Microsoft leaks details of Windows 8 and Windows 9

reply to post by Gools


Just about every processor made from AMD or Intel in the 4-5 years has been 64-bit capable.

I would recommend the 64 bit OS for anyone using Vista or Windows 7. The main advantage a normal user will have is support for more than 4GB of memory. It's not an issue for a lot of people yet, but 4GB+ should be standard soon. I'm even seeing some cheap laptops that have 6GB of RAM

I've tested 98/2000 against XP a while back when running on the same setup and have to say that XP is faster. However a weaker setup that can run 98 and 2000 cannot run XP.

Same goes with XP and 7.

Microsoft has done something to their latest OS that makes it better on a higher-spec machine than an older OS on the same machine. I'm not complaining or anything since it's for progress and especially business.

I have a few 64bit processors that I'm using but I never really bothered buying Vista or 7. Now that I think about it, my 64 bit processors feels a lot less responsive than my old processors running XP. Perhaps it's time to buy the newer OS.

My wallet is angry but it is good to see technology evolving even more rapidly.Mid 2010 i will be updating to an I7 and ddr3 i think,not long ago i upgraded my gpu's...I mostly use my pc for gaming and you usual movie watching and the internet.So much you have to take into account these days,DX11 around the corner after the complete failure of dx10...again just recently i bought another gtx 260,won't be upgrading until the end of 2010/beginning of 2011 regarding my gpu's.Nvidia,intel MS are all in cahoots with each other.Think of the money nvidia made from crysis and people wanting to max it at respectable resolutions...course the hd 4870/4870X2 and ATI also probably made a pretty penny.Seems they are funneling us down new,more expensive path's every year.As for 128bit,i see little point.Even at this pace i can't see 128bit architecture being needed in 2012 or even 2014.


[edit on 19-10-2009 by Solomons]

Originally posted by kommunist
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

What the hell was that?

Balmer is a freak...

It was sort of like this:

Sounds like yet another way for the power of new computers to get totally sucked up by another Microsoft OS.

Seriously, ever notice that your computer has never been faster since your progression from an old computer running '95 to a new computer running Vista? Even though the PCs have gotten a lot more powerful, we all still experience long loading times and stuff.

It's irritating!

Also, no, I'm not gonna buy a Mac. I'm not hip-to-the-core or urban enough.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by Whine Flu]

Microsoft still has a flaky O.S. in Vista - and the 64 bit is still atrocious.

Lots of companies still don't have 64bit options for their programs

To jump the gap and go to 128?

How about we fix the problems with 32bit Vista before we go any further?

Microsoft Sucks.

In every conceivable way.

I'll probably wait until 2010 to buy a new cpu...I'm rocking a 8 year old computer now and its working fine lol

Originally posted by kommunist
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

What the hell was that?

Balmer is a freak...

LOL that man is out of touch with reality.

He clearly thinks he is a cool guy

That's pretty sad really.

I don't think most people will even notice the change to x64. Most people already have a processor that will support it.

I doubt it will be a big deal or the end of Microsoft... I think they should make Windows 7 64 bit only just to get it over with finally.

They should leak info about Windows 10 while they're at it. They could call it Windows X. Pick a wild animal as a mascot.

Or just stop making OS.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Linux will never be a competitor

Over 90% of web and email servers run on Linux.

Googles OS will be based on Linux.

MAC OS is Linux.

Originally posted by crisko

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Linux will never be a competitor

Over 90% of web and email servers run on Linux.

Googles OS will be based on Linux.

MAC OS is Linux.

You totally pulled that out of your ass lol.

Don't get me wrong, I love *nix (and BSD!), I've got a half dozen or so Novell certifications under SuSE, but the number is more like 10-15% of new servers are sold with a Linux distro out of the box and ~60% end up running a distro in their lifetime.

The server market is still tiny in the context of total market share and there's no reason to believe Linux will take hold any time soon in the desktop market. There's too just many distros.

Mac OSX is actually based upon FreeBSD, not Linux.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by crisko

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Linux will never be a competitor

Over 90% of web and email servers run on Linux.

Googles OS will be based on Linux.

MAC OS is Linux.

You totally pulled that out of your ass lol.

No i didn't. I work for a tier 1 isp.

EDIT: We only employ the Windows platform for internal purposes. 9 out of every 10 servers is a Linux based box. We are also in the process of phasing out MSSQL for the Sun variant.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by crisko]

Originally posted by Bosko
I would recommend the 64 bit OS for anyone using Vista or Windows 7.

While I can't comment on Windows 7, I don't think I would agree with this statement, unless you have 8GB of RAM and perform some sort of CAD / Animation work.

For the average user, it's just to big of a pain. I think in the next 12 -18 months it will lessen - but too many things simply don't work, or don't work well.

I am basing this statement of my own personal experience, and I may be in the minority, but the time I spent with Vista64 Ultimate on my personal machine was migraine inducing to say the least.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by crisko]

Originally posted by crisko

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by crisko

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Linux will never be a competitor

Over 90% of web and email servers run on Linux.

Googles OS will be based on Linux.

MAC OS is Linux.

You totally pulled that out of your ass lol.

No i didn't. I work for a tier 1 isp.

EDIT: We only employ the Windows platform for internal purposes. 9 out of every 10 servers is a Linux based box. We are also in the process of phasing out MSSQL for the Sun variant.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by crisko]

Ok, so 9/10 of the servers at that particular ISP use Linux.

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety



This is true...I run Fedora 11 i386 on my AMD 64 system. Tried the 64 bit OS, but there was only a small change in speed, and Flash did not want to install and work right. Perhaps in the future Adobe will get it right, and then I will run the 64 bit version.

reply to post by crisko



It's no pain at all, especially now. XP64 was somewhat of an after thought and never worked all that great, but then XP was not all that great and took 7 years to fix. Vista x64, well Vista got a lot of bad press from the moronic blogosphere bandwagon crowd, though anyone who gave it more than a day or so without whining found that really it was not nearly as bad as the morons said it was. Now we have Windows 7, essentially a tweaked Vista, yet everyone loves it, which to me is proof in itself that the vast majority of hate for Vista was FUD based.

The x86->x64 phase has been terrible. While Microsoft has tried to pull away from the buggy legacy hardware of old the consumer has bitched and moaned about their 5 year old turd not running this and that and blaming Windows because their 3dfx Voodoo can't run Aero transparency. Then there is the catch 22. Developers not wanting to code for x64 and consumers being reluctant to switch to x64 because developers ain't coding for x64. MS has addressed this somewhat, mostly thanks to the work put in to Vista. I've used an x64 OS exclusively for over 4 years now and have had very little issue with hardware or software compatibility to the point where now it is almost null, everything works.

Newer technology is cheaper, you can buy 8gb of ram for the price 1gb cost 5 years ago, and this moaning about "resources used" stems from a basic lack of understanding of what a computer is, what it is designed to do and how the components work together to achieve that. The proof of that fact can be seen every single time some nub cries about RAM usage. "OMG, I only have 2gb free of my 4gb" = fail.

It is cheaper to manufacture and relatively speaking it is cheaper to buy a top spec computer now than it ever has been. This will continue into the 128bit era, provided consumers are on board and stop their whining. Otherwise what we will have is another 4-5 years of stagnation in software innovation where nothing really progresses thanks to a few idiots who decided they didn't like MS's latest OS.

People love to hate MS, but the fact is that when Vista was released manufacturers like Creative and nvidia used Vista as an excuse to force people to upgrade their hardware. They did this by purposefully dropping support for hardware that was still physically able, but had been crippled via system drivers so as to appear to by defunct. People thought that this was down to the OS, and that Microsoft was to blame. They were not to blame, at least not exclusively. Many hardware devices that were problematic in the early days of Vista were problematic because the hardware vendors wanted them to be problematic so you'd buy new hardware, not because the OS was not able to operate those devices. Of course most of the blame for that landed quite unfairly at the door of Microsoft and helped fuel the Vista bashing campaign.

I have an INTEL CORE 2QUAD CPU Q6600 2.40 GHZ overclocked to 3.1GHZ AND 3 GIG OF RAM .
i couldnt tell you if its 32 or 64 but what i can tell you is that it is as slow as slow can be..it feels like im running windows 95 rather than vista...

This is probably way off topic but I see a lot of "use Linux" comments here and elsewhere.

I have some ancient machines I run various flavors of Linux on for various reasons but when we're talking about newer machines with newer hardware why would you run Linux?

Like, what's the point of having an i7 or C2Quad and a GTX295 or some other current configuration and sticking Linux on it?

I get it for building a server and I get it for workstation or school or grandma's email reader type uses but it seems like, based on the number of "use Linux" comments, that folks are running it on their main PC's. Especially when considering the scope of the thread is 128bit processing and operating systems and "use Linux" still comes up.

I sit here and look at something like an M980NU and cant for the life of me see the upside to sticking it with Linux.

Am I missing something?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I wonder the same. It's not as if there are many applications for the desktop linux environment that would justify the hardware expense. A great example is gaming. Most gamers who run linux dual boot with windows, and it is only in the gaming environment of windows where their hardware is put to its full potential. Same holds true for other domestic situations, like editing high def content from a camcorder. Sure, you can do that with linux, but to be frank the software offerings are thin on the ground and mostly crap, and the software offerings for the windows platform are far superior in that respect (same goes for audio editing/production).