• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Engineering Windows 7

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Microsoft has opened a new blog dedicated to Windows 7. So far the blog is saying all the right things and so on, I just hope that when they say they are listening to the community, they mean enthusiasts and end users…not analysts. After all, what do analyst know? Windows Vista “failed” to meet analyst expectations but has had strong sales, hitting the 180 million mark months ago despite their complaints about the OS.


The audience of enthusiasts, bloggers, and those that are the most passionate about Windows represent the folks we are dedicating this blog to. With this blog we’re opening up a two-way discussion about how we are making Windows 7. Windows has all the challenges of every large scale software project—picking features, designing them, developing them, and delivering them with high quality. Windows has an added challenge of doing so for an extraordinarily diverse set of customers. As a team and as individuals on the team we continue to be humbled by this responsibility.
Click to expand...
 
This is about like the Fed asking for our input & help in designing the new & improved Personal Income Tax forms when, instead, we'd rather see an end to personal income taxes.
 
Let me see,

Vista with 180 million sales COULD be related to every PC manufacture switching to it even pre-maturely. ALSO refusing to release drivers for XP. That could have...SOMETHING to do with it
 
Am I the only person that doesn't "want more from their OS"?
As far as features go...I was completely happy with Win2k and I am still happy with XP.

I would like the GUI to be customizable out of the box, because 3rd party programs for that tend to hog resources. But I don't need a bunch of extras. Just an OS that works and supports the latest hardware without any trouble.

As far as I am concerned all the things that should be changed are things I would probably never actually notice. Because they are performance oriented. All the extra "features" are just kinda silly. Thats what 3rd party software is for.

Your OS if for running that software.
 
well if this is true, then i better get some kind of upgrade deal (free would be prefered) offer from vista to windows 7, considering it seems like it's whole purpose is to offer a non-free upgrade to fix vistas problems over a service pack.
 
TheCAD said:
Am I the only person that doesn't "want more from their OS"?
As far as features go...I was completely happy with Win2k and I am still happy with XP.

I would like the GUI to be customizable out of the box, because 3rd party programs for that tend to hog resources. But I don't need a bunch of extras. Just an OS that works and supports the latest hardware without any trouble.

As far as I am concerned all the things that should be changed are things I would probably never actually notice. Because they are performance oriented. All the extra "features" are just kinda silly. Thats what 3rd party software is for.

Your OS if for running that software.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think you are CAD. I've wanted more from my OS for about 5 years after XP came out.

As far as extras and supports hardware with no extra trouble, Vista is both of those unless you were one of the unlucky ones that had to suffer with the 32bit version of Vista which in my opinion should have never been released. What people fail to realize is with every new major OS update their have been steep requirements in hardware. People just forget, Win 3.1 to Win95 had gigantic differences in hardware requirements as did Win98 to WinXP. WinXP to Vista also fairly steep. Windows 7 on the other hand will just be Vista with another service patch unless Microsoft has something sneaky up their sleeves for 2010 that I haven't heard of yet.
 
I'd be happy (and upgrade from my current windows xp setup) if windows 7included all the features of vista ultimate + windows fs + FORCED 64 bit support
 
archevilangel said:
I'd be happy (and upgrade from my current windows xp setup) if windows 7included all the features of vista ultimate + windows fs + FORCED 64 bit support
Click to expand...

If by forced you mean ONLY a 64-bit version, I don't think I agree with that. MS is infact FORCING hardware and software companies to support 64-bit as in order to get that Vista sticker for your box you're required to support both 32-bit and 64-bit (software can of course be 32 bit but it has to run on 64 with no problems). Even Win7 is a bit soon for completely dropping 32, but MS willbe in a strong position to go pure 64 in Win8.
 
jstnomega said:
This is about like the Fed asking for our input & help in designing the new & improved Personal Income Tax forms when, instead, we'd rather see an end to personal income taxes.
Click to expand...

"we" who? You certainly don't speak for me, or many others. I'm excited about a new version of Windows, Vista x64 is such a good OS, and I'm sure Win7 will be even better.
You and the other slashdotter wannabe's in this thread are like the only passengers on the clueless train, imo. Just spewing nonsense noone cares about. Get a new hustle, already, ffs.
 
I feel that a 64 bit OS would be a GREAT idea if only to remove that quirky 4 GB memory limit on windows xp. However, how many of us have processors that are capable of 64 bit operating systems? I sure don't and I don't plan to get one unless there are applications that natively support 64 bit operations and more than single core threading and I DON'T mean hyperthreading I mean TRUE multi-core processing capabilities.
 
albert6719 said:
... However, how many of us have processors that are capable of 64 bit operating systems? I sure don't and I don't plan to get one ...
Click to expand...

Well, if you insist on using an "antique" processor, then you are going to be stuck with an 'antique' OS.

Is it even possible to buy a new processor that isn't 64 bit.?

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that Vista should have been 64 bit only to start with, and I'd hope that MS does that with Windows 7. It would make sence, as it would take advantage of 64 bit processors, they would only have 1 OS version to support as opposed to 2, it would be easier for the hardware people as they would only have to work with 64 bit drivers as opposed to 32 & 64 bit.

Now that 64 bit processors are mainstream, it makes no sence to have a new 32 bit OS.
 
RAF_OldBuzzard said:
.

Is it even possible to buy a new processor that isn't 64 bit.?
Click to expand...

Lol, in terms of the mainstream/enthusiast processors, I don't clearly remember the last CPU that Intel or AMD released that wasn't 64bit.

I'm pretty sure that the meat of both AMD and Intels ranges went 64bit in 2003-2004, so if you've bought a normal retail CPU or boxed PC in the last 4 years, your cpu is going to be 64-bit.

I guess for some of the weird shit they put in laptops, and ultra cheap pcs the 32bits might have lasted longer.
 
MartinX said:
Lol, in terms of the mainstream/enthusiast processors, I don't clearly remember the last CPU that Intel or AMD released that wasn't 64bit.

I'm pretty sure that the meat of both AMD and Intels ranges went 64bit in 2003-2004, so if you've bought a normal retail CPU or boxed PC in the last 4 years, your cpu is going to be 64-bit.

I guess for some of the weird shit they put in laptops, and ultra cheap pcs the 32bits might have lasted longer.
Click to expand...



I can't run it on my Z80 :(
 
releasing a 32bit version of Windows 7 would only allow users to run the operating system on older software, creating alot of the bad PR vista currently faces. A 32bit version of Windows 7 isn't a slick move for anyone.

The last 32bit processor that was on store shelves was the Prescott. Some Prescott's supported a 64bit memory bus, some didn't, keeping in mind that with the FSB architecture the CPU itself has little to do with weather the system supports a 64bit memory bus. Instead the compatabillity is largly in the Northbridge. All Ceadermill, Presler and I believe Smithfield processors and their respective chipsets support a 64bit memory bus.
 
I've been reading on some speculation regarding Windows 7, and here's two things that could make it more then just a Vista service pack.

  • Modular licensing: maybe not useful for consumers but incredibly handy for network admins; buy only what you need.
  • Touch screen interface: Microsoft Surface concept built in to Windows 7. They've already demonstrated this with a Dell laptop.
 
RAF_OldBuzzard said:
Well, if you insist on using an "antique" processor, then you are going to be stuck with an 'antique' OS.

Is it even possible to buy a new processor that isn't 64 bit.?

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that Vista should have been 64 bit only to start with, and I'd hope that MS does that with Windows 7. It would make sence, as it would take advantage of 64 bit processors, they would only have 1 OS version to support as opposed to 2, it would be easier for the hardware people as they would only have to work with 64 bit drivers as opposed to 32 & 64 bit.

Now that 64 bit processors are mainstream, it makes no sence to have a new 32 bit OS.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree fully with this. About the only major mistake MS made with Vista was releasing a 32 bit version that seems to have people convinced that the OS can run on Crap old hardware that it just flat can't. They NEVER should have released anything other then the 64bit Version.

That said, the same dinks that hate on vista without ever having used it on decent hardware, are the same dinks that are going to turn about face and rage the same hate against Windows 7 and Laud what a great OS Vista is. It really is just a asinine charade from people looking for attention, because frankly anyone who has used the OS for a reasonable period of time on good hardware knows just how much better of a platform it is then XP was or ever could be.
 
you need more than just a 64bit OS.

64bit XP was flawed, things didn't run etc. 32bit has been around for so long people can install that and not have to worry about it.

As far as piece of crap hardware: there will be the people that buy a 64bit OS for a 32bit processor just because they didn't know the difference.
 
I agree with the chorus of "no 32 bit!"

It's time. All procs released in the last 4 years are 64 bit capable. If Windows 7 does not ship for a couple more years then that will make it 6 years of 64 bit capabile processors have been out. Microsoft should not waste their time catering to machines that are more than 6 years old.

They could also help themselves out in the consumer perceptions area by making realistic hardware requirements. Vista does not run great on less than 2GB of RAM, IMO. If they would have made 2GB the recommended configuration all along, I think people would have been a lot happier with their user experience.
 
I agree that 64-bit only would be great, but at the very least, they should rectify the mistake they made with Vista. Namely, if there are both 32-bit and 64-bit editions, then 64-bit should be the default, with the 32-bit edition being the one having to send away for, unlike the reverse which is the situation now (except for overpriced Ultimate which comes with both). And furthermore, Microsoft should charge OEM's $10 (or something like that) more, so prebuilt computers wouldn't get in the way of 64-bit being the default.
 
skeeder said:
you need more than just a 64bit OS.

64bit XP was flawed, things didn't run etc. 32bit has been around for so long people can install that and not have to worry about it.

As far as piece of crap hardware: there will be the people that buy a 64bit OS for a 32bit processor just because they didn't know the difference.
Click to expand...

How was XP-64 flawed? Yes, it had drivers problems, and MS did treat it like a red-headed bastard child once Vista Beta2 was out, but the OS itself is rock-solid and fast.
 
I also agree with no 32-bit OS. Besides, almost all 32-bit applications can run in 64-bit Windows. It's mostly the really old stuff that doesn't. Besides, many compatibility problems will be the result of the overhauled OS and not necessarily being 64-bit.

Heck, most of the problems with me running XP x64 were because of a couple programs that fail to install on a "server" OS; not a problem with 64-bit itself! It's been smooth sailing otherwise.
 
RAF_OldBuzzard said:
Well, if you insist on using an "antique" processor, then you are going to be stuck with an 'antique' OS.
Click to expand...
Well no, in fact as much as you might like it, we aren't stuck using an antique OS, since MS (and other companies) continue to support us.

The moment they stop supporting my 32 bit processors is the moment I'll stop buying MS OSes for those machines. It's in their and our best interest for them to continue supporting 32 bit processors.
 
jimmyb said:
Well no, in fact as much as you might like it, we aren't stuck using an antique OS, since MS (and other companies) continue to support us.

The moment they stop supporting my 32 bit processors is the moment I'll stop buying MS OSes for those machines. It's in their and our best interest for them to continue supporting 32 bit processors.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between supporting an OS and selling an OS. Heck, Windows 2000 is still supported (though no longer sold). Nobody is talking about ending support for 32-bit OSes any time soon, but rather to stop offering new OSes in 32-bit flavors.
 
Yeah I meant supporting in new products. If they don't support 32 bit OSes in Windows 7, then I and many other people won't be buying it. It's in neither their or the consumers interest to stop supporting 32 bit procs.
 
jimmyb said:
Yeah I meant supporting in new products. If they don't support 32 bit OSes in Windows 7, then I and many other people won't be buying it. It's in neither their or the consumers interest to stop supporting 32 bit procs.
Click to expand...

What 32-bit only processors do you have (or plan on having) that you'd want to run Windows 7 with? I can only speak for myself, but I imagine that many people can't justify upgrading an old computer like an Athlon XP to Vista let alone anything newer than that.

Anyway, It's not beneficial to Microsoft to support more products than they have to. By offering 32-bit and 64-bit versions, they have to support twice as many OSes than if they went 64-bit only. Not to mention that they have to explain to the largely ignorant masses why they'd want run one version over the other.
 
jimmyb said:
Yeah I meant supporting in new products. If they don't support 32 bit OSes in Windows 7, then I and many other people won't be buying it. It's in neither their or the consumers interest to stop supporting 32 bit procs.
Click to expand...

You mean just like they kept supporting 16bit procs in Win95, or real-mode (8088/8086) CPU's in Win3.1 right... oh wait. The industry moves on and software usually eventually moves along with it. If you have no reason to upgrade your hardware, then you have no reason to buy newer OS's.
 
jimmyb said:
Yeah I meant supporting in new products. If they don't support 32 bit OSes in Windows 7, then I and many other people won't be buying it. It's in neither their or the consumers interest to stop supporting 32 bit procs.
Click to expand...

Oh please, give me a break. This is the biggest crock of crap uttered since the last time jessie jackson opened his mouth for something other then stuffing food in.

You might be throwing a tantrum now but reality is this. If you have been in computing for any period of time, you upgraded to 32 bit when they forced the move, and you will upgrade to 64bit when they force it. Just like you will upgrade to 128bit when we come to that day and age. Fact is while many of us who have kept older computers around for collectors reasons (see there is something wrong with us :D) The fact remains to do day to day business especially gaming we must have a modern PC with a modern OS. As much as I like linux, fact is for anything other then a workstation or a router it is worthless. It just plain doesn't game or do multimedia anywhere even faintly close to as good as windows..Like it or lump it you are Stuck with windows because the Open source community can't agree long enough to produce the kind of support necessary to get large scale acceptance.

So in order to maintain your stance you would have to essentially never upgrade again. Unfortunately while this seems like a fantastic idea in theory tot he "Idealist" who wants to "Rail" against the corporate machine of MSthe fact remains it is implausible because eventually other software will in fact cease to remain compatible with older hardware and OS's and will force you to upgrade like it or not.
 
Dekoth said:
Oh please, give me a break. This is the biggest crock of crap uttered since the last time jessie jackson opened his mouth for something other then stuffing food in.

You might be throwing a tantrum now but reality is this. If you have been in computing for any period of time, you upgraded to 32 bit when they forced the move, and you will upgrade to 64bit when they force it. Just like you will upgrade to 128bit when we come to that day and age. Fact is while many of us who have kept older computers around for collectors reasons (see there is something wrong with us :D) The fact remains to do day to day business especially gaming we must have a modern PC with a modern OS. As much as I like linux, fact is for anything other then a workstation or a router it is worthless. It just plain doesn't game or do multimedia anywhere even faintly close to as good as windows..Like it or lump it you are Stuck with windows because the Open source community can't agree long enough to produce the kind of support necessary to get large scale acceptance.

So in order to maintain your stance you would have to essentially never upgrade again. Unfortunately while this seems like a fantastic idea in theory tot he "Idealist" who wants to "Rail" against the corporate machine of MSthe fact remains it is implausible because eventually other software will in fact cease to remain compatible with older hardware and OS's and will force you to upgrade like it or not.
Click to expand...

OK I agree but are the Core 2 Duos and Quads 64 bit?
 
Dekoth said:
You might be throwing a tantrum now but reality is this. If you have been in computing for any period of time, you upgraded to 32 bit when they forced the move, and you will upgrade to 64bit when they force it.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that eventually 64 bit support will be dropped because the hardware is too slow to run new OSes (like your examples of 16 bit processors), but I don't see a point in artificially removing 32 bit support when it's not necessitated by the performance requirements of the OS. I and many other users would like to continue using our hardware, and I suspect MS will see it the same way.

I'm not sure why you started ranting about open source software, but I certainly haven't had any issue in the past installing and using it on legacy hardware, and I suspect I won't have any issue with it in the future once the support is dropped.
 
brons2 said:
I agree with the chorus of "no 32 bit!"

It's time. All procs released in the last 4 years are 64 bit capable. If Windows 7 does not ship for a couple more years then that will make it 6 years of 64 bit capabile processors have been out. Microsoft should not waste their time catering to machines that are more than 6 years old.
Click to expand...

Same here. It is time for new operating systems to move completely onto 64-bit processors. Some machines will be left behind but considering how long 64-bit CPUs have been available, plus we are still several years away from Windows 7 from being released, yeah, its time to break a little compatibility.
 
TheCAD said:
Am I the only person that doesn't "want more from their OS"?
As far as features go...I was completely happy with Win2k and I am still happy with XP.

I would like the GUI to be customizable out of the box, because 3rd party programs for that tend to hog resources. But I don't need a bunch of extras. Just an OS that works and supports the latest hardware without any trouble.

As far as I am concerned all the things that should be changed are things I would probably never actually notice. Because they are performance oriented. All the extra "features" are just kinda silly. Thats what 3rd party software is for.

Your OS if for running that software.
Click to expand...

No you are not. All I want too is a layer that allows me to run the apps that I WANT to run. Windows has far too much crap in it. Its plain that MS are only looking to teens in terms of what they think the public need from an OS. Teens like crappy garnish. Widgets, avatars and crap like that. I dispair when I see folks boot up their Vista Ultimate machines and we then have to wait several minutes for all the crap to finish loading in and updating etc. Its painful and not productive.

Corporate users? Nope. Every new MS OS means we have to spend time removing/disabling/hiding all the more of those potentially insercure or user dangerous apps/services before we rollout to let the users just use the apps that the business needs to make money.

Less is more.

However, all of this could be easily solved for everyone. Just give us a proper bloody custom install option. Let the users decide how they want to use THEIR pcs.

As for what I use? I use the 'best' version of Vista available on my main PC - Basic64. Its quick, leaner than the bloated versions and with a bit or trimming is pretty performant. Makes a better gaming OS than the other Vista versions. A lot cheaper too but still has more features then I need.

Still got XP on my laptop though.
 
jimmyb said:
I have no doubt that eventually 64 bit support will be dropped because the hardware is too slow to run new OSes (like your examples of 16 bit processors), but I don't see a point in artificially removing 32 bit support when it's not necessitated by the performance requirements of the OS. I and many other users would like to continue using our hardware, and I suspect MS will see it the same way.

I'm not sure why you started ranting about open source software, but I certainly haven't had any issue in the past installing and using it on legacy hardware, and I suspect I won't have any issue with it in the future once the support is dropped.
Click to expand...

Microsoft can produce a higher quality OS if they focus on one code base (64 bit).

And on a personal note, I don't appreciate you holding us back just over some silly preference for 32 bit. You haven't listed any reason for keeping 32 bit other than wanting to run legacy hardware on newer versions of Windows. Well, you've got XP and Vista, which will continue to receive security updates for the forseeable future. What more do you want? An OS designed for your personal needs? Well in that case, go build your own damn Linux distro. The majority of us don't need luddites like you clouding things up.
 
daglesj said:
No you are not. All I want too is a layer that allows me to run the apps that I WANT to run. Windows has far too much crap in it. Its plain that MS are only looking to teens in terms of what they think the public need from an OS. Teens like crappy garnish. Widgets, avatars and crap like that. I dispair when I see folks boot up their Vista Ultimate machines and we then have to wait several minutes for all the crap to finish loading in and updating etc. Its painful and not productive.

Corporate users? Nope. Every new MS OS means we have to spend time removing/disabling/hiding all the more of those potentially insercure or user dangerous apps/services before we rollout to let the users just use the apps that the business needs to make money.

Less is more.

However, all of this could be easily solved for everyone. Just give us a proper bloody custom install option. Let the users decide how they want to use THEIR pcs.

As for what I use? I use the 'best' version of Vista available on my main PC - Basic64. Its quick, leaner than the bloated versions and with a bit or trimming is pretty performant. Makes a better gaming OS than the other Vista versions. A lot cheaper too but still has more features then I need.

Still got XP on my laptop though.
Click to expand...

Your rant is misplaced. Custom install options for IT pros do exist with current versions of Windows. If you're not software assurance/MSDN, then you can always use Nlite for XP and Vlite for Vista.

As for Vista Ultimate starting slowly, well, that is due to a USER PREFERENCE of loading so much crap at startup!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top