“Windows 11 26H1” is a special version of Windows exclusively for new Arm PCs
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
abeinspace
Smack-Fu Master, in training
The main thing I'd like to see from Windows on ARM is a push to promote software that is compatible with it. The battery life and heat management gains we could see from more widespread adoption could be really beneficial in enterprise environments with overbearing and power-hungry security software.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Makes sense for Microsoft to keep their options open given Intel hasn't been delivering on their fabrication promises for what, a decade? Also x64 is the high-end of the CPU price curve, you'd want to make sure your OS can run on el cheapo ARM SOCs.
Sigh. All software has bugs. Software engineers (that's me) are so good we invented an entire profession dedicated to keeping us in line. I guarantee $YOUROS had a bunch of critical bugs that have just been fixed.
Sigh. All software has bugs. Software engineers (that's me) are so good we invented an entire profession dedicated to keeping us in line. I guarantee $YOUROS had a bunch of critical bugs that have just been fixed.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
Everyone forgets Itanium.
The Windows CE for Dreamcast was to allow for easier porting of PC games, since it used DirectX. There's a fair number of titles that ran it.
https://segaretro.org/Windows_CE
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I had a PC with Windows Vista RTM, and I have to say that at launch, Vista was just not good. It was bad. It was bloated, buggy, laggy, and slow. It improved a lot with SP1, and by SP2 it was a responsive and snappy OS that I was happy with, on the same PC hardware. But by then the damage had been done.
Microsoft tried to salvage the Vista brand with their "Mojave Experiment" marketing campaign, but the name was too tarnished from the reputation it earned from its buggy launch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment
I remember when Windows 7 was announced, people jokingly referred to it as Windows Vista SP3, which it kinda was. As I upgraded the same PC from Vista SP2 to 7, so much was the same, just a bit more refined on 7.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Supposedly they kept compile testing other architectures for years or decades while not officially supported. Which is how they have twice returned Windows on ARM with short notice.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Hah. I just found a bug in 35 year old 8086 assembly code I've been poking at half-heartedly for years. I was thrilled (admittedly the corner case that would have triggered it would have been someone utterly insane doing something completely stupid deliberately, but it was still a bug)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Ah, I see you've met my users.
j/k, actually my users are pretty great, but saying "there's no way anybody would ever perform that series of actions" seems to be the surest way for that exact scenario to pop up.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
That depended heavily on what hardware you ran it on. If you had less than 2 GB of RAM (which was a lot for 2007) you were in for a bad time.
I had a brand new Core 2 Duo system with 2 GB of RAM and a WD Raptor. It felt more responsive than XP did on the same hardware. I credit SuperFetch, which preloaded what you most commonly used into RAM. People blamed it for causing a lot of disk activity, which is true, but it was low priority, so it didn't interfere with user actions. Of course, it couldn't do much if you didn't have enough free RAM for it to cache stuff to. There were still some performance snags (file copy performance, if I remember, was a big one), but those were largely fixed by patches well prior to SP1.
There was a lot of instability that was due to Nvidia drivers - I remember reading a report that 30% of Vista BSODs were caused by them at one point. I had an ATI card, which, say what you will about ATI drivers, weren't nearly as problematic in that particular way.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I think I had 2GB of RAM, but can't be certain. It was a new PC with Vista with the recommended system requirements. Anyway, my main point was that there was a notable performance difference between Vista RTM and Vista SP1 on the same hardware. As in, I had the same PC, updated it from Vista RTM to Vista SP1, and the performance improved.
So hardware mattered, but when you switched to Vista mattered to. If you switched early on, you could have experienced a really bad time. Later on, it was way more solid and efficient, and on par with Windows 7, but its reputation was trash by then,
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I can't disagree with that, it was noticeably snappier after SP1.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Nah, this was in an emulator and would have to have been self modifying code literally pulling the rug out from under itself using I/O instructions to overwrite itself. But a bug is a bug, and it annoyed me that their code would have crashed in a different way.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Sigh, my massive enthusiasm for new Windows died after 7. And after 10 turned into dread 
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
I'm really confused more than anything else.
MS took the best version of Windows for Mobile, cancelled it aggressively, walked away from ARM devices to become a pure software house, released Office for Android, and now... is re-entering the ARM arena with another version of Windows?
I don't get why this is suddenly so important when Office is available for the platform already, and Windows is slowly dying.
Just an odd pivot in general.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)