default interface coming and we have people here claiming it's Vista SP5. Typical Slashdot ignorance.

ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p92QfWOw88I [youtube.com]

Windows 8 in my pants (2)

slashpot (11017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735738)

I have Windows 8 running in my pants!

Re:Windows 8 in my pants (3, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736034)

Does that explain all the performance issues? :)

Re:Windows 8 in my pants (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736302)

It at least explains why it stinks...

Please (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735740)

Please, somebody, print this in 2000pt Helvetica and place it on a banner opposite every international MS HQ for at least the next year and preferably until they *actually* release Windows 8.

Chances are that if you don't, someone will try to backtrack on this before the month is out.

Re: w7-faster-xp (0)

michiko (2270072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735910)

Re: w7-faster-xp (1)

essayservices (2242884) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736128)

ahm.!! ahm.!! someone said that he's sure it will "run" in the sense that it boots up and is functional. But "run" in the sense of running well... who knows. Also what compelling reason is there to upgrade from 7 to 8? The only reason I know most people are using 7 is for the 64 bit support, now that we have that we're good for another couple of years.

Re:Please (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736206)

Please, somebody, print this in 2000pt Helvetica and place it on a banner opposite every international MS HQ for at least the next year and preferably until they *actually* release Windows 8.

2000pt papyrus might make them go faster. I understand there are people who have strong feelings about that particular font. Seems like such people whining at the water cooler might speed things along.

"We at MS are happy to finally release windows 8, a full nine months ahead of schedule. We are also happy to announce that it will work on all current PCs, and does not support the use of certain typesets. NOW CHERYL WILL YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THAT BANNER AND GODDAMN PAPYRUS!?!?"

Re:Please (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736306)

Nah, they'll just switch to Comic Sans.

Windows 8 (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735750)

I just upgraded from Window XP to WIndows 7 now you want to tell me you're planning windows 8 already with in the year? It's not like windows seven is another vista, it's a solid OS and is remarkably stable, why do I want Windows 8?

Re:Windows 8 (0)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735790)

Windows8 is windows 7 sp3.

Re:Windows 8 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736070)

Windows 7 is Windows Vista SP3

Re:Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736164)

I'm confused; does that make Win8 = Vista SP6, or SP9?

Re:Windows 8 (1, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736154)

XP was just a theme for windows 2000, and look how well it did.

Hell 7 isn't much more than a theme/ui upgrade for a bugfixed vista, and everybody loves it nonetheless.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736308)

That's not entirely true. XP did add wireless support out of the box, even though every wireless driver seems to come with it's own crappy interface, but on Windows 2000 you had to use the crappy interfaces while on XP you can avoid them entirely. Also, there is fast user switching which is invaluable on home systems. Furthermore you neglect the compatibility layer added for older games. Windows 2000 was often a hassle to install (older) games on. Most of them worked, but you had to jump though hoop.

Sure, there is no reason Windows 2000 couldn't have had these improvements, but it didn't get them.

Re:Windows 8 (3, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736162)

It'd be nice if they adopted Apple's more recent model for OS upgrades. They are relatively more frequent than they used to, less revolutionary than evolutionary, and extremely inexpensive for upgraders ($35 or so). There's nothing so OMG Awesome about Lion that I have to have it, but it's got a few nice features, and for less than the price of most app software I'll upgrade the Macbook (once I figure out if it's second gen or first gen Intel). Similarly I doubt Windows 8 is revolutionarily different from Windows 7, but if it's got a decent number of useful upgrades and is only going to cost me $30-50, I'll do it. If it's going to cost $150, forget it till they force the issue.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736388)

Apple Menu -> About this Mac. Intel Core proc is the first gen (no Lion for you), everything else will work. If you need more information, Hit more info. The Line you want is labeled "Model Identifier" and will read something like MacbookPro1,1.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736176)

Windows8 is windows 7 sp3.

So supporting new processor architecture (ARM) and introducing completely new application model (HTML5/JS) and user interface (touch) is just a Service Pack to you? Do then ever any OS upgrades qualify as non-SP?

Re:Windows 8 (2)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736274)

Windows8 is windows 7 sp3.

So supporting new processor architecture (ARM) and introducing completely new application model (HTML5/JS) and user interface (touch) is just a Service Pack to you? Do then ever any OS upgrades qualify as non-SP?

WinNT has supported ARM for a long time. Just not publically. So nothing new there. The Metro interface that will be used by Win8 is hogwash and will probably be another WinME/Vista - both good products in many respects, but completely public failures for many reasons.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735794)

why do I want Windows 8?

Because Microsoft wants your hard earned shekels, pesos and dinars.

Re:Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735894)

Odds are you don't want it. Based on Microsoft's track record, Windows 8 will be a terrible iteration of their OS and should be skipped over. Just wait for the next release after 8, it will be rock solid... well as rock solid as anything rolling out of Redmond.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736142)

Odds are you don't want it. Based on Microsoft's track record, Windows 8 will be a terrible iteration of their OS and should be skipped over. Just wait for the next release after 8, it will be rock solid... well as rock solid as anything rolling out of Redmond.

The track record depends on which OS you consider to be the predecessor of Windows XP.

Windows 2000 was a solid OS.

Windows ME was a toy that broke at the slightest touch.

So, if you go WinMe / WinXP / Vista / 7 / 8, then yes, 8 would be one to skip.

If you go Win2K / WinXP / Vista / 7 / 8, I'm not sure how you'd get that 8 will be bad.

Personally, I hate the whole "touch interface" look for non-touch devices (read: desktop PCs), so I intend to pass on 8.

Re:Windows 8 (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735986)

Well if you are on a two year lag of upgrades then why are you even asking? Just wait until 2013 and then see if you want to upgrade.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735988)

If the add a UAC white list I'll buy it just to stop the annoying pop-ups.

Re:Windows 8 (2)

Rinnon (1474161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736024)

If the add a UAC white list I'll buy it just to stop the annoying pop-ups.

You know you can just turn off UAC, right? Control Panel > User Accounts > Change User Access Control settings.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736062)

UAC is a good thing for security. Its just annoying in its current implementation when compared to how others such as Apple have done it. Turning it off is like disabling anti-virus because it keeps stopping you from downloading that sara-palin-nude.jpg.exe file you want.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736188)

You know there's a difference between white listing one application, and granting every java applet that your web browser might scroll over administrative access to your entire system right?

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736032)

it is not about "why you would _want_ it" it's about why you'll _need_ to upgrade to run any new Microsoft software.

To answer why Microsoft is releasing yet another OS; it's because they didn't make Vista(yet another MS OS "written from the ground up") very efficient, portable nor scalable so Windows 7 was hacked out to solve the first problem. Hey, it's better than Vista is what I keep hearing regarding its performance. So now there's Linux still running on netbooks but not too much of a threat anymore but Apple and Google are moving into Windows territory on ARM processors. So, Windows 8 is Windows 7 made portable and supposedly able to yank it apart so it's somewhat scalable. That is if you think a quad core ARM CPU running at 1.5GHz with 2GB of RAM is low end.

LoB

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736088)

I agree, this is getting ridiculous. Do they expect us mugs to pay a fortune every single year for a 'new' Windows, which is no better than the last one, and often worse? (Looking at the ridiculous 'interface' of Windows 8 makes me think it's going to be worse than Windows 7).
What's wrong with bringing out a solid product like XP, once every TEN years?

Re:Windows 8 (3, Informative)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736114)

Traditionally, MS has released a new retail OS every year to two years. the huge gap between XP and Vista was the oddity, not the rule.

Windows 3.0 was 1990
3.1 was 1992
3.11 and NT 3.1 were both in 1993
NT 3.5 was 1994
95 was... 1995.
NT 4.0 was 1996
98 was 1998
98se was 1999
ME and 2000 were both in 2000
XP was 2001 ...
Vista was 2006
Windows 7 was 2009

seems to me that they're right on schedule for windows 8.

Re:Windows 8 (5, Funny)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736118)

I just upgraded from Window XP to WIndows 7 now you want to tell me you're planning windows 8 already with in the year? It's not like windows seven is another vista, it's a solid OS and is remarkably stable, why do I want Windows 8?

What you've never heard of the every other windows curse? It''s like the star trek movie curse

Win 2k was great
Win Me Sucked balls
Win Xp was pretty good
Win Vista was smoking crack
Win 7 is usable

you might as well not even bother checking out 8

Re:Windows 8 (3, Insightful)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736174)

You'll want it for an ARM-based tablet.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736234)

You're saying you're happy with your product and then asking why you should buy another product?

Man, they've trained you well.

End of the year... (1)

Nick Fel (1320709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736310)

...means end of 2012. That's a year and half away. Windows 7 is already about two years old.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736340)

I just upgraded from Window XP to WIndows 7 now you want to tell me you're planning windows 8 already with in the year?

TFA has incorrectly quoted a different article. They say this:

Microsoft exec Tami Reller told attendees at the company's Worldwide Partner Conference 2011 taking place in Los Angeles yesterday that any PC capable of running Windows 7 today would be capable of running Windows 8 when it is released, towards the end of the year if Steve Ballmer's ramblings [thinq.co.uk] are to be believed.

Note the link - it is copied as is from TFA. But if you follow it, it goes to an article titled "Evidence mounts for a Windows 8 release in 2012", and specifically:

Lewin, corporate vice president for strategic and emerging business development, has suggested a timescale for the Windows 8 launch process - the first version of Windows to support the ARM architecture - that would see the new operating system released towards the end of 2012.

Lewin spoke at his company's LAUNCH event for start-ups and let slip a few informed guesses as to Microsoft's plans for Windows 8. "If you look at the crystal ball and just say what happened in the past is a reasonable indicator of what our forward looking timelines will be and just speculate," Lewin circuitously explained. "We've made the point about having a developer conference later this year, and then typically we enter a beta phase, and then in 12 months we're in the market. So, let's make that assumption."

So they're a year off. Even then, of course, it's not an official release date, hence why all the talk about "crystal ball" etc.

Re:Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736352)

If you are no longer using your XP license can I get the key? Thanks.

Re:Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736354)

Why did you want Windows 7? It's just Windows XP R3. It's a far cry from the fresh start Long Horn was supposed to be, and there is no technical reason why everything they did since Vista couldn't have been done in XP.

It's almost like (3, Interesting)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735806)

It's almost like an operating system doesn't need to amp up its requirements with every new release. Once it gets to a certain point, really, there's no need for an increase in necessary resources. Sure, you can make it scale well and perform better, but it really shouldn't be hard to keep the minimum fairly low.

Re:It's almost like (-1, Troll)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735924)

Heck, most of the extra resource requirements for Vista were due to the new DRM subsystem. Without that, it would have run on pretty much anything that XP was already running on, minus some very low memory systems.

Re:It's almost like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736046)

[Citation Needed]

Re:It's almost like (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736058)

"Aero" also was to blame.

But yes, it's mostly been due to DRM and useless bells/whistles/eyecandy

Re:It's almost like (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736364)

Aero was optional though, on slow systems it would revert back to basically XP level graphics.

Re:It's almost like (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736132)

Bullshit. The DRM system does absolutely nothing unless you're using it, using the protected audio paths.

Re:It's almost like (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736286)

Heck, most of the extra resource requirements for Vista were due to the new DRM subsystem.

This is nonsense.

No one pokes more fun at Slashdot than Slashdot, as often its editors and readers behave as if they had fallen off the tomato truck yesterday. Tell them anything, anything at all, regardless of how improbable or insane it may be, and not only will they instantly accept it as Gospel, they'll burn up the Internet proselytizing their myths and fantasies.

Oh, the humanity: Windows 7's draconian DRM? [arstechnica.com] [Posted as a comment by WaltC in 2009]

Re:It's almost like (0)

kakarote (2294232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736036)

Re:It's almost like (1)

xeon13 (2268514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736078)

yup .!! it is good, last 10 years m working with xp but after xp (foss) linux, ubuntu & fadora zindabaad.!!!

Re:It's almost like (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736096)

Well, in some cases, the extra requirements even come within the release. Consider Windows XP pre-SP2. It would run easily on a 512MB machine. After SP2, 512MB became low-end, you needed 1GB to run smoothly (beyond 1GB, the advantage became less visible. I've rarely had a XP machine use up more than 2GB, unless you ran a shebang of development programs on it. For normal use, 1GB was enough).

Now, I still am very fond of XP and it runs well on pretty much all hardware in use today. (Just use Administrator/Limited User separation and you'll be fine... and no, that's not hard) I use a dumpster diven P-IV-Mobile 1.6GHz, which I upgraded to 2GB RAM. XP runs very well. I wouldn't dare to run Vista on it, 7 would probably be a joke too. Sure, it is not "current" hardware... but current hardware even on the low end, we're talking multi-core madness and at least 3GB RAM, but often more. Unless we're talking Netbooks: the aforementioned P-IV-Mobile, ranks about the same as a Atom Z515, and let's be frank.... That's an "old" netbook processor. What's
modern these days? Atom N570 or so?

So that Windows 8 will "run" on hardware of today? No surprise, as we already know what "run" means for Microsoft....

Re:It's almost like (1)

DadLeopard (1290796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736262)

OH, Heresy! You are trying to take away Microsoft's Biggest money maker of all times. Every version of Windows needs a new machine for it to run acceptably and every new machine comes with Windows pre-installed! New version, new flood of cash! Though now it seems that some sneaky people are building low powered devices that can't run full versions of Windows, so the Softies have to do some backtracking to pick up all the Users they have lost to iOS, Android and Linux, since they are killing XP, and Windows CE doesn't cut it anymore! Wouldn't want them to get accustomed to the idea that they can actually get along without Windows, now would we!

Re:It's almost like (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736362)

is that why we're hearing ARM SoC vendors talking about quad core SoC's running at over 1.5Ghz for Windows 8?

Funny thing is, I was saying what you said in 1996 when the OS/2 Warp was released and for the 3rd time it was faster and more efficient than the previous release. 15 years later and this is a possibility with a version of Windows not yet released and promised to be such? Again, funny that I remember all kinds of promises from Microsoft since the 1990s which were never seen.

LoB

Xbox Games on Windows 8 (1)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735812)

While that is good to know, I'm more interested in the rumor that xbox 360 games may run on Windows 8. Unfortunately, it may include a monthly fee like XBL.

http://www.insideris.com/more-xbox-360-games-on-windows-8-details/ [insideris.com]

Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736100)

This is a bad thing. It stops developers from having a reason to make a PC version of a game.

Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736116)

How exactly is Windows 8 going to make emulating a specific triple-core PPC chip and GPU combination any more tractable on x86 hardware?

Some heavier xbox-tie-in for the generally execrable "Games for Windows Live", and encouraging publishers to make everything available cross platform? Possible. Extension of some sort of "Pay for things that you used to get for free" patch and multiplay service to the PC? Conceivable.

Play xbox 360 games on an x86? Srsly?

Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 (1)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736258)

If it's a pay service, maybe the main executable is recompiled for x86? You just need the disc for copy-protection? It seems reasonable from a technical perspective. The 360 is around five years old. Modern PCs can smoke it in terms of performance. A recompiled executable is probably enough on any modern gaming rig. The tough part would be building the infrastructure to enable/deploy/integrate it all.

Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736372)

I guess anything electronic inside a beige box (well, black nowadays) is magic, and the people who make it are wizards. They can do it!

* Disclaimer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735816)

Please be assured that Windows 8 will run all any current hardware that runs Windows 7. However, Windows 8 will run in a special 'Compatibility Mode', in which all Windows 8 features are deactivated and only Windows 7 features remain. Also, Windows 8 will appear visually to be Windows 7. It will identify itself as Windows 7. While the box the OS arrives in will say Windows 8, the disc may say Windows 7 - this is intentional.

Re:* Disclaimer (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736074)

But can I run it in WINE?

Yeah, right! (1)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735820)

I remember these announcements for XP and previous generations of Windows. It would run, all right. It would take 20 minutes to boot and the run like a diseased snail.

Re:Yeah, right! (2)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735996)

"and the run like a diseased snail."
congrats, you just renamed my desktop machine.

Re:Yeah, right! (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736404)

Coincidentally, an upcoming Ubuntu release will be named 'Sickly Snail'.

Re:Yeah, right! (1)

DadLeopard (1290796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736338)

All part of the larger plan! To get it to run right, you need that shiny new machine that comes with Windows pre-installed! OEMs make money, Microsoft makes money, and you are still a productive serf in the Microsoft world!

Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36735830)

Woohoo! Another way to pay for Windows 2000 again! What'll Microsoft think of next?

But ... (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735846)

How WELL will it run Windows 8? Microsoft always adds new bloat... um ... features to their OS's in each new release. So it will run in existing machines, but will it be usable?

Re:But ... (2)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736398)

you mean like the huge speed loss going from vista to windows 7?
oh... wait...

Already? (2)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735848)

They are not going to get many businesses jumping on board quickly, many companies are just upgrading from XP to Windows 7 while many are still running XP. Trying to rush a new release will just cause another Vista disaster.

Re:Already? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735926)

And XP still has three more years of Extended Support. Way to kill Windows 7 off early, Microsoft!

That's easy... (1)

backwardMechanic (959818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735866)

...nobody has yet found a PC capable of running Windows 7 today.

(I upgraded from XP last month. I upgraded the PC at the same time, to what sounded like quite a fast machine. But Win7 destroyed that advantage. How I wish I didn't need proprietary packages - then I'd switch everything to Linux and shout less at my computer)

Re:That's easy... (1)

trunicated (1272370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735932)

Netbooks run Windows 7. What on earth did you upgrade to?

Re:That's easy... (1)

smudj (1983234) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735936)

Sounds like a PEBKAC issue. I've got dozens of installations of Windows 7 on older Dell D620 and D630 notebooks with only 2GB of RAM and onboard Intel Video.

Re:That's easy... (1)

ferongr (1929434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736006)

I'm running Windows 7 on a 2005 single-core Sempron 3100+ with 1GB for RAM and an outdated nVidia 6800 AGP GPU and I have not noticed any noticable performance degradation when I switched from XP, so clearly, you must be doing something wrong.

Re:That's easy... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736084)

Windows 7 is quite smooth - and is not that much of a resource hog - yes it uses more than XP but i've found it does more with what it takes..

now Vista on the other hand.. that is crap

Re:That's easy... (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736318)

Gotta say, you're doing something wrong. Windows 7 runs fine on anything remotely resembling new hardware. It's not going to run on the earliest XP era hardware, but anything from say 2005-2006 on seems to be fine (you want at least a gig and half to two gigs of RAM, but that's both cheap and trivial to upgrade). I love a good MS bash as much as the next guys, but they did OK with Windows 7. It would have been better if Vista had been as capable, but they got 7 more or less right. There's stuff to complain about; but as a regular user of Linux, MacOS, and Windows going back 15 years or so, there's always *something* to complain about.

Can or Will? (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735888)

Windows 8 will run on my PC over my dead body!

Re:Can or Will? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736294)

That's okay... if they can't arrange that, they'll simply wait for nature to take its course.

What about 32 Bit Systems? (2)

rtobyr (846578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735890)

Didn't Microsoft say that Windows Server 2008 (without "R2") was the last 32 bit OS that they'd make? It's likely that the vast majority of Windows 7 Home/Business edition users have a CPU that can handle 64 bits, but what about all those people running Windows 7 Starter on netbooks that can't do 64 bit? It seems to me that they need to come out and say whether there will be a 32 bit version of Windows 8 or not.

Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736122)

you would be surprised - alot of the Atom cpu's are 64-bit .. but they just released them with 32bit os's..

all but your true bottom end Atom's are 64bit.. and most of the bottom ends stuck to xp..

also i don't count "Starter Edition" as win 7.. it was a mistake they should never have done.

Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736324)

I'm willing to bet if you look up your statement you will find that they are refering to server operating systems. Windows 7 came out after 2008 and all the editions are available in 32 bit.

But... (4, Insightful)

SwedishChef (69313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735898)

You won't be able to find anything until you either take a certification course or spend hours clicking on buttons searching for the simple commands you used to be able to find instantly.

Bwhahahaha!

How about make it run well on ... (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735912)

How about make it run well on on all hardware capable of running XP SP3? You may not get the fancy display bells and whistles (Aero), but the core APIs and should still be the same. This would actually get a lot of people to upgrade. I don't expect fancy display features to work on old hardware, but it would be nice since I have a perfectly good windows machine that I am not going to upgrade since it does what I want for a windows box but would like the added security updates of a more modern OS.

Re:How about make it run well on ... (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736212)

How about make it run well on on all hardware capable of running XP SP3?

They will build highway between Seattle and Honolulu first. It is easier.

Not quite accurate (1, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735934)

The article title is not quite accurate:

Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware

Then it goes on to say

any PC capable of running Windows 7 today would be capable of running Windows 8

I have a lot of PC's in regular use that run XP quite happily but won't run Win7. I guess the next OS for that hardware will be Xubuntu.

Re:Not quite accurate (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736140)

There's a disconnect on the word 'current'. For many people, 'current' means 'recent' and not just 'still working'.

Of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736008)

Windows 8 is a tablet OS. Any hardware capable of running table OSs will surely run it. I'll run Windows 7, like I ran Windows XP, until it is justifiable to upgrade. Getting the latest junk is not justifiable.

Driver support (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736044)

I'm sure it will "run" in the sense that it boots up and is functional. But "run" in the sense of running well... who knows. Also what compelling reason is there to upgrade from 7 to 8? The only reason I know most people are using 7 is for the 64 bit support, now that we have that we're good for another couple of years.

HAL-LA-LOO-YA !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736180)

Praise God !! for making it all possible

Praise Ballmer !! for helping out the modern man fulfill his destiny

Praie Torvalus !! for extending an obsolete OS to keep the heathens happy

WINDOZE 8 WILL RUN ON ALL +3, Incendiary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736204)

subject to customer Alpha Testing [youtube.com] .

Yours In Russia,
Kilgore Trout

P.S.: Steve Ballmer is a cocaine addict !

Dell Won't like that (2)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736228)

Dell has made a fortune selling hardware to keep up with the requirements of Windows.

No way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736264)

> Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware

It won't ever run on mine!

Meaning (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736304)

Old wine in new bottles.

Re:Meaning (1)

gilbert644 (1515625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736380)

You mean like how wine is kept in barrels to age well and then put in new bottles before being shipped out?

Hallelujah! (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736330)

Glory Be! This has to be a first! You don't have to go out and replace all of your computing equipment for a Windows upgrade! Unbelievable! Unprecedented!

Now all they have to do is explain why anyone would want to spend a couple hundred dollars on it, and tell us whether we still need to replace all of our existing software.

Why not? (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736378)

Windows 8 is probably gonna be a reskin of Windows 7 with some new file system "magic". Look at how rapidly Windows 8 is coming out after Windows 7. It's plausible because they didn't have time to change that much.

Also, CPUs haven't gained in power since before Windows 7 came out due to the current limits of silicone.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?