ID:181901
 Jun 22 2009, 2:02 pm
|
|
Would BYOND work with Windows 7? I was thinking of trying it... and if BYOND wouldn't work then i don't think I would want to use it. :P
| |
|
Jun 22 2009, 2:03 pm
|
|
Underworld Kid
 |
If your referring to Windows Vista, it works fine on my computer. I have Windows Vista 32 Bit.
|
While BYOND should work fine on Windows 7 there's no way to be sure of it. Since Windows 7 is still beta software BYOND can't offer any official support for it.
| |
There is a XP mode avalible for the higher versions of 7 (when its released)
I have no idea if that would help byond users, But if it works fine in vista, 7 is pretty much based off that, except from what I understand, improved, considering they took vista and actually worked on the things people didn't like in the first place. | |
I'm pretty sure it's actually completely the opposite. Windows 7 is based off of XP, as vista was basically a new OS completely, with the Windows look and feel. Now it's impossible to say that vista had nothing good about it, and they'd be stupid not to try to include what was good about vista into 7, but basically, people got sick of seeing the vista requirements for processors/RAM being twice as much as computers with XP, they're rewinding the clock back closer to DOS days and making 7 take less processing power/RAM requirements for speed than XP.
As for BYOND working on it, yes, almost unquestionably. | |
Where did you get that info?
Lightja wrote: Windows 7 is based off of XP, as vista was basically a new OS completely, with the Windows look and feel. Huh? We wish they'd make a new Windows OS completely rewritten from scratch to get rid of all the old deficiencies, but AFAIK they'd never done that (some issues that were in old OSs such as Win.95 were left in recent OSs, too). Vista was based on Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 (originally it was supposed to be on XP) and also, 7 is on Vista, it's essentially an update to Vista - it's geared on improving existing aspects of it (such as performance, stability) rather than adding new features. | |
Given that there are bugs common to effectively all versions of Windows - including Vista - it's quite clear they at least reused some code.
For example, the animated cursor buffer overflow bug that was discovered soon after Vista was released. So yeah, Kaioken is rightish. Although if Microsoft tried to rewrite Windows from scratch, they would go broke. | |
obviously I was being a bit extreme, but vista was a major overhaul of the basic system, and they're going back on a lot of those decisions that lost them a lot of money. After all, look at any new computer, and it costs extra money to DOWNGRADE to XP, not to mention, vista is the only windows OS to require Television ads as long as I can remember (albeit that I'm 17 and don't watch much TV)
| |
Lightja wrote:
obviously I was being a bit extreme, but vista was a major overhaul of the basic system Naturally changes have been made since it's a new OS, but it's still using virtually the same backend. Don't be fooled by all the changes to the user interface and all the eye candy, flashes and bangs they added - those are naturally just surface changes (and actually are disadvantages in a way), which were also advocated to push marketing (ohh look! This looks so shiny! Vista rules!). After all, look at any new computer, and it costs extra money to DOWNGRADE to XP Obviously, since you're buying a new OS...? It's not really a downgrade by definition, since every Windows OS is a separate product in its own right (they just happen to be in the same product family) - if you own Vista, you don't own XP. Also, some people would refer to that change as an upgrade, heh. not to mention, vista is the only windows OS to require Television ads as long as I can remember Dunno about that, and it obviously varies between locations and all, but I wouldn't use it as an indicator to Vista's success (or lack thereof). | |
Let me clear this up with a bit of the history of Windows starting with Windows 95 and NT.
Windows 95 was created for personal computers and very small businesses. The base for Windows 95 was used for 98, 98SE, and ME. Windows NT was created for networked environments like those found in big businesses and education facilities. The base for NT was used for 2000, XP, and Windows Server 2003. Windows Vista was a "fresh start" for Windows, as seperate as 95 and NT are from each other. There is some code sharing, but it is a completely different kernel, and the OS is fundamentally different. That's why so many drivers and programs didn't work on Vista. Windows 7 uses the same kernel as Vista. It is a lot like the Win 2000 to XP change. The OS is fundamentally the same, but the interface has been refined, and the code has been cleaned up. Windows 7 is a better OS than Vista, but hardware and software support is no better. Generally speaking, if your software or drivers work on Vista, they will work on Windows 7. Just like if your software worked on 2000, it would likely work on XP. Most of the development time for Windows 7 has went into refining the kernel to make it faster and lighter. They have also spent some time on the front end, reducing the footprint of most of the base services that make the Windows we know. I say all that to say, yes, BYOND works on Windows 7 just fine. Even Windows 7 64bit. | |
It does on 32bit. (And probably 64 bit) I'm on it now.
| |
Lightja wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's actually completely the opposite. uh what?? either you're "pretty sure" or "it's actually completely the opposite". :p | |
Vista was still based of XP,
they may have heavily modified it, but they do that to every release, The sad thing is, It will probably be a while before they ever actually create another original OS, instead of just modifying an existing one with new features, updates, and a new name. Of course, they can't always build an entirely new OS when it comes to updates, because its far more difficult, and troublesome for compatibilities sake. NT was probably first designed as a Server OS, so that's the biggest reason that vista/xp/7 ect are probably far more stable then 95, 98, ME, ect. | |