Print

Print


I'm a Mac guy; only use XP (3) to program a live console I have to use.

But a Windows audio guy I know said that Windows 8 (weird as it is) takes less than one third of the computer resources to operate - and is a sign of the future direction of operating systems.

This is secondhand info that I just learned, and since I don't use windows anyway I have no opinion personally.

Andy, I do have experience with XP sp3 on Boot camp - I suggest staying with that rather than Parallels. Bit maybe that is only because I got Boot camp working in a few minutes, and never got Parallels to install at all on my MBP.

<L>
Lou Judson
Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689

On Jul 17, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Tom Fine wrote:

> Hi Carl:
> 
> For most corporate everyday tasks, there was enough user interface and computing power back with Windows 2000 (an update of WinNT that brought the user interface in line with Win98, and improved many things). Most of that power was brought into WinXP for home users, and XP Pro continued the improvements for corporate users. So for most of us, there is no reason except forced obsolesence to "upgrade" any further. In my opinion, only someone with more money than brains runs out and gets every "upgrade." There is now a long history of lardware, "feature-creep" and ill-conceived "reinvent the wheel" disasters (like Windows 8, for instance). If something works well, the wise man sticks with it until he's absolutely sure that something better has finally come down the pike. Newer <> better.
> 
> In a business setting, IT budgets are basically massive cost centers unless they are directly improving productivity and allowing machines to take over work done by people. So, needless "upgrades" and needless hours wasted re-training people on new software direct impacts the bottom line. In small businesses like mine, it's money directly out of my pocket, twice (once to buy the un-needed "upgrade" and once to use non-billable hours trying to figure it out).
> 
> BTW, I didn't switch to XP until it was up to SP3. Win2K was serving my needs just fine. By SP3, XP was clearly a superior operating environment and could be tuned to look and act almost exactly like Win2K with some ease-of-use improvements.
> 
> -- Tom Fine