4th February 2017, 1:00 PM
Windows 7 really is Vista but better, because the interface fixes numerous issues Vista had making it more user friendly.
I switched to Windows 7 from XP years ago. The Core Duo was a 64 bit processor after all. Funny thing is, x64 includes the full 32 bit instruction set, and the full 32 bit instruction set includes the full 16 bit instruction set, so all 64 bit processors can run 16 bit code. However, when the processor is running in "64 bit mode" it only provides the 32 bit set. Run it in 32 bit mode and it provides the 16 bit set. It's an awkward setup for those of us that like backwards compatibility. There is one workaround. If your 64 bit processor supports hardware based virtualization instructions, you can get the processor running in 64 bit mode and 32 bit mode "simultaneously", using one set for the 64 bit OS and another for the virtualized 32 bit OS. That means that you can run your 16 bit programs on the virtualized 32 bit OS just fine, or even run a virtual instance of Windows 3.11 or some version of DOS. If you want a free virtualization client, try out VirtualBox. Keep in mind that virtualization isn't emulation (with a few exceptions) and runs it natively off your existing hardware so long as the hardware supports virtualization. Think of it as a backup plan for those 16 bit programs you wish you could run, but also keep in mind driver support for modern devices like graphics cards and sound cards on those older OSes. That's where a little bit of emulation trickery comes in handy.
M.2 (or U.2, depending on which format wins out) is pretty much a necessity moving forward. SATA has reached it's limits as far as speed goes. I'm aiming for M.2 (which my motherboard supports) down the line once flash drives reach a certain point. What I can say is there's really no point hooking up a HDD to M.2 yet, because they just aren't fast enough to need that.
I want to know one thing though. Do you have a new monitor? You mention you use two, but are either of those a decent modern resolution monitor? I only just upgraded to a 1080 monitor of decent size myself. I made sure it had the lowest latency I could manage. It works pretty well, but I do miss those perks of a CRT monitor. You know, better blacks, contrast, colors, viewing angle, response time, and biggest of all, scaling of various resolutions. NVidia still doesn't support a basic integer scaling mode, preferring to fill up the whole screen and apply a blurry filter over the result. I've found some workarounds to manually "double" resolution on a game by game basis while turning off scaling entirely in the graphics card, but it isn't a universal solution. I mean, I do still have my old CRT, but both NVidia and AMD are in a mad rush to kill off analog signaling as quick as they can (and my old CRT doesn't support DVI or any form of digital signal really), so I can't hook that up as a backup for older games. A thorny situation, so thorny...
I switched to Windows 7 from XP years ago. The Core Duo was a 64 bit processor after all. Funny thing is, x64 includes the full 32 bit instruction set, and the full 32 bit instruction set includes the full 16 bit instruction set, so all 64 bit processors can run 16 bit code. However, when the processor is running in "64 bit mode" it only provides the 32 bit set. Run it in 32 bit mode and it provides the 16 bit set. It's an awkward setup for those of us that like backwards compatibility. There is one workaround. If your 64 bit processor supports hardware based virtualization instructions, you can get the processor running in 64 bit mode and 32 bit mode "simultaneously", using one set for the 64 bit OS and another for the virtualized 32 bit OS. That means that you can run your 16 bit programs on the virtualized 32 bit OS just fine, or even run a virtual instance of Windows 3.11 or some version of DOS. If you want a free virtualization client, try out VirtualBox. Keep in mind that virtualization isn't emulation (with a few exceptions) and runs it natively off your existing hardware so long as the hardware supports virtualization. Think of it as a backup plan for those 16 bit programs you wish you could run, but also keep in mind driver support for modern devices like graphics cards and sound cards on those older OSes. That's where a little bit of emulation trickery comes in handy.
M.2 (or U.2, depending on which format wins out) is pretty much a necessity moving forward. SATA has reached it's limits as far as speed goes. I'm aiming for M.2 (which my motherboard supports) down the line once flash drives reach a certain point. What I can say is there's really no point hooking up a HDD to M.2 yet, because they just aren't fast enough to need that.
I want to know one thing though. Do you have a new monitor? You mention you use two, but are either of those a decent modern resolution monitor? I only just upgraded to a 1080 monitor of decent size myself. I made sure it had the lowest latency I could manage. It works pretty well, but I do miss those perks of a CRT monitor. You know, better blacks, contrast, colors, viewing angle, response time, and biggest of all, scaling of various resolutions. NVidia still doesn't support a basic integer scaling mode, preferring to fill up the whole screen and apply a blurry filter over the result. I've found some workarounds to manually "double" resolution on a game by game basis while turning off scaling entirely in the graphics card, but it isn't a universal solution. I mean, I do still have my old CRT, but both NVidia and AMD are in a mad rush to kill off analog signaling as quick as they can (and my old CRT doesn't support DVI or any form of digital signal really), so I can't hook that up as a backup for older games. A thorny situation, so thorny...
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)