I don't think you should concern yourself with that. Also capital P would be appreciated
.
Well, actually it is a concern to me, since I might want to respond to, or perhaps reinforce the missing posts.
We might have appreciated the word, "of" that you omitted from a sentence here;
"Nvidia readies the launch its GTX 560 Ti."
Just a little error there.
Terribly clever, that. Sometimes I misspell things, whoops. Or perhaps, we can't always get want we think we're entitled to. Happens to me all the time.
I also stand by my opinion that people who cling to XP alone are holding back some amount of progress. From what I can gather you run a dual boot with win7 and XP, so you have contributed to creating Win7 market share which in turn will give developers more motivation to use APIs like DX11.
Perhaps, but I still think that you're overestimating the value added by the people who are holding out. As I said earlier, M$ will move forward without them, (or without any impact from your self imagined influence). This is because, if their propaganda machine can convince a large market that Windows 8 is indispensible, they will make tons of money, despite the anachronism that XP wil have become by then. The few that cling to XP at that time, will not be a significant factor. There are still way more prebuilt computers, than there are enthusiast built machines, so that market, IMO, will still be M$ primary target.
The high end gaming market compares roughly to the racing divisions of common car brands. It's there for promotion, not for a primary source of income. My interpretation is this, "impress them with a Corvette, if it helps you to sell them a Chevy Nova".
Besides, as I understand it,Windows 7 is doing just fine, without you cheering it on.
In terms of apps running better on XP. Yes apps developed before Vista/7 were released will perform better on XP to some extent. But modern programs perform better on new operating systems, and from what's shown in the article I posted the advantages XP does hold with older programs is marginal at best. But the improvement win7 has with newer programs is more pronounced.
You ascribe all the credit to Win 7, when perhaps it's only part of the equation. Newer faster computers, run newer heavier programs better, regardless of which OS is in the mix. (Disclaimer; I disqualify Vista from this statement). As I said in another earlier post, this should be debated on a program by program basis, not an XP versus Win 7 basis. With that said, a newer program isn't necessarily better, independent of which OS you choose to run it. There are plenty of bloated slugs around, written the day before yesterday.
Hey, I'm a huge fan of Windows 7. I don't run dual boot, I just build another computer when the mood strikes. As a consequence of this, I suppose you could say I "dual boot", I just don't do it with the same machine.
With that said, I have an XP / P45 / E7300 machine, that sometimes gets thought of in the, "hey, I'd like to run Windows 7 on that", sense.(I like the case, an original Antec 900). But reasonably speaking, it wouldn't be worth the money to make the necessary upgrades, so I "cling" to XP in that, while I play with my "Core i" machine.
Really, think about it. To make the P-45 presentable as a Windows 7 machine. It would need a true quad CPU, (no multi threading dual core available for LGA775), 2 more gigs of DDR-2, (which would cost more than 4 gigs of DDR-3), and a copy of Win 7, so figure $250.00 to $300.00 USD would do the trick. But, I doubt that me not making this upgrade is holding back progress, in any capacity.
