It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Microsoft leaks details of Windows 8 and Windows 9

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by wylekat

Visat does NOT need 90% of your computer power to run. It depends on your computer, my computer screams with VistaUltimate64bit. Also, 7 needs less resources, but uses more power ie voltage not cpu. i don't understand why, but thats what i've heard. Also, 7 is all 64bit, there is no 32 bit version. 128 bit sounds great, imagine the power behind 128 bit. i can't wait for windows7, i have a 1000 watt PS so i'm fine.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

Linux has many 64 bit OS's too, and I use the 32 one for the reason that many drivers and programs aren't made for the 64. So the industry conspired against allowing people to unleash the powers of their own computers, and it was certainly for a reason.

I kept meaning to get another hardrive to run the 64's on, however, since I wasn't doing games or rendering movies it didn't make a lot of point. My computer loads quickly as it is on pclinuxos, the 3 gigs of ram I have installed that make vista as fast as my xp computer was on 1 gig of ram, makes linux just rock.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:49 AM
Sounds like Corporate BS to keep stocks safe. With windows 7 only just out the oven it seems almost stupid to mention a 8 or 9. From a sales point of view they havent even milked 7 and they are already talking about starting on 8 and 9? I'll just wait for 9 then.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by manmaidslave
reply to post by wylekat

Also, 7 is all 64bit, there is no 32 bit version.

Nope, there are 32bit versions of 7.

I'm running one right now
(Win 7 Enterprise, 32bit).

Blows Vista out of the water!

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 12:45 PM
Can someone explain to me the advantage of 128 bits processors over 64?

I mean, with 64 bits you can already address 16 Exabytes of memory and retrieve double precision operators in a single CPU cycle. Unless they come up with quadruple precision data types, which is an overkill for non-scientific applications, I think 128 bits is a hardware waste.

Maybe for encryption and very sophisticated vector graphics, but not worth the probably high cost for common desktop applications.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:04 PM
128 bit wow maybe they should be researching a system to work with quantum computers? thats where everybody says the real future is headed. i can see it now new terminator t 1500 coming to kill us then freezes up buddy looks up and says you think skynet would have known to not use a windows operating system in their terminators.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by proteus33

When quantum computers are viable not you nor i will understand the implications until we see it with our own eyes.It is literally what people like to call the singularity...course many people will refute those claims but i think it will be.Scientists have already used three or four atoms to process simple maths.If we think of how many atoms there are in something the size of a modern get the picture.The trouble...very very big trouble is trying to control all the mayhem at the quantum level.Imo it won't be quantum computers we see after the transistor but biological machines that run on bacteria...then the quantum computer.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

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?

because some people (like me) would like the machine to run at full capacity (if it's got 4 gb of ram, and dual core processors, Then I'd like to see at least 3.8 gb free, and 1 and 3/4 processors available), and not with a half buggy OS going 'chomp chomp chomp'. I ended up stripping XP down to it's shorts on my 3d machine, just so I could get SOME performance. Rendering nice 3d pics take a lotta work- and after seeing what Vista wanted to just plain run (I also have used Vista on a brand new machine. I nearly threw the thing out a window!)- I said 'nyet' but quick. I need an OS that starts the computer, lets me run the programs for 3d and art (which are ALL doable in Linux, BTW), and doesn't have this aching need to fiddle around in the system like a hyperactive kid stuck in a pew at church.

I've been reading up on linux, and trying to find a 'flavor' that suits me. So far, not much luck. I wish someone would write a graphics exclusive version for 3d and art people. I'd do it, but my code writing skills really stink.

Just for funsies: What I'd REALLY love is to find a tablet computer, and find someone code handy to write a linux flavor for it: a digital sketch pad, loaded with art programs- no more paper, waste, having to sharpen pencils, ect. A nearly instant on OS, no waiting for loading, programs loading, little balloons asking all sorts of stupid, aimless questions.... Just point, poke, art.

Edit: Wheeehehehehe! Just my timing- I found a Linux flavor for my needs! ArtistX. Now I need to slap my DVD ROM in this sucker and give it a run on this poor old machine first. See what I can accomplish.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by wylekat]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by crisko

Indeed MacOSX is not Linux. You might as well say Linux is MacOSX. They are both based on Unix. In fact MacOSX was recently marked an official Unix operating system by whatever board certifies that (don't recall).

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by manmaidslave
Also, 7 is all 64bit, there is no 32 bit version.

Does that mean that mean that the windows 7 upgrade (not full version) is also 64 bit...even when upgrading from my beloved XP?

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:39 PM
Just to state the obvious.....

There are barely any 64 bit programs out there.
(64 bit operating systems and processors have been around for years)

Now, in a perfect world, sure a 128 bit operating system and software would run MUCH faster, however...........................

Unless programers skip 64 and shoot for 128 bit, I think software support will be equally poor.

Can you image the load when your 128 bit system has to run 32 bit software??

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by wylekat

I've tried many, of course, the non commercial ones, and there are two that I keep the most versions on hand at all time, that is pclinuxos and mepis. They are incredible and have the most wonderful programs. Mepis is a bit ahead of the game, and you can easily install the latest wine to run some games on without purchasing anything, but my recent widescreen montitors get instant advanced resolution best out of pclinux which is a rock solid OS. But I dual boot, and have quite a few partitions, and there are certain propriety games that still run only on windows. So, its like a game console.

But then open office, the gimp, blender and many other programs, blow their propriety ones out of the water.

Linux and Mac both are unix, however, a few years back Mac actually took the linux team to court claiming theft of their code. Of course, they were asked to open theirs. And while both came from the original code that was released open source to the world and was originally used by all 3 systems, Linux couldn't believe that Mac still used that code.
They are far beyond that. New improvements occur all the time, by the greatest innovators.

This is also what a moneyless resource society that Ets live in is like, volunteering for a few hours a day, and taking all you need. A system of volunteering and higher education.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by LiquidMirage

Let me clear this up for you.

Windows 7 comes in both 32 and 64 bit versions.

Also, there is NO direct upgrade path from XP to win 7.

What this means is:
1) You must upgrade to vista to upgrade to windows 7

2) you must save your data, format the drive and load a full version of windows 7.

I fully realize this is not what you want to hear.

It is, however, what you need to hear.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by mrmonsoon

Yes...and upgrading is never ever the best possible route.If you are going to update your OS then do it form a clean slate,upgrading in my experience causes more problems than it solves.Before installing a new OS i usually dban(autonuke) my HD's for 24 hours.If you have a usb hd or alot of dvd;s then backup everything you have and format.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by mrmonsoon

I'm not really planning on upgrading at this point since I can't afford to nor do I have any reason to. I was, however, under the impression that I could upgrade from XP. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by crisko

MAC OS is Linux.


MAC OS is linux?

thats like saying "mcdonads big mac is burger king"

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:07 PM
Hot Damn.

I've been running Vista Ultimate x64 for the past year & 1/2 now and love it SO much more than XP. Mainly because it can actually handle it (OC'd CPU@3.8Ghz, 4GB RAM, 4 HDD's, 8800GTS), and was hand built by myself. You wouldn't believe how much cheaper and how easy it is to build your own computer. It was like Lego's all over again!

[edit on 20-10-2009 by grrrrt]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by grrrrt

Xp handles all that the same,except ram obviously.XP 64bit is terrible.And pc's have been ridiculously easy to build for quite some time...far cry from when i remember putting my vga card together.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

because some people (like me) would like the machine to run at full capacity (if it's got 4 gb of ram, and dual core processors, Then I'd like to see at least 3.8 gb free, and 1 and 3/4 processors available), and not with a half buggy OS going 'chomp chomp chomp'.

This is a complete contradiction. If you wanted your pc running at its full potential then you would want it using as much cpu and ram as possible at all times. Free resources are wasted resources and the more you try to reduce usage the less efficient the system will be. RAM is far more efficient than a hard drive in terms of both power consumption and performance.

The throughput of the average hard drive is about 60mb/s whereas the the throughput of dual channel RAM can exceed 2000mb/s. Every last mb of ram should be used before the os decides it needs to access the hard drive for data, that after all is the purpose of RAM, a data cache that can be accessed directly and virtually immediately.

Windows and (iirc) OSX both use caching extensively (as does linux in the server environment), which is why the ill-informed persistently moan about resource usage and "bloat". It might help if those people actually understood what those resources are for, and that they are there to be used, not sit there doing nothing. As long as its there and powered up its costing you money, may as well use it.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:38 PM

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
I would've assumed the same to be honest. What I don't understand is why everyone isn't using the x64 version of Windows XP/Vista/7 already. Everyone I know has a 64-bit processor yet uses a 32-bit version of Windows, it baffles me. It's so much more responsive in every aspect but I suspect x128 will be the same way, people will assume compatibility problems without ever actually trying.

Last time I checked the 64-bit programs wouldn't run the existing programs and there were too many bugs in it to be worth the money you shell out for the systems. Running out to pick up the 128 would just be a waste of money as I see it.

I had worked with a 64 bit machine it was nothing but headaches, crashes and non-functioning programs.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in