Microsoft has done such things deliberately. I had a Compaq server with dual
slot Xeon CPUs. XP (with a 1-2 CPU license) could be installed but no matter
what, was only going to be allowed to use ONE CPU. Manually forcing the multi
CPU HAL to install during setup (or after) would make it crash.
Microsoft apparently told Compaq to fix their server BIOSes so that only Server
versions of Windows would be allowed to access the full hardware capabilities.
So I put 2000 Server on it and got rid of it.
One thing I've been liking about 10 is that just about any Core 2 Duo or dual
core AMD AM2 and later can run it pretty well, even with only 2 gig RAM. A
socket 939 AMD, even dual core? Not so much. 10 is the first release of Windows
to have lower minimum hardware requirements than its predecessor. Just got done
putting it on a 2.4Ghz Thinkpad T61 with 4gig (and a BIOS modded to remove
hardware whitelist and de-hobble SATA from being limited to version 1 speed),
which I'd seriously be thinking about keeping if it had the 1920x1200 instead
of 1680x1050 display. Need USB 3 and/or eSATA? Pop in an ExpressCard.
I doubt any previous version of Windows would run well, if at all, on hardware
originally released 8~9 years prior.
Put Classic Shell on, turn off all the stuff that phones home, set the window
titlebars to a color instead of white (which Firefox ignores) and it's good to
go.
If you've ever done anything with Windows 1.0 you should notice some
similarities between it and the "Modern" UI. They both have non-overlapping
tiles with active content, and there's this black bar across the bottom. Square
corners everywhere (excepting the round ended buttons Apple sued MS over,
square cornered buttons were made to satisfy Apple). Flat, saturated colors
with a heavy emphasis on white, magenta, cyan and black. "3D" effects? Not
there, just like Windows was through 3.0.
Someone at MS has a bad case of nostalgia for Windows 1.0 running on a CGA
monitor.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 3:09:07 PM MDT, dmccunney
<dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Dale E
Sterner <sunbeam...@juno.com> wrote:
> With windows if your PC dies and you want to move
> to a dupicate and keep running - your out of luck.
(One annoying quirk was that it was a quad-core machine but
Win10 only saw two cores. The Xeon CPU is used wasn't on the
"supported by Win10 list Intel maintains. The i5-2400 in the new box
is, and Win10 sees and uses all four cores.)
Something like that happened in the Win Vista days. MS wanted
everyone on Vista, but some of the hardware in the pipeline wasn't
really up to running it. (Mostly, inadequate video.) MS created a
new level of certification - Vista Capable - so hardware vendors could
put it on the box. Jim Allchin, who was SVP in charge of Windows
development at the time, was livid. He felt, correctly, that the
hardware would not provide a good experience for users and that MS
would get yet another black eye in the marketplace. MS really should
have waited 6 months for a new generation of hardware that would
properly support Vista, but wanted to make XP go away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
