Pure 64bit?

I wonder if they will break the good-bad-good-bad release cycle.

It seems that M$ is using the intel Tick-Tock strategy.
Windows 2000 (5.0) -> Windows XP (5.1)
Windows Vista (6.0) -> Windows 7 (6.1)
And the actual ver.7 will be dubbed Windows 8

please.

Code Name "Windows 8"? Where did they come up with that crazy name?

But will it be another iteration of Vista? No offense to 7, I like it but are they going to do something new in 8?

It's an engram left by body thetans!

So does that mean that somewhere around the year 2273 A.D. we will see Windows 95 again.

haha, was just thinkin the same thing.. looks like we may be hangin onto 7 for a bit longer than three years *gulp*

god, how can you buy windows 7 when you can see windows 8 around the corner. OS's are tough, although i guess the entire computer industry is tough on consumers wanting the most. Every month the bar gets set higher, and higher, and higher. It's killin me!

At this point who really Cares.

Well if you followed that mindset you would still be using a Pentium and 4MB graphics card...

But will it play Crysis?

it's more like bad-better-bad-better

yes they'll eventually break it: bad-better-bad-better-bad-bad-

I think actually that for now the only good Windows version were NT, XP and 7 and there were a dozen more.

Can't really feel that excited until you see some features, lol. Kinda was expected already.

LOL... here comes Vista 2 or WinMe 3.

Just kidding...

we probably won't see it

Maigo I think the good-bad-good cycle is just Microsofts version of intels tick-tock cycle so we are just going to have to live with it until they get it right. I just hope this next release is pure 64bit and adds in WinFS as well as a better network stack.

What do you mean "pure" ? A 64 bit version without WoW (Windows on Windows, the 32 bit layer)?

That's seems pretty stupid to me.

I'd hate it if my 32 bit apps would stop running all of a sudden ...

Exactly what I mean, Its about time to pull the plug on the whole WoW thing. There is no need to keep dragging out the legacy software/hardware anymore its just holding back progress. Why would a company invest in the development of 64bit software or hardware that can take advantage of the address space if they can just sit back and ride the 32bit train for the next few years. I totally understand not wanting to have to buy new software due to a jump from 32 to 64 bit. This actually has been addressed in the gaming community with some software receiving 64bit executables after their release taking them from 32 to 64bit so if it can be done there it can be done with any other app as well. If that fails I am sure some smart guys will develop an emulator like they have for dos.

I still see corporate clients with Windows 2000 Server machines slogging away after nearly a decade with solid, stable operation and the same driver model as XP... XP was to 2000 as Win '98 was to Win 95 SR2 roots... As for me? I'm sticking with XP x64 until Windows 7 has enough users that the first generation of drivers get the kinks worked out... Then... I'm all about it...

The first generation of drivers have already been worked out in Vista.


Just saying.

I do but i care, I have a tualitin celeron 1.2 ghz and onboaord 8mb of VRAM

But i also have a C2d laptop with a 9600m GT w/ 512mb of VRAM and VIsta with 4 mb of RAM

maybe within that time (doubtful) 64bit will start to become more popular and more compatible.
When i got six gigs and installed 64bit ultimate on my rig, i was very dissapointed that just about everything (minus games) were unbareably buggy/incompatible. Scary thought of all 64bit yes, but hey, lets see what happens

lol. I think they should have some thing like Longhorn (aka Vista) or Snow Lepord (aka OSX) or Affluent Albatross (2.6.14. Thy sound SOOOO much cooler.

What the point of calling the next server release Windows Server 2008R2. Just call it Windows Server 2009 or 2010 and be done with it. That is why I hate it when they use the year in the name. Then you run into the problem with talking to people, especially on the phone, and they say "I'm running 2008". Then you have to ask is it 2008 or 2008R2, to which they say "......" It's the 95SR2 thing all over again.

I meant to say if you have to use a date call it 2009 or 2010 to differentiate it. Would rather they call it something like Windows Server 7, and an R2 instead be 7.5. They used to do that with NT, not sure why they had to change things with 95, 98, 2000 etc..

i meant 4 gb of RAM

It's easy for you to say, but hard to do in practice. I've seen some really expensive hardware and software that doesn't work with Windows Vista. Those are usually high speed AD/DA card, high speed image graber card, high speed gating signal generator etc. These equipments cost so much that Core i7 975 is so cheap by comparison. Companies, national and university labs can't just throw them away and buy new hardware every 3 years. Same can be said about some software suite. For example, Matlab 6.x don't run under Vista. In some cases, where you have paid $500 or more for old license, it makes sense to stick with it. LabVIEW is just another pile of BS. Some newer hardware came with LabVIEW codes that doesn't run on older version, and we have to pay like $4000 for just one professional license. Legacy software/hardware support IS important when you invest that amount of money into your system. Since computers are center of most complex experiments and industrial control/monitoring, it is really PITA to deal with license and compatibility issues. That's why more and more people are migrating to Linux. They are forced to develop their own drivers in C/C++ and use Python or Perl to link C/C++/Fortran libraries. Pain, but at least you can always recompile from source codes.

lol! 4mb xD

What Windows-8? Get Windows-7 out the door clean of issues first.