Print 71 comment(s) - last by heulenwolf.. on May 19 at 1:40 PM

Improved hardware and software compatibility one of the top three goals of Windows 7 development

Microsoft is working hard to make things better for the launch of Windows 7 following the lukewarm reception to Windows Vista. Vista was plagued with early hardware and software incompatibility issues that were one of the main reasons enterprise customers refused to migrate from XP.

Microsoft says that among the improvements in Windows 7 is better support for Hyper-Threading according to Microsoft's Bill Veghte. Veghte says that Microsoft has been working closely with Intel to beef up Windows 7’s support for Hyper-Threading. Hyper-Threading it a technique used by Intel to allow processing tasks to be divided among multiple cores on a processor.

Veghte said at the Microsoft TechEd conference, "The work that we've done in Windows 7 in the scheduler and the core of the system to take full advantage of those capabilities, ultimately we think we can deliver a great and better experience for you. We need to make sure the ecosystem is really, really ready."

Veghte is keen to get people to understand that Windows 7 won’t suffer from the same early problems Vista had that prevented the operating system from making headway in enterprise environments. He says that Windows 7 is "very, very close" to achieving full compatibility with virtually all hardware and software makers.

Microsoft currently expects to finish Windows 7 by mid-August and offer a final version to consumers and businesses by the holiday shopping season. That is a key target for Microsoft as a better operating system could woo consumers to buy new computers for the holidays. Better computer sales is certainly something that both Microsoft and computer makers need. Microsoft has admitted that Windows sales are down 16% in the most recent fiscal quarter.

Comments     Threshold

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

Really HT?
By Spivonious on 5/15/2009 12:04:38 PM , Rating: 1
I think any improvements in the scheduler in Win7 would show better utilization of the processor on any CPU with multiple cores, not only on ones with Hyperthreading. To the OS there really is no difference between the two.

RE: Really HT?
By Proteusza on 5/15/2009 12:09:30 PM , Rating: 5
Not necessarily. Remember, hyper threading creates a logical processor for each physical processor. So, each core essentially has another virtual core associated with it that has some registers etc of its own.

If you run two threads on two separate physical processors, they will perform better than if you run them on the same physical processor (ie using a logical processor).

RE: Really HT?
By PhoenixKnight on 5/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Really HT?
By TomZ on 5/15/2009 12:54:21 PM , Rating: 5
For example, the OS might want to schedule busy threads on different physical cores rather than putting them on two virtual cores within a single HT physical core. By scheduling them on different cores they will run faster than if they are sharing the same core.

RE: Really HT?
By michael2k on 5/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Really HT?
By leexgx on 5/15/2009 1:50:23 PM , Rating: 5
from windows XP (maybe SP1 and above i think) the OS is aware of HT, scheduler should work well but can ome times put work onto an HT thread when it should be on an real core thats free, i guess with windows 7 thay makeing that work better

RE: Really HT?
By leexgx on 5/15/2009 1:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
ome = some

RE: Really HT?
By micksh on 5/15/2009 2:33:10 PM , Rating: 5
Except the point of HT is that the OS can't tell the difference between a virtual core and a physical core.

No, that's not the point. The OS can tell the difference because Intel provides API for it.

So MS can use it to schedule load more efficiently.

RE: Really HT?
By foolsgambit11 on 5/15/2009 2:34:22 PM , Rating: 5
The OS knows what processor is in the computer. The OS knows (or at least can know) whether HyperThreading is enabled or not. And the OS knows how the CPUs are numbered when hyperthreading is turned on versus off. So it is a trivial problem to determine which cores are virtual and which are physical.

As an example, without HT, a dual core processor may be exposed as CPU0 and CPU1, but with HT enabled, CPU0 may be exposed to the OS as CPU0 and CPU1, while the old CPU1 becomes CPU2 and CPU3. Since this will be a consistent and regular identification process, the OS can be programmed to know which physical cores become which logical cores, and adjust each CPU's workload accordingly.

RE: Really HT?
By jonmcc33 on 5/15/2009 3:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
HyperThreading is enabled in the hardware, not the software. I remember many people stating that my Pentium 4 2.8C wouldn't support HyperThreading in Windows 2000 Pro...but it did. Windows 2000 Pro saw two separate processors and I was able to assign affinity to either.

RE: Really HT?
By Alexstarfire on 5/16/2009 3:05:52 AM , Rating: 3
That's like saying you can just use any video card and get 100% optimization in every program. Just because the hardware supports it doesn't mean the software is going to use it well. This is one of the reasons why programs didn't see a jump in performance when moving from one to two cores, back when dual-core was new. OS and hardware sees two cores, but the program itself is still using just the one like it always had. it's the same principle except more complicated since it's not an actual core.

RE: Really HT?
By jonmcc33 on 5/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Really HT?
By Feckless Plaintiff on 5/16/2009 11:41:58 AM , Rating: 3
Windows 2000 is notorious for being a hyperthreading-unaware OS. In many cases, with multi-threaded applications, significant performance degradation has been observed with hyper-threading enabled under this OS. So it's generally strongly advised that hyper-threading be disabled on Windows 2000 machines.

Multi-core is of course different, and as Windows 2000 was designed for multi-CPU machines, it handles multi-core machines just fine. This is very different from treating a virtual CPU as a real CPU and thus incurring unnecessary performance penalties at times.

RE: Really HT?
By BikeDude on 5/18/2009 3:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
FWIW, you are correct.

Some interesting tidbits can be picked up on various MSFT blogs.

"Since the scheduler doesn't realize the connection between the virtual CPUs, it can end up doing a worse job than if you had never enabled hyperthreading to begin with." (concerning NT4/2000)

RE: Really HT?
By jonmcc33 on 5/18/2009 7:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between a CPU and a GPU. Not sure why you would even bother to mention one as they are drastically different.

Look, I don't care what you say. It was Windows 2000 and media encoding improved when Hyperthreading was enabled. There's nothing you can say or do to change what happened and really...Windows 2000 is a bit old to be debating over. I was just making a valid point.

RE: Really HT?
By ilkhan on 5/16/2009 3:04:00 PM , Rating: 3
Theres no physical cores vs logical cores, they're all logical cores.
But win7 will know which 2 logical cores are the same physical core, and thus can schedule threads for different physical cores. Or in power save mode perhaps schedule on the same physical core, leaving the other cores in deep sleep until needed.

RE: Really HT?
By foolsgambit11 on 5/16/2009 6:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that to the unknowing reader, there is a high likelihood of confusion from my post. I didn't mean to imply that physical cores and logical cores were exclusive sets.

I didn't think about using a full physical core in power saving mode. That's a really good idea.

RE: Really HT?
By kaoken on 5/16/2009 7:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
You are contradicting yourself sir.

RE: Really HT?
By MrPoletski on 5/16/2009 7:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
not to mention that there may be two separate threads acting on the same data space, hence your caching will line up nicely if you run them on the same physical but opposing logical cores.

RE: Really HT?
By mindless1 on 5/16/2009 1:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot have two separate threads using the same data space, each depends on the freshness of data that isn't concurrently being altered.

RE: Really HT?
By pcfxer on 5/16/2009 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you can have two threads running WITHIN the same data space, in fact, that is the DEFINITION of multi-THREADING. A process forks off a thread or, threads, and each thread exists within the same process space.

Multi-PROCESSING is different, because each PROCESS gets its own memory space, but each process that is forked takes a copy of the memory space of the parent process and runs with it. Secondly, your argument is nullified by the fact that the article has nothing to do with IPC and simply refers to the logic that the kernel's schedule may use when hyper-threading is enabled.

This entire argument should have been ended when the Intel API for hyper threading was posted, but I suppose everyone else doesn't understand the barrier between software and hardware.

And no, SOFTWARE doesn't give a DAM about what the hardware is. Tell me this if it does, why can't I assign data to my hard drive when I request for space in memory (malloc())?

RE: Really HT?
By MrPoletski on 5/17/2009 7:14:46 AM , Rating: 1
Hmm... because your OS knows damn well there is far too much virtual mammory on your hard disk already?;)

RE: Really HT?
By voodooboy on 5/15/2009 3:03:04 PM , Rating: 5
While the essence of what you say is're just repeating what Intel wants you to.

What HyperThreading does is keep the processor pipeline filled with useful data as much as it can. In reality, it does NOTHING to emulate multiple cores. What an HT enabled processor has in fact, is a few key components either duplicated (TLB, a 2nd Inst pointer) OR enlarged (register renaming/mapping hardware, inst window(?)) so as to keep the pipeline full (with data possibly from another thread) if the existing thread is either waiting on something or not making full use of the available resources.
So yes, while Intel's marketing department might want us to believe that HT is out of this world, realistically, it is something that just makes better use of the available resources.
So THIS is the reason why having 2 physical processor cores is MUCH better than having one with HT enabled...for the right applications.

RE: Really HT?
By segerstein on 5/15/2009 4:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
If the two threads work with the same dataset, then it is better for them to be put one one physical core - so they can share L1 (&L2) cache.

RE: Really HT?
By GeorgeOu on 5/15/2009 4:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
Having 2 physical cores is better than 2 HT cores if and only if the cores have comparable performance and if the former has more physical cores. If you have a situation where it's 2 physical cores with no HT versus 2 physical cores with HT making 4 virtual cores, the latter is generally better even if the cores are comparable in overall performance. That's because the latter can keep the processor more busy and this is very helpful for multiple applications running at the same time or a multi-threaded application. It's less helpful (or possibly a detriment) if you are only running a single application that is single threaded.

Here's a great illustration why physical cores aren't always better. AMD likes to say physical cores are better than HT cores in their marketing campaign. The problem is that a two-socket Intel Nehalem-EP is faster than a four-socket AMD Shanghai server despite having half the physical cores.

RE: Really HT?
By voodooboy on 5/15/2009 5:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't that what I said myself? :) Just that instead of comparing 2 cores with and without HT..I compared 1..

RE: Really HT?
By Chocobollz on 5/16/2009 3:06:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say you both are correct. I myself would like to have all processors be equipped with HT because yes, adding more cores adds more performance, but it's still inefficient and that's where HT is needed, to make the processor more efficient. So both adding more cores and adding HT capability is good. IIRC, adding HT capability to current processor only add 10% to the total transistors count anyway, so why not? :-)

RE: Really HT?
By Visual on 5/16/2009 2:56:04 AM , Rating: 3
i think you misunderstood the point. it wasn't about how many cores total there were or if HT was enabled - for this it usually goes "the more, the better"
the question was about where two threads get scheduled by the OS. when both a separate real core and a virtual cpu on the same physical core are available for the second thread, it is most often better to use the separate real core.
and we are talking single-socket here.

RE: Really HT?
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/17/2009 8:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that...

Then there's also the fact that HT was introduced with NetBurst, an architecture that had trouble having its (very long) pipelines correctly fed, specially when the pipeline had to be flushed because of a miss.
There HT made a lot of sense as it was a means of masking those shortcomings for SOME coding patterns, while other patterns were largely unaffected or even some saw a performance penalty.

In C2D architecture the original HT spec couldn't actually bring much to the table, that's why it took so long for it to reappear.

RE: Really HT?
By Samus on 5/15/2009 11:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is an important improvement, and am happy to see Microsoft focusing on it. The shortcomings of Jackson Technology were that it wasn't utilized properly. If the scheduler can utilize logical cores for what they are and not treat them like physical units (ie light background instructions in sequence with physically processed instructions) then it could show real improvements in system performance, unlike degrading performance like it did in its original Netburst implementation.

HT has always been a great concept without the proper (software) support.

RE: Really HT?
By VooDooAddict on 5/15/2009 12:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
The Atom has hyperthreading.

RE: Really HT?
By UltraWide on 5/15/2009 12:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
This is good news for ION-based systems.

RE: Really HT?
By Souka on 5/15/2009 1:52:42 PM , Rating: 5

My Pentium4 system will rock now! :)

RE: Really HT?
By KamiXkaze on 5/15/2009 10:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe it does.


RE: Really HT?
By stirfry213 on 5/15/2009 12:12:07 PM , Rating: 1
I honestly hope so. I hate to think that MS is purposely and openly catering to PCs with Intel CPUs.

If not, I see anti-trust in the future.

RE: Really HT?
By dagamer34 on 5/15/2009 12:19:57 PM , Rating: 5
Gimping performance on purpose on AMD chips is what would get Microsoft into trouble, not taking advantage of hardware that already exists.

RE: Really HT?
By mmntech on 5/15/2009 12:39:24 PM , Rating: 3
It's also worth noting that most Intel consumer CPUs on the market right now don't support hyper-threading. Just Pentium 4, Atom, and i7 but not Core 2. I think these enhancements are meant to cater to netbook users. Regardless, Windows was starting to get a little too bloated for its own good. At least they're finally trying to streamline it a bit.

RE: Really HT?
By aegisofrime on 5/15/2009 12:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Add the Core i5 to the list. I think Microsoft is just preparing for the future. I personally see myself getting an Core i5 or i7 to replace my Q6600.

RE: Really HT?
By TomZ on 5/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Really HT?
By rmlarsen on 5/15/2009 12:28:17 PM , Rating: 5
A virtual (HT) CPU and a physical one may provide the same interface to the OS scheduler, but their performance characteristics will be quite different.

If the scheduler collects information about the characteristics of each thread it will be able to determine which are more suited to share execution resources and thus can be scheduled on HT CPUs.

For example, a highly tuned HPC code (think LINPACK for a generic example) will not share the CPU resources nicely as it is already optimized to take advantage of almost 100% of the functional units in the CPU. So the scheduler should try to avoid scheduling two such threads simultaneously on the same physical CPU. On the other hand, code that experiences many pipeline stalls/delays due to e.g. branches/data dependencies/cache misses will be a better candidate to schedule on an HT CPU.

RE: Really HT?
By Anonymous Freak on 5/15/2009 5:52:21 PM , Rating: 1
Two big deals:

Vista was nasty with scheduling among cores. I swear if I try to run four dissimilar processes on my Core i7, Vista chooses to put them on two physical cores only.

Likewise, if I want to run two similar processes (ones that will actually benefit from running on a single physical core,) it will spread them to separate physical cores.

Knowing that two 'processors' are really the same physical core at the OS level can help by using the 'virtual' cores last; or by pairing processes that have a lot of cache coherency to the same core.

somewhat inaccurate
By RamarC on 5/15/2009 12:41:58 PM , Rating: 5
Hyper-Threading it a technique used by Intel to allow processing tasks to be divided among multiple cores on a processor.

That statement is somewhat inaccurate. Hyper-threading allows parallel execution of threads within a core. Hyper-threading originated on single core Pentium 4 CPUs so it is not limited to multi-core processors.

RE: somewhat inaccurate
By TomZ on 5/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: somewhat inaccurate
By JonnyBlaze on 5/15/2009 12:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
that doesn't mean they don't exist. im running w7 on a p4 3.0 northwood.

RE: somewhat inaccurate
By TomZ on 5/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: somewhat inaccurate
By joey2264 on 5/15/2009 1:30:24 PM , Rating: 5
The Atom has hyperthreading, so I guess I don't get the joke.

RE: somewhat inaccurate
By jonmcc33 on 5/15/2009 3:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
You can't use a smiley when indicating sarcasm. You need to use </sarcasm>

RE: somewhat inaccurate
By AwesomeSauce on 5/15/2009 4:47:32 PM , Rating: 4
But that sort of defeats the purpose of sarcasm.

RE: somewhat inaccurate
By jonmcc33 on 5/16/2009 9:56:13 AM , Rating: 1
It's better than people assuming that you have no clue what you are talking about because they completely missed the smiley. ;-)

RE: somewhat inaccurate
By xdrol on 5/17/2009 6:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
They do: Atom is one.

RE: somewhat inaccurate
By fezzik1620 on 5/15/2009 1:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing at first, but I followed the link to the article this references. The article defines hyper-threading as:
an architecture where processing is divvied up among multiple processors or cores.

Which sort of contradicts the word hyper-threading in this article has a hyperlink to a glossary that defines hyper-threading as:
(1) A high-performance computing architecture that simulates some degree of overlap in executing two or more independent sets of instructions. -emphasis added

And it goes on to distinguish hyper-threading from Intel's Hyper-Threading. It makes sense to call it hyper-threading on InfoWeek's website, but here on DT where Hyper-Threading is well know it is very confusing. Shane probably should have called it multi-threading; that would have been much less confusing.

RE: somewhat inaccurate
By RamarC on 5/15/2009 3:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
The article has bastardized the definition. Hyper-threading is not "an architecture where processing is divvied up among multiple processors or cores." Hyper-threading was created by Intel and their definition is the gospel.

Microsoft's platform design notes give a more detailed description:
The HT in the processors makes two architectural states available on the same physical processor. Each architectural state can execute an instruction stream, which means that two concurrent threads of execution can occur on a single physical processor. Each thread of execution can be independently halted or interrupted. These architectural states are referred to as logical processors in this white paper.

The main difference between the execution environment provided by the processor, compared with that provided by two traditional single-threaded processors, is that HT shares certain processor resources: there is only one execution engine, one on-board cache set, and one system bus interface. This means that the logical processors on an HT processor must compete for use of these shared resources. As a result, an HT processor will not provide the same performance capability as two similarly equipped single-threaded processors.

By adiposity on 5/15/2009 4:43:17 PM , Rating: 3
Hyper-Threading it a technique used by Intel to allow processing tasks to be divided among multiple cores on a processor.


Multiple cores already simulates multiple processors, and as such, will "divide among" those cores the tasks that the OS is performing.

Hyper-threading is a technique that allows multiple tasks to be divided up on a single core. It simulates having multiple processors in order to fill the pipeline of a single processor

This can be confusing, since most hyperthreaded CPUs today are multi-core, so hyperthreading is enabled on each core. But the original P4s that had hyperthreading were single-core.


RE: Hyperthreading...
By buzznut on 5/15/2009 5:01:13 PM , Rating: 1
So the question for me is still, does this mean Win7 will finally be more optimized for quad core processors? How many threads are we talking about?

I think its hard to find apps that take advantage of four cores currently. I mean useful apps, like games!

Anybody who doesn't think intel and M$ are already in bed together and have been for many years just isn't paying attention or is suffering from an extreme form of naivete that really isn't healthy.

RE: Hyperthreading...
By Chaser on 5/15/2009 5:21:06 PM , Rating: 3
Anybody who doesn't think intel and M$ are already in bed together and have been for many years just isn't paying attention or is suffering from an extreme form of naivete that really isn't healthy.

Indeed. It's truly a conspiracy if Microsoft makes improvements to it's O/S to achieve greater performance. Props for uncovering it for all of us!

RE: Hyperthreading...
By adiposity on 5/15/2009 5:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get it. Windows, Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X are all optimized for Intel processors. 3/4 (-Mac OS X) are optimized for AMD. What do you mean they are "in bed"? They definitely partner to provide features, and Microsoft tries to take advantage of Intel as best as possible.

Or are you referring to things like Intel forcing Microsoft to Vista certify their integrated video that couldn't do Aero? That's more like monopoly throwing its weight around.

Anyway, I think you are right, hyperthreading after having quad cores is probably not necessary. In some cases (more than 4 threads, obviously) it will help. There are benchmarks... Hopefully this means that Microsoft splits the OS threads into smaller threads that can more fully saturate the processor and complete menial tasks more quickly, but who knows.


RE: Hyperthreading...
By foolsgambit11 on 5/15/2009 6:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
This optimization is different from the optimization for multiple cores. Windows can already utilize multiple cores. This is specifically about balancing workloads when some of those 'cores' are actually HT 'logical cores'. It shouldn't have much effect on non-HT enabled (but still multi-core) setups, depending on exactly how they implement the optimizations.

The way I've understood things (and I don't claim to be an expert) is that, when it comes to multicore processing, we're in an ugly transition period. An OS like XP handled multiple cores in a way that worked well for a small number of cores, especially since the overhead was low, but it became increasingly inefficient the more cores you added. Vista/7 handles multiple cores in a way where the initial overhead is larger, but the additional overhead per core is much less. So at 4 cores, XP actually handles multicore support more efficiently, but at 8-, 16-, and 24- cores, the advantage is increasingly Vista/7's.

As a side note, does anybody have a guess when we'll see 8 physical cores, either on a single die, or even on a single package?

RE: Hyperthreading...
By leexgx on 5/15/2009 7:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
windows 7 code supports 255-256 cores, windows vista code supports 31-32 cores

the info is for optimization not support and applys for there server versions as well that run on 7 or vista code
basicly thay may support more cores then whats listed above

Maybe they mean ...
By dondino on 5/18/2009 6:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the article meant to say multithreading instead of hyperthreading?? That's what it looks like to me. *shrug*

RE: Maybe they mean ...
By Ozziedogg on 5/19/2009 7:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! +1

I was waiting for someone to realise the obvious, the rest of the techies around here launched into a blind debate about the merits of Hyperthreading.

Hyper-Threading it a technique used by Intel to allow processing tasks to be divided among multiple cores on a processor.

sounds like Multi-threading to me.

RE: Maybe they mean ...
By heulenwolf on 5/19/2009 1:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
Agree, we'll never know which was meant since either Bill Veghte - Microsoft's senior VP for Windows development - or Paul McDougall - the original article author at InformationWeek - couldn't get their terms straight. I would hope that they meant "multicore," since just about every new desktop and laptop processor has multiple cores whereas only a few feature Intel's Hyper-Threading. HT optimization would be a nice add-on but of far less utility.

By bupkus on 5/15/2009 4:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
Does this mean that Intel's hyper-threading has been hampered by MS Windows ever since its first appearance?

By Screwballl on 5/16/2009 10:50:34 AM , Rating: 2
No this is double speak that Windows has been working with Intel... in order to undermine AMD and its advantages. Just one of these days I would love to see someone shun Intel and say they are working with AMD on something like this, even if it is double speak for something that is capable on both company's processors, its the thought that counts.
Since the multi-threading is done at the application level, the OS just has to allow the program to use the different threading levels... which has been possible in the corporate/server market since WinNT, and only at the consumer level since Win2000/XP.

By JMS3072 on 5/15/2009 1:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing that a Hyper-Threading-enabled chip will present that feature to the OS for perusal, so it Windows WILL be able to tell the difference.

Hyper-Threading works by running two operations that use different parts of the processor concurrently. I'm guessing that MS's method is to optimise the threader so that, if HT is detected, instructions that are optimal to be used together are sent at the same time.

Hyping hyper-threading?
By DXRick on 5/15/2009 3:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds like marketing hype to me. The linked article at IW says
The catch is that the applications themselves must be written in such a way as to take advantage of hyper-threading. To date, only a small percentage of apps include that capability.

I have learned Win32, MFC, and .NET and don't remember seeing any ability of the application to control the creation of new threads at that level. The app can see the number of processors (real and virtual) but not know which is real or virtual. The app can control the priority of a new thread, but it's always better to let the OS determine what processor it runs on, since the app can't know what else is running on a processor.

I know MS and Intel are working on improving multi-threading, but I thought this was at an OS and chipset driver level, not application.

free beer and windows RC
By TheMissingLink on 5/15/2009 3:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
OK now that i have all my hardware working in harmony with windows RC, I LOVE it!For the record, i have a junky e-machine with 512 m memory,pentium4,$40 lexmark printer, and 1996 viewsonic monitor.All i had to do was add a little ready boost to get the whole thing rock'n'rolling.

By tehbiz on 5/16/2009 2:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
so has winFS ever been integrated into an operating system yet? i remember it was supposed to be in "longhorn" and that plan got axed but havent heard anything about it since then. im looking forward to upgrading to w7 but where is the new filesystem ive been promised for so long that was going to revolutionize everything? :(

future news (missing news)
By dastruch on 5/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: future news (missing news)
By dastruch on 5/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: future news (missing news)
By CrazyBernie on 5/15/2009 4:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's been downrated because it's Not Worth Reading... a.k.a not pertinent to the topic of conversation. I'd recommend finding a nice forum to troll...

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken
Related Articles

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