Newer stuff that isn't better

[ratdude747]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

If the API and Kernel is different, why does W2K3 use the same exact drivers!?

The kernels are close enough driver wise that it works.


Regarding Laptop design- they still make such "ugly" units... Ever hear of business class laptops? The Dell latitudes (minus the d5xx units) are made from magnesium... IMHO that trumps Thick plastic. They are not purposely uglified but they are designed to be other durable and easily repairable.

The other stuff is consumer crap that is marketed to sell to those who are not interested in "ugly" units. If people want it, people will buy it. If people don't want it, they won't buy it. It's as simple as that.

[Scenic]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Display technology has really gone downhill. Newer LCD displays keep having a progressively stronger blue tint and the native resolution has become lower. A couple years ago, you could buy a laptop with a 14" display that had a native resolution of 1440x900 and accurate colors. Today, you have to get a laptop with a 17" display to get a screen resolution larger than 1366x768, and the image has such a strong blue tint that it is almost monochrome.

Which is why I spent most of my life with two ancient 19" 1280x1024 MVA LCDs connected to my "gaming" computer. Almost all cheap consumer grade monitors these days (and in the past who knows how many years) use shitty TN LCD panels, which have ultrafast response times (for the wannabe gamers and their stupid egoshooters) but the color accuracy and viewing angles are just absolute bullshit. Combine that with cheap LED backlights and you get the absolutely trashy monitors we have today.

I spent AGES looking for a relatively large monitor that doesn't have a TN panel and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
My only real option was a Samsung Syncmaster 2333T, which is a 23" 1920x1080 LCD with a cPVA panel. I don't like Samsung much, but at the time, there simply was no alternative in that price range. Since then, there have been some low-cost IPS LCD monitors (like the LG Flatron IPS2xxV/P series), but they still aren't as good overall (LED backlight bleeding and tints). If you want a 16:10 LCD with a good panel, you gotta pay at least 3 times of what I paid for that samsung (99euro / ~128usd). That Samsung was an insider tip, as it was the only non-TN monitor with a decent picture for less than 200bucks. Sadly, they're discontinued now. Otherwise I would've bought another one..

It's pretty ridiculous..

Oh and as for the whole 1366x768 and 1920x1080 crap and why there are no LCDs with much bigger resolutions for affordable prices yet...: price fixing of LCD panel manufacturers!

There was a scandal recently..
http://www.techpowerup.com/162377/Pa...-in-Fines.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/157624/LC...xing-Case.html

This covers 1999-2006, but it's almost guaranteed this shit is still going on big time behind closed doors..

[c_hegge]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

The Dell latitudes (minus the d5xx units) are made from magnesium... IMHO that trumps Thick plastic. They are not purposely uglified but they are designed to be other durable and easily repairable.

My D531 is Magnesium, and is easy to disassemble.

The other stuff is consumer #@%? that is marketed to sell to those who are not interested in "ugly" units.

I'm guessing you mean other Dell stuff (Inspiron, Dementia/Dimension, etc). In which case, I agree. I hate consumer-oriented Dell stuff. Their laptops can be a nightmare to take apart, even for simple stuff like keyboard replacments, and their desktops usually use at least some non-standard parts.

[ncovert]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

their desktops usually use at least some non-standard parts.

Yeah, the old P2 and P3 dells had non standard ATX connectors, so it was virtually impossible to get a new one except from Dell. The plastic case clam-shell (P4 era) ones had non-standard motherboards.
EDIT-This is my 100th post!

[Wester547]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Out of curiosity, do you know if standard ATX power supplies were compatible with those non-standard motherboards in those clam-shell Dells (Pentium 4s) so long as they had all the right connectors (I imagine that they'd have trouble fitting properly into the case, at least, especially with a rocker switch)?

[mariushm]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Marius, according to you, therw ould be some benefit of moving to W2K3 (If you could get rid of AD and all the other baggage)!? If the API and Kernel is different, why does W2K3 use the same exact drivers!?

The drivers should actually work on 2000, xp and 2003 because they're all based on the NT design. However, Microsoft made quite a lot of changes between the API in 2000 and the one in XP/2003.

They intentionally kept the API as identical as possible between xp and 2003 because of compatibility testing. With server OSes, manufacturers have to certify their drivers to be installed in 2003 and they have to pay fees to do that, so Microsoft wanted to make it easy for them to just port their XP drivers over and at the same time, Microsoft wanted to re-use their already established in place software and work flow that was there for testing regular XP drivers. Basically, they wanted the XP drivers to be moved over to 2003 with all the unncecessary stuff for servers stripped out to get the maximum of stability.

Due to this certification, you often can't find drivers that let you play games on Windows 2003 because Microsoft won't certify them if they have code which could make the server OS unstable (games stuff for example).

As an example the new ATI/AMD drivers won't install on 2003, the old ones (about 2 years ago, used to silently say the OS is Windows XP and work just fine). However, as the setup installer unpacks itself to C:\ATI or C:\AMD , you can just go in Control Panel, Device Manager and choose Update Driver from the video card section and point it to C:\ATI or C:\AMD and the driver will install without any problems.
Same for any other hardware, 95% of the time you can just go in control panel and update drivers manually and select the drivers for XP from the drivers CD/whatever.

As for moving to 2003 today... there is some benefit, minimal, but there could be some disadvantages as well.
You can make 2003 actually use less memory than XP by disabling services, it doesn't have the (ugly imho) interface, it's more stable than XP. But, you get less Windows updates especially for bugs they discover now, you'll only get updates for stuff that could allow people to hack into the server. Technically it's end of life, xp is still somewhat supported.

The disadvantage.. besides the updates issue, it's the fact that the scheduler inside the kernel on Windows 2003 is tuned for background services and applications.

Basically, even with as many user facing settings you could change, the kernel will still tend to give more priority to services running in the background or applications identifying themselves as "server" software. In real world, it's not noticeable much... when playing serious games there's for example just 1-2 frames difference for the worse between playing on 2003 and XP.

But it could potentially be a problem for example if you have a slow machine with an antivirus and you watch a movie using 60-80% cpu just to decode the movie, for example some youtube video on a single core machine.

If the antivirus decides to do some background scanning while you watch and you're at the edge with processor usage, the kernel will tend to give more priority to the antivirus and you might notice the video freezing every 10-20 seconds or so for a second.

[Newbie2]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

I'd have to say AMD FX regarding this topic; despite the higher-end FX-8150 having "eight cores" (four Bulldozer modules), their single-threaded performance is abysmal, being beat sometimes by its predecessor (the Phenom II X6), as well as being left in the dust by both Intel's Core i5-2500K and i7-2600K.

[mockingbird]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

I'd have to say AMD FX regarding this topic; despite the higher-end FX-8150 having "eight cores" (four Bulldozer modules), their single-threaded performance is abysmal, being beat sometimes by its predecessor (the Phenom II X6), as well as being left in the dust by both Intel's Core i5-2500K and i7-2600K.

This has been debated about before by Marius and myself... I believe the consensus now supports what I said back then.

Marius - so 32-bit XP and 2003 are the same... Thanks for the info on the 64-bit versions... It was fascinating.

[NxB]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Due to this certification, you often can't find drivers that let you play games on Windows 2003 because Microsoft won't certify them if they have code which could make the server OS unstable (games stuff for example).

There is a lot of stuff that won't run on 2k3 just because. If anything this experience has taught me to hack apart installers. Only a few things actually REQUIRE 7 and its because new functions are missing from the 2k3 kernel. I.e. I got AE CS5 running on server 2k3. Got a patched EXE and it fires right up. Lightroom 4 tries to use a nonexistent API right at the start and throws up an error.

I don't think its as much microsoft won't let them certify it as they don't actually want to develop consumer technologies for a niche os.

ATI abandoned the platform and that is sad. The way you're installing the drivers leaves you with broken/incomplete functionality. It may work for a stand alone video card but if you have other integrated AMD things it will mess up. In my case it would often permanently disable D3D acceleration and so... no games will run (well). I want to beat up the developer of ATI Smart. Have it working but I can't upgrade my graphics/chipset driver... ever.

The disadvantage.. besides the updates issue, it's the fact that the scheduler inside the kernel on Windows 2003 is tuned for background services and applications.

Nah... you can flip it back. Its a setting.

If the antivirus decides to do some background scanning while you watch and you're at the edge with processor usage, the kernel will tend to give more priority to the antivirus and you might notice the video freezing every 10-20 seconds or so for a second.

XP does this too. They always elevate the process you don't want and ruin your day.

As for moving to 2003 today... there is some benefit, minimal, but there could be some disadvantages as well.

The benefit is the "modern" x64 kernel without the untrusted platform of vista/7/8. The headaches are app/driver compatibility but those are not new. I can't trust the latest MS offerings... they want to connect back to MS waaaay too often.
Its going to take a few years to find out what stuff is really in there.

BTW server is EOL in 2015... doubt XP will be getting any updates by then. After that 7 will unfortunately be the last usable OS. If it wasn't for linux mint's sanity in GUI design there would be nowhere to go.

In the theme of newer stuff that isn't better: The future of OS design is fisher price shapes in a walled garden with cloud based apps and document storage. Solves that pesky freedom and piracy problem and makes computers "better" for consumers.

[Newbie2]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

This has been debated about before by Marius and myself... I believe the consensus now supports what I said back then.

Well let's hope the 2nd-generation "Piledriver" FX-series processors are a viable competitor to Intel's mid-range Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge offerings, just like how AMD's Phenom II was a good improvement over the original Phenom series.

[Topcat]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

False,again.

Windows 2000 64-bit is a branch different than the one for Itanium, because the architectures of amd x64 and itanium are not compatible.

The development was done initially on Alpha AXP servers :

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...fidential.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/...1/4155462.aspx

Umm duhh.....it was intended for the Itanium..... An alpha system? I forgot those ever even existed, so who really cares. on the x86 platform (including a 64 bit AMD), win2k was not supported on 64 bit.... This is irrelevant anyway, as the discussion was XP and 7, both of which were 64 bit....

[lti]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

LAPTOPS.

I'm looking at some older Compaq and Dell laptops from way back when... They were built like tanks with thick plastic that was meant to last... Today the laptops are flimsy, even those fancy new HP Envy or Dell XPS...

I would agree that they aren't built very well. My old Gateway Solo 2500 laptop still works for basic tasks, but the plastic is falling apart. The keyboard on the Toshiba laptop that I am having so much trouble with became noisy after three months. It obviously wasn't intended to be used for school. There are so many cases of new Toshiba laptops being unstable that I am starting to wonder if the hardware platform is so poorly designed that it will never be stable or if Toshiba just got a bad batch of RAM.

[ratdude747]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Out of curiosity, do you know if standard ATX power supplies were compatible with those non-standard motherboards in those clam-shell Dells (Pentium 4s) so long as they had all the right connectors (I imagine that they'd have trouble fitting properly into the case, at least, especially with a rocker switch)?

yes, those are standard. I use PSUs pulled from those in normal units all the time w/o problems.

[mockingbird]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

I would agree that they aren't built very well. My old Gateway Solo 2500 laptop still works for basic tasks, but the plastic is falling apart. The keyboard on the Toshiba laptop that I am having so much trouble with became noisy after three months. It obviously wasn't intended to be used for school. There are so many cases of new Toshiba laptops being unstable that I am starting to wonder if the hardware platform is so poorly designed that it will never be stable or if Toshiba just got a bad batch of RAM.

No, you have it the opposite way with Toshiba...

Toshiba's platform is very reliable... the motherboards are Compal, well designed and long lasting... I have two Toshibas (One of which was found after the spring thaw - it appears as if the guy threw it out of his window onto his lawn and then it was buried with snow. It was full of mud and grass but I cleaned it pretty well) which both have the same problem: case wear... The cheap plastic standoffs basically just crumble away after being exposed to the laptop's inner heat... What a disgrace to the innards to be handled by those cutthroat execs and ultimately placed in those chassis.

[Wester547]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

To my knowledge, the problem with Toshiba laptops is the use of cheap capacitors around the CPU, which seems to have caused a deluge of issues in connecting the AC adapter (for the extra ripple it incurs kills even those capacitors early) to the laptop. I believe this began with units shipping in 2007. Seems that Toshiba doesn't care enough to fix this even though it's a rather commonplace issue. I don't think their laptops before 2005 had this issue, though I've seen complaint of Hitano caps (or something like) going bad in earlier Toshiba laptops, but that could be a result of too much long-term heat in too constricted a space also.

[Uranium-235]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

2k/xp/2k3 are all the NT5x kernels. keeping backwards compatibility with some things but enhancing others (sometimes xp drivers do work on 2k3, but sometimes devices do have specific 2k3 drivers anyways)

2k - NT 5.0
XP - NT 5.1
2k3 - NT 5.2

same basic core kernel with enhancements done to each

as far as everthing else everyone is saying

I've had new HD's last for way beyond thier MTBF, and some do not. but back in the day, yes, they generally did last beyong thier MFBF. Had a guy with a WD HD 80GB ata drive from 2001 just die last week. *shrug*. Quality differers between brands model lines. I think the 320 blues had certain flaws cause I had two of those die on me early where most all other WD drives i've had had not

I like silent keyboards. I still type 120wpm on them just like the clicky keyboards. I guess it all depends on what you're used to. The old skoolerz like tc are used to them so hes probably used to the sound, just the way it is. Never given me any problems. I'm on my dv1000 laptop typing just as fast as I would on a clicky keyboard. *shrug*

I don't know about the monitor thing. I have an acer from '0....6? 22". Perfect, lcd, 5ms response time. no bleeding, tint is perfect. My mother and her teacher friend have a 22" acer from 08, same model, each one is developing these vertical spots of color bleeding that go from the top of the monitor to the bottom. From what I can tell its related to some kind of corruption inside the panels itself. Probably came from the same factory.

Some laptops are actually pretty damn tough, but if you pay $400-600 for a new laptop don't expect it to be super tough. I hear the ultrabooks and some other laptops that have aluminum build are actually pretty tough.

I had a client with a Dell d5xx P4 from a few years back, it fell from my card seat onto the pavement, a drop of about 1 1/2-2 feet and the screen cracked terribly. Sometimes old doesn't always mean better

as far as people *cough* TC *cough* bitching about windows 7. Windows 7 that gets included with any OEM is FULL of oem bloatware you bet. But when I do fresh oem installs from the oem disks, its actually pretty bloat free. Turning off the indexing service and doing some tweaks helps some things. But I installed 7 32 bit on a P4 HT 3ghz 775 /w 2gb of ram and the thing still runs smoothly with areo (seperate video card). True if it had xp it would run better, but you have to consider that XP IS OUTDATED. I'm not saying its bad, hell its on my laptop, and parents computers. Why? its free

but for my gaming rig, 7 64 bit is tops. XP would run games like shit in this rig. Eventually we'll all have to upgrade. Just like we upgraded from 2k or 98 or me to xp. But its going to hang in there for several more years. With the price of faster hardware going down all the time, why not go 7? I can build a quad core A6 fusion with 8gb of ram for $538 including 7, runs fn' fast cause of all the hardware acceleration.

XP is going to be around for a long time. I'm going to be using it on older laptops and cheaper hardware cause I have enough keys with inf activations I don't need 7. Shop boxes, work boxes, friends with hardly any money.

I've seen very few flaws with 7, even with oem bloatware the companies are paring it with 6-8+ gb of ram makes up for some of that bloatware (xp suffered these same problems with OEM systems)

[larrymoencurly]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Out of curiosity, do you know if standard ATX power supplies were compatible with those non-standard motherboards in those clam-shell Dells (Pentium 4s) so long as they had all the right connectors (I imagine that they'd have trouble fitting properly into the case, at least, especially with a rocker switch)?

Standard ATX PSUs work fine with the GX270 and GX260, and I have an Antec 350W or 500W SmartPower II in one. I did have to cut a hole in the rear of the Dell case to accommodate the rocker switch. (It's nice if you have a friend with a square Greenlee punch set.)

[severach]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

A nibbler works too but takes longer.

[ratdude747]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Dremel?

thats what I use for exapanding sheet metal PSU holes...

[ratdude747]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

I had a client with a Dell d5xx P4 from a few years back, it fell from my card seat onto the pavement, a drop of about 1 1/2-2 feet and the screen cracked terribly. Sometimes old doesn't always mean better

That't can't be. P4 was later C series Latitudes, which did had plastic bodies. that would sound like what you described

D series was Pentium M and core (execption- d531 was AMD based), D5x0 being stripped down entry level D6x0 units (later became the vostro). they had magnesium bodies and would probably survive the impact (my D400 did).