[submix8c]

I like this one better -

Quote

windows 7 is going to hold on longer then xp did, in the business world. win8 is for us dumb consumers, simply put.

[MagicAndre1981]

JorgeA, on 11 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

whether the DPC Latency Checker works properly in Win8

no, this tool is so old. User here often upload xperf traces and the DPC checker driver itself causes high DPC latencies. This tool is made for XP nearly 10 years ago.

[JorgeA]

MagicAndre1981, on 12 June 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

JorgeA, on 11 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

whether the DPC Latency Checker works properly in Win8

no, this tool is so old. User here often upload xperf traces and the DPC checker driver itself causes high DPC latencies. This tool is made for XP nearly 10 years ago.

MagicAndre,

I have a question about this. They say on their website:

Quote

DPC Latency Checker for Windows 7, Windows 7 x64, Windows Vista, Windows Vista x64, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2003 x64, Windows XP, Windows XP x64, Windows 2000

Is it really suitable for Vista/Win7?

And a follow-up question: How about this one -- will this tool give more reliable results for Vista/Win7? (These folks do specify that Win8 is not supported.)

--JorgeA

This post has been edited by JorgeA: 12 June 2012 - 11:48 PM

[MagicAndre1981]

yes, this tool is better. I've linked it in my DPC tutorial.

[andreaborman]

 Classic Shell on Windows 8RP.JPG (98.45K)
Number of downloads: 12

I have finally done it. I have installed Windows 8 RP 32bit.

And as you can see there is more choice of colors for the start screen,like these cool pastel pink and pastel blue colors. Which I like better than the dark and drab colors in Windows 8 CP. And also I have the Windows XP start menu and look on my Windows 8 RP thanks to Classic Shell. The Aero theme is still on Windows 8 RP, but I am not using it.

And all of the Windows XP and Windows Vista software works on Windows 8 RP. And so do the Windows NT and 95 games,Microsoft Entertainment Pack, which are 16 bit software. Andrea Borman.

[submix8c]

andreaborman, on 14 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

And as you can see there is more choice of colors for the start screen,like these cool pastel pink and pastel blue colors

ARRGGG! Shades of Win9x!!! That is something I NEVER did! Worse, working on someone else' PC it was GAWD-AWFUL to see anything! Give me DRAB so I can be HAPPY when I get something to "work"!

To each their own... Doubting the majority of Techies ever fiddled with it either (eye-candy)...

andreaborman, on 14 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

And all of the Windows XP and Windows Vista and Windows7 software works on Windows 8 RP.

More than likely (32-bit).

andreaborman, on 14 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

And so do the Windows NT and 95 games,Microsoft Entertainment Pack, which are 16 bit software.

Doubt that. You must NOT be referring to the DOS-based games. I.E. later Entertainment Packs were 32-bit as opposed to EARLIER ones. Indeed you needed the Windows 3.x 32-bit add-in to achieve it with many. Better read up on 16-bit... They will NOT run on XP and up hence my doubt (you NEED a dual-boot). Go ahead and try OLD Duke Nukem (could be wrong about that one)!

edit - My bad - there is a "switch" for 16-bit...
http://www.winbeta.o...-says-microsoft
http://www.askvg.com...cation-support/
XP 16-bit problems -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324767
...and more than likely Vista and Win7...
SO... they must have FIXED the nasty "bugs"... Kind of like "Compatibility Mode"...

This post has been edited by submix8c: 14 June 2012 - 11:21 AM

[andreaborman]

submix8c, on 14 June 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

andreaborman, on 14 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

And as you can see there is more choice of colors for the start screen,like these cool pastel pink and pastel blue colors

ARRGGG! Shades of Win9x!!! That is something I NEVER did! Worse, working on someone else' PC it was GAWD-AWFUL to see anything! Give me DRAB so I can be HAPPY when I get something to "work"!

To each their own... Doubting the majority of Techies ever fiddled with it either (eye-candy)...

andreaborman, on 14 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

And all of the Windows XP and Windows Vista and Windows7 software works on Windows 8 RP.

More than likely (32-bit).

andreaborman, on 14 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

And so do the Windows NT and 95 games,Microsoft Entertainment Pack, which are 16 bit software.

Doubt that. You must NOT be referring to the DOS-based games. I.E. later Entertainment Packs were 32-bit as opposed to EARLIER ones. Indeed you needed the Windows 3.x 32-bit add-in to achieve it with many. Better read up on 16-bit... They will NOT run on XP and up hence my doubt (you NEED a dual-boot). Go ahead and try OLD Duke Nukem (could be wrong about that one)!

edit - My bad - there is a "switch" for 16-bit...
http://www.winbeta.o...-says-microsoft
http://www.askvg.com...cation-support/
XP 16-bit problems -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324767
...and more than likely Vista and Win7...
SO... they must have FIXED the nasty "bugs"... Kind of like "Compatibility Mode"...

I have got the games from Microsoft Entertainment Pack.Which was made for Windows 95 and Windows NT but works on all other versions of Windows and on Windows 8. But no,they are not the Doss games. I downloaded MEP from this website here-My link

Andrea Borman.

This post has been edited by andreaborman: 14 June 2012 - 12:13 PM

[Fredledingue]

With some effort and third party apps one can turn W8 into an almost pallatable system.

Still W7 is more advanced IMO.

[tomasz86]

I'm not sure if it's a security flaw in Windows 8 but I managed to edit a protected file using the 16-bit "edit.com" command. Could anyone else check it? I haven't got access to Windows 8 at the moment.

[MagicAndre1981]

what have you done? Use psr.exe to show all steps.

[tomasz86]

As I said I can't check it myself now but you can just try to create a text file, deny access to it for everyone and then run edit.com from commandline and try to edit the file.

[Tripredacus]

32bit Windows 8 is likely going to be a legacy OS for people to use on older hardware. Of all the new hardware I am testing this month:
2 AMD boards
10 Intel boards
4 notebooks

All of them except 1 have UEFI 2.3.1. So in this case, 32bit Windows (7 or even 8) is not supported on those devices.

So because many manufacturers are using the new spec, I forsee that most Windows 8 in the market will be 64bit, or tablets which will have RT for ARM. And even the tablets will be from few manufacturers, since there is some limiter in the channel for who can sell ARM based products for some reason.

[JorgeA]

Tripredacus, on 15 June 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

All of them except 1 have UEFI 2.3.1. So in this case, 32bit Windows (7 or even 8) is not supported on those devices.

So because many manufacturers are using the new spec, I forsee that most Windows 8 in the market will be 64bit, or tablets which will have RT for ARM. And even the tablets will be from few manufacturers, since there is some limiter in the channel for who can sell ARM based products for some reason.

Tripredacus,

So I gather that motherboards with UEFI can't run 32-bit OS's? I didn't know that.

--JorgeA

[Tripredacus]

JorgeA, on 15 June 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Tripredacus, on 15 June 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

All of them except 1 have UEFI 2.3.1. So in this case, 32bit Windows (7 or even 8) is not supported on those devices.

So because many manufacturers are using the new spec, I forsee that most Windows 8 in the market will be 64bit, or tablets which will have RT for ARM. And even the tablets will be from few manufacturers, since there is some limiter in the channel for who can sell ARM based products for some reason.

Tripredacus,

So I gather that motherboards with UEFI can't run 32-bit OS's? I didn't know that.

--JorgeA

Its not so much "can't" its more like "probably won't". As I struggled with getting things figured out about it... I was not able to explain the 95% failure rate of being able to deploy Win7 32bit on them, and the 95% success rate while using 64bit. I've done probably over 50 (or maybe 100) deployments on this new spec and was never able to explain why I wasn't getting a 100% replication of either kind.

Intel and the other ODMs I was in contact with didn't really have any idea of what the trouble was. It took me about 2 months to get the "32bit not supported on UEFI" email from Microsoft. While the official line of why Win 8 32bit isn't supported because it can't take advantage of UEFI 2.3.1's features, I'm certain this slight incompatibility also weighs heavily into their decision.

Now for the technical reasoning behind this, it has to do with the bootloader. You should be able to deploy 32bit Win8 (or Win7 for that matter) onto a UEFI 2.3.1 spec board as long as you use unattend to only have 1 partition. Its when there is a System Reserved (or similar) partition involved that Windows does a kabooom on this hardware spec. It was really annoying when I didn't have the answer, but now that I do we just adapt to it. What else can you do?

[tomasz86]

@Tripredacus
Are you sure about that? I've got an UEFI motherboard (ASRock A55 Pro3) and had no problems with installing Windows 2000 on it. Is it only related to UEFI 2.3.1?

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 15 June 2012 - 04:02 PM

[Tripredacus]

I can't speak about XP and older OSes. The problem seems to be with the newer Bootmgr introduced with Vista/2008. Here is some reading.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930061

[JorgeA]

Tripredacus, on 15 June 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

Now for the technical reasoning behind this, it has to do with the bootloader. You should be able to deploy 32bit Win8 (or Win7 for that matter) onto a UEFI 2.3.1 spec board as long as you use unattend to only have 1 partition. Its when there is a System Reserved (or similar) partition involved that Windows does a kabooom on this hardware spec. It was really annoying when I didn't have the answer, but now that I do we just adapt to it. What else can you do?

Thanks, Tripredacus. I was wondering if it was a sneaky way to leave 32-bit OS's off the plane.

--JorgeA

[Tripredacus]

Well it seems that the UEFI thing was decided back in 2006 as you can read in that KB article. Remember this was even before it was expected that Windows 8 would only have a 64bit and 128bit version.

So what ended up happening was that after initial development, the UEFI spec was only to support 64bit. And it turns out the market didn't exactly trend along with the projections, so we now have a situation where hardware supports UEFI 2.3.1 (due to manufacturers getting product out to support Windows 8) and still quite a demand for 32bit OS. And most of that demand is from the Enterprise and ISVs, not so much the consumer market.

[jaclaz]

OT , but not much , and about shooting one's feet, seemingly MS decided to shoot it's parrtner's feet:
http://www.telegraph...-fragments.html

Guess WHICH part of Windows 8 will be anyway available to users of the "old" (on average less than one year old) Lumia's? :
http://www.phonesrev...-800-next-week/


jaclaz

[CoffeeFiend]

That's funny. Windows phones already don't sell (they're like 1% of the market), Nokia is just about the only company that still bothers making them, and Nokia's sales are quickly dropping: 24.4M smart phones sold in Q1/2011, to 19.6 in Q4/2011 to a mere 11.9 in Q1/2012. And only a small part of that are Windows phones too (2M -- yep, their old Symbian phones outsell them 5 to 1). Their sales dropped more than 50% in a year, in a market that's very healthy and with HUGE growth (50% in a single year). Nokia's doing so poorly (a €929 million net loss in Q1/2012) that they're currently cutting 10000 jobs and shutting plants down. And with this announcement, analysts (Nomura Holdings Inc) just slashed their sales predictions of Nokia devices by 41% which is understandable, because who wants to buy an obsolete phone that already wasn't selling? I don't see those Surface tablets selling much better either.

Meanwhile, iDevices are selling like crazy (enough to have made Apple the most valuable company i.e. the one with the biggest market value worldwide), and Google's activating more than 900,000 Android devices per day. MS already lost the game and they're turning Windows into garbage in order to win a war that's already lost.