|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
 Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: Windows 7 info starts to trickle out of Microsoft |
 |
|
Windows 7 info starts to trickle out of Microsoft
| Quote: |
| the long-term architectural investments we introduced in Windows Vista and then refined for Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 will carry forward in Windows 7. |
| Quote: |
| In fact, one of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7. |
| Quote: |
| e are well into the development process of Windows 7, and we�re happy to report that we�re still on track to ship approximately three years after the general availability of Windows Vista. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Temporary
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a bunch of Bullshit. Its basically Vista 2.. I bet the only fucking change they will make is intergrate thier shity fucking live service. Ugh like we need the Windows "House of Cards" any bigger...
I had hopes that MS would make a clean start with minwin kernel but thy opted to stay in a rut that windows is. Plus who the *beep* cares about 32bit, seriously what CPU that has been recently released thats NOT 64bit capable.. Via, AMD, Intel all have 64bit cpu's even low end ones. Mor of the same compatibility shit.. This is just prooof Vista is an abysmal failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Temporary wrote: |
| Plus who the *beep* cares about 32bit, seriously what CPU that has been recently released thats NOT 64bit capable.. Via, AMD, Intel all have 64bit cpu's even low end ones. |
I'm pretty sure thy still do 32-bit b/c the VAST majority of computer users aren't knowledgeable enough to use 64-bit competently and completely. They just want to go, not have to take responsibility for their computer. Also, the programmers of other software would probably have fits if they had to do everything in 64-bit.
KPRORK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kprrok wrote: |
| Temporary wrote: |
| Plus who the *beep* cares about 32bit, seriously what CPU that has been recently released thats NOT 64bit capable.. Via, AMD, Intel all have 64bit cpu's even low end ones. |
I'm pretty sure thy still do 32-bit b/c the VAST majority of computer users aren't knowledgeable enough to use 64-bit competently and completely. They just want to go, not have to take responsibility for their computer. Also, the programmers of other software would probably have fits if they had to do everything in 64-bit.
KPRORK |
That's about it. I'm sure MS would like to release Windows in 64 only. It would be a better product.
I can see the day coming though. One indicator is the evergrowing RAM usage. Industry standard is 2GB at the moment. How long before 32bit Windows is forced out by its 3.5GB RAM limitation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Temporary
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know I don't buy this bullshit.. Look at apple they made a clean break.. With OSX thank god. Why can't MS do the same..
People don't know the difference between 64 bit and 32 bit. If MS just did 64 developers would be forced to write 64 bit.. Developers are lazy fuckers.
Mac Made a nice clean break. They did 32 bit then switched to 64 bit with out making a big fucking fuss users didn't even know.. But MS ... Hell no.. Plus the news slides of Vista 2 is just bullshit.. Seriously why the *beep* do people want or need Microsoft Surface?
Yeah Me I want to smudge my monitor.. Oh wait Who makes a touch monitors.. Plus did you ever see the prices of those things.. Just more cosmetic bullshit from microsoft. Nothing worth while under the bonnet. Its just another vista revision.
Oh great they managed to intergrate their Bullshit Live (worst garbage on earth) service into their OS.. Great I need more fucking garbage to un-install. *beep* you microsoft..
I have bought and paid for every OS since win3.11 to Vista Ultimate* Which I don't even use. Fucking sick of not geting feature that make the os worthwhile.
You lazy fuckers inovate..
Next comp I buy is going to be a mac.
*****Eternally pissed at MS>
Last edited by Temporary on Wed May 28, 2008 1:23 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kprrok wrote: |
| Temporary wrote: |
| Plus who the *beep* cares about 32bit, seriously what CPU that has been recently released thats NOT 64bit capable.. Via, AMD, Intel all have 64bit cpu's even low end ones. |
I'm pretty sure thy still do 32-bit b/c the VAST majority of computer users aren't knowledgeable enough to use 64-bit competently and completely. They just want to go, not have to take responsibility for their computer. Also, the programmers of other software would probably have fits if they had to do everything in 64-bit.
KPRORK |
Well, the last bit is right, but don't confuse Windows x64 with general 64bit computing. 64/32 bit is (will be, should be) invisible to the user. It's all about inner industry politics, nothing more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keetrainchild
Joined: 06 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
At least it seems that we won't need to wait over a decade for a 64-bit OS to emerge for 64-bit processors, as we did for consumer 32-bit OS's. The 386 came out in the late 80's and was popular in the early 90's, but the first fully 32-bit consumer-oriented Windows version was XP (there was NT, but it lacked driver support and was meant for businesses to run servers on.)
64-bit processors became popular maybe four years ago, and we already have 64-bit XP and Vista. This time, it's the other software developers who are behind. Frankly, I think that there was no real need for a 32-bit Vista. Those who still have 32-bit processors probably don't have powerful enough computers to run Vista, and moving to 64-bit really isn't bad at all. It would have been much faster if Microsoft had forced everyone over to 64-bit so hardware manufacturers would have stopped writing 32-bit drivers. I ran 64-bit XP and I'm running 64-bit Vista, and the only problem that I had with either was driver support, and now that's not even a problem at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keetrainchild wrote: |
| Frankly, I think that there was no real need for a 32-bit Vista. |
There is a huge need for 32bit Vista, equating need with demand which, from a business/economic perspective, is logical. For MS, forcing a 64bit hand would have opened many cans of litigious worms, not to mention giving their competitors (not that they really have any) an opportunity to exploit the situation. Their public image would take another beating (the giant, pushing us all around again), software devs would be seriously POed; every program out there that runs on a windows platform would eventually need to be re-written (yes, I know about backwards compatibility, but then, that just doesn't make sense and the devs would be the ones who would end up looking like the lamers when MS finally got around to attributing low performance scores to their rightful place) to 64bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Temporary
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL need for 32 bit vista? Mac Seemed to go from 32 bit to 64 bit no problem.. But they were smart about it.. They didn't fucking go ape shit on marketing Touting 64 bitness.. They just did it. Litigations from WHO? Ever read a EULA, there is no warranty with any software they can do what ever the *beep* they want. Don't want to use it.. Don't buy it. As for logical/business reasons it makes NO sense to have a Forked OS. You have to double your resources to patch everything. Not only you have to creat 64bit but now 32 bit.. Why do you think they are desperate to kill xp and move to vista. Now not only do they have to patch just two platforms but 6, 32bit xp, 64 bit xp, 32 bit vista, 64bit vista, 32bit server, 64 bit server. What a fucking pain.. I worked in big iron (software) we hated not having a standard platform.Obviously you have had NO experience working in IT.
MS is becoming a sloth, it hasn't inovated anything. Not to mention Windows UI experience has taken a serious fucking dive since Vista came out.. At least with Mac you have BASIC UI standards with Windows? There is NO such god damn thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Temporary wrote: |
LOL need for 32 bit vista? Mac Seemed to go from 32 bit to 64 bit no problem.. But they were smart about it.. They didn't fucking go ape shit on marketing Touting 64 bitness.. They just did it. Litigations from WHO? Ever read a EULA, there is no warranty with any software they can do what ever the *beep* they want. Don't want to use it.. Don't buy it. As for logical/business reasons it makes NO sense to have a Forked OS. You have to double your resources to patch everything. Not only you have to creat 64bit but now 32 bit.. Why do you think they are desperate to kill xp and move to vista. Now not only do they have to patch just two platforms but 6, 32bit xp, 64 bit xp, 32 bit vista, 64bit vista, 32bit server, 64 bit server. What a fucking pain.. I worked in big iron (software) we hated not having a standard platform.Obviously you have had NO experience working in IT.
MS is becoming a sloth, it hasn't inovated anything. Not to mention Windows UI experience has taken a serious fucking dive since Vista came out.. At least with Mac you have BASIC UI standards with Windows? There is NO such god damn thing. |
Like parenting, posting on the net should have a minimum intellectual requirement.
Stop thinking. Start knowing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Temporary
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you are just starting a flame war?? Seriously what question do you have about my post anything specific or are you aiming at I am better than Thou?
MS has gone down the shitter.
As for the UI.. Look at old windows style UI there was a concurent theme.. Ie File Edit ... etc.. Now looks at Vista, Everyone has their own lame ass UI design (even MS). Vista, Windows Media player, worse yet look at MS Office.
Now compare that to a Mac. I still use windows but with every new iteration of windows the more I want to switch (I do have a Hackint0sh)
I still prefer Win2k because it has concurency. Frankly it runs better on a 32 bit CPU then Vista. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Temporary wrote: |
So you are just starting a flame war?? Seriously what question do you have about my post anything specific or are you aiming at I am better than Thou?
MS has gone down the shitter.
As for the UI.. Look at old windows style UI there was a concurent theme.. Ie File Edit ... etc.. Now looks at Vista, Everyone has their own lame ass UI design (even MS). Vista, Windows Media player, worse yet look at MS Office.
Now compare that to a Mac. I still use windows but with every new iteration of windows the more I want to switch (I do have a Hackint0sh)
I still prefer Win2k because it has concurency. Frankly it runs better on a 32 bit CPU then Vista. |
Look, your posts are filled with rash, trashy, blanket statements whereas mine were reasonably specific (though lacking detail) to anyone who follows MS-related news and if you want a 'flame war' with reality, then Google some keywords that lend themselves to what I wrote, and fight away. I know about what I wrote an I don't have to prove that to you or anyone else here. Believe me or not, I don't really care.
If you want to counter my post, I simply ask that you do it factually; it's not a 'think' thing and that's why I like tech. As opposed to some of the other forums here, which are filled with morons 'thinking', tech is largely about facts, and again, I ask you to put some up. At least, refute my statements with them, if you must at all.
There is also the off chance that you are MS bashing, not really putting up an argument for or against 32bit per say. You don't seem to be able to divorce MS from 32bit. If you are MS bashing, then sure, think away. I won't bother with that anymore; it's done like fried chicken. If you want to discuss the question of why 32bit is still around, that will be interesting and full of cool facts.
Anyhow...enjoy what you do.
Also, comparing OSX to Windows is silly. I made a little story some time back about it, just to highlight how funny doing so really is. They are very different beasts, made for vastly different environments, among other things. The only thing they really have in common is the label "OS". When OSX is as widely-used as Windows and the software doors open as wide as they are for Windows (hehe...anyone?), then we can start comparing. Apples to fruit.
The big  is that there is a 90% chance that you are posting from a Windows-based machine. If not, and you really are happy with OSX, then what are you raving about? Nobody said a word about OSX; you just started raving. Are you paid by Apple to defend them? A lone crusader? Do you want OSX to gain majority market share? If so, why? That will expose it for the fraud it is! It will become the same security Swiss cheese that people blame Windows for being. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeoulFinn
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Location: 1h from Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I see it, MS should have made Vista only in 64bit and continue to provide support for XP for many years to come. Those who want to (or have to) use 32bit could have stayed with XP and be happy with it. I hear that XP is pretty good now that SP3 is out.
It is understandable that MS wanted to offer Vista in 32bit as well, because the customer base would be quite limited otherwise. Vista came with many "new" things, but are they really necessary for a common user? (UAC can be useful for some users as it makes their computer safer.) I know some gamers who bought 64bit Vista only because of DX10 and larger RAM support.
Last edited by SeoulFinn on Thu May 29, 2008 3:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SeoulFinn wrote: |
| As I see it, MS should have made Vista only in 64bit and continue to provide support for XP for many years to come. |
Yes, that was the plan. If you look back into the development of Longhorn, there were a myriad of ideas that didn't make it into Vista. Some bad, some good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
