Print 153 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Jun 10 at 5:11 AM

  (Source: European Parliament)

Steven Sinofsky is the tight-lipped leader of the Windows 7 team. He offers a few details on the new OS, but mainly he tells consumers they'll just have to wait and see.  (Source: Microsoft)
Will Windows 7 boldly go where Vista could not, surpassing XP's success?

Windows Vista has its detractors, which have refused to adopt it, and it has its proponents who tell these parties to stop whining or get off the ship.  However, whether you are a critic of Vista or an advocate, chances are you hold at least a passing interest about Microsoft's next OS, Windows 7, set to release in 2010.

The Windows 7 project was originally led by Jim Allchin.  Now Steven Sinofsky has taken up the reins and is guiding the project.  Sinofsky urged his workers to maintain secrecy about the project until the development is in an advanced stage.

In a rare interview with
CNET, Sinofsky finally offers a bit of insight on Windows 7.  Sinofsky subtly states that the team is learning from Windows Vista's pains, commenting, "The reactions that we've had to some of the lessons learned in Windows Vista are really playing into our strategy of getting together a great plan for Windows 7, and working with all the partners in the ecosystem in a very deliberate way, such that the end result is a very positive experience for all of us."

Sinofsky says that he wants to limit misinformation and make sure information given is pertinent to the consumer.  In response to Apple trying to define the Windows experience in a negative light in the minds of consumers, Sinofsky comments, "In a way, what I would say is Apple isn't really talking about where they're going".

He confirms that Microsoft is committed to releasing Windows 7 "three years after the general availability of Windows Vista" a shorter release period than between Vista and XP.  Sinofsky refused to comment on Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates' comments in Miami in which he indicated that Windows 7, perhaps just in beta form was coming next year.

The increasing hardware complexity is not a negative but a positive, according to Sinofsky.  He acknowledges that some basic interface redesign may be needed, and he points to Vista's graphics interface redesign as an example of a similar successful redesign. 

Additional driver compatibilities will not be introduced in Windows 7 says Sinofsky -- that was the job of Windows Vista.  He says that Windows 7's kernel will be an evolution of the leaner kernel from Windows Server 2008, which in turn was an evolution over the Windows Vista kernel.

Adding more detail on the kernel, Sinofsky adds, "So, memory management, networking, process management, all of the security hardening, all of those things will carry forth, and maintain the compatibility with applications that people expect. Finally, we are going to make sure that the release is available both in 32 bit and 64 bit, which is an additional help for maintaining compatibility, particularly with device drivers."

While he wouldn't shed specifics on features of interest to the consumer, Sinofsky insisted, "But we're actually going to bring forward the compatibility, and we're going to make sure that there's a lot of value for everybody who's a customer of Windows 7."

As to the closed-lip policy, Sinofsky say Microsoft's approach is similar to that with Internet Explorer 8.  He says that like internet explorer, they will likely go to developers first, then advertise the features to consumers, after getting initial feedback.

Past that basic example Sinofsky refused to give much more details.  He concludes stating:

Let me just end with this. Look, we're working--the team is working super, super hard on this release of Windows, and you have to imagine we'd really be excited to start showing it to people. We want to show it, and we want people to get their hands on it, but we want to do that under the umbrella of being responsible members of the ecosystem, and being respectful of people's time and energy and the work that they'll put in to making Windows 7 great from the work that they can do.

Really Sinofsky did not add very much information to the picture on Windows 7.  He did offer some tantalizing clues on where the Windows 7 kernel is headed.  But he didn't provide much information on new features or the overall design direction.  The result is a double edged sword for Microsoft -- his carefully guarded remarks will likely increase the excitement and expectations for Windows 7.  Conversely, the OS may suffer from these same high expectations, though if it can't deliver.  It should be interesting to see in coming months as more information is released, but for now we can only wait.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By straycat74 on 5/27/2008 2:07:34 PM , Rating: 5
Finally, we are going to make sure that the release is available both in 32 bit and 64 bit

RE: Great....
By knitecrow on 5/27/2008 2:12:20 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed. They should kill 32bit when most new systems come with 2 or 3gb standard.

RE: Great....
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 2:17:52 PM , Rating: 5
Unless MS can guarentee all in house software is going to work on thr 64bit varient (even though there is the capatibility layer every does not work in 64 bit) we are not going to see 32 bit phase out until at least the next windows revision. I think you need to take corperate world into account (you know at least 80% of the market) before you make such statements. It is the reason why Microsoft still has, and I imagine will continue to own the OS market.

RE: Great....
By straycat74 on 5/27/2008 2:36:29 PM , Rating: 4
Why would the corporate world be more hesitant to move to 64bit than they are to switch to a new OS? (Vista)

RE: Great....
By Locutus465 on 5/27/2008 3:12:23 PM , Rating: 3
64 bit Vista breaks compatibility with older code, much more so than the 32bit varient. I would love to see a 64bit only echo system but it's not currently possible and if I was developing the next version of windows right now my plans would include a 32bit varient next version and re-evaluate when the time comes to start developing the next version of windows after that.

It's very sad, but it keeps corperate customers happy. Hopefully by the time Windows 7 is availble the 32bit version will just been seen as redundant and no one will support it.

RE: Great....
By Flunk on 5/27/2008 5:34:00 PM , Rating: 5
Do you actually use Vista x64? My experience with it are that it is more compatible with 32bit applications than XP x64 was, in fact I have never had an issue with 32bit applications on Vista x64 that doesn't also occur in Vista x86.

Of course if you were talking about legacy windows 3.1 programs (16bit), they are not supported at all so I can see a point to that.

RE: Great....
By gramboh on 5/27/2008 5:53:37 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is with custom applications in a business environment, 64bit can break these, or at least the vendors will not support them in a 64bit environment, so it's not an option for corporate.

For desktop use, the only things I care about being 64bit are games for additional memory allocation (although I doubt many go over 3gb) and media players for decoding HD. I don't care if my browser or office applications are 64bit.

RE: Great....
By Locutus465 on 5/27/2008 5:55:29 PM , Rating: 3
Yes and your experience hardly mirrors my own... In particular we have issues at my office with 3rd party activex components we untilize and propriatary drivers/software packages such as the philips speach mike. 32bit vista is much more backwards compatible than 64bit.

RE: Great....
By Saosin on 6/2/2008 8:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
That makes it even more important to move to x64 only. ActiveX is a plague and it needs to be dealt with.

RE: Great....
By Lord 666 on 5/27/2008 6:50:40 PM , Rating: 3
Cisco VPN Client (5.x) is STILL not compatible with Vista 64bit. We are not talking about some fly by night company either, but Cisco who has ample resources to hire talent to make it work.

This is the only software that is holding me back from installing 64bit Vista and keeping me on XP.

RE: Great....
By tcsenter on 5/27/2008 10:35:08 PM , Rating: 3
What would a business need with stuff like that, anyway? We're talking about real applications that real people use, like iTunes, Google Earth, NERO, and Star Wars Pod Racer. lmao!

Can you believe someone actually mentioned a Star Wars game in a discussion about application compatibility? How many businesses could there be that use stuff like EMS, accounting, supply chain, POS, human resource, job costing, business contact, project collaboration, document management, and a hundred other application types that will never rank in the top 500 on any Torrent site?

What can those applications do that iTunes, Star Wars Pod Racer, and MS Office can't?

The world is certifiably full of retards.

RE: Great....
By HrilL on 5/27/2008 7:53:03 PM , Rating: 3
Even with a few compatability isues with Vista I don't see that as much of a problem. Anything that won't run on Vista will just have to be run on a VMserver. You can just make a VM for just about any OS and then run the program acording. Remote Desktop, X window, or VNC all work fine for most applications unless they are heavy on Graphics but I don't know of any 16bit apps that are. That is what we are planning on doing at work if we ever switch over to vista but at this point we are thinking about just waiting for Windows 7 since by that time all our older computers will be replaced and we won't have to support more than one OS at a time.

RE: Great....
By Calin on 5/28/2008 3:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Office computers are not that kind of powerhouses that invite running a virtual machine on top of the real machine.
As an advantage, you could certainly run the legacy app in a virtual machine.
Now, for the issues:
-paying double for OS licenses
-paying double for software licenses (assuming you have your Virtual Machine with the legacy app, Office, and maybe some other programs
-support needed for both the virtual machine AND the real machine's software stack
In the end, why would you use the Windows 7 if you still have all the headaches of Windows XP (and new headaches of Windows 7)?

One more thing, Alt-Tab doesn't take you outside of the virtual machine, and moving back and forth between the virtual machine and the real machine will be painful.
Also take into consideration extra training is needed for the users

RE: Great....
By Spoelie on 5/28/2008 5:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the issues you mention are non-issues in reality.

Windows 7 will be released in 2010, and even now 64bit dual cores with advanced virtualization support are common place but in the lowest budget configurations. Installing it then on a 5 year old budget desktop/laptop might not be the best idea, but the turnover rate of business machines are shorter than that, so it doesn't matter.

If you use the VM only for those programs that do not work in a 64 bit environment then you only need one copy of each license. The old OS license has already been written off so is not an extra cost.

The added technical complexity and slight retraining are issues, but they are not insurmountable.

RE: Great....
By jonmcc33 on 5/28/2008 1:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
The cost of the previous OS license is indeed null. But, the cost of additional man hours to maintain the possible issues with the VM is there.

A better option is to do what is done at my work. Get a single, powerful server and run a Terminal Server on it. Then people use RDP to connect into it. Permissions are severely restricted, users cannot save to the server but only drive mappings that are given to them at login. User cannot even right click at all.

Makes it great for in house applications as well. Only one place needed to update application instead of multiple computers on the network. If there's an issues it's troubleshot on a single system rather than many.

RE: Great....
By SilthDraeth on 5/28/2008 10:42:35 AM , Rating: 2
I use VMware at work, and no it isn't painful to move back and forth, I simply drag my mouse out of the VM and I am on my regular machine, drag it back in and click and I am on the VM.

Crap, I forgot, dragging a mouse cursor and clicking is difficult.

RE: Great....
By HrilL on 5/29/2008 4:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think you should read the whole comment before you post.

I never said anything about running a VM on office computers. I said "VMserver" As in a terminal server running a VM of the OS that will run the application you need. that is why I mentioned RDP, X window and VNC all remote access programs.

license fees are a non issuse. You already paid for the OS that you will put on the VM server and you already own the application as well that is why you are going to run it on VM so you can still use it. So you don't have to buy a new one or pay someone to program you a new one.

As for extra support that not an issue either. There will only be windows 7 on the office machine. Everything else would be on the server and users wouldn't be able to do anything in the VM OS other then use the app that can't run on windows 7. Still only the headache of 1 OS for the user and IT staff already knows the old OS's and software and its setup in a VM that doesn't get changed and even if someone brakes something you can have a copy of that OS and apps image and you can just mount the working copy.

While the alt-tab thing is true in some cases it wouldn't be a problem at all. For example. Joe user is using a windows 7 box and needs to use 16bit app. He opens RDP and accesses the app. and when he needs to do something else he can go to a differet window and do what he needs. It is not hard to switch from RDP to your normal desktop.

RE: Great....
By masteraleph on 5/27/2008 8:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
A number of businesses- particularly small businesses- rely on custom software that is, in fact, 16-bit. After all, if you paid someone to design it for you in the '90s and it works, why pay someone else to write you a new program?

RE: Great....
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 8:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
It's called "maintenance." Some places do it, some places don't. If a program is so valuable that it's being used so many years later, then it probably makes sense to invest some resources to keep it running as the platforms evolve. Or it isn't.

RE: Great....
By overzealot on 5/27/2008 10:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to convince people though. Especially if the original program very rarely stuffs up.
Maintenance creates downtime and potential for bugs to creep in.
It doesn't really matter - Microsoft has never been able to force industry uptake. Business will keep running NT4/2000 + 3rd party software that works..

RE: Great....
By jonmcc33 on 5/28/2008 1:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
But if your original program messes up and the person that made it is no longer there, what then? Then your company is dead in the water?

Businesses running NT4/2000 are also most vunerable to attacks. So when their company data is stolen or destroyed then they shouldn't complain.

RE: Great....
By HrilL on 5/29/2008 4:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
How would you b dead in the water?

There are many options other then keeping around old insecure machines. Like running a terminal server with a VMserver. Everyone can have the latest OS on their desktops and connect to the server via RDP to run any old application that doesn't still work on the new OS. The old OS in the VM can also be locked down so you can only run the one application that you need and nothing else. That has almost no security risk at all.

RE: Great....
By Alexstarfire on 5/28/2008 3:06:11 AM , Rating: 3
True, but nearly all the the 16-bit apps can be rewritten in like 1 to 2 days tops. They really aren't that complicated, at least the ones I've seen. It's not like these computers can't run 32-bit or even 64-bit code. It's simply because no one has taken the very slight effort into rewriting a good program. Only thing you'd really have to change is the interface to make it GUI, not much else. Nearly all of the code can just be copied. All you'd have to do is put it into a 64-bit compiler.

RE: Great....
By Aloonatic on 5/28/2008 6:38:07 AM , Rating: 3
The point is, if its' not broke, don't fix it.

This is where Vista has come "unstuck" as it were, the OS market has matured to a point where people are happy with what they have.

A few programs that we use here in the small company that I support are fine working on the XP and 2000 machines we have and don't work on Vista.

There are a few Vista Machines that are new and used by people who have general office apps which is fine.

The warehouses on the other hand use less conventional software and there are constant problems with the software that we bought from a 3rd party vendor.

Used to work fine, then they moved to dot net (rather understandably everyone's doing it) and they constantly needed attention, still not working as well as they were before a couple of years down the line.

Simply upgrading may seem like a copy pasta process that isn't really that hard but any change is almost inevitably going to cause trouble so why bother?

Why bother adding complication and change when what you have works?

We do a lot of work for airlines and a lot of their systems are still DOS type interfaces, a few of them have Win 98 for Christ's sake (no joke, it's true) and they seem to be happy.

For the corporate world you always have to take into account training and the risk (number of employees x stupidity of the biggest computer illiterate numpty in the company) of incorrect data entry even when changing something as simple as the location of a check box too.

It all costs money, and what is the gain? It looks nicer?

The only real benefit is that sooner or later the old boys who know the old schools systems are going to move on and the new guys are going to be completely unfamiliar with old fashioned interfaces, so maybe moving on is a good thing for the long run?

All I do know is that $$$/£££ is what really matters and until anyone can show that more $/£ will be made/saved using a new system over the old one nothing will change, at least without the passing of weighty brown paper envelopes that is.

RE: Great....
By Silver2k7 on 6/1/2008 1:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
I guess these computers are only doing what they where made to do 10 years ago or so.. but if you feel the urge to install anything new like say a new version of winamp or win-mediaplayer, it most probably won't work with either Win98 or Win2000..

realistically we are now going into a transition period where software will start to become avalible in 64-bit. Its a slow process, but as RAM becomes cheaper and video cards gets more memory, the transition will become more and more needed. Ultimatly you will want a 64-bit OS for utilizing the avalible memory in your computer and taking the advantages that 64-bit computing will offer.

RE: Great....
By Aloonatic on 6/10/2008 5:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
The point is that, in the corporate world, most computers are happily doing what they need to do and do not need to do anything else.

Why would a business machine need a new version of Win-amp or Media Player?

Most are happy to run their programs with on board graphics and don't need much RAM, certainly less than the 4 GB that 32bit OSs are limited to. What day to day programs need more than that out side of CAD environments?

That seems to be what most people are missing, XP works and if your argument is security, well most coprs have spent a lot on third party network security so that's not so much of a problem.

MS are a victim of their own success with XP, Vista may be appealing to home users and gamers (DX 10) but the corporate world can easily give it a miss.

RE: Great....
By NT78stonewobble on 5/29/2008 1:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
I recognize the problem but it's still their problem and not the rest of the worlds in a way.

Besides it's just natural that you have to migrate software or hardware at some point.

Think of a business relying on record players instead of cds? Or of a business relying on VHS than on DVD? (just analogies offcourse)

At some point they won't be able to even get the right hardware for running these systems because noone produces it anymore.

And the hardware is the reason you will have to upgrade because it will fail at some point. Not so much the software...

RE: Great....
By Quiescent on 5/28/2008 12:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, this time I'm not going to be lazy. I'll name off all the programs that I've used and have had no problems with in XP 64bit:

Alcohol 120%, HD Tune, Prime 95, Fruity Loops Studio, Firefox, Opera, mIRC (and any other windows IRC client for that matter), CYGWIN, VMWare, RealVNC, The crappy software for my Zen, Crappy iTunes, Quicktime, Logitech drivers, ATI drivers, Asus drivers, Nvidia drivers, VLC, Nero, Office, OpenOffice, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, All the games you can list, including DESCENT, DOSBOX, Windowsblinds, Cakewalk, Foobar2000, Frostwire, Limewire, Soulseek, Utorrent, any other frickin' popular torrent client, Nvu, Emulators for game consoles such as the Atari 2600, Ethereal, Cain, Sandbox, Tor, VMWare, Activeperl, gaim, trillian, pidgin, CDBunerXP, Audacity, 3DSM, Maya, Poser 5, Damn NFO viewer, Diskeeper Pro, eMule, Nod32, Kaspersky, CuteFTP, WinSCP, TreeSize, MagicISO, Movie Maker, Nmap, PestPatrol, Shoutcast, Skype, Speedfan, Terragen 0.9.49 (Weird problem with 0.9.19), 3DEM, Winamp, WinPCap, Winrar, Visual c++ 6.0 Professional edition, AutoCAD 2008 64bit (If you look in the config, they have it to not continue with the install of the 32bit version if it detects wow64.exe, so this is not an OS problem, but a greedy company)

I found only one problem besides Terragen with XP 64bit:

None of the generic no-name-brands that produce your average dollar general webcam/microphone/whatever has no XP 64bit drivers. I was given a generic webcam. I couldn't even find their site anyways. So I don't know why anyone would buy a product like that in the first place, if they don't even have a website to go to. C'mon this is the age of the internet, isn't it?

So yes, in the aspect of usage in businesses, there MIGHT be problems, but not for personal use or for the use above. Again, I have no problems with XP 64bit.

RE: Great....
By HrilL on 5/29/2008 5:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you. I used to run windows xp 64bit before I switch to vista 64. Only problem I ever had was with programs that look for what OS it supports and then saying it doesn't support xp 64bit this was fixed by changing the .ini to accept 64bit or changing the registry to tell the program it is regular xp pro. The nvidia drivers were a problem in some games but that is mostly fixed now. This problem was probably because I got the OS as soon as it came out.

Only real problems are with no name companies. And if you look to see what chip they use you can get drivers elsewhere. For example. I had a no name sound card from a company with no website. I looked to see what chip it was using and it turned out to be a realtek one so I got the drivers from realtek.

RE: Great....
By Hoser McMoose on 5/30/2008 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
My Experience in Vista x64 has been pretty similar, virtually no compatibility issues.

So far the only thing I've found that used to work under WinXP 32-bit and broke under Vista 64-bit is an older version of Nero Express that came with myDVD burner. My old copy of Diablo II LoD also took a bit of tweaking to get it working (requiring Alcohol 120% and using UAC to sudo admin privileges to my regular user account).

The problem for businesses though is that they tend to get stuck with a single, business-critical piece of software that hasn't been supported in 5+ years. It's a bad idea and good businesses try to avoid this whenever possible, but unforutnately it happens on occasion even to the best businesses. Heck, the company I work for has some software that doesn't work in Vista (32-bit or 64-bit), mainly because we stopped developing it two years ago (more specifically, old version of a 3rd party driver). We've had probably 5 customers complain about this, but unfortunately for them we would need about 1000 customers complaining before it would be worthwhile to spend the time and resources to fix the problem.

RE: Great....
By tallguywithglasseson on 5/27/2008 2:44:48 PM , Rating: 3
Not just in-house software but also device drivers for legacy hardware - and I don't just mean printers.

RE: Great....
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 3:06:55 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly, bar code scanners really come to mind.

RE: Great....
By oab on 5/27/2008 9:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
The bar-code scanners I've seen and worked with typically use a PS/2 pass-through into the same port as the keyboard, or would otherwise work like a generic HID "keyboard" and send their stuff over USB.

RE: Great....
By allometry on 5/27/2008 2:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
As of right now, Vista 64 supports 32-bit code, but no 16-bit code.

If you're using new software from this decade, you're chance of not being supported is minimal.

RE: Great....
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 3:06:11 PM , Rating: 1
Vista 64 supports 32 bit code in compatability mode. In most cases most software will work, but I have come across many in house pieces of software that will plain not work in compatibility mode (whether it be vista or XP 64bit). I am not saying this is a program with retail software, but it is a problem for business's if they are forced to upgrade because their old O/S is no longer being supported.

RE: Great....
By allometry on 5/27/2008 3:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
The only piece of software that doesn't work for me in Vista 64 is Star Wars Pod Racer; I wasn't broken up about that too much. I doused my tears by firing up TF2 and I was A-OK.

Microsoft can't force people to upgrade, there's proof of that in Vista. But, Microsoft doesn't just end support for an operating system right away. Hell, Windows 98 just had support ended for it not too long ago.

If Window 7 was 64-bit only, Vista and XP would still be around for a while. New systems purchased from an OEM (by a corporate client) would be 64-bit capable and able to run Window 7. Microsoft maintains backward compatability with other systems and I'm sure a Win7 box would play nice with a Vista or XP network.

By the time Windows 7 will be released, 16-bit code will have been phased out over 12 years ago. If any 16-bit code is still in use by corporate customers, they will be classed in with the 20%. The other 80% of the clients are good to go with 64-bit. I don't see this as an issue to worry about; offering Window 7 as a 64-bit only platform.

RE: Great....
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 3:36:01 PM , Rating: 3
Once again, stop thinking about yourself (under 20% of the market). I have absolutely no problems in Vista whatsoever when I am at home. But at work, when I bring in my home laptop and use in house applications, some do not work. These are 32 bit apps, not 16..

As far as I know 16bit applications were phased out completely in vista, there is only a capatability layer to run 16bit apps, similar to how 32 bit apps run on a 64 bit OS. I would have to say most in house apps today still are 32 bit, in fact I would wager that even new software being released is 32 bit, as almost all corperate systems have not phased over to 64 bit systems.

RE: Great....
By allometry on 5/27/2008 4:06:03 PM , Rating: 3
If you have software that is not compatibility with Vista, Vista 64 or XP64, then don't upgrade. I don't know how my comments made about Vista suggest that you need to upgrade? I simply put forward facts, that Vista 64 supports 32-bit code and does not support 16-bit code. Therefore, if you have old software or software written with 16-bit code, then Vista64 or any other 64-bit flavor, is not for you. Microsoft will still continue to support you and so you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

RE: Great....
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 4:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Another option is to run Vista for all your "normal" work, and then run a 16-bit app with a legacy OS under a virtual machine. This way, you can even go back to the OS generation that the app runs best under, e.g., Win9x, without being "stuck" doing all your work under that environment.

But I do think that 16-bit apps, even for internally used software, have mostly gone the way of the dinosaur. The writing has been on the wall for quite a long time...

RE: Great....
By mikefarinha on 5/27/2008 5:10:04 PM , Rating: 3
But I do think that 16-bit apps, even for internally used software, have mostly gone the way of the dinosaur.

You need to go take a tour of any given California State government office.

RE: Great....
By pattycake0147 on 5/27/2008 8:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I just started work today with Indiana Dept. of Transportation and the first thing I saw on a job site computer was a 16-bit app.

RE: Great....
By The0ne on 5/27/2008 8:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
He's speaking from inexperience, clearly. In government offices you still have the grandmas and grandpas that rely on old and in some case much much older devices. Case in point, I've worked for a company that designs and implement voting systems for councils and such. These are basic LED on/off implementations using switches. One of the main decision to do this, aside from cost, was because most council members are not computer literate and thus not techno savy as well. So when I say much much older devices I'm talking about your run of the mill old typewriter :)

Going 64bit? I don't think it'll happen as soon as you like to think.

RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 6:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
exactly , use virtual machines for your older software.
And for that one rare occasion you need to use that 16 bit software and it cannot run under a virtual machine, keep an old version of windows handy untill you can migrate. Or just an extra pc.

Maybe people should also invest more in future proof software instead of buying every 5/6 years new machines and os for exactly the same functionality. Go for example html/php/java (w3 standard compliant afcourse)based where you can.

And use OS specific software when you need too and it is the only viable option.

RE: Great....
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 6:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
Running everything on, e.g., Java, is not a real solution either, since Java apps perform poorly compared to their native counterparts since they can't take advantage of all the resources of the host operating system, e.g., hardware acceleration.

And for many applications, there is a direct requirement for OS dependency, such as communicating with a non-generic hardware device. This can't be done in a platform-agnostic way.

RE: Great....
By oab on 5/27/2008 9:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
VM apps (Java, .NET) are approx 10% slower than non-virtual apps, when optimisations and "proper" coding is used. THe problem is the virtual machines themselves don't really quite take advantage of OS features/hardware as much as possible. With a VM environment, it's the VM that should handle hardware acceleration, not the application.

RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 5/28/2008 7:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. That's is why i keep hoping for a general api for using for instance the gfx card for not only graphics but also heavy calculations. Microsoft should really take a leading role in this since they have the biggest marketshare.

A corporate version of directx. With higher accuracy.
It will also give you network, audio and input.

If written secure and for a sandbox principle VM. You have everything you need for modern secure software.
And let the sandbox/VM worry about where you are allowed to read or write in memory and storage.

A VM can be written that uses this hypothetical directx professional.
JAVA2 , NET-2 call it what you like.

Keep the idea of the sandbox, just put more toys in it to play.

And for that 10% or more slower. That is a legitement reason to buy new hardware.

RE: Great....
By Locutus465 on 5/28/2008 12:21:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'll preface this with I do exactly this for with my development machine, however...

You can't expect this solution to be considered to be realistic for the vast majority of end user's computers in your average office. Have you ever used one of the toasters the average user gets at an office? They'll be lucky if their "desktop" has the equivilent power of a low end laptop with barely enough memory to run vista let alone Windows XP on top of that.

I'm a big supporter of vista, and I would love to see a 64bit only echo system, but it simply isn't realistic at this point in time nor can you gamble that it will be when windows 7 is ready for realease (particularly after vista's "growing pains").

Oh, additionally... I also haven't run into many situations where vista 64bit doesn't work for me, but then again my vista 64bit machine is my personal desktop which I use for gaming, checking my email, as a media server and on occation processing very large datafiles for customers. Simply put, the machine isn't facing having to run the odd activex apps required to make my company's medical software package work. Vista 32bit however has no issues with these active x libraries which are (falsely) labled vista compatible since they work with the 32bit flavor of the OS.

RE: Great....
By melgross on 5/27/2008 4:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
You're kidding, right?

Can't force people to upgrade?

With every new computer comes the OS that MS wants to sell. Where is XP in computers sold to the public? To small business? To most schools? In retail?

Mostly, it doesn't exist, and hasn't for a while. Sure, Hp or Dell might be able to work out some short term deal for a part of their customer base, but for everyone else?

Unlike what was said here earlier, 80% of computers isn't sold into business. It's more like 40%. Then we have government, about 10%, and schools, about another 10 to 15%. the rest is consumers.

You know, us!

RE: Great....
By allometry on 5/27/2008 4:15:42 PM , Rating: 3
If you make a conscious decision to fork over money to a company that is only selling a box with Vista on it, no body has forced you to do anything. You justified it on your own, no matter how positive or negative that justification may be.

If you are in the group that wants to stick with XP, then I suggest buying up as many copies of XP as you can, because Microsoft is going to stop selling it.

Regardless of how specific you can make statistics, it doesn't change the fact that new computers are being sold with 64-bit processors.

RE: Great....
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 4:32:51 PM , Rating: 3
With every new computer comes the OS that MS wants to sell. Where is XP in computers sold to the public? To small business? To most schools? In retail?

You are assuming that most everybody doesn't want Vista, which is clearly not the case.

Anyway, XP sucks, why would anybody want that crap on a new computer anyway? What benefit does it have over Vista?

And besides, did it ever occur to you that Microsoft and many OEMs (as well as many users) sincerely believe that Vista is much better than XP?

RE: Great....
By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2008 5:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
They could force people to leave XP if they wanted to. Just turn off their activation servers. Machines that need repair or has excessive upgrades get turned into dead boxes. They'll all be gone before too long.

RE: Great....
By RubberJohnny on 5/27/2008 11:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
Gee that would be a good PR exercise!

And what about corporate customers whose copies of XP don't need to be activated?

RE: Great....
By Oregonian2 on 5/28/2008 7:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
New service pack (that adds the activation requirement). :-)

RE: Great....
By jonmcc33 on 5/28/2008 8:11:57 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing that won't work at all is anything 16-bit, that includes applications with 16-bit installers. Most stuff that is 32-bit will work, hence the reason for WOW64.

RE: Great....
By akugami on 5/27/2008 2:20:03 PM , Rating: 5
They need to kill 32 bit and make Windows 7 completely 64 bit. They can use Vista as a transitional vehicle with people still wanting 32 bits to use that for better compatibility with older programs. They can expand the feature set of Virtual PC to cover 32 bit program emulation. Clean up the Windows API's and modernize the OS to a greater degree.

There is no reason not to take the hardware and software emulation route with most 32 bit programs in another 2+ years time. Any application that is power hungry and will be slowed drastically and negatively impacted by emulation will more likely than not have a 64 bit native version being released.

RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 6:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I agree.

RE: Great....
By Shawn on 5/27/2008 2:31:11 PM , Rating: 3
Or at least make it so that all new systems come with the 64bit version, and the 32bit version must be bought at retail.

RE: Great....
By Chiisuchianu on 5/27/2008 2:44:17 PM , Rating: 5

RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 2:54:57 PM , Rating: 5
You can't completely kill it. But the OS should be written for 64-bit. A separate emulation layer should handle 32-bit applications and device drivers. It should be a process just as anything else is. Any 32-bit application running should be a child process of it.

You're never going to make everyone happy though.

RE: Great....
By Smartless on 5/27/2008 3:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
Kill the Wabbit. Kill the Wabbit!

RE: Great....
By Segerstein on 5/27/2008 4:09:02 PM , Rating: 3
I just read:
Kill the Wahhabit. Kill the Wahhabit.

[Mr. bin L comes to mind]

RE: Great....
By Rebel44 on 5/27/2008 2:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

RE: Great....
By chmilz on 5/27/2008 2:16:14 PM , Rating: 3
He talks about all these evolutionary changes. How about letting the world evolve to a 64 bit OS? If people don't want to make the leap, they have 32 bit XP and Vista to lean on until they are ready.

RE: Great....
By Nihility on 5/27/2008 2:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's all good for people with a lot of RAM but you have to remember the downside to a 64bit operating system: It uses more memory. Around 20-40% more memory, because of the larger addresses. So if you bought a cheap box and only got 1-2 gigs of RAM, you're going to have a lot less RAM than with 32 bit.
For instance, vista would take 1 GB of memory instead of 0.7 on 32 bit.

RE: Great....
By psychobriggsy on 5/27/2008 2:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
You forget that with x86, moving from 32 bit to 64 bit added a lot more registers, removing many loads and stores from the compiled binaries. I believe that 64 bit AMD64 is only usually 5% larger than the 32 bit binaries.

Also, memory is cheap.

RE: Great....
By Nihility on 5/27/2008 2:39:18 PM , Rating: 1
Well you believe wrong.
I was basing my data off this review:

Anyway, 64 bit numbers are actually 100% larger than 32 bit numbers so if anything we should be lucky to see only a 20-40% increase (the registers you mentioned perhaps).
As for Memory, DDR2 is cheap, DDR3 is less cheap. In two years when we can expect a decent chunk of DDR3 usage in the market it will be cheaper than now but surely more expensive than what DDR2 costs now.
Look around, at current prices how many 4 GB boxes do you see? Imagine the RAM costing more, would you expect more or less RAM in a low end computer?

RE: Great....
By 306maxi on 5/27/2008 2:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
Since when was THG a reputable source for this sort of information?

RE: Great....
By thornburg on 5/27/2008 2:53:14 PM , Rating: 5
Since when was THG a reputable source for this sort of information?

Since when was Tom's a reputable source of any sort of information?

Way back when, they were at least semi-reliable, but they have long since been drinking the kool-aid and ceased to provide anything but propaganda and FUD.

RE: Great....
By melgross on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Great....
By Ringold on 5/27/2008 5:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
DailyTech isn't quite the same thing.

I'd take a rumor reported by Anandtech, TechReport, HardOCP, Bit-Tech, or SPCR before I'd believe something presented by THG as fact. THG didn't get the reputation it has in the community for no reason at all. Every once in a blue moon I'll go read a review there, and the last time I did it was a CPU review. I can't remember the Intel and AMD parts being compared, but I looked at the details of the platforms and it was ridiculous. They weren't even close to being a fair match up. Was it a single bad review? Could've been. When it already had a bad rep and thats the first garbage I see, I move on.

There were a few other websites I've visited before that I'd call credible, most sites probably are honest, but I didn't want it to turn in to a Hollywood award acceptance speech. ;)

RE: Great....
By Ringold on 5/27/2008 5:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
Er, didn't mean to sound as if DT weren't credible. DT only rarely does its own in-depth reviews, thats all.

That said, they need to get back to breaking NDA's more often. Get back to your roots! :P

RE: Great....
By Flunk on 5/27/2008 5:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
You had a point, DailyTech is right there with The Inquirer.

RE: Great....
By Silver2k7 on 6/1/2008 2:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
The inq is usually not so bad.. but latley their badmouthing of Nvidia and Vista is starting to bother me, just feels less serious than they used to. :/

RE: Great....
By Nihility on 5/27/2008 3:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, try it yourself.
Doesn't take a genius to notice vista x64 uses more memory than x32 with the same amount installed and same programs (remember to compensate for superfetch).
My recomendation is not to install 64 bit if you have less than 4 GB of RAM.

RE: Great....
By B3an on 5/27/2008 10:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
My recomendation is not to install 64 bit if you have less than 4 GB of RAM

L O effing L.

RE: Great....
By jonmcc33 on 5/28/2008 8:14:14 AM , Rating: 2
Never, and it's funny that people still visit that website.

RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 2:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have less memory. Just less separate blocks of it. If you had 1000 32-bit blocks, you now have 500 64-bit blocks. As long as the code is written to utilize the 64-bit memory block size, you don't have a problem. And the advantage is that while you have half the number of blocks, twice the data is being moved at one time as before.

RE: Great....
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 3:01:23 PM , Rating: 3
Anyway, 64 bit numbers are actually 100% larger than 32 bit numbers so if anything we should be lucky to see only a 20-40% increase (the registers you mentioned perhaps).
Its not just that 64 bit takes up to twice as many pointers, its also the fact that Windows now has to load two sets of DLL's into the memory, 32bit and 64 bit. Of course if you are only using 64 bit programs this will not be the case, but as long as there is a compatability mode and 32bit apps are still being used windows is forced to load both sets of DLL's.

RE: Great....
By Chadder007 on 5/27/2008 2:36:44 PM , Rating: 3
Dell is already selling systems with 3 and 4 gigs of RAM by default and they aren't even offering the 64 bit version of Vista yet. But in 2 more years, 4 gigs or more will be standard. So im not sure as to why they would keep 32 bit around still. If 64 bit isn't going to work for you, then the user will still most likely be using XP or Vista 32 anyway.

RE: Great....
By tcsenter on 5/29/2008 8:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
Ehh...while it is true that Dell is "already selling systems by default with 3GB and 4GB", these specs continue to be in the minority of Dell's preconfigured shipments, especially among large business and corporate customers.

Of the four 'featured' (preconfigured) Inspiron 530s Slim Tower systems offered on Dell's website, three come with 1GB standard, the other is 2GB.

Of the four 'featured' (preconfigured) Inspiron 530s Mini Tower systems offered on Dell's website, three come with 1GB standard, the other is 2GB.

Four 'featured' Vostro 200 Mini Tower business/office systems; 512MB, 1GB, 3GB, and 4GB standard (the 4GB model comes with no monitor).

Three 'featured' Vostro 200 Slim Tower business/office systems; 1GB, 2GB, and 3GB standard.

Three Vostro 400 Mini Towers; two are 1GB standard.

Now on to Dell's OptiPlex product line specifically aimed at and popular with large business/corporate customers...

Three featured OptiPlex 330 systems, two with 512MB standard and one with 2GB.

Four featured OptiPlex 740 systems, three with 512MB standard and one with 2GB.

Five featured OptiPlex 750 systems, four with 512MB standard!

I excluded XPS and Precision since XPS starts at $899 and Precision is even higher. The sub-$800 PC represents not less than 80% of the market, with the majority being $600 and under.

Care to browse the standard offerings of eMachines, Acer, and HP? Three years ago, every major PC company offered multiple SKUs with 256MB standard.

You blokes crack me up with your "I'm a typical user" and "I represent the majority", using Phenom x4 or Core 2 Quad, 8800GT or 3870X2, 3GB~4GB RAM, and applications that 70% of all PCs shipped will never see. I've serviced an average of ~40 PCs annually for 10 years, and the only video editing applications I've encountered were OEM versions such as Muvee AutoProducer, WinDVD Creator, or some Roxio crap bundled with Media Center PCs. And usually, nobody had ever used it!

The owner purchased the system because the salesman at Best Buy or whatever told them it was 'really good', with 'all the bells and whistles'. Some didn't even know the system had a video capture board or what anyone might do with a video capture board. That is the PC IQ of the typical PC user.

Some of you really need to get out of your little teensy circle once and awhile. Work in a busy PC repair shop for a month.

RE: Great....
By Rebel44 on 5/27/2008 2:43:38 PM , Rating: 1
2+GB RAM is now standart for new PCs - what ho you think will be standart amount of RAM in 2010 ??? Most likely 4-8 GB.......

Anyone who will have less then 4GB RAM can easily keep XP or Vista 32bit.

RE: Great....
By Nihility on 5/27/2008 3:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
They can use windows 7 x32 bit. In my opinion you won't see much of an increase in memory installed in computers by 2010. Intel and AMD are most likely moving exclusivley to DDR3 by then. Right now DDR3 costs 4 times what DDR2 costs. If we assume a 50% drop in price every year, by 2010 it'll cost at the very least as much as DDR2 costs now. I again state that right now you don't see 4-8 GB installed in MOST computers nor do you see more than half that much installed in low end computers.
Windows 7 will come in a 32 bit version so that doesn't matter. By 2013 when windows 8 comes out I do expect to see more RAM installed and perhaps by then a 64 bit exclusive OS will be viable for the market.

I hope that explains my conclusions.

RE: Great....
By Rebel44 on 5/27/2008 4:51:14 PM , Rating: 3
They can use XP or Vista 32bit.

Just 16 months ago 1GB DDR2 (800Mhz) RAM was more expensive then what I recently paid for 8 GB DDR2 (800Mhz) RAM........

Even lowend PCs are sold with 2GB RAM now :)

RE: Great....
By B3an on 5/27/2008 10:15:29 PM , Rating: 3
I build and sell low-end PC's with 2GB RAM. For under $300, and dual-core. 64-bit needs to be killed for W7.

One of the main reasons you see 32-Bit on PC's is because in a couple of years, when people want to upgrade there computer/laptop to 4+GB RAM... the OS cant deal with it. So they are just like "oh i'll just buy a new PC/laptop".

So i hate, but also like stupid people like Nihility, they make me more money :)

RE: Great....
By B3an on 5/27/2008 10:17:12 PM , Rating: 3
That should read 32-bit needs to be killed for W7.

RE: Great....
By divided421 on 5/27/2008 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 1
Not true. x86 has variable length instructions. If you remember assembly, you would know that you do not always use a 64bit number for everything, only the 64bit extension operations would take 64bit operands, and most likely, they wouldn't be used that often.

RE: Great....
By Segerstein on 5/27/2008 4:18:55 PM , Rating: 1
Basically 64-bit is useless, apart from memory addressing for memory hungry (more than 1.5GB) applications.

It is rare that you would need an integer (instead of a floating point) that is larger than four billion.

Other improvements that are touted as "64-bit", such as 8 additional general purpose registers and use of SSE instead of x87 have nothing to do with "64-bitness" itself...

RE: Great....
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 4:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Basically 64-bit is useless, apart from memory addressing for memory hungry (more than 1.5GB) applications.

I agree. From what I can see, there's little point running 64-bit until you need 4GB+ of memory (3.5GB technically). Even if I only needed 3GB, I think that I would still choose a 32-bit OS.

Although on the other hand, 64-bit Vista is designed to be more secure than 32-bit Vista, so if that is important to you...

RE: Great....
By Ringold on 5/27/2008 5:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
Although on the other hand, 64-bit Vista is designed to be more secure than 32-bit Vista, so if that is important to you...

Thats what its boiled down to for me, probably others too. 64bit is painless most of the time, more secure, and for those who run distributed computing projects, 64bit apps occasionally provide a decent advantage.

Instead of "why use 64bit?" its become "why not?"

I still miss 16-bit 'Stars!', but when my boat comes in I'll pay some programmer to make a clone for me.

RE: Great....
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 5:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, and I would be running 64-bit Vista myself, except for a couple of engineering tools I use that have only 32-bit device drivers. :o(

RE: Great....
By overzealot on 5/27/2008 11:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
They should make 32-bit driver and 16-bit software emulation in Windows 7 x64, even if it's off by default (for security reasons?).

RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 6:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
The advantage of having more cpu registers to work with, will partially compensate for that.
Has nothing to do with 64 bit primairly, but AMD just found it handy and it is to add 8 more registers to the miserable 8 regiters x86 cpu's have. Now x86 processors have internal logic and tricks(register renaming) to relieve that bottleneck a little but it is again transistors used for hiding bottlenecks and not put to use for wider execution unit's.

Intel and AMD are doing 1 fantastic job at hiding the legacy difficulties with the x86 cpu, never doubt that.

Also the kernel can handle memory scheduling easier.

Memory mapped i/o can become more easier.
Maybe removing i/o mapped i/o entirely is possible.

And imo i rather like a new featureset to demand memory then some idiotic marketing scheme as vista has.

RE: Great....
By quitaxe on 5/27/2008 4:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think we are missing something here.. Its not that there is a hardware issue with going 64 bit with windows 7. I am sure by 2010, the normal spec hardware would more than happily accomodate a 64 bit OS. Same for the software though I do agree on the business applications and periphrials front with whats been said so far.

I think the key question for MS would be that after vista, do they really want to come out with such a strategy.. I for one dont think that this risk is worth the end results.. maybe if we were in a world where Vista was king.. then yes.. genuine technical advancement.. but right now MS is in no position to create another Vista like mistake with WIN7

RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 6:00:40 PM , Rating: 3

Same wine , new bottles.

I for see a future around 2020 :

Windows 11 will be available in 32 bit and 64 bit.

RE: Great....
By Silver2k7 on 6/1/2008 1:13:29 AM , Rating: 2
its very strange that they have a 32-bit version planned as late as 2010!!

so if there is a 2Gb video card, will you then see less than 2Gb of your 6Gb or 12Gb RAM ?? *nehalem is tripple channel memory*

I'd like to add...
By Chosonman on 5/27/2008 3:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
to my previous comment.

I don't mind that Windows has secure source code as long as they keep the Kernel separate from everything else. What would be ideal would be a Windows OS that doesn't come with a web browser, media player, and all the other bloat pre-installed. Just a shell of an OS where I could pick and choose what I need instead of being force fed the software I use. That would be the ideal Windows OS.

RE: I'd like to add...
By straycat74 on 5/27/2008 3:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
doesn't nlite do that?

RE: I'd like to add...
By GreenEnvt on 5/27/2008 3:29:06 PM , Rating: 3
Ah, but without a preinstalled web browser, how will the 99% of users who don't know how to FTP or similar download the browser of their choice?

RE: I'd like to add...
By Chosonman on 5/27/2008 3:47:11 PM , Rating: 5
Linux uses a novel system where users can search for additional components online through a variety of vendors.

RE: I'd like to add...
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 4:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Windows is designed to be a robust, complete solution for the average consumer. The average consumer wants an internet browser, wants a word processor, wants a firewall, etc. They are not writing Windows with the uber geek in mind who knows how to install, debug, and configure their own system.

While I believe Windows 7 will bring a greater modularity to Windows. There will still always be a core set of features that Windows has and depends on. I don't think it'll ever have the level of modularity that Linux does. I agree theres tons of features that Windows has and I don't use. But I don't think Microsoft should focus their development on what I want. They focus their development on what the average person wants.

If they focused on what I wanted, the Windows error noise by default would be "DOH!"

RE: I'd like to add...
By Chosonman on 5/27/2008 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what the average consumer needs, but what about the business or the technical users? Thats what Windows Home edition is for. But for the rest of us I think having a light weight operating system with minimal system requirements would be a welcome change to the heavy overweight Vista type OS we've seen from MS. As a software developer and a gamer prefer not having the the overhead on my machine since performance to me is at a premium. Additionally I wouldn't mind having a browser reinstalled if necessary if I had a choice. Honestly why else would MS make IE integral to the Windows OS if not to force users to adopt to their software? I haven't had a perfect browser but I know of browser that are better than IE. I don't need that.

RE: I'd like to add...
By FITCamaro on 5/28/2008 8:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly why else would MS make IE integral to the Windows OS

Because its their software so of course they're going to push their products. If you tried to sell cars but also made tires, would you not also sell your tires on the car? Or would you say, "Here's our car, would you like our tires or our competitors tires?". You'd be a pretty stupid businessman if you did the latter.

Microsoft does not force you to use IE. If you're too lazy or stupid to install a different browser, thats your problem. The ONLY site that I've seen which absolutely requires IE is the Windows Update site. And with Vista you don't even have to go there anymore.

RE: I'd like to add...
By Chosonman on 5/28/2008 9:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
Your reply is idiotic and not worth debating.

RE: I'd like to add...
By Segerstein on 5/27/2008 4:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
apt-get, yum

ha ha ha ha

But how would one actually find the manual for the commands without the web?
Unless this apt/yum is as a GUI. But this already exists, as Windows update lets you download some optional components (and without the use of a web browser).

MSFT would theoretically even support SW from other vendors, but the don't want to take the pain of worrying about security vulnerabilities of other vendor's software.

The bottom line
By DXRick on 5/27/2008 4:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's just an OPERATING SYSTEM !! No one boots up their computer to play with the OS and stare at the desktop. We do it to use applications, and some of those applications require various peripherals that need to work (requiring drivers).

Vista promised better security, but we still need 3rd party software, like Norton Internet Security (and AV), to protect our computers. It also added DirectX 10, that was supposed to be much more efficient than previous versions.

So, what will Windows 7 give us that XP and Vista do not???

RE: The bottom line
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 4:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
Vista promised better security, but we still need 3rd party software, like Norton Internet Security (and AV), to protect our computers.

We do? Who is "we"?

"We," don't surf to questionable web sites; nor do "we" activate incoming unexpected/unknown executable attachments. Therefore "we," haven't ever had to run buggy crapware from the likes of Norton which, ironically, have the same kind of effect on a typical PC as "we" are trying to prevent in the first place.

RE: The bottom line
By DXRick on 5/27/2008 5:19:28 PM , Rating: 1
I am not an OS expert, just an applications programmer and computer user. I am also an intelligent user and internet surfer.

Please tell me how Vista does away with the need for NIS. There are still email threats (no?). What about back door intrusion attempts? Aren't there still threats that even intelligent users could be susceptible to?

I have had family members who were not running NIS on their XP machines get hosed by viruses.

In XP, you can still create limited access accounts that cannot install software or run software that writes to certain directories. People could just do this instead of buying Vista.

Did Vista plug all of the holes such that only an "idiot" requires UAC or 3rd party security programs?

RE: The bottom line
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 5:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me how Vista does away with the need for NIS. There are still email threats (no?). What about back door intrusion attempts? Aren't there still threats that even intelligent users could be susceptible to?

I don't know of any. I sit on a LAN behind a firewall, and I use Outlook 2007 which blocks and warns about attachments. I avoid strange web sites and downloads. I keep up to date with the latest patches/updates. Can you think of something that I should be worried about?

RE: The bottom line
By gramboh on 5/27/2008 6:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
Using IE7 in Sandbox mode, having UAC on (and logging in with a non-admin account) are a few things that Vista does well to prevent those problems. Windows Defender also looks for Malware.

To me, NIS is useless (Norton is bloatware anyway). I run Kaspersky for AV and that's it, PC sits behind a hardware firewall. You are not going to have random intrusion attempts to your home PC other than bot portscans and worms which should be bounced away easily.

By 325hhee on 5/27/2008 3:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
So, why is it when people talk about a new OS, taking up more memory, it's the biggest issue to them? Get over it, 2 gig systems are way outdated, and memory prices are extremely cheap now, than when XP first came out.

Must I always remind the masses, when XP was out, most people only had 256 megs in their system, those who could afford it had 512 megs. I had 1 gig, and I think I spent around $200 at the time for the 1 gig. Now and days you can find 4 gigs for under $100.

As time moves on, systems are going to require more and more memory, especially when you interlink your home devices to the PC. I don't have an HT/Security system connected to my PC, but those that do, use more resources and more memory.

I was more than happy to switch over to Vista 64, and I'm relieved that I finally get the full 4 gig usage on my sytem, and even more happier that I have 8 gigs, and it only cost me $110 after rebates for the 8 gigs, sure timing wasn't the greatest 5-5-5-15. But for games, they load out fast and smooth.

Anyone hoping to maintain a 2 gig system needs to wise up a bit, Vista/Vista 64 may look like it takes more memory, but in actuality it's using all the memory smartly, allocating as much to the program you're running at the time, which end result means faster load time, and less wait.

Times are not that tough that you can't afford to have 8 gigs in your system. 16 gigs is different, I haven't found cheap single stick 4 gig memory "YET" and by this time next year, you should be able to find 8 gigs for about $100 after rebates. Tech is always moving forward, not standing still, or worse yet, back track.

Get off the memory issue, nobody has a 256 meg system anymore, that time has passed.

RE: Memory
By Crassus on 5/27/2008 4:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you don't work in a corporate office somewhere. I see people there still working with 128 and 256 MB RAM (and I'm not referring to the graphics card). Personally, I still work with 2GB DDR RAM and don't think I had issues with Vista x64.

RE: Memory
By blaster5k on 5/27/2008 5:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
If companies are really using general purpose machines with that little memory, they are probably making a poor economic decision. The loss in productivity due to inadequate memory is almost certainly higher than the cost of upgrading it to a more reasonable amount.

RE: Memory
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 5:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
You are assuming that companies make entirely rational decisions when it comes to corporate IT. That is probably the exception, not the norm.

In my experience, most corporate IT departments are concerned more with other priorities above end user productivity.

RE: Memory
By DragonFire on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
That's a mighty large jacket there...
By soydeedo on 5/27/2008 2:17:44 PM , Rating: 4
Mr. Sinofsky looks like he's been rummaging through his daddy's closet, but I guess that means he'll either bring some fresh new ideas to the table or completely botch the project. Considering he spearheaded the changes in Office 2007 I'm leaning toward the former.

By AlexWade on 5/27/2008 2:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Mr. Sinofsky looks a lot like Rain Man in that picture. Same jacket and same shirt that Rain Man wore in Vegas.

Just realize...
By jay401 on 5/27/2008 3:41:46 PM , Rating: 3
No future MS operating system will have less DRM and regulations built in than Vista. They will only have the same (or more) level of "protections" built in to prevent you from fair use of products you purchase.

RE: Just realize...
By Chosonman on 5/27/2008 3:55:14 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with DRM is that it's a notion created by lawyers and politicians. The reason it conflicts with todays computing is that the internet should be used as an open area where people can gather together and exchange information freely without fear of persecution. You wouldn't want to gather in a public park with your friends and have to worry about lawyers listening to your conversation to see if you were violating any of their copyrights? That's what's going on with the internet and computing right now. Since modern computing is still in it's infancy laws are still trying to catch up with it, but if we continue to turn a blind eye to what DRM and similar legislation is doing to the internet it could be George Orwell's 1984 for all of us.

I can't wait ...
By freeagle on 5/27/2008 3:27:38 PM , Rating: 4
for the 10th iteration of windows system called Windows OS X

By paulpod on 5/27/2008 5:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
I dual-boot XP and Vista SP1 on exactly the same hardware.

There are NO Vista drivers for my ATI USB tuners and the deinterlace function does not work AT ALL when viewing HD material using a Dvico tuner. Again, the graphics driver, DirectX version, Dvico software version, and hardware are all THE SAME (HD2600 + latest SW). The Vista driver model is just too screwed up for a company like Dvico to deal with.

So for Windows 7 to fix what Vista broke, there must be some kind of virtual XP driver layer where software and hardware will install and "just work" like it did on XP.

There also needs to be an XP management mode where ALL the management GUIs, wizards, and commands from XP are available. This includes the ability to invoke an XP folder explorer instead of the bloated, confusing, and inefficient one in Vista (and yes, it must have permanently visible, "+" and "-" controls in tree view).

Why Vista designers felt they needed to break the best things in XP is something I hope an insider writes a book about someday.

By gramboh on 5/27/2008 6:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Vista driver model is more secure and efficienct/clean than XP. Dvico is to blame here, same with ATI, there is no excuse for no full support in Vista in Q2-2008.

some insight
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 2:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Q: I know you said you don't really want to look back, so maybe looking forward a little bit...We haven't heard a lot about Windows 7, but we've heard about a couple of things discussed. The real areas I've heard a lot about are this idea of a new kernel, a minimum Windows kernel that came up in a speech, and then some stuff around new user interfaces. Can you tell us a little bit more about where those things fit in with how you guys are thinking about Windows 7?
A: Sinofsky: We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same. We're going to not introduce additional compatibilities, particularly in the driver model. Windows Vista was about improving those things.

I am glad an MS employee has finally come out and shed some light on why many of Vista changes were pertenent fixes that needed to be made under the hood.

By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2008 2:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
The reactions that we've had to some of the lessons learned in Windows Vista are really playing into our strategy of getting together a great plan for Windows 7,

Lessons learned. Good. Sign me up in 2010. Until then, my XP will keep on keeping on.

By Chosonman on 5/27/2008 2:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
You know, kinda like Linux, but made by Microsoft.

basic interface redesign
By Kaleid on 5/27/2008 6:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
"He acknowledges that some basic interface redesign may be needed"

Yes please, and especially windows explorer which I find to be a complete mess even in classic mode.
The default settings are poor and there are too many "my..." this and that that take control over what I'm doing and work requires much more pushing of buttons than in XP's windows explorer even with UAC disabled.

Jeeze CNET
By tallguywithglasseson on 5/27/2008 7:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
I read that whole interview. Sometimes you just need to take a step back and say, "we just don't have an interview worth publishing", and publish a summary. My brain wanted to explode reading that guy's strange, poorly worded answers.

Who cares?
By DragonFire on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Who cares?
By 9nails on 5/28/2008 11:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
So lets just forget all the single mothers of 3 kids that are in the middle of a divorce using a old P4/Athlon XP who have more important things to spend there money on then a new system? (Example)

Windows 64-bit is backwards compatible with some 32-bit software. Drivers might be an issue for your single mom case, and that odd-ball game might not run well but then - she already has a working Athlon/P4 XP computer, so she can dual-boot instead of replace the OS as her upgrade path right?

How about the fact that gamers don't like the idea of spending $100-200 for a soundblaster card only to be told vista no longer supports the main reason for buying the card? Audio hardware mixing! Yes Yes, creative now has a way to bring that back but in the end some of it is still done in software making that $200 card pointless.

It was my $349 Creative Labs SoundBlaster Elite card that I couldn't use in Vista you insensitive jerk! :) (Kidding, you're not a jerk.) But, on a serious note, I'm mad at Creative - it's their drivers and their fault that my Elite card didn't work until 2 ½ years after Vista release.

This is why MS told OEMS they had to dump XP or else? If people love Vista so much, why would MS have a fear of releasing DX10 for XP?

Microsoft is a business first, then everyone's best friend second. They have development teams that are working on projects. It doesn't make good business sense to stop a development team mid-stream and command them with developing software for a product you're no longer supporting. MS's engineer's have switched hats and are tooled to work on Vista now. Going backwards is costly and (for lack of a better word) stupid.

This is why MS told OEMS they had to dump XP or else? If people love Vista so much, why would MS have a fear of releasing DX10 for XP?

This is true - they did start off by beating that drum, but since retracted their stance.

So why doesn't Vista support .rar files(example)? Why stop with zip files? Why not install some sort of full featured set cd/dvd burner(by MS)?

Microsoft tends to get sued by the EU for Millions when they try to give away too much. I'm sure they would offer you the World if these Anti-Trust lawyers would just go away. (Example, WinRAR would need a license to be bundled with Windows 7 so Microsoft will develop their own unrar product. Which WinRAR and the EU would sue them for since there is a competing market for that business.)

By Armorize on 5/27/2008 11:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
He says that Windows 7's kernel will be an evolution of the leaner kernel from Windows Server 2008, which in turn was an evolution over the Windows Vista kernel.

but the vista kernal was an "evolution" of the server 2003 kernal... which was an "evolution" of the xp kernal... which was an evolution of the windows 2000 server kernal... so...
I'd rather wait until 2020 for them to start from scratch instead of redesigning what theyve had for years now.

I guess they forget to mention that...

By 9nails on 5/28/2008 10:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
Offer me MS Word instead of Wordpad, give me Halo 3 instead of Solitaire, heck I'll even take MS Money if they throw it in. But bundle Windows with a reason to upgrade! I only got something nice out of Vista because I shifted from Windows XP Professional to Windows Vista Ultimate 64-Bit, and that was Windows Media Center which I hooked up to my cable and now love.

By maevinj on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By gramboh on 5/27/2008 6:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
NTFS is fine for 99% of people, not sure why the file system would matter? Indexing speed is decent enough.

RE: what?
By maevinj on 5/28/08, Rating: 0
oh thats right
By michal1980 on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: oh thats right
By allometry on 5/27/2008 2:40:13 PM , Rating: 3
Vista has usability issues, but the underlying technology is remarkable, specifically the rewriting of the kernel.

If I expect anything from Windows 7 it will be improved usability of that compared to Vista. As far as I'm concerned, Vista has brought a lot of respectable technology to the table. But, Vista also brought some usability nightmares too.

Sinofski's comments about Vista state that Vista was a vehicle for needed improvements in the driver model and kernel. There is no need to change the way drivers work in Windows 7, since Vista accomplished the transition. Sure, the kernel will continue to evolve, but that's always been the case.

One other item that is going to be really cool in Windows 7 is native VHD support! That's going to be a neat feature to play around with. Let's hope it doesn't get dropped like WinFS...

RE: oh thats right
By Bender 123 on 5/27/2008 2:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
Always remember the Windows 4.xx family, Vista ->7 sounds a lot like 95 (Windows 4)-> XP (Windows 5).

95 rev A and B (usable, but glitchy)
95 rev C (Solid)
98 1st (glitchy)
98 2ns (Solid)
Me (Awful, but dumped the DOS training wheels and started a "live beta" of the core XP consumer line without the support of the NT kernal)

XP SP1 (Glitchy)
XP SP2 (Solid)

As you can see Microsoft has been doing this for years, and every iteration builds to the next. I personally do not use Vista yet, not because it sucks (because it doesn't for a power user/knowledgeable user), but my wife and kids do not want to deal with manual issues like drivers, etc...Sticking with XP just works for my family, becasue it is solid and fairly bulletproof.

RE: oh thats right
By allometry on 5/27/2008 3:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
You make an excellent point and I think a lot of customers see this pattern also, which is why you have corporate customers saying they won't upgrade until SP.x.

I'm using Vista 64 right now and I have no issue with it. UAC is an annoyance though and is the only real downside that I've had yet. Well, that's not entirely true, I had a microphone issue, but it's been resolved.

My family has been using Vista for a while yet and there haven't been any comments other than "it's pretty". On the technical side, my rig is fairly new, coming up on 2-years old. No driver issues what so ever. Vista did a good job of getting me going on the first setup leaving me to download & install nvidia drivers, which is always a piece of cake.

RE: oh thats right
By Pirks on 5/27/2008 3:30:47 PM , Rating: 3
UAC is an annoyance
Which goes away after you switch to Vista friendly software. UAC stopped bothering me the moment I replaced MeGUI (crappy XP-oriented video encoder) with much better and much more Vista friendly Handbrake. Try to dump the old XP software written by idiots who assumed that everyone is working under Administrator account. Get equavalents written or tuned for Vista. This should help.

RE: oh thats right
By allometry on 5/27/2008 4:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
Good point.

I read the UAC article and while I disagree with intentionally pissing off your developers and customers, standardizing how software should work under Windows is a good thing.

The only Vista software I've purchased has been Office 2007 and I don't remember it giving me any problems with UAC.

RE: oh thats right
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 4:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Even a lot of software written pre-Vista, e.g., software that targets XP, works fine in Vista, as long as the developers avoided bad programming practices. Vista can pretty well tolerate a lot, e.g., programs that write to the Program Files directory, without UAC prompts or admin rights. (Of course, the latter writes get redirected by the OS.)

RE: oh thats right
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 4:21:18 PM , Rating: 3
You make an excellent point and I think a lot of customers see this pattern also, which is why you have corporate customers saying they won't upgrade until SP.x.

True in part, but most large corporates are on the 'n-1' upgrade cycle in general, which means they stay at least one release behind.

On other words, based on past history, I would expect the majority of corporate IT departments will upgrade their users from XP to Vista only when Windows 7 is released, and not coincidentally, when XP draws near end of support.

So really, it is no surprise to me that most corporates are avoiding Vista. That trend says more about IT departments' risk management/aversion than anything about Vista itself. Even if Vista were demonstrated to be 10X better than XP, corporations would still delay its roll-out.

I also think it is funny to hear people talk about corporates "skipping" Vista and going directly to Windows 7. That is pure fantasy - it will NEVER happen.

RE: oh thats right
By Pirks on 5/27/2008 4:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
it is funny to hear people talk about corporates "skipping" Vista and going directly to Windows 7. That is pure fantasy
Suppose that some corporation buys a couple of thousands of cheapo XP desktops right now. By 2011 it's time to replace these desktops with something new. They are going to buy new desktops - with what? With Vista on them? I really doubt that. Why would they buy Vista in 2011 if Win 7 is an evolution that does not break anything and has virtualization support for all the old Win32 software built-in?

RE: oh thats right
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 4:37:54 PM , Rating: 3
Of course they would buy Vista in 2011! By then, it will have been out for 4-5 years. That's just exactly what corporate IT wants - LOW RISK! Putting Vista on those machines - a known, stable OS - will be much lower risk than putting on Windows 7, which will still be relatively new on the market from IT's perspective.

You have to think about and understand how corporate IT works. There is no benefit to corporate IT for being on the cutting edge. And if being on the cutting edge potentially raises cost, possibly increases downtime, or anything like that, then it is something they will (and have) actively avoid(ed).

RE: oh thats right
By Pirks on 5/27/2008 4:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine (just for the sake of argument) that some unbelievable magic happened and Win 7 became better than Vista - lowered cost, decreased downtime and stuff like that - will corporate IT skip Vista then?

RE: oh thats right
By TomZ on 5/27/2008 4:56:59 PM , Rating: 3
Nope, not in my experience. It's not a question of good/better/best; it's a question of managing an unknown risk and sticking with an OS with a track record (for better or worse) compared with one with a lot of potential.

I'm not saying I think this policy is right or wrong; I'm just saying that's how it is.

Personally, the small company I work for has a very progressive IT policy. We've been running Vista on all our machines for over a year.

RE: oh thats right
By quitaxe on 5/27/2008 4:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually thy would by the vista desktops even in 2011. Based on your hypothetical, in 2011 all old desktops running winXP are "dead" so you would want new ones. But you dont want new apps.. or new IT processes or new staff.. so all we are talking abt is replacing the hardware.. thats easy enough.. upgrade to the next level and take it from there slowly.. overhaulling the entire IT setup would be a much bigger risk than going to the lower OS and talking the same risks slow.. you would have to be preety stupid to be in the situation in the first place..

RE: oh thats right
By goku on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: oh thats right
By Bender 123 on 5/27/2008 4:33:59 PM , Rating: 1
No, the reason you will be downgraded, is because you know not of what you speak. If the only point you have is "Sucks" or "sucks more", then maybe you would be better off trolling your wears in an X-box/PS3/Wii article. I expect a well thought out response involving the words suxxors or 1337, so please do not disappoint.

The wisdom of MS combining the NT and Consumer lines is it drastically reduced the requirement of double drivers/compatibility/etc... of a dual OS environment. I am no fan of Microsoft, but I know that my business uses XP, I use XP and same for my family. Thus it has instant familiarity, and anything my office system can do, my home system can do as well.

For as vaunted as OS X is, it started pretty badly, same for any flavor of Linux. That's the way of programming for a new OS. If we were against OS progress, then we should all be using DOS.

RE: oh thats right
By allometry on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: oh thats right
By daInvincibleGama on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: oh thats right
By Mojo the Monkey on 5/27/2008 4:50:04 PM , Rating: 1
is this just trolling? I would think so with the opinions frequently put forth on these boards...

RE: oh thats right
By Bender 123 on 5/27/2008 5:00:13 PM , Rating: 1
I think the poster was trying for sarcasm and humor by combining the subject line and body...just gets missed sometimes. Despite the downgrade to minus world, if you combine the two it is actually positive for Vista and pointing out that if it is so bad, why would they base Win7 of it?

RE: oh thats right
By BruceLeet on 5/27/2008 10:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
Steve Ballmer, when asked on his thoughts about the slow start and slow adoption of Windows Vista he shouted "NUB DEVELOPERS! NUB DEVELOPERS! NUB DEVELOPERS!!!"

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki